Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law 516
Ron2K writes in with a story about a Red Cross committee that is debating if people playing war video games should be subject to the same humanitarian laws as people in a real war. Seriously. "With 62 billion kills in Call of Duty: Black Ops alone, a committee of the Red Cross is debating whether the International Humanitarian Law is applicable to online gamers, and if they are violating it. From the committee's site: 'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law. Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of this law in video games.' While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention, the Red Cross committee's actions seem to be aimed more at game developers — as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"
Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next, virtual animal rights activists?
Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (Score:5, Insightful)
what a load of (Score:5, Insightful)
What a complete load of shit. Just like the movies. Its not real. Are we going to start arresting actors who pretend to kill in movies ? Its a bunch of pixels changing color and has nothing to do with laws against HUMAN rights.
And here I thought.... (Score:5, Insightful)
.... the Red Cross had real problems to solve.
It's not worded very well, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games. I don't think they're saying that gamers are literally violating real-world laws.
There are real problems (Score:5, Insightful)
We have enough reall problems without inventing them. This is wrong headed. Games are just a form of expression like books, movies, other art, etc. I don't think you can accept the premis here without also agreeing that sOmething should be done anytime a film is made or a story is written where someone violates the Geneva convention.
It's fun to be the bad guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you play the evil character it helps the person unwind from a day of balancing things that need to get done and done right. Having mean people being mean but you cannot fight back. So you play a game where you kill as many people you like as a quick release. It is better then start drinking or smoking at the end of the day.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
0-9 is right. Please stop putting Daily Mail stories on the front page. They're tantamount to fiction.
Re:Lives saved (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?
No, but looking at previous Nobel Peace prizes it looks like you could get the real one.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
They do have a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course "virtual murder" is nothing like a real murder. But, the depictions in video games do shape our perception of the real world, as do other media (like movies). Most recent high-budget shooters aim to present modern warfare, but tend to show only the positive aspects (adventurous, exciting, etc.), while omitting all the pain and suffering that comes with it. Additionally they show only the very limited viewpoint of one (US) soldier, not the view of the other waring party or civilians.
In film, we'd call that a "pro-war film" or even "propaganda film", and it's right to criticize those games. (On the other hand, I have no problem with shooters like UnrealTournament or Quake3 – they don't aim to show how the war is, so they don't fail while doing so)
Re:HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Somewhat reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Realistic graphics? Yes. Realism? No. Otherwise military shooters would consist of hours, possibly days, of doing absolutely nothing. Then there might be a 5 minute conflict where you kill a couple guys. Then a few hours later you might end up with a standoff where it takes you 30 minutes just to take out 1 guy. And through it all, if you get shot once in the right place...game over, no continues.
Re:what a load of (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retarded. (Score:1, Insightful)
Mother Teresa was far from an angel.
Re:Red Cross and Geneva Convention (Score:5, Insightful)
Picture the alternative where we live in a world where people arrive at adulthood and have no concept of war (from movies, games or other media) but, inevitably, it still occurs in the world. 10,000,000 dead is now just a number to them. They can't fight when they are called up because they have no concept of what will happen to them and are too shocked when it does. They don't understand why the Nazis were so bad because "they only killed X amount of people".
It's already happening today. A single soldier killed in Afghanistan can make front-page news, but people have no concept of how many died in the world wars, or how many are dying in Afghanistan that those soldiers were trying to protect.
That's just as bad, and extreme, an alternative as a world where we teach them that "atrocities are fun" and, as with everything, a middle-ground is required. That middle ground would not involve pretending these things don't exist OR encouraging players to commit virtual atrocities (which I've NEVER seen a game do).
When I went to a former-concentration camp in Germany, there was an uncensored video playing of bodies being thrown and pushed by tractor into a pit. Thousands of limp, lifeless bodies being manhandled like someone creating a landfill. It's probably the most scary and horrible thing I've ever seen (and never once has a major motion picture or video game disturbed me or made me wince). And it was playing, quite openly, in the place that they take school trips through. *That's* education, and that's more important than anything.
As soon as you start pretending to people that these things don't exist, that's when you start making them live in dreamworlds that will distance them from reality, make them lack understanding and inevitably shatter one day. You don't need to shove war crimes down their throats (I don't know of any video game that lets you imprison and torture foreign "combatants", without charge, totally against things like the Geneva Convention for decades and get away with it), but equally you should never pretend they don't happen.
Remember, no "Remember, no Russian." (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Mail fabricate a story?
Next you'll be telling me they were involved in phone hacking!
No, seriously though, if it's by the Daily Mail they're probably actually projecting what they'd like to happen, rather than what actually happened.
Re:Daily Mail should call out to ban this evil gam (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful grants karma. Funny doesn't. So marking insightful rewards the writer.
I'd be inclined to suggest it is insightful, too; I can easily imagine a crowd of soccer mums getting upset about a racist game. If you were careful to avoid actually naming it, I reckon the movement to ban it would make an awful lot of headway.
Re:Retarded. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Their 'reporting' and slants can even make Mother Teresa appear as a devil."
So you haven't read Christopher Hitchens' expose of Mother Teresa's cruelties, I gather? Nor Aroup Chatterjee's fine work on the same subject: http://www.meteorbooks.com .
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have all been seriously owned. The Daily Mail receives website hits and we banter about on a topic that really has no merit nor a drop of reality in it.
I post this as a warning to others. Don't waste anymore brain power on it.
If anyone with influence in the international community takes this seriously it should be struck down and its supporters immediately considered completely out of touch with reality. Then ignored.
Re:Daily Mail should call out to ban this evil gam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Somewhat reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
This really does just sound like headline grabbing nonsense; every such story makes me lose a little more respect for them. Focus on doing good works, not wasting donations discussing rubbish like this.
thats what they do. This story is almost completely made up. Maybe you should not believe everything you read.
Someone from Red Cross suggested game designers should consider implementing war crimes IN THE GAME. i.e. the GAME punishes you IN GAME for violating the law. This is just like getting a star in grand theft auto for killing a prostitute in front of a cop. It doesn't mean a real cop shows up at your door and arrests you.
Missions could easily be designed such that capturing surrendering enemy units is a possibility. most games simply cause the enemy AI to fight to the death or to run away, catch its breath and re-attack you, which is unrealistic.
I have no problem with a war game giving me rules of engagement, and then for penalizing me IN GAME for violating those. Even board games such as Supremacy have some concepts of human rights, and a Marshal who can conquer the world without using nukes or being nuked is considered the best possible kind of victory.