Well recently we've tried to tone down all the raping a bit, despite what your CO may or may not tell you.Machine Man 1992 said:
The Red Cross Wants Games to Respect The "Rules of War"
- Thread starter Michael Epstein
- Start date
FUCK NO.Michael Epstein said:
It's a game and should be treated as such. I always am surprised why they don't understand that.
Aww, that's cute, red cross. What else do you want our media to do? Should we make sure all the characters in movies and TV shows are well fed and have no incureable diseases? I mean, sure, horror movies are going to be a lot more boring without murders or physical harm but I'm sure we'll manage. Or, you know, you could just respond to things that actually matter and not concern yourself with 1's and 0's in software and their "fate".
here's a deal for the ladies and gentlemen at the red cross, you do a better job of making sure the geneva convention is upheld, and game devs will include you. as it stands, i don't think its ethical for the red cross to want input in entertainment of all things when they can't seem to do their job in the real world
Sounds really interesting.
Would like to see this properly implemented in some game at some time.
It could be as a singleplayer experience much like Spec Ops; The Line, but instead of exploring PTSD it's exploring the issues a soldier faces in war (adhering to the Code of War while fighting against an enemy who clearly doesn't. Do you adhere to the laws or do you stoop to his level?).
And in multiplayer it could be easily implemented in such a way as depending on the severity of the transgression you will loose XP or maybe even levels and unlocks you've worked for.
Would like to see this properly implemented in some game at some time.
It could be as a singleplayer experience much like Spec Ops; The Line, but instead of exploring PTSD it's exploring the issues a soldier faces in war (adhering to the Code of War while fighting against an enemy who clearly doesn't. Do you adhere to the laws or do you stoop to his level?).
And in multiplayer it could be easily implemented in such a way as depending on the severity of the transgression you will loose XP or maybe even levels and unlocks you've worked for.
We aren't obligated to do shit.
That said, if there was ever an FPS that could PROPERLY simulate actual warfare, consequences and everything (but that would pretty much just be a sequel to Spec Ops: The Line) then MAYBE for once I won't be so dismissive and try it.
That said, if there was ever an FPS that could PROPERLY simulate actual warfare, consequences and everything (but that would pretty much just be a sequel to Spec Ops: The Line) then MAYBE for once I won't be so dismissive and try it.
The one thing, often forgotten, is that the Geneva Convention isn't abided by simply because it's written down. Nations abide by it either because the provisions do not damage their ability to prosecute a war, and in most cases conforming to the requirements actually helps you win the war - if a nation is going to loose a war on account of some rule on a piece of paper, they'll simply ignore it. This is why chemical weapons, e.g. most gasses, are banned (invites retaliation, requires complex and expensive logistics, difficult to use, easy to counteract, and are ineffective in comparison to most conventional weapons) despite many of them being more humane than traditional weaponry (tear gas, being an example). Treating PoW's well will mean that enemy forces are more willing to surrender; a "no quarter" policy is going to end up with you loosing a lot of men when the enemy makes an otherwise unnecessary last stand alongside inviting retaliation. With this in mind, committing war crimes in games isn't just unrealistic - it relies on the idea that a highly trained member of the armed forces does something very stupid indeed. And simply put, people acting in a manner so stupid damages the verisimilitude of the story - it's bad writing, and makes the whole thing seem unbelievable.
And, for me, it also undermines the power fantasy aspects of these games. Afterall, who want's to play someone who is both unbelievably stupid and terrible at their job?
And, for me, it also undermines the power fantasy aspects of these games. Afterall, who want's to play someone who is both unbelievably stupid and terrible at their job?
Man, quotes like this reminds me that majority of people don't play computer games and can't distinguish something cooked up on latest game engine and real life footage.
Hint: watch the eyes and tiny details/movements, if eyes are dead and tiny details are barely there, it is most probably CGI.
P.S.Although by same standards I suspect that Kristen Stewart also is not real. I think she is an gynoid.
A lot of people won't like this but my basic take is that in a real war there are no rules, it's all about "us and them", the winners write the history books and get to declare themselves moral after the fact, the biggest bastards are the ones that win. One of the biggest things hampering us in conflict right now is the first world's misguided belief that you can fight and win a moral war, break cultures without targeting civilians, and similar things. This totally overlooking the lessons we should have learned during "World War II" where the war was won simply because we were worse in battle than the Nazis were. As we wrote the history books we tell you plenty about how evil "The Blitz" was and demonize it, overlooking that guys like Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris pretty much decimated Germany by dropping bombs in population centers, the guy was so brutal he even killed our own people who were being forced as prisoners to work on farms and in factories. One of his quotes was along the lines of "I value the life of one British Grenadier more than the lives of ten thousand german civilians". He was decorated by both the US and British militaries pretty much as high as he could go. To us he was a hero, and is remembered as such because we won, to the enemy he was known as "The Butcher". Guys like Arthur Harris and General Patton would be considered war criminals unworthy of wearing a uniform by the standards of war a lot of people today want to believe in, when ironically we would never have survived to get to this point without them. I find it ironic that so many people who like to go off about Nazis, Hitler, and wartime atrocities, have no idea what "The Greatest Generation" actually lived like, or what they had to do in order to win the war so we could sit here talking on the internet. Being a realist, I honestly think our guys were just as bad as the worst Nazi war criminals you've heard about, it's just that we won.
I also tend to look back at history and how attempts to bring morality into warfare have generally failed.... and please not for history buffs this is a VERY basic version of a couple of factoids, which I am quite aware can be discussed at length. If you look at say the "Code Of Chivalry" and rules of civilized warfare that used to dominate in Europe, it lasted about as long as it took for someone to actually lose their country by playing by those rules. A lot of those famous British "Longbow Slaughters" of the French happened largely because The French played by the rules, lined up the flower of their knighthood on the field of honor like they were supposed to, and prepared to win their battles, instead the Brits who would have lost by the rules pretty much decided "F@ck that" and violated pretty much every rule of war at the time by just flat out massacring them with masses of hidden archers. Another fairly good example was the fall of the Samurai in Japan, the central warrior class of the time were trained to engage under
strict rules and using very specific tactics, failing to adhere to them could be a cause for mandatory suicide or execution. The Samurai were pretty much overrun by angry peasants who didn't follow those rules of engagements, a lot
of early Japanese martial arts could arguably be defined as organized systems of "how to fight dirty against some dude who doesn't". You fight with honor and a Katana, and the other guy traps your weapon with a farm tool while his buddy beats you to death a pair of Tonfas.
This is by the way why in some of my politically militant rants I casually suggest what a lot of people see as atrocities. I believe it's just being realistic. War, and reality, suck, to REALLY win a serious conflict on a fundamental societal/cultural level you sadly need to be as close to pure evil as you can get, at least as far as
the battlefield and war go. This is also why a lot of science fiction, especially that closer to serious wars we've fought, have explored the idea of amoral robots or super soldiers being conditioned as high functioning sociopaths. The idea being that your typical person is going to "snap" under the reality and be unable to perform. The more guys like "Bomber" Harris you can get on your side, the better your chances are. Now typically things go wrong with this in the stories (less a morality tale in many cases as much as there not being much of a story otherwise), but that's the basic idea.
At any rate this is long enough, and I'm going to try and sleep again shortly. For those that read this far I think "The Red Cross" means well, and their protests are in keeping with it's mandate, but I think games about war need exactly the opposite. As I've said before I think what we need are games that follow a similar path to "Special Ops.: The Line" but take the opposite overall analysis and move the story along a few steps further. That is to say that I think a proper war game that is trying to be realistic about things should ultimately point out that war and conflict creates monsters if you are going to win, but those monsters are necessary. A story similar to "The Line" where a character begins as a straightforward good guy but becomes more evil and depraved due to the situations he faces makes sense, however the end of the story should ultimately be when he goes "OMG I'm a monster" but then returns home and finds out he's a hero and what he did was for the greater good. Sort of like what happened with Veitnam, but with the kind of reception the vets of that war should have received. Basically the point that part of what makes a soldier a hero is how dirty he gets in order to save everyone else and keep them away from the grime.
I also tend to look back at history and how attempts to bring morality into warfare have generally failed.... and please not for history buffs this is a VERY basic version of a couple of factoids, which I am quite aware can be discussed at length. If you look at say the "Code Of Chivalry" and rules of civilized warfare that used to dominate in Europe, it lasted about as long as it took for someone to actually lose their country by playing by those rules. A lot of those famous British "Longbow Slaughters" of the French happened largely because The French played by the rules, lined up the flower of their knighthood on the field of honor like they were supposed to, and prepared to win their battles, instead the Brits who would have lost by the rules pretty much decided "F@ck that" and violated pretty much every rule of war at the time by just flat out massacring them with masses of hidden archers. Another fairly good example was the fall of the Samurai in Japan, the central warrior class of the time were trained to engage under
strict rules and using very specific tactics, failing to adhere to them could be a cause for mandatory suicide or execution. The Samurai were pretty much overrun by angry peasants who didn't follow those rules of engagements, a lot
of early Japanese martial arts could arguably be defined as organized systems of "how to fight dirty against some dude who doesn't". You fight with honor and a Katana, and the other guy traps your weapon with a farm tool while his buddy beats you to death a pair of Tonfas.
This is by the way why in some of my politically militant rants I casually suggest what a lot of people see as atrocities. I believe it's just being realistic. War, and reality, suck, to REALLY win a serious conflict on a fundamental societal/cultural level you sadly need to be as close to pure evil as you can get, at least as far as
the battlefield and war go. This is also why a lot of science fiction, especially that closer to serious wars we've fought, have explored the idea of amoral robots or super soldiers being conditioned as high functioning sociopaths. The idea being that your typical person is going to "snap" under the reality and be unable to perform. The more guys like "Bomber" Harris you can get on your side, the better your chances are. Now typically things go wrong with this in the stories (less a morality tale in many cases as much as there not being much of a story otherwise), but that's the basic idea.
At any rate this is long enough, and I'm going to try and sleep again shortly. For those that read this far I think "The Red Cross" means well, and their protests are in keeping with it's mandate, but I think games about war need exactly the opposite. As I've said before I think what we need are games that follow a similar path to "Special Ops.: The Line" but take the opposite overall analysis and move the story along a few steps further. That is to say that I think a proper war game that is trying to be realistic about things should ultimately point out that war and conflict creates monsters if you are going to win, but those monsters are necessary. A story similar to "The Line" where a character begins as a straightforward good guy but becomes more evil and depraved due to the situations he faces makes sense, however the end of the story should ultimately be when he goes "OMG I'm a monster" but then returns home and finds out he's a hero and what he did was for the greater good. Sort of like what happened with Veitnam, but with the kind of reception the vets of that war should have received. Basically the point that part of what makes a soldier a hero is how dirty he gets in order to save everyone else and keep them away from the grime.
Ehhh, not exactly sure on where games break the rules of war? 99% of games, ie. pretty much all of them that don't specifically address the issue of rules of war (where the games generally never praise the player for breaking them, can't think of a single game that does in fact), don't have anything where rules of war would even apply.
They're mentioning Battlefield and CoD - why? Sure, they look realistic (let's not argue on that, I'm aware we could), but these games don't feature anything in their games that would allow rules of war to be broken. There's no civilians, there's no chemical or nuclear warfare, there's no unarmed combatants surrendering (you can't drop a weapon in those games, at least multiplayer, which is the most prominent - forgive me if I'm ignoring some singleplayer stuff, but I can't think of any exceptions there either). There's just one side and another side and either fighting for objectives or entering into a deathmatch where both sides fight to the death.
So... rather than throwing out the words "realistic warfare games" and "rules of war", how about pointing to some problematic examples and perhaps offering some helpful suggestions on how to solve them?
They're mentioning Battlefield and CoD - why? Sure, they look realistic (let's not argue on that, I'm aware we could), but these games don't feature anything in their games that would allow rules of war to be broken. There's no civilians, there's no chemical or nuclear warfare, there's no unarmed combatants surrendering (you can't drop a weapon in those games, at least multiplayer, which is the most prominent - forgive me if I'm ignoring some singleplayer stuff, but I can't think of any exceptions there either). There's just one side and another side and either fighting for objectives or entering into a deathmatch where both sides fight to the death.
So... rather than throwing out the words "realistic warfare games" and "rules of war", how about pointing to some problematic examples and perhaps offering some helpful suggestions on how to solve them?
"And why the hell isn't Burnout a simulator designed to teach road rules? And why isn't street fighter an accurate depiction of karate? And why isn't just cause 2 an accurate representation of being an agent? And why doesn't Flight Simulator X have FAA rules?"
I could go on, but the point is that Call Of Duty is as much a simulator as Dragonball Z is an accurate representation of martial arts.
I could go on, but the point is that Call Of Duty is as much a simulator as Dragonball Z is an accurate representation of martial arts.
I'm sure we'll get right to that as soon as we get games to start obeying the laws of physics first. /sarcasm
Really, it's a game. Movies don't have to obey the rules of war. Other forms of media shouldn't either. It's a story and should be allowed to include whatever the creater wants.
Really, it's a game. Movies don't have to obey the rules of war. Other forms of media shouldn't either. It's a story and should be allowed to include whatever the creater wants.