Serious Business: Red Cross offended by videogame War Crimes.

[gallaetha_matt]

Wow. I actually feel a little bit sick. The Red Cross using charity funding to finance an investigation into whether video games follow the Geneva Convention? Either they're so flush with cash they can afford to waste money on frivolous bullshit; or they're okay with letting people suffer in the third world so they can afford to have a pop at the games industry.

No matter. It's absolutely apalling. Not even the video game stuff, because Fox News and the Daily Mail are teeming with little half-baked jabs at the games industry. Video games always win in the end. What's annoying here is the use of charity money to fund a private interest. It's disgusting. It's one of the worst things a human being can do.

If you've set up a charity then all the money that goes into it should go towards helping people (or animals if it's one of those). Every penny. And virtual people don't count. Not until we activate SkyNet.

Shame on The Red Cross for allowing this. I just... I don't even...

 

[CrystalShadow]

I'm thinking passing this as a law would be incredibly stupid.

On the other hand, I think games which aim to realistically recreate modern wars should probably take such things into account.

Or in other words, don't just make it seem like the rules of war don't even exist;

There's a difference between showing people breaking the rules, and just pretending the rules don't exist at all.

(And applying these rules to fantasy settings or historical ones wouldn't make much sense anyway.)

This is makes sense in some contexts, but not others.

But if they're going to try and get laws made about this, it's bound to end in disaster...

 

[davros3000]

I hate to be 'that guy' but the quote in the op is from the group TRIAL that put a report together on this in 2007, not the Red Cross, though both cover similar topics.

OT: I can see where they are coming from. I don't subscribe to the whole 'video games make you evil/violent' thing. People know that this is fiction.

That said, just like TV/Film that try to be 'realistic' and then get the law wrong for the sake of story line, is just like newspapers printing inaccurate stories. Its puts incorrect 'factual' information in peoples minds. In the case of MW its also largely unnecessary (the whole airport thing could've been a cut scene/talked about in a cut scene).

As for modern shooters, maybe they have such OTT dumb plots to avoid this very hassle. Yes, again, I'm looking at you Modern Warfare series. I used to love Modern Warfare, until I took an arrow in the knee.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

They want to censor war depicted in videogames..wth? How retarded is that?

I think they should do the opposite: make wargames more shocking, best way to breed more awareness of what kind of horrible shit really goes on during wartime.
We dont have those 16 and 18+ ratings for nothing.

They do not want to censor war in video games. They want the Geneva conventions to exist in video games, since most games do not acknowledge them. These people are not dumb enough to think that people never break the Geneva conventions, they just want games to actually mention them. They also are not necessarily advocating a law to enforce this, they simply said it was an option.

And that's a productive use of time and a realistic goal... how?

Because it would mean more people would know about the Geneva conventions which can only be a good thing. You may as well ask why adding gun safety classes are a productive use of time.

 

[Jfswift]

If I read that article right, I'm all for encouraging realism but I don't feel it should be mandated.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Well, the complete ignorance of the geneva conventions just seems to be evidence that developers want as much violence as possible. It's actually kinda funny that Modern Warfare can fall apart entirely if you try to put the Geneva Conventions into it.

But.. Even some of the superpowers just don't follow geneva themselves too. But maybe we should ignore that.

Then again, I don't think Call of Duty: Slobodan Milosevic would be as successful.

Yes, they can be better shown. And perhaps, they even should be. A competent dev with care in a product could produce something potentially strong if the Red Cross was there to not only ensure events in the game adhere to Geneva, but also help in presenting humanitarian issues they see for themselves on a real world basis.

A game could get a lot of positive attention if the Red Cross assisted in such a manner, and could perhaps even bring profound meaning and context to the tired old War game genre. I wish they chose that kind of approach instead.

I agree completely and am just enough of an optimist to believe that they will assist developers in such a manner. It would really be an awesome game and I would love to play it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

They want to censor war depicted in videogames..wth? How retarded is that?

I think they should do the opposite: make wargames more shocking, best way to breed more awareness of what kind of horrible shit really goes on during wartime.
We dont have those 16 and 18+ ratings for nothing.

They do not want to censor war in video games. They want the Geneva conventions to exist in video games, since most games do not acknowledge them. These people are not dumb enough to think that people never break the Geneva conventions, they just want games to actually mention them. They also are not necessarily advocating a law to enforce this, they simply said it was an option.

And that's a productive use of time and a realistic goal... how?

Because it would mean more people would know about the Geneva conventions which can only be a good thing. You may as well ask why adding gun safety classes are a productive use of time.

....

Not to be rude, but that's one of the silliest comparisons I've ever seen. A gun to an untrained person can kill them and others. Having people comply with the rules of warfare in a war game? That's not going to change much. Besides, gun safety is simple.


All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it

My 13 year old brother can memorize that.

The Geneva Convention? Not so much.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

I could see some degree of following the IHL as condusive to telling a good story in a war game (even in a multiplayer perspective).
It could draw a stronger distinction between the factions (one adhering to law and the other not) and make for quite an interesting expreience. This would be a very useful bone for the Battlefield series to bite onto and distingush itself again (as it did with 1942's good representation of WW2).
From another angle, it can be used to explain certain limits on the game (why you shouldn't level entire cities with destructo physics) and as a result give less invisible walls in a more linear game.
However, making it widely apply in full will just result in COD syndrome of breaking the rules for shock and awe becoming common place.

In essence I agree with the idea, if war games want to be 'real' then they should include real limits. If they don'twant to be 'real' then they can shut the fuck up and start making things more fun (for those, like Yathzee, who think modern shooters are too serious).

*I like both Serious and fun shooters, but I do feel serious ones should, if they wish to keep pushing realisim, embrace all aspects of that realisim.

 

[4173]

Okay, to get this out of the way. No I don't think this aspect of game development should be mandated by law. I don't think pixels are people.



That said, I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Particularly in the arms race (pun intended) for "realism" in modern shooters. Developers and/or publishers would be perfectly within their rights to ignore them, but the request to open a dialogue seems fair.

I have not played them, but I've been lead to believe that recent CoD games (and Battlefield 3?) have been including "shock" moments or other scenes of black/grey morality. Consideration for the Geneva Convention would open up new avenues for those types of sequences, and possibly heighten their impact.

 

[Woodsey]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Edit: Enforcing games to follow this through law would be bad and that is not what I am advocating and it is not necessarily what the Red Cross is advocating.

If the devs cared they'd look it up. If we cared we'd ask for it.

The Red Cross doesn't need any involvement at any time.

 

[BrionJames]

What a bunch of assholes! Are they really going to try and have governments regulate games to the point that its a law that developers, make it so the "good" guys don't torture people or blow up buildings? It's a waste of time to debate such a thing. What about the shit that goes on in North Africa or Burma? Will they start telling developers that such things can't be depicted in a game, because it could be traumatizing? Who gives a shit if their offended? I'm offended by guys wearing skinny jeans, you don't see me holding a fucking committee or debate over it.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

....

Not to be rude, but that's one of the silliest comparisons I've ever seen. A gun to an untrained person can kill them and others. Having people comply with the rules of warfare in a war game? That's not going to change much. Besides, gun safety is simple.


All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it

My 13 year old brother can memorize that.

The Geneva Convention? Not so much.

Yeah, I thought it was bad too, but I kinda remembered from my lurking days on here that you were knowledgeable on gun safety (I was right apparently) and thought the comparrison would work well because it involved something you were familiar with (It didn't work, damn). Yes I could have come up with a better comparison, but that's not the point. The point is that people knowing more about the rules of war will educate them on very important issues. Also, I never said that the characters would have to follow the rules, just that the rules would exist within the game.

 

[naam]

It does kind of sound like lazy game design to overlook such prevalent issues regaring war (and it's despictions). As a game developer I'd adress this by just having the world turn hostile on you if you do such objectionable things (as people in the real world would). By the point you've massacred all who objected and can almost exclusively only be allied with those traditionally regarded as the villains you'd still have had your choice, but the game wouldn't give the impression that it'd fly over when you do something like that.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Edit: Enforcing games to follow this through law would be bad and that is not what I am advocating and it is not necessarily what the Red Cross is advocating.

If the devs cared they'd look it up. If we cared we'd ask for it.

The Red Cross doesn't need any involvement at any time.

Educating people on the Geneva conventions is part of what the Red Cross does. They could very easily educate people on the subject through video games and they are very disappointed with how video games seem to not acknowledge the existence of the Geneva conventions. Supply and Demand is not the end all of social structure.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

...It's a videogame, none of it is real.
Regulating videogames in this way would be like regulating dreams. (Getting sent to jail for having a dream where you infringe on these humanitarian laws.)
Bits of data are not animal or plant, they're not self aware and they're not alive.
They're definitely not human, so humanitarian law shouldn't apply.

where not there yet...one day though we will be.. one day

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

....

Not to be rude, but that's one of the silliest comparisons I've ever seen. A gun to an untrained person can kill them and others. Having people comply with the rules of warfare in a war game? That's not going to change much. Besides, gun safety is simple.


All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it

My 13 year old brother can memorize that.

The Geneva Convention? Not so much.

Yeah, I thought it was bad too, but I kinda remembered from my lurking days on here that you were knowledgeable on gun safety (I was right apparently) and thought the comparrison would work well because it involved something you were familiar with (It didn't work, damn). Yes I could have come up with a better comparison, but that's not the point. The point is that people knowing more about the rules of war will educate them on very important issues. Also, I never said that the characters would have to follow the rules, just that the rules would exist within the game.

Here's the sticking issue for me:
Can you, in the same amount of words I used for gun safety (40, though I'll let you have up to 50), describe the rules of warfare? Likely no. Keep in mind that obeying the rules may be fun for Lawful Good types, such as myself, but others... not so much.

 

[MoNKeyYy]

So I guess that any depiction of human rights violations in film and literature should be banned as well? Whoops, I guess we have to revoke the Oscar for Schindler's List.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

....

Not to be rude, but that's one of the silliest comparisons I've ever seen. A gun to an untrained person can kill them and others. Having people comply with the rules of warfare in a war game? That's not going to change much. Besides, gun safety is simple.


All guns are always loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it

My 13 year old brother can memorize that.

The Geneva Convention? Not so much.

Yeah, I thought it was bad too, but I kinda remembered from my lurking days on here that you were knowledgeable on gun safety (I was right apparently) and thought the comparrison would work well because it involved something you were familiar with (It didn't work, damn). Yes I could have come up with a better comparison, but that's not the point. The point is that people knowing more about the rules of war will educate them on very important issues. Also, I never said that the characters would have to follow the rules, just that the rules would exist within the game.

Here's the sticking issue for me:
Can you, in the same amount of words I used for gun safety (40, though I'll let you have up to 50), describe the rules of warfare? Likely no. Keep in mind that obeying the rules may be fun for Lawful Good types, such as myself, but others... not so much.

No I cannot describe them is such a manner, which is why it is all the more important for people to be exposed to them in their natural environment, the battlefield. Even a virtual battlefield will do. Seeing these laws at work allows us to learn what they are, how they work, and why we have them. They can also show the consequences of breaking them, maybe even allowing the player to experience these consequences.

In the end, we will end up with a more realistic representation of modern warfare that can actually make some real points about war, unlike say, Modern Warfare, which breaks apart the moment you realize that the controversial scene of MW2 would never have happened. A real agent would never endanger the lives of citizens of a first world country, especially if there was any chance of his country getting attached to it. The repercussions would be huge, and that is just one of multiple instances of ignorance within that series's plot.