Red Cross Investigating Virtual War Crimes
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay... I'll give that. You are rightin the second part. The imagery evokes anti war. I don't think the bomb was detonated for other reason then the spectecle, and in an obvious pun about Iraq. Coming back to the Red Cross thing, what I was defending them is that showing the rules of engagement (even if the will break later) makes the game more deep about conflict.BreakfastMan said:
Reafirming, yeah the imagery you are spot on it, never saw it in this way. Much mor as consequence of destruction of the military fetish porn that MW2 and MW3 became.
Shoo, Red Cross. Art is art and as a rumination on life must be free to examine moral shades of grey of all kinds.
Art should, however, be aware of this and use it to drive home some sort of point with some measure of sensibility and not mere sensationalism to appease Marketing (looking at you, Codblops-glass-mouth-punching and MW2-civilian-down-mowing).
Art should, however, be aware of this and use it to drive home some sort of point with some measure of sensibility and not mere sensationalism to appease Marketing (looking at you, Codblops-glass-mouth-punching and MW2-civilian-down-mowing).
What is this, I don't even...
Dear God in heaven, don't they have ANYTHING better to do? There are video games out there that allow you to fly, shapeshift, and shoot lightning from your hands; I hardly think that the "rules" governing the real world really belong as ironclad bindings in most video games anyway. Even in somewhat more realistic non-war video games it's still possible to single-handedly commit mass atrocities and turn innocent civilians into a fine red mist. AND, even if you could convince the developers of CoD, Battlefield, etc. to play by the Geneva Convention rules, there's nothing actually stopping the players from killing non-combatants, they'd just see negative consequences for it post-mission.
I mean, really, where does this kind of thinking logically end? Murder is illegal in the real world; make it illegal in video games. Make gamers have to obtain a pilot's license before they can fly any planes in games. Make combat training mandatory before any games containing fighting. How far would silliness like this go?
What this is is Jack Thompson or that California law all over again. There's all kinds of problems IRL they SHOULD be paying attention to and they're worried about video games instead.
Dear God in heaven, don't they have ANYTHING better to do? There are video games out there that allow you to fly, shapeshift, and shoot lightning from your hands; I hardly think that the "rules" governing the real world really belong as ironclad bindings in most video games anyway. Even in somewhat more realistic non-war video games it's still possible to single-handedly commit mass atrocities and turn innocent civilians into a fine red mist. AND, even if you could convince the developers of CoD, Battlefield, etc. to play by the Geneva Convention rules, there's nothing actually stopping the players from killing non-combatants, they'd just see negative consequences for it post-mission.
I mean, really, where does this kind of thinking logically end? Murder is illegal in the real world; make it illegal in video games. Make gamers have to obtain a pilot's license before they can fly any planes in games. Make combat training mandatory before any games containing fighting. How far would silliness like this go?
What this is is Jack Thompson or that California law all over again. There's all kinds of problems IRL they SHOULD be paying attention to and they're worried about video games instead.
I think it would be an interesting aspect to try in a video game. I do not think it is their business to force anyone into only making video games that abide by the convention, but I would definitely want to see a game or two that actively tries to. Not as a form censorship mind you(e.g. impossible to break it, censor all cases where it was broken) but more like a game play effect (e.g. -3 points, but preferably something more interesting).
Every time you shoot an assault class in Battlefield 3, you are killing a medic and therefore violating the Geneva Convention.
Maybe they would settle for a Professor Genki style mod where whenever I shoot someone I hear a voice yell "ETHICAL!" or "UN-ETHICAL!" in the voice from SR.
Maybe they would settle for a Professor Genki style mod where whenever I shoot someone I hear a voice yell "ETHICAL!" or "UN-ETHICAL!" in the voice from SR.
I can understand were they are coming from I really can. Have a more realistic depiction of modern combat, rules of engament, and the chance to spare or murder all in sight would bring me back to the modern FPS setting. Multiplayer is never going to conform but for single player, I'd Like it.
Oh my god, seriously? Are they REALLY doing this? Was some guy at the Red Cross so bored that he watched the 2-part South Park about the war in Imagination Land and thought to himself "You know what? That's a good point! How DO our laws here in reality apply to the world of imagination?" Man-Bear-Pig is out there people, and he DOESN'T obey the laws of the Geneva Convention.
Anyone else see the almost side-by-side connection between the debate the Red Cross is wanting to drum up over this and the ridiculous non-sensical debate that took place in those South Park episodes?
Dear god, anyone who has ever played the game Lemmings or any of its sequels is worse than Hitler! Especially if you pumped up the spawn rate just so you could hit the nuke button and watch all the lemming bits fly.
Anyone else see the almost side-by-side connection between the debate the Red Cross is wanting to drum up over this and the ridiculous non-sensical debate that took place in those South Park episodes?
Dear god, anyone who has ever played the game Lemmings or any of its sequels is worse than Hitler! Especially if you pumped up the spawn rate just so you could hit the nuke button and watch all the lemming bits fly.
If the medics are armed, then they are no longer protected and are treated like a combatant.Frost27 said:
In general I do not remember many instances in FPS games where as a player you get to break the laws of war. The people you shoot are armed and are shooting back at you. Outside of cut scenes I never really see an enemy actually try to surrender.
Seeing Geneva Convention stuff in games as a game mechanic?
Yeah... actually.. I can kinda dig that.
Forcing games to indoctrinate it in games?
Yeah... actually... that offends me on a fundamental level.
Yeah... actually.. I can kinda dig that.
Forcing games to indoctrinate it in games?
Yeah... actually... that offends me on a fundamental level.
Aside from the specific absurdity of applying international law to video games, I maintain more broadly that international law is bullshit. The rules governing killing of civilians and conduct of warfare were written retroactively specifically so that the Axis forces and the Nazi brass in particular could be punished while making the Allied saturation bombing of cities legal. We complain about the three Americans held in Iranian prison for a year and their conditions but ignore the inconsistencies of our own rendition programs.
Hey, hey, Red Cross? Go organize some more blood drives and give more first aid to people in poor countries. That's what you're supposed to be doing, right? Focus on real people. They actually need help. I'm sure there are injured children running from a Civil War that need your help.
It did make the reactionary mindset of the American command structure somewhat more sobering.duchaked said:yeah I was thinking about the Southpark terrorist attack on Imagination Landthat was a great episode (as was the WoW one)
Do you think PETA could be charged under this for all the "games" they have made?
So out of all the messed up stuff going on in the world, they take a swipe at VGs. Could that time not have been wasted and instead been used on something else? Like stopping puppies from being thrown off cliffs by bored people.
1: Many, if not most video game conflicts are set in ways that completely negates the Geneva Conventions or any other sort of "war code of conduct". EX: The Human-Covenant War (Halo), any conflict in Mass Effect, any arcade-y game, like say TF2, etc.
2: Even in games trying to portray combat somewhat realistically or borrowing real-life themes, the conflict or situation are often so far above anything governing normal "war" or have participants who blatantly don't give a shit about the rules of war. EX: Call of Duty, Battlefield, Homefront, Frontlines etc.
3: Games that are trying to be as realistic as possible already go out of their way to train, instruct and have their players follow the various conventions and ROEs, so they've already met this challenge. EX: America's Army, Operation Flashpoint, ArmA.
The Red Cross realizes this, right?
2: Even in games trying to portray combat somewhat realistically or borrowing real-life themes, the conflict or situation are often so far above anything governing normal "war" or have participants who blatantly don't give a shit about the rules of war. EX: Call of Duty, Battlefield, Homefront, Frontlines etc.
3: Games that are trying to be as realistic as possible already go out of their way to train, instruct and have their players follow the various conventions and ROEs, so they've already met this challenge. EX: America's Army, Operation Flashpoint, ArmA.
The Red Cross realizes this, right?