The Red Cross Wants Games to Respect The "Rules of War"

[Michael Epstein]

The Red Cross Wants Games to Respect The "Rules of War"

The Red Cross thinks virtual soldiers should be held to the same standard as real ones.

The Red Cross believes international "laws of war" should feature a more prominent role in games where players engage in realistic combat scenarios. The international aid organization, which plays a role overseeing international law as per the Geneva Convention, believes that some games depict war too well to ignore proper battlefield conduct.

Francoid Senechaud, head of unit for relations with armed and security forces for the International Committee of the Red Cross thinks the organization should have design input on game series like Call of Duty and Battlefield, which are billed as realistic:

"Video games that are representing battlefields, contemporary battlefields, are very close to reality," Senechaud told the BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24318061]. "And actually it's very difficult to tell the difference between any real footage and the footage you can get from video games. So we are arguing that we have to get even closer to reality and that we have to include the rules of the laws of conflict."

While some video games penalize players for hurting civilians, few actively acknowledge the soldiers that there are rules of engagement dictating who soldiers can shoot, and when. In the real world, shooting civilians or even armed combatants without cause, could be considered a war crime. The ICRC hopes developers will avoid putting players in situations where they may be praised or rewarded for reckless behavior in combat.

Obviously it would be ideal if video games, especially violent ones, could foster a more nuanced understanding of what it means to fight a war, but some games are better suited to such rules than others. The question is: Do developers have an ethical obligation to at least suggest players hold themselves to the same standards in a game as the world expects of real soldiers in the field?

Source: BBC [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24318061]

Permalink

 

[KeyMaster45]

Putting aside that the idea of rules of engagement in a war are silly to the point that it will get your ass handed to you by a bunch of guys in caves for a decade and change. I think that if the realistic war styled games forced players to stick to the international rules of engagement, while having them frustrated to no end by npc that don't follow said rules, I think it would make for a very compelling gameplay experience.

 

[Micah Weil]

Do they have an ethical obligation? No, they don't. Certain games don't fit it; the CoD community would implode if they had to abide by Geneva and the Rules of Engagement.

Does that mean nobody should try it? I don't know about you, but a persistent world where you can be taken as a POW (instead of just dying and respawning), with regular raids to free said POWs might prove interesting.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Umm, no. Even when I'm not acting as a legitimate military force in a realistic game, I tend to kill enough people who may or may not have deserved it for my actions to be considered on par with a war crime.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

Welp, if they are going to play lick ass to the Military, games like COD should at least make the effort.
I remember seeing this show called Game Theory that did a episode based off COD War-crimes.

That being said, if that can't convince movies to do the same, I don't think they'll have much luck here.

 

[KaZuYa]

I always thought the most barbaric aspect about war was trying to apply rules to them. Rather than trying to show you can kill people more humanly if you follow a UN charter or some treaty, show the impact of loss and death of any conflict creates.

Then again if the next Call Of Duty game consisted of the player loading up the first map, stepping on a IED within 5 minutes and losing both legs and an arm, then spending the rest of the game in a veterans hospital where eventually you're discharged and forgotten about by an uncaring government and left to spiral into drugs and drink to cope with PTSD which eventually ends in your suicide, might be realistic but I doubt it will sell. Games are not real and never will be and I think 99% of players know this regardless how shiny the graphics are.

 

[yamy]

The Red Cross believes international "laws of war" should feature a more prominent role in games where players engage in realistic combat scenarios.

Well there you have it. Cod doesn't feature 'realistic combat scenarios' so it does need to conform to those rules.

On the other hand, Arma III will need to.

 

[Milanezi]

Only if it's a role-playing war game, focused on realism, it would be cool, you go to trial and whatnot... But if it's CoD, Battlefield etc, the non-accountability is part of the fun, it keeps things simple and fast, lest they become like one of those modern race games that are only accessible to auto/race enthusiasts.

Games stop being fun when they are taken too seriously, sure you have the "simulator" audience, but they are a niche, and they will surely enjoy the more realistic their "hobby" gets, which makes total sense in a hardcore simulator...

 

[tmande2nd]

I am quite proud of earning the Geneva Contravention achievement in TF2 thank you very much.

Its a game, worry about what real soldiers do more then digital ones.

 

[rasputin0009]

But then you don't get a scene where you shoot a bunch of defenseless civilians in an airport! Especially the ones that don't end up having anything to do with the main plot. And were just a gimmick thrown in to get a shock factor! Whatever would we do without them? I wonder what the rules of war are when it comes to dogs...

 

[Karadalis]

So because no one gives a flying F about their cute little war rules in real live now they try to apply them to games?

When was the last time russia or syria actually cared for the Geneva convention? When was the last time the USA followed the Geneva convention?

The only part of those rules the big nations follow are about the usage of weapons of mass destruction, thats it.

People still get tortured and murdered and no one seems to bat an eye when some innocent bystanders are hit by an artillery shell.

Stop pretending war is something civil to make yourself feel good and let games depict the real horror of war... there are no rules in war. War is not a gentlenems agreement.

 

[Skeleon]

I actually agree with them. I think that would be good. We've got way too much 24-style "kick their teeth in"-machismo bullshit in our fiction. You can still have all the horrible war crimes you want... just let us shoot at those that commit them, okay?

There's obviously a subset of games that focus on proper procedure (the SWAT-games come to my mind, where you are to capture the perps alive and ensure none of the civilians get hurt), but those are rather more niche than the other kind.

To the inevitable naysayers: Let's not forget this is their opinion. They're not calling for restricting devs' rights or anything, just saying what they'd prefer to see happen. They want to give their input for "realistic" titles, so what? Let them have their free speech, just like they let everybody else have theirs.

 

[Bindal]

While ARMA could certainly benefit from that as addional (optional, more likely), then sure.
CoD on the other hand? In some cases, you're enganging against combatants (MP and SP alike), that are NOT bound by those Rules so limiting the player that way should be cut-scene-exclusive.
Battlefield is dancing on a line in that case and SOME of these Rules of Engangement could be added, but certainly not all.

So, overall, it depends on the game, I would say. But it is certainly an interesting idea.

 

[eltonborges]

In fact, CoD and BF could apply to such rules when you play the single-player mode. There, they could really work and show a bit more about the combat in the real world. But when we are talking about the multiplayer, that's another thing completely. We are talking about games where a sniper can jump out of a flying jet, kill the pilot from another jet and capture, in mid air, so, not really realistic.

 

[2HF]

Someone tell the creators of Just Cause 2 that the cure for slamming into pavement at terminal velocity isn't to slam into it slightly faster.

Tell Valve to cut that portal shit right out.

Stop breaking the laws of physics!

 

[Lawyer105]

Interestingly enough, the America's Army series of games already includes this. The game has RoE (don't shoot friendlies, don't shoot civvies, don't blow up the mission objective or the VIP, don't shoot downed enemies for lulz - you know... that sort of thing) and actively penalises you for breaking them by giving you a permanent penalty to your "HONOR" rating (basically, the experience bar that lets you unlock other stuff, wave your epeen, etc.).

Seems to work pretty well there, tbh. Most people make a reasonable effort to play within the rules. Of course... it's a much, much more mature community than the mouth-frothing, rabid gaggle of ritalin-popping, terminally aggressive mongooses that constitutes the CoD/BF community so...

 

[Nielas]

Are there actually many examples of games where you can commit warcrimes?

Spec OPs: The Line comes to mind but that is a crafted story line example that specifically focuses on the consequences.

Beyond that, most military FPS games won't let you shoot civilians and the NPC enemies will not try to surrender or drop their weapons. Even wounded enemies will try to shoot at you.

Are we talking about more niche FPS games that I am not familiar with?