Red Cross Investigating Virtual War Crimes

[ThatDarnCoyote]

This is silly on a number of levels, but the video is the silliest part of all, since it doesn't even support the point they're trying to make.

With the exception of the clip at the end with the tank shelling the field hospital (which the ICRC even concedes is not "incentivized" by the gameplay), nothing in the clips would actually be a war crime even in real life. The people depicted as being "killed" are armed, active combatants.

Killing an enemy soldier in combat is not a war crime. That the ICRC doesn't seem to understand this doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their pronouncements. Or, Heaven forbid, any "advice" they plan to offer the games industry.

 

[brazuca]

I found this quite compelling to debate in games (speceally warfare games). We see too much violence, video game soldiers take war like a fun adventure. They murder 200 people and not only stay ok with it, most of the time using ilegal tatics or sooo extreme that not even the military would use. Example, shooting directly with a .50 cal to infantry.

Sorry, have you ever seen Commando? Die Hard? Literally any action film from the 80's?

It's exaggeration for the sake of entertainment; people play these games for the same reasons they watch the films: escapism.

Anyone who see's this stuff and then goes mental with a gun had serious problems well before they started playing games.

Oh, and if you think the military is overzealous in CoD, wait til you see what the guy from Dead Space does with the tools that were only sanctioned for engineering purposes.

As moviebob said here: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-59-bat-slap and here: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-57-supreme-responsibility

You could watch it. It's an incovinient truth about how games are becoming more and more imature, not bad, but when a stereotype becomes reality it is kind sad.

Like everything else, you can't tar an entire medium with the same brush. But even if every game was a ridiculous chainsaw-on-the-end-of-a-machinegun slaughterfest I don't care because I possess the ability to separate reality from video games.

Games don't need to be mature as long as they are fun. Likewise just because a game is mature doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

Games like CoD and GoW are the Rambos of the video game industry: they shouldn't be taken seriously; they should just be enjoyed for the adrenaline fueled ride that they were intended to be.

If you want a somber, thought-provoking affair play a game like Silent Hill 2 or Shadow of the Colossus.

I love all types of games, so I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I shouldn't be enjoying one type of shooter just because it doesn't take itself as seriously as people think it should.

Yet how many serious games you see?!"For video games, the real world is the final frontier." in: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/arts/video-games/la-noire-by-rockstar-games-review.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=LA%20Noire&st=cse
That is the main issue with games. Too many Rambos and Too few Metal Jacket. Movie bob, but not by the letter. Red Cross won't change your liberty rights, nor the developers. Bitching about how war in video games are displayed will make at least a few gamers more acknowledged of this particular subject.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I'm gonna be honest here... This sounds insane enough to work.

I agree with one of the facebook comments down below (which I try oh so hard not to look at), that it's acknowledging videogames as a legitimate form of media instead of a joke.

 

[rob_simple]

I found this quite compelling to debate in games (speceally warfare games). We see too much violence, video game soldiers take war like a fun adventure. They murder 200 people and not only stay ok with it, most of the time using ilegal tatics or sooo extreme that not even the military would use. Example, shooting directly with a .50 cal to infantry.

Sorry, have you ever seen Commando? Die Hard? Literally any action film from the 80's?

It's exaggeration for the sake of entertainment; people play these games for the same reasons they watch the films: escapism.

Anyone who see's this stuff and then goes mental with a gun had serious problems well before they started playing games.

Oh, and if you think the military is overzealous in CoD, wait til you see what the guy from Dead Space does with the tools that were only sanctioned for engineering purposes.

As moviebob said here: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-59-bat-slap and here: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-57-supreme-responsibility

You could watch it. It's an incovinient truth about how games are becoming more and more imature, not bad, but when a stereotype becomes reality it is kind sad.

Like everything else, you can't tar an entire medium with the same brush. But even if every game was a ridiculous chainsaw-on-the-end-of-a-machinegun slaughterfest I don't care because I possess the ability to separate reality from video games.

Games don't need to be mature as long as they are fun. Likewise just because a game is mature doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

Games like CoD and GoW are the Rambos of the video game industry: they shouldn't be taken seriously; they should just be enjoyed for the adrenaline fueled ride that they were intended to be.

If you want a somber, thought-provoking affair play a game like Silent Hill 2 or Shadow of the Colossus.

I love all types of games, so I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I shouldn't be enjoying one type of shooter just because it doesn't take itself as seriously as people think it should.

Yet how many serious games you see?!"For video games, the real world is the final frontier." in: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/arts/video-games/la-noire-by-rockstar-games-review.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=LA%20Noire&st=cse
That is the main issue with games. Too many Rambos and Too few Metal Jacket. Movie bob, but not by the letter. Red Cross won't change your liberty rights, nor the developers. Bitching about how war in video games are displayed will make at least a few gamers more acknowledged of this particular subject.

You are speaking entirely in buzzwords. And your insinuation that gamers need to be educated about the subject matter of their games is frankly insulting.

When I play Modern Warfare I don't think, 'yeah, WWIII would be fucking awesome I can't wait' I usually think, '************ you just shot Ghost I am going to fuck your day up.'

Leave these people alone.

 

[OutsiderEX]

In the immortal words of those brave, glorious Planes and Mercs...

WAR CRIMES, FUCK YEAH!

 

[AlphaEcho]

I would actually like to see a more realistic war game where we do not blow the face off of every surrendering enemy.

 

[SyphonX]

"You are to be tried by a jury of your peers. I present to you: ROB, Johnny 5, Sony PSP, an iPad...."

Well, it's a "Virtual" war-crime, is it not? Since it's not real. Hrm. The Red Cross committee should look into that.

 

[Creamygoodness]

Funny thing is: Trolls are safe because shooting a teammate isn't a warcrime.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

This only applies to video games trying to depict our world, right? Because banelings never seem to keen on diplomacy when they roll into my base.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Soon code, pixels and polygons will have more rights than some people.
Shout-outs to focusing on the important.

"...there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be violating IHL in the virtual world,"

No they aren't. I can say that quite categorically. IHL [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law#Basic_rules_of_IHL] apply to real people.

Surely the virtual world is precisely where you want people breaking things such as the Geneva Convention and general rules of decency rather than for real...

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

Are you people fucking serious? Are you gonna ban fucking books from descripting violence?

In the progress of this did anyone actually sit down and think, "are the games actually hurting anybody?".

You know, Oceania in 1984 acted quite poorly regarding the Geneva Convention. Perhaps we should dig up George Orwell and lecture his dust about that! I remember that a Hunger Games movie is coming out, too, and the government certainly violated human rights in the books, so the movie shouldn't be allowed to play to begin with. Think of all of the juicy examples of entertainment violating the law - what the hell is wrong with people?!? Cripes granny/pappy, get a grip on your realities before condemning everyone else to being virtual Hitlers. What is the point in arguing over human rights in fiction that is obviously not real? You don't actually bring up a discussion on fair economics when playing Monopoly and you don't get a lecture on maritime laws for playing Battleship. Unless the invasion of the United States by goddamned Korea didn't wake anyone up, video games are not training for life-or-death combat in real life situations, nor do they ever claim to be. It would be a different story if that were the case, as would it be if Candyland ever claimed that there was really a gumdrop forest (or whatever).

Then everyone that played that airport level in MW2: you're likely now a war criminal. Congratulations!

And with a couple of San Andreas and Oblivion plays under my belt, as well as the conquering of several nomadic peoples in Age of Empires, I am also a mass serial killer and medieval, genocidal tyrant! Is my sentence subject to negotiation? I did save humanity a couple of times as well...

For the sake of fairness, I would be interested in what their thoughts would be on this:

How many Purple Hearts would be awarded for virtual video game injuries? Hehehe...

 

[lizards]

so are books or movies next? wait that doesnt sound like it makes sense? well damn that is interesting that you wont hear this same argument applied to either of those......

almost like it doesnt make sence at all.....

 

[Thomas Hardy]

Can we knock off the BS hyperbole already?

All the red cross is asking for is for developers to consider the Geneva convention when making a "realistic" or "modern" FPS or other "Military-themed" video game set in the real world AFTER 1864.

Most of these games have limitations on what a character can do in-game (i.e. Kill civilians = lose) and most servers have limits on what a PLAYER can do before getting kicked/banned (i.e. griefing, using cheats/bots).

Using the Geneva Convention as a BASIS for a game's Code of Conduct rather than making one up out of thin air just seems like good sense to me...


...seeing as how its the "ideal" that all signatory nations have agreed to abide by should they ever war with one another. Rebels, terrorists, mercenaries and aliens aren't covered by the Conventions so we can still torture, rape, murder and teabag them all we want.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I'm not sure they understand what games are about.

Just like every other Republicunt politician and their yappy poodles.

 

[Strazdas]

1. Uphold geneva concentino for real life.
2. anything else.
im still waiting on the first 1.

 

[BreakfastMan]

We see too much violence,

video game soldiers take war like a fun adventure.

Careful. Those are two very different points you have there. Having one does not necessarily follow that you have the other. Games can be both incredibly violent whilst being anti-war.

 

[Doug]

Wonderful. Perhaps they should hang me for all the war crimes I committed playing Risk or Battleship.

Indeedie. This did make me think of the recent Rooster Teeth video (the Red vs Blue guys)...

http://roosterteeth.com/archive/?id=3873&v=more

But seriously, I don't really see what the Red Cross are trying to achieve with this; are they trying to raise the profile of war crimes/the rules of warfare? If so, this ain't gonna do it, and they'll seem silly in the process.

If its for some imagined link between gaming behaviour and real behaviour, I think they need to look at the actual research.

 

[brazuca]

We see too much violence,

video game soldiers take war like a fun adventure.

Careful. Those are two very different points you have there. Having one does not necessarily follow that you have the other. Games can be both incredibly violent whilst being anti-war.

Like wich one? I played all CoD's (not all except CoD 3) and some BF3, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell and many others. War games and most of them a pretty shallow on killing consequences to the character.

 

[brazuca]

I found this quite compelling to debate in games (speceally warfare games). We see too much violence, video game soldiers take war like a fun adventure. They murder 200 people and not only stay ok with it, most of the time using ilegal tatics or sooo extreme that not even the military would use. Example, shooting directly with a .50 cal to infantry.

Sorry, have you ever seen Commando? Die Hard? Literally any action film from the 80's?

It's exaggeration for the sake of entertainment; people play these games for the same reasons they watch the films: escapism.

Anyone who see's this stuff and then goes mental with a gun had serious problems well before they started playing games.

Oh, and if you think the military is overzealous in CoD, wait til you see what the guy from Dead Space does with the tools that were only sanctioned for engineering purposes.

As moviebob said here: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-59-bat-slap and here: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-57-supreme-responsibility

You could watch it. It's an incovinient truth about how games are becoming more and more imature, not bad, but when a stereotype becomes reality it is kind sad.

Like everything else, you can't tar an entire medium with the same brush. But even if every game was a ridiculous chainsaw-on-the-end-of-a-machinegun slaughterfest I don't care because I possess the ability to separate reality from video games.

Games don't need to be mature as long as they are fun. Likewise just because a game is mature doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

Games like CoD and GoW are the Rambos of the video game industry: they shouldn't be taken seriously; they should just be enjoyed for the adrenaline fueled ride that they were intended to be.

If you want a somber, thought-provoking affair play a game like Silent Hill 2 or Shadow of the Colossus.

I love all types of games, so I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell me I shouldn't be enjoying one type of shooter just because it doesn't take itself as seriously as people think it should.

Yet how many serious games you see?!"For video games, the real world is the final frontier." in: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/arts/video-games/la-noire-by-rockstar-games-review.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=LA%20Noire&st=cse
That is the main issue with games. Too many Rambos and Too few Metal Jacket. Movie bob, but not by the letter. Red Cross won't change your liberty rights, nor the developers. Bitching about how war in video games are displayed will make at least a few gamers more acknowledged of this particular subject.

You are speaking entirely in buzzwords. And your insinuation that gamers need to be educated about the subject matter of their games is frankly insulting.

When I play Modern Warfare I don't think, 'yeah, WWIII would be fucking awesome I can't wait' I usually think, '************ you just shot Ghost I am going to fuck your day up.'

Leave these people alone.

I'm not saying Michael Bayish VG is going to teach geography and world politics, but tell me how much character development there is in any of the MW trilogy. In fact I knew more of Makarov and Sheppard then I knew of the characters I was controlling. *Spoiler the end of MW3 where Sandman dies to protect the Russian president was pretty much a shot to my intelligence. WTF! Why should I care or find it heroic after killing all those people and not even knowing his name?! Even the McTavish was not impacting becausing instead of talking of what was going on russian evil soldeirs were killing an entire village*.

You wanna know what?! The more realistic the game tries to be the less it's writing is realistic.Trick question how many games where war is actually explained with some complex context?! It's milirary porn fetish, most of the time. It's becoming sadder ever year. Games refuse to improve their writing quality in order to pretend that non reflexive art is fun.

 

[MrGalactus]

I disagree. Games are media, and war crimes are an interesting thing to explore. Nobody has the right to censor art and media other than the artist.