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

[Nurb]

Movies don't
Books don't
TV doesn't

Shut up, red cross.

 

[vIRL Nightmare]

My only question is this: Is any other from of entertainment required to? If the answer is yes then I would certainly love an intelligent conversation on the matter. It could, in fact, be interesting to see some of that play out a little. That said when we are talking about entertainment, a good plot doesn't take the time to point out all the rules and fictional stories could be bogged down and become boring if so many details must be dealt with.

If the answer to the question is no, then this really isn't up for discussion because it is most likely someones campaign against the evil of the world, video games.

 

[soren7550]

"Video games that are representing battlefields, contemporary battlefields, are very close to reality," Senechaud told the BBC. "And actually it's very difficult to tell the difference between any real footage and the footage you can get from video games.

My buttcheeks they are! When in a real life battle you see someone with xX_sm0k3W33dSnper69_Xx floating over their head jump off a building while spinning, landing with a belly flop, stab you in the foot, instantly killing you, and then proceeding to tea bag your corpse while yelling how he rapped your mother, THEN you can talk about how indistinguishable FPSs and war is.

Also, the CoDs I played, if you shot civies/your teammates/anyone you were expressly told not to shoot, you instantly failed. The only instances I can think of when that happened, it was bad guys that did it.

 

[yatterman1]

as an actual member of red cross i kinda agree the war like games like call of duty and battlefield lack kinda realistic battlefield rules as well as lack of some major classes like medic which if they added in classes like that have it so if they are hit enemies take a score penalty or something. mean most time people play the game its you get shot you die, what it should be is you get shot and fall on ground have medic or another character take you back to a spawn site then respawn. also thing like civilians in game where are they they should be on field as well and have penalty if they get attacked. its just most of the war like games kinda play the same in my opinion its go kill each other and respawn at what ever location do it again. i feel if they want to make better add little more realisticness to game maybe it get more people in.

 

[The Danger]

snip

Yeah the only portion of body armor I can find in the Conventions is in Article 18;

All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.

I think that body armor would fall under "like articles issued for personal protection" as an extension of metal helmets.

I haven't found anything saying you CANT use any particular kind of armor though. The only kind I can imagine you couldn't wear would be something that is toxic in nature

Presumably, they didn't feel the need to mandate that people don't wear toxic clothing. Probably for the same reason they didn't specifically ban eating one's own fecal matter when good food is readily available. Just one of those things, really.

 

[The Danger]

Presumably, they didn't feel the need to mandate that people don't wear toxic clothing. Probably for the same reason they didn't specifically ban eating one's own fecal matter when good food is readily available. Just one of those things, really.

I was meaning things like Depleted Uranium which is one of the things they seem to be whining about lately but is a very effective material for several uses.

I would sincerely hope that clothing is not one of them.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Sure it would be a war crime, because in real war those happen all the time.

Do they have an ethical obligation? No, they don't. Certain games don't fit it; the CoD community would implode if they had to abide by Geneva and the Rules of Engagement.

Does that mean nobody should try it? I don't know about you, but a persistent world where you can be taken as a POW (instead of just dying and respawning), with regular raids to free said POWs might prove interesting.

I'd honestly love to play a game like this, but I'm pretty sure what we'll get is a game that insta kills you for friendly fire or collateral damage, or worse pack the levels with unkillable civilians that keep getting in the way.

It was made; a little something called Spec Ops: The Line.

I see where they're coming from though. Spec Ops is a critical success, pointing exactly how much game devs essentially deify war. I honestly think that the Red Cross would be perfectly happy if we all just threw a "Do not use this game as an excuse to shoot up a building" sticker on the side of violent games. This whole thing is just a micro issue of that whole shibang, and putting some sticker like that on boxes would be taken as the industry implicitly admitting that all violent games are the direct cause of all game-blamed shootings (read: all of them).

 

[WarCorrespondent]

I don't think I'm going to say anything that hasn't been said above me, but games are art.

This does bring up a good point that people, including developers may not had thought of in terms of characterization. And it could be interesting in terms of which soldiers are on the straight and narrow and which aren't.

But other than that, no one is really obligated to show anything in their art.

 

[Miss G.]

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.

that must be pretty new as it was outright ignored during ww2. paratroopers took horrific casulaties and there was that famous story of the us paratrooper who had to play dead on the church roof so he wasnt shot.

That's because a few years after WWII was over, they drafted up these rules to hopefully prevent future atrocities like what happened during it.

 

[Saulkar]

The fact that people are getting mad about this is just weird. They aren't making demands, they're making suggestions. Not only that, but in certain games said suggestion could work very well on a thematic level. Nobody has to listen to them, but the idea of considering it shouldn't really anger anyone. This isn't an attempt at censorship. It's an attempt to hold 'realism' to a different standard.

I know right? I mean, it pretty much falls on its face in a multiplayer setting but in a single player setting you could be presented with numerous scenarios that you take for granted. Treating them as you would COD or BF you complete the mission but then return to base to face a gameover sequence in which you are charged as a war criminal.

Actually, I take that back. It could be a very interesting dynamic in multiplayer. Attacking a downed opponent who has not fired upon you first, deliberately multilating a corpse, stealing dogtags, WMDs, damaging civilian property. They could all be factors that prevent leveling up and other such things without actually breaking the game. Once again, this all sounds like they have no intention of censorship, they just want to be consulted so that the acts of war crimes are not treated lightly in games. Or at the very least not to glorify them if it is a gameplay or plot element that you must partake in.

It feels like everyone is now sees any criticism of games and how they portray their content as a heinous act of censorship that must be struck down.

Also, this belongs here.

 

[Brian Tams]

Considering how most wars would end up ignoring the geneva convention anyways, I don't see the issue with games about ignoring them, too.

 

[Magmarock]

So Call of Duty should be more like Arma?

Call of Duty is about as far removed from realizim as you can get.

 

[Abomination]

The only people who can report you for your crimes are those who make it back alive to do so.

War crimes create a dark humor scenario of

"Well, I killed this villager who was going for their gun but the locals here would report otherwise making it a murder and a war crime... no witnesses!"

 

[Saulkar]

The reason people are rightly pissed at this is because the idiots are not trying to apply the same standards to all violent media, for some reason games have to be the special case for their little laws should be applied to, forgetting all the atrocities committed in film and on paper.

Meh, seen it today, see it tomorrow, nothing has changed, game devs will not hurt their bottom line, enforcement does not even seem on the horizon. At most all I can see coming out of this is an attempt to open a channel that could have game devs willingly consult them. As for games being singled out...

Is it really so surprising people get offended and defensive when the only thing that continues to get singled out is the thing they are interested in?

For me yes. I would have expected more of water off a duck's back approach. I would have expected people to be used to it and merely laugh it off as a few already expressed that game devs will not even consider it if applying such game mechanics would hurt their bottom line. If such is true then I still find most reactions excessive in lue of their awareness of this fact. On the other hand I would hope that any media by that bills itself as a realistic depiction of warfare at least makes aware of the issues of war-crimes if they appear.

Though personally I am really irked whenever someone says games are meant to be fun. I played games in school that I did not find fun but later discovered their physical and psychological benefits.

EDIT: I personally wonder what a non-gamer would think walking into this thread with an interest in the topic but never having visited the site before. What would they think?

 

[CthulhuCultist]

I'm more of a lurker but this subject interests me a great deal and for any others that are interested
Here is the 10 point Code of Conduct "Guide" for NZDF personnel, I assume many other countries follow a similar system
bit of a wall text ahead.

1. Fight Only Opposing Forces.
( If they are wearing a uniform and sitting down eating dinner and don't have weapons on them you are still allowed to engage them as opposing forces )

2. Attack Only Military objectives and destroy no more than the mission requires.

3. Do Not use weapons that are prohibited. Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to unnecessary suffering.
( Was rather common during the start of WW1 where soldiers would use 3 ponged knifes to create wounds that could not be properly stitched and cut the tips of their bullets to make them fragment on contact and includes the use of chemical and biological weapons, As well as ammunition like Hollow points( Common round use by Law enforcers that is a controlled fragmenting round to stop over penetrating ) and Hydra-Shok ( Popular Home defence round in the US which "Mushrooms" on contact with a soft target ) )

4. Do Not harm enemy personnel who surrender; disarm them and treat them as PWs.
( As a POW you have the right to access a copy of the Geneva Conventions 1949 and 1977 at all times, To send a Capture Card out in no less than seven days of reaching a PW camp, Fair access to food, water and clothing as well as adequate accommodation and medical treatment and to retain your personal effects )

5.Treat all civilians and persons deprived of their liberty humanely, protect them from abuse, and respect their property.

6. Collect and care for the wounded and sick, whether friend or foe. ( IE if you shot an enemy combatant and he/she did not die from his/her wounds you are responsible for ensuring that he/she gets the proper medical care that would save his/her life )

7. Respect medical and religious personnel, cultural objects and places of worship.

8. Respect the use of protective emblems, symbols and markings.
( Such as the Red Cross, UN and Flag of truce (AKA the white flag))

9. Do Not fight treacherously.
( This means things like espionage or dressing up as a civilian before engaging enemy combatants. Really soldiers are meant to have some form of uniform or flag that represents what military/country they are fighting for/part of )

10. Uphold the law of Armed Conflict by preventing and reporting violations.
( Partly the problem here. Not many soldiers are willing to report their CO's or fellow troopers. )