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

[Wolfenbarg]

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.

 

[Jakale]

Ok, I think we can all agree that an obligation to put in the rules of engagement would cause potentially frustrating issues and whatnot and limit how developers want to make their games. Having them included in some games, however, could make for some interesting experiences.

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?

 

[Formica Archonis]

I always thought the rules of war were, "do whatever your CO tells you," and "don't die," in that order.

Yeah, more than one CO has thought that and earned an up-close-and-personal demonstration of a fragmentation grenade [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging] as a result.

 

[Namewithheld]

Spoiler

So I assume movies and TV shows that depict war will be held to the same standard? No? Then shut the hell up.

I'd like that...

And, as others have said...the Red Cross isn't forcing devs. It's just a suggestion, take it or leave it. Personally, if a game wants to be realistic, they should be realistic, and not just pay lip service to it. That also holds true of any other form of fiction out there.

EDIT: So, basically, I'd say Call of Duty 4 should have at least tried to stick to the modern rules of engagement, while Bad Company 1 didn't need to, as that game was explicetly a comedy game.

Or, say, Battlefield 3 versus Bulletstorm. One is presenting a "realistic" war. Well, realistic wars got rules, and if you can spend millions of dollars on modeling super realistic gun shootiness and animations and lens flares, you can spend a few seconds thinking of how to include the Geneva Convention in an entertaining way.

 

[Tanis]

That's...retarded.
It's VIDEO GAME.

Unless TRC is going to demand movies do it as well, I'd suggest they STFU and do their damn job.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

I always thought the rules of war were, "do whatever your CO tells you," and "don't die," in that order.

Yeah, more than one CO has thought that and earned an up-close-and-personal demonstration of a fragmentation grenade [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging] as a result.

I smell the next "shocking scene"!

A major plot point could be you having to choose between fragging your CO or letting him live.

 

[Nieroshai]

So because no one gives a flying F about their cute little war rules in real live now they try to apply them to games?

When was the last time russia or syria actually cared for the Geneva convention? When was the last time the USA followed the Geneva convention?

The only part of those rules the big nations follow are about the usage of weapons of mass destruction, thats it.

People still get tortured and murdered and no one seems to bat an eye when some innocent bystanders are hit by an artillery shell.

Stop pretending war is something civil to make yourself feel good and let games depict the real horror of war... there are no rules in war. War is not a gentlenems agreement.

So because no one gives a flying F about their cute little war rules in real live now they try to apply them to games?

When was the last time russia or syria actually cared for the Geneva convention? When was the last time the USA followed the Geneva convention?

The only part of those rules the big nations follow are about the usage of weapons of mass destruction, thats it.

People still get tortured and murdered and no one seems to bat an eye when some innocent bystanders are hit by an artillery shell.

Stop pretending war is something civil to make yourself feel good and let games depict the real horror of war... there are no rules in war. War is not a gentlenems agreement.

Without going into the entire list, here are some examples from the US Military: shotguns, flamethrowers, and fragmentation rounds are forbidden for use in warfare. They are not, however, forbidden for use by troops on our own soil. I would think a country okay with the use of these things within their own borders that didn't care about international law would use them anyway.

 

[Namewithheld]

Also, as an aside, I'm sick of people saying: "Games are supposed to be fun."

No, games are supposed to be INTERACTIVE. Lots of them ARE fun, but that does not mean ALL of them need to be fun, or that they need to be fun ALL the time. A lot of my favorite books are fun to read - but they still have dramatic, or painful scenes to read. Things that I wouldn't say are "Fun" exactly.

Games can have those tonal shifts and changes about, and screaming about how "THEY'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO BE GAMES!" strikes me as weirdly defensive.

I mean, it's not like the Red Cross said games are actively bad. The most egregious warcrimes in video games are depicted as horrifying and wars, overall, are shown to be full of death and pain and suffering. All the Red Cross's announcement seems to call for is more attention to realistic detail.

Which, again, if a game can spend millions on modeling bullet drop and Price's mustache, they can take a few minutes to think about the ways that we fight wars. Knowing the rules means you know what happens when they are broken and can use that in the narrative.

For example, every war has "victors justice." Was America ever punished for the massive firebombing of Germany or Japan during WWII? Nope. Being aware that said acts and others like them might have been a crime, and discussing it through the context of interactive video games strikes me as a great step forward for gaming's narratives.

I mean, we've got the "point gun at dude, make dude die" gameplay down to a T. Now we can start making everything around the gameplay and graphics hold up to the same high standard.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

snip

Missing the point. Also, didn't notice that whole may or may not have deserved it thing? If there's a neutral party and the game doesn't tell me I can't kill them or there are consequences for killing them, I will kill them if they are a hindrance to whatever my objective is.

Also, the equivalent is like asking you to obey traffic laws in a game like GTA. It's one of the crimes cops don't actually chase you for because it wouldn't be fun. Games are supposed to be fun, even the more realistic ones. While I would think it'd be an interesting idea for a game to do something like that, requesting it become a standard just wouldn't work for me.

 

[TimeCruiserMike]

It doesn't really matter how realistic a game is, if a game play element is fun, then game devs have absolutely zero moral obligation to change it for the sake of showing real world consequences. If they can do so while engaging the player, that's great. If not, then who really cares if they don't. All that matters is that the game is enjoyable.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

But, virtual soldiers are held to the same standard. We play as Americans or other western soldiers. Winners get to do whatever the hell they want. Losers get to die. That's how war works. It's how it always worked and it's how it's always going to work.

 

[Xan Krieger]

When the rules start being followed in actual wars then maybe, MAYBE we'll consider applying them to games. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Nielas]

What the Red Cross is possibly getting at is things like 'double tapping', killing injured combatants, battlefield cleanup, laws governing vehicular combat, and more specific laws such as "not being able to shoot soft targets with a .50 BMG because what the hell is wrong with you".

I can't seem to recall any military FPS where you have injured combatants that are not trying to shoot you. Generally, if you hit an enemy but do not kill him, he will get back up and start shooting at you. Some even will try to shoot you when lying down. That makes them legal targets.

Most military FPS tend to follow the Laws and Customs of War simply because they lack the nuances that would make something a war crime in real life.

 

[The Great JT]

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.