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

[Floppertje]

isn't the whole point of games to not have to deal with real-world crap? apart from the fact that it would drain all the fun out of the game, mms's aren't that realistic anyway. maybe something like operation firestorm could try it because it's already going for as much realism as it can. I haven't actually played it for more than 10 minutes, so maybe it does and I didn't notice.

 

[L3D]

An idea I got, a game where an enemy medic (armed, but focused on aiding a casualty) could be shot during a mission and when player finishes and returns to base gets a non-standard game over, "sent to Brig for X years for shooting medic". Shooting the medic would not immediately give the game over, the game could go on until the end of mission, or oven few mission until "hero" gets back to base. Then bam! commanding officer comes with MPs or something "hey, we have been reading the After Action Reports from your previous mission and...". Or maybe have the mission end differently, player reaches end of the level, but only to get captured by the enemy, then trial and execution.

One rule is that you cannot shoot a paratrooper until their feet have touched the ground and they can't shoot at you from the air until that have touched the ground. If they get stuck in a tree or a steeple it's a strange stalemate.

Not sure if joke or not... but paratroopers are a legal target. Ejected pilots however are protected.

 

[xaszatm]

I can somewhat get behind this. I mean, from a development/game rules perspective this would be a nightmare. But from a moral standpoint, I like this idea. I'm sure someone can come up with a way to make a viable game keeping in mind things like the Geneva Convention and the exceptions for field medics.

I don't think it would be too hard to come up with one. Like, I have an example. You start each mission with a briefing in which the objectives are made clear. During the actual mission, there will be an invisible counter judging your performance based on how you react. You know, + points for defending your comrades or showing acts of bravery and - points for breaking Geneva laws and acting in a way that brings harm to your squad. At the end of each mission, your CO will either praise or berate you based on how you did. In fact, you could link gameplay elements behind this system. Like say the CO entrusts you with this RPG or Sniper Rifle because you know when it is appropriate to use lethal force and when it isn't. ...In fact, let me call 2K, I think I found a way to make a good X-Com shooter.

 

[J Tyran]

In real life, you cannot open fire on a group, only return fire if it is clear that they are a threat. The first call of action is always to ask them to lay down their weapons and surrender. If they open fire, or make it unmistakeably clear that they intend to open fire (such as raising their weapons) then soldiers can fire in self-defence.

Real life also has very strict rules about not shooting enemy combatants who lay down their weapons, and the due process of arresting them. Something that is never seen in military games, where it is assumed that every enemy combatant is a matyr who must die.

Totally true,

Spoiler: Except when it isn't... (not the queasy or sensitive)

I must have missed the war crime trial, they where obviously unarmed, no-one was under threat, the engaging unit would not have been in any danger even if they had been armed and no attempt was made to allow them to surrender or detain them as unarmed people where running away.

As others have said the Red Cross needs to concentrate on real war crimes not pixelated ones.

 

[SlightlyEvil]

This is an interesting idea, but probably not actually conducive to entertaining gameplay. It did, however, cause me to recall a moment when I was discussing Spec Ops: The Line with my dad. I was explaining how the execution moves on downed enemies became more brutal as the game went on - from a quick double-tap to put them out of their misery (the only other option being a slow bleed-out) to a more brutal beating, in line with Capt. Walker's deteriorating sanity - when my dad pointed out that even the "nice" version is still a war crime. Just goes to show that action-hero gameplay doesn't really gel with the real-world laws of war.

 

[Scorpid]

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.

Only a small portion of the geneva convention covers rules of war as it applys to the tactical level. Most of it deals with POWs, causalities, Civilians, not destroying non military buildings of cultural significance, that sorta of thing. There are no refs in a fire fight stopping the fire fight because someone fired a 50 cal at a mans head. A scenario that I think the red cross is more thinking of is one I encountered in Company of Heroes where I was told to fire British artillery at a mortar pit that was right beside a church, I had no choice but to do exactly that if I wanted to advance the game. Willful destruction of religious structures is banned under the Geneva convention if it isn't being used by the enemy, it wasn't but I still had to destroy the church to destroy the two guys sitting beside it and it was never mentioned as it being of any significance.

 

[Alakaizer]

~snip~

There's been a video that's rather related to this issue that's been out for about a year and a half. And here it is:Don't let the graphic fool you, there's serious discussion about war crimes, their execution, and the prosecution thereof.

 

[Mangod]

Really, the only thing I can say to this is that it'll screw up TF2's balance something fierce.

 

[JayDig]

I haven't played Black Ops 2 or CoD 3, but in the eight other CoD campaigns that I have played I can only think of two occasions where enemies were taken prisoner and not killed. (some Jerries surrender to Price in CoD2, and some terrorists in MW3 are apprehended in the London tube if you choose not to shoot them in the back as they flee) Now I don't expect a CIA assassin or ruthless Soviet conscript to offer quarter, a zealous Taliban or Imperial Japanese soldier to ask for it, but in some cases I wish the last few baddies of a slaughtered battalion would just give up. But as it is, even downed, wounded soldiers will draw a pistol without fail and force your hand.

But for the most part, I think egregious violations of 'the rules' (Price beats then executes a captured, bound villain in MW1) are not portrayed in a way that can be mistaken as 'okay' unless the player totally misses the point.

 

[K12]

It'd be nice for some games to take account of this kind of thing.

Won't work for every game but could be an interesting direction to go for some games who want to portray a more genuine feel for wartime situations.

 

[Agayek]

New Question For The Thread: Are shooters marketing themselves as more realistic than they really are? How might this be impacting people's idea of the actual military and warfare?

Substantially. It's a fairly common complaint/issue at army training camps. The DIs need to beat it into the recruits' heads that real life doesn't work like Call of Duty and they can't pull the kind of shit they do in-game or they'll end up dead. It's depressingly common IRL, thanks to our culture and media in general, and modern military shooters in particular.

 

[Lunar Templar]

lol, like that'll happen. That's not what players want and the devs know it.

 

[synobal]

Maybe they'd like Novels to do the same thing, or movies, or maybe erotic fan fiction.

 

[Akytalusia]

looks like a trap from the right angle. i mean, if you did that, then it would push it further toward the simulator definition, and that's what the media's been trying to pin on it forever. this is the last thing we need to accept. on the other hand, if it wasn't for that aspect, the concept is appealing. even reading the replies in this thread it's obvious it could have a beneficial effect on this rampant bloodlust on display. >.>

 

[thethird0611]

Im actually curious about how they would implement some of the rules of war into multiplayer.

Will medic classes now have big red crosses on their helmets and no weapons, and your not supposed to shoot at them or get some penalty?
Will there be any more teams that dont have uniforms on?

Hmmmmm.

 

[Vale]

The rules and regulations of war are very useful and mind-opening for the people who had their insides liquefied and their lives terminated by good-ol' fashioned legally allowed conventional weaponry. Or by an exploding van.
Also very useful for the people that had white phosphorous dropped on them which, while illegal, was "only a shake-n-bake tactic" so it totally didn't count as a violation of aforementioned rules and regulations of war because those are only relevant when someone other than the top dog commits them.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

People who think CoD and its ilk are "realistic" tend to get a rude fucking awakening when they join the military and find out:
1. Bullets damage the fuck out of your body and you don't regenerate in 10-15 seconds
2. Because of #1, simply running in and spraying bullets everywhere is a good way to get your ass killed (and people who depend on you to survive)
3. NO RESPAWNING.

 

[Numb1lp]

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

What you said is the absolute counter-point. I know real veterans who can't watch Saving Private Ryan. A lot of people hail it as a great movie. Were their war crimes during the D-Day scene? Absolutely.