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

[Dragonbums]

Personally, I agree with that sentiment.

Outside of a few military war games, many of them simply trivialize all aspects of war for the sake of dudebros who want nothing more but to put in 50 headshots into nameless Iranian enemy here.

It diminishes the seriousness of people who live that life that has been reduced to nothing more but as Saturday night entertainment segment.

I remember a CoD facebook page was discussing the history of a female sniper in WWII and half the ass clowns on there did nothing but say they were "better" than her because they had more headshots in CoD, and how she should of been kicked out of the military because when it came down to making her first kill- she acted like a human being and refused to shoot the enemy which lead to said enemy killing one of her own.

To put salt in that wound, many military personnel were rebutting these dudebro clowns degradation and insults towards the woman, and they had the nerve to disrespect them because their Facebook icons featured them in regular tank top and slacks attire.

While I'm not saying military FPS shooters need to be 100% realistic, but we sure as hell need to remind people that those games while fun for you, are living nightmares for millions of soldiers around the world.

 

[Nalikill]

I think it would be nice to explore- as per Spec Ops: The Line- maybe a game exploring the laws of war as SOTL explored the effects of PTSD- both the positive and the negative. It's nice to ask gamers to explore the consequences of their actions- but it certainly shouldn't be part of the regulatory scheme or be a law.

 

[C117]

It's a neat idea. I mean, perhaps you could create a game where you play as a combat medic who, per international regulations (as far as I'm aware) is not to be harmed by either side, nor is allowed to harm unless under dire circumstances. The game would thus be not about trying to kill everyone you see, but about saving lives in a situation where anyone could die at any moment. Heck, this could even tie into some kind of choice system. You are in a combat zone, with ten wounded soldiers. The jeep taking you to safety is about to leave, and you only have time enough to save three of the ten soldiers. Whom do you choose, and who do you leave to die? If you linger too long, you will run out of time and won't be able to save even three of the wounded.

Dang, that could be intense...

 

[Souplex]

What are the rules of war exactly?
I know chemical weapons are a war crime, and fake surrenders are frowned upon as they make people less likely to accept real Surrenders. I'm pretty sure landmines are on their way to becoming a war crime.
But beyond that?
I would like to see a modern military shooter where if you commit any warcrimes you're put on trial at the end of the game for it.

 

[Ticonderoga117]

Would this be interesting to see done in a video game? Sure. But at the end of the day, it's all just pixels and lines of code and all I want to do is use a really big gun for the "lulz".

 

[The Danger]

You know, I realized something today.

Today, I learned that the vast majority of people on these forums don't know the difference between "Bill thinks Ted should stop drinking so much" and "Bill thinks there ought to be a law stopping Ted from drinking so much." Today, I learned that, when people anywhere make a casual suggestion about how it would be interesting if video games did something that deviates from the status quo, even just a little bit, there will always be hoards of people who somehow misconstrue this to mean that, soon, censorship boards will be enforcing ONLY the recommended idea. These people will misconstrue this suggestion despite any preponderance of evidence to the contrary, deluding themselves into thinking that people with important jobs in fields of life-changing work--like, you know, providing medical assistance to victims of war--give more than two seconds' thought about what pampered Westerners in positions of privilege are comfortable with as far as their electronic entertainment is concerned.

Actually, just kidding, that's been more or less common knowledge about these forum posters for a while now.

On an unrelated note, I don't see anything wrong with Red Cross's suggestion. Yeah, it would be cool to see a game that handles the gruesome reality of conflict with a touch more realism than COD's adolescent power fantasy. Too bad there isn't at least one game that does this. What a revolutionary sentiment...

 

[Sectan]

Okay then. By that measure any soldiers on a US team can't have bullet proof helmets (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries cant afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.) Also any soldiers on a US team wouldn't be able to wear their sideplates (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries can't afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.)

Wow! It kind of sounds like real life war follows the conventions of our video games, doesn't it?

EDIT: This is more of an off topic comment I guess. The Red Cross is asking games to follow the rules of war, but in reality War follows the rules of games. It's just a weird observation I made.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I can kind of see where the red cross is coming from here. It's not a game, but the military actually had something of a problem in the early 2000's with new recruits who were fans of the show 24 coming in and thinking torture was an important and useful tool thanks to the way it was depicted on the show, and if that was their main exposure to it as a concept, it's hard to even really blame them for it. You could give the standard "well you have to be able to separate fiction from reality" argument, but the problem here is that it was a show specifically set in a realistic modern world. I mean, if you want to get crazy with it, the show depicted guns being used to kill people. Should we assume then that guns in real life aren't deadly because hey, it was fiction?

I'm not saying CoD is at that point, but it's definitely something to think about, and you might be able to make an argument that, say, ArmA /is/ at that point.

 

[The Danger]

Okay then. By that measure any soldiers on a US team can't have bullet proof helmets (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries cant afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.) Also any soldiers on a US team wouldn't be able to wear their sideplates (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries can't afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.)

Wow! It kind of sounds like real life war follows the conventions of our video games, doesn't it?

EDIT: This is more of an off topic comment I guess. The Red Cross is asking games to follow the rules of war, but in reality War follows the rules of games. It's just a weird observation I made.

I call shenanigans on the whole "Geneva Convention disallows troops to use bulletproof helmets and sideplates" business. The only mention of anything close to what you're saying in the actual texts of the conventions is a provision allowing for POWs to keep their helmets as their personal possessions when taken captive.

I'm starting to suspect that you made up the whole "US is so good that everyone else brought it down with the Geneva Conventions" thing. That, or whoever you got it from did.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

*dies laughing* UUmmm how about no. And wars don't have rules, unless you count the only rule that counts the winners write history (and the rules..)

 

[Doom972]

Games that would have the player follow these rules could be interesting if done right (not a simple "mission failed").

With that in mind, there's no ethical obligation for games to follow these rules. Sounds like the Red Cross o trying to get free publicity with bullshit statements to get more donations.

 

[Psychobabble]

Yeah great idea. I vote they also add realistic and permanent maiming and death to "realistic" combat shooters as well. With the added bonus of the PTSD buff for long term surviving players. And an optional war crimes tribunal for the players with the highest body counts.

Actually if you think about it this could be a whole new evolution for FPS Military Shooters. Instead of going out and blowing away your opponents whole sale, the players would instead sit around with their thumbs up their asses awaiting a mandate from the UN before any military action could occur.

Personally I think Francoid Senechaud should get his egotistical head out of his rectum and go back to worrying about what actually matters. I.E. keeping the real life disenfranchised from dying.

 

[The Danger]

I'm going to take a moment to diverge from the closest thing to a current topic (whether international standards prohibiting war crimes are somehow absurd) and go back to the original question posed by the article: "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?"

I'd say not. I'm basing my answer on a presupposition that video games are a form of art, and therefore taking this question to essentially mean "Do artists have a general ethical obligation to hold their characters morally accountable for their actions in the same way that they would be held accountable 'in the real world?'"

Put this way, it's clear that the extent to which a character in a story--be it a novel, movie, or video game--is held to moral standards at all ought to be thought of as a creative choice, with the answer to this question being a part of that work's identity as an art form. For instance, cop dramas can have very different tones and themes based on the extent to which the protagonist-cop is held to actual standards of conduct. The conflict between a cop's "rough justice" and the demands of a society ruled by law can be a compelling--if rather textbook--drama, and a story that abandons all that worrisome due process nonsense can still succeed strictly on how much we root for a character's own brand of personal justice (looking at you, Bat Man).

Similarly, whether a soldier gets tried for war crimes at the end of his one-man rampage is an artistic choice that contributes to the overall tone and theme of that particular war drama. An insistence on the importance of rules of engagement can feel very out of place in one story, yet in another be entirely crucial to that story working.

So, no, there's no obligation that storytellers treat such moral standards the same in every story.

 

[Hazy]

Reminded me of this. War crimes, baby!

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Honestly, I'd be surprised if war game makers even knew the rules of war.

It might be interesting as an experiment to make game like this, but gamers aren't too interested in such rules like that, IMO.

 

[Sectan]

Okay then. By that measure any soldiers on a US team can't have bullet proof helmets (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries cant afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.) Also any soldiers on a US team wouldn't be able to wear their sideplates (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries can't afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.)

Wow! It kind of sounds like real life war follows the conventions of our video games, doesn't it?

EDIT: This is more of an off topic comment I guess. The Red Cross is asking games to follow the rules of war, but in reality War follows the rules of games. It's just a weird observation I made.

I call shenanigans on the whole "Geneva Convention disallows troops to use bulletproof helmets and sideplates" business. The only mention of anything close to what you're saying in the actual texts of the conventions is a provision allowing for POWs to keep their helmets as their personal possessions when taken captive.

I'm starting to suspect that you made up the whole "US is so good that everyone else brought it down with the Geneva Conventions" thing. That, or whoever you got it from did.

I've spoken with my older brother's friend. He's currently with the Minnesota National Guard so if it's total bullshit I guess it's on me for not researching and their COs or whatever for passing the bullshit to them. Basically everyone he interacts with during his drills, including the ones in charge either hold or give the impression that they hold the belief that they have to remove their sideplates when they are deployed to wage war against another country they are required to leave their side plates at the door.

Also neither Him or I hold any beliefs that "'Mericas #1 so the contries have to drag us down." We just thought it was strange that he would be told this during his drills. Plus when you're told this by somebody who has some authority you're more inclined to take it as truth.

 

[The Danger]

Okay then. By that measure any soldiers on a US team can't have bullet proof helmets (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries cant afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.) Also any soldiers on a US team wouldn't be able to wear their sideplates (Geneva conventions don't allow it since other countries can't afford it and US would have an advantage in combat.)

Wow! It kind of sounds like real life war follows the conventions of our video games, doesn't it?

EDIT: This is more of an off topic comment I guess. The Red Cross is asking games to follow the rules of war, but in reality War follows the rules of games. It's just a weird observation I made.

I call shenanigans on the whole "Geneva Convention disallows troops to use bulletproof helmets and sideplates" business. The only mention of anything close to what you're saying in the actual texts of the conventions is a provision allowing for POWs to keep their helmets as their personal possessions when taken captive.

I'm starting to suspect that you made up the whole "US is so good that everyone else brought it down with the Geneva Conventions" thing. That, or whoever you got it from did.

I've spoken with my older brother's friend. He's currently with the Minnesota National Guard so if it's total bullshit I guess it's on me for not researching and their COs or whatever for passing the bullshit to them. Basically everyone he interacts with during his drills, including the ones in charge either hold or give the impression that they hold the belief that they have to remove their sideplates when they are deployed to wage war against another country they are required to leave their side plates at the door.

Also neither Him or I hold any beliefs that "'Mericas #1 so the contries have to drag us down." We just thought it was strange that he would be told this during his drills. Plus when you're told this by somebody who has some authority you're more inclined to take it as truth.

As someone with a brother, father, and very close friend who either were or are in the army infantry, along with many, many acquaintances throughout most every branch in both combat and non-combat roles, I realize that when Joes are talking about work, you don't exactly get to call shenanigans on them. Regardless, I have never, ever heard anything from any of my family or friends about this alleged provision in the Geneva Convention.