Does Your Videogame Comply With International Law?
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I don't see why this has everyone so pissed off. Seriously, they stated that the study was not condemning video-games. That's more then most "news" networks can say. And while their request that games be made more Geneva Convention-friendly is a bit ridiculous, I think some people are taking it the wrong way. And BTW, I'm a gamer, so it's not like I'm your average fox-news spokesman.
I'm personally wondering why someone would even consider this newsworthy. I mean the only point being made here is that a couple of swiss groups wasted a lot of money being stupid, and really if we recorded everytime someone stupidly spent money, individually or organized, the news would be an un-consumable mess of nothing but.
Giving a platform to a study like this is sort of like someone taking a look at a study performed by the KKK, and then saying "KKK researchers find after consuming tons of black created media that Blacks are inferior"... that falls under the "duh" catagory.
I mean let's be honest, I don't think many of the games are trying to remotely claim this behavior is "legal". Hence why you are typically put in the role of a "mercenary", "black ops", or "special agent" type character who is by definition acting outside of the law for the greater good, with or without sanction. I mean when you see a title like "Bad Company" I don't think anyone with half a brain is under the illusions that this game was promoting proper, peacetime, military behavior and decorum.
When it comes to concepts like "24" your typically seeing these games existing to ask the question as to whether or not our engagement policies are correct. When it comes to things like torturing people consider that I and many other people on these forums are at odds when it comes to the effectiveness and nessecity of such methods. Asking those questions in the context of a game presenting hypothetical situations (so to speak) isn't anything paticularly special. Media/Artwork of all sorts has framed questions of all kinds (conterversial or not) as long as it has existed.
As far as "victimizing" civilians in wartime, well again one of the big questions society has to address is whether post-WW II attitudes and morality on such things are correct. We're rapidly seeing that without targeting a culture/people themselves and simply focusing on the fighters very little can be accomplished. As time goes on, I think people are gradually learning, and beginning to accept (albeit very slowly) that our "antiseptic" engagement doctrine is wrong and ineffective. Especially when you find that more information about what we REALLY did during World War II to win is becoming apparent. Still, even so, games are by and large not claiming such behavior is lawful to begin with by current standards.
In my mind what is promoted in games is only questionable if the fantasy of what is going on in the game is denied. For example, there is a differance between say a game where you play a "rogue cop, who plays by his own rules" who goes out guns blazing to single handedly fill every bodybag in the city with a dead slimeball... and say the old "Police Quest" games which made the claim of being realistic and presenting the usage of real police procedures in actual situations. In say Police Quest you could "lose" by overreacting to a situation, handling evidence incorrectly, or simply not performing a vehicle inspection the right way before getting into a patrol car. If the Police Quest games I had played for example let me go "Dirty Harry" on suspects and claimed this was "real" it would have been questionable.
Really, the only "shooter" I can think of off the top of my head that SHOULD be critiqued for not playing by the "rules" is perhaps America's Army, which makes the prtensions about being about the "real army as it is". If some games (like say MW2 and Rainbow 6 allegedly) choose to find a middle ground and cater to some real policies, such is fine, but I feel anyone claiming that a game calling itself "Bad Company" should be criticized for being the dark, escapist, gun-wank it is has some serious issues and is not worthy of media coverage. It's like going "OMG! A game called Grand Theft Auto has you stealing cars! That's illegal! people might get confused about doing stuff like that being against the letter of real laws!"
Giving a platform to a study like this is sort of like someone taking a look at a study performed by the KKK, and then saying "KKK researchers find after consuming tons of black created media that Blacks are inferior"... that falls under the "duh" catagory.
I mean let's be honest, I don't think many of the games are trying to remotely claim this behavior is "legal". Hence why you are typically put in the role of a "mercenary", "black ops", or "special agent" type character who is by definition acting outside of the law for the greater good, with or without sanction. I mean when you see a title like "Bad Company" I don't think anyone with half a brain is under the illusions that this game was promoting proper, peacetime, military behavior and decorum.
When it comes to concepts like "24" your typically seeing these games existing to ask the question as to whether or not our engagement policies are correct. When it comes to things like torturing people consider that I and many other people on these forums are at odds when it comes to the effectiveness and nessecity of such methods. Asking those questions in the context of a game presenting hypothetical situations (so to speak) isn't anything paticularly special. Media/Artwork of all sorts has framed questions of all kinds (conterversial or not) as long as it has existed.
As far as "victimizing" civilians in wartime, well again one of the big questions society has to address is whether post-WW II attitudes and morality on such things are correct. We're rapidly seeing that without targeting a culture/people themselves and simply focusing on the fighters very little can be accomplished. As time goes on, I think people are gradually learning, and beginning to accept (albeit very slowly) that our "antiseptic" engagement doctrine is wrong and ineffective. Especially when you find that more information about what we REALLY did during World War II to win is becoming apparent. Still, even so, games are by and large not claiming such behavior is lawful to begin with by current standards.
In my mind what is promoted in games is only questionable if the fantasy of what is going on in the game is denied. For example, there is a differance between say a game where you play a "rogue cop, who plays by his own rules" who goes out guns blazing to single handedly fill every bodybag in the city with a dead slimeball... and say the old "Police Quest" games which made the claim of being realistic and presenting the usage of real police procedures in actual situations. In say Police Quest you could "lose" by overreacting to a situation, handling evidence incorrectly, or simply not performing a vehicle inspection the right way before getting into a patrol car. If the Police Quest games I had played for example let me go "Dirty Harry" on suspects and claimed this was "real" it would have been questionable.
Really, the only "shooter" I can think of off the top of my head that SHOULD be critiqued for not playing by the "rules" is perhaps America's Army, which makes the prtensions about being about the "real army as it is". If some games (like say MW2 and Rainbow 6 allegedly) choose to find a middle ground and cater to some real policies, such is fine, but I feel anyone claiming that a game calling itself "Bad Company" should be criticized for being the dark, escapist, gun-wank it is has some serious issues and is not worthy of media coverage. It's like going "OMG! A game called Grand Theft Auto has you stealing cars! That's illegal! people might get confused about doing stuff like that being against the letter of real laws!"
Done well, I think a game that complied with international law may indeed Be fun..
But did the people doing these examinations account for the fact that in many of the settings and situations portrayed by FPS games, the laws are irrelevant?
Frontlines: Fuel of War, for instance, takes place in the not-so-distant future when the world's already gone to pot. Who's to say cluster bombs weren't legalised for one reason or another? Besides, its setting is arguably alternate universe to us and all.
And Battlefield: Bad Company? Come on, B-Company is hardly known for its exemplary combat. If they can't even obey basic military rules they're ruddy well not going to follow international laws on general good behaviour. Being able to break those rules, and Know you're breaking them, is a part of that game's charm.
What's next, international combat laws being forced on games like Warhammer 40k's Fire Warrior? >.> (Yes, yes, I know that wasn't a very good game, but it's a bloody good example of a setting where those rules would be totally irrelevant and stupid).
But did the people doing these examinations account for the fact that in many of the settings and situations portrayed by FPS games, the laws are irrelevant?
Frontlines: Fuel of War, for instance, takes place in the not-so-distant future when the world's already gone to pot. Who's to say cluster bombs weren't legalised for one reason or another? Besides, its setting is arguably alternate universe to us and all.
And Battlefield: Bad Company? Come on, B-Company is hardly known for its exemplary combat. If they can't even obey basic military rules they're ruddy well not going to follow international laws on general good behaviour. Being able to break those rules, and Know you're breaking them, is a part of that game's charm.
What's next, international combat laws being forced on games like Warhammer 40k's Fire Warrior? >.> (Yes, yes, I know that wasn't a very good game, but it's a bloody good example of a setting where those rules would be totally irrelevant and stupid).
Coming this fall: Civil Citizen. You work hard, you play within regulations, you wait in traffic.
The trouble is, in spite of the fact that the game points out that this is in clear violation of the law, the game then goes on to reward this behavior. Thus, you have a mixed message at best.Psychosocial said:
I was going to guess the toothpick.Marq said:
You know: That little plastic stylus. Not exactly something you'd want to use more than once. What's it there for? Emergency use only, I guess.
I moved beyond the implications of the study and just saw it for the interesting bit of research on video games that it was. In that way, I'm kind of glad people do these sorts of studies because I never really think, while I'm playing, "gee I wonder if Geneva is being upheld." It's cool to know that the actions in CoD4 comply with international law, imo.
As for whether or not games SHOULD comply, meh. CoD4 did and it was a great single-player experience. There are things you can do in BC that probably don't, but I'll never get tired of that game either.
Still, interesting study.
As for whether or not games SHOULD comply, meh. CoD4 did and it was a great single-player experience. There are things you can do in BC that probably don't, but I'll never get tired of that game either.
Still, interesting study.