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?"
Google 'international red cross call of duty' Mail (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the Daily Mail (Score:2, Interesting)
....nothing to see here. The Daily Mail is the UK newspaper equivalent of the televised Fox News in the U.S.....
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda.
Well, quite. There's a less hysterical account of the story here [kotaku.com]. The concern does appear to be the age-old debate on the effect of violent games on the perception of violence.
I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation. Still, game makers could make in-game compliance with international human rights law more realistic by mentioning, if the player survives to the end (so it will never happen in unbounded games) that the protagonist might have to answer to the court for their actions a couple of years after game time.
Somewhat reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.
It's just another element of the game.
I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).
Re:Two thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the best idea I have ever heard! Imagine getting banned from your gaming account because after a while, you end up in in-game court, complete with witnesses and recorded video of you firing down civilians. Excellent. Punishment could range from weeks of suspension to outright ban of account.
All badges could be stripped etc too. Say good bye to that Purple Cross badge!
Re:It's not worded very well, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
The committee's action is aimed more towards developers: as war games become more realistic, do they have a responsibility to add humanitarian elements to their games?
Sounds like the exact role of the committee : Promoting human rights and international laws of war. I could see real world prosecutions but from an unexpected angle : A national army (let's say Italy) could attack a given game that would allow players to play Italian soldiers and see them promoted for senseless killing, despite international laws violation.
It could be fair that developers are barred from using real armies in games branded as realistic if they do not take into account the doctrine of these armies. That could be considered as slander. Imagine that in Deus Ex the evil company you fight would be called Microsoft. Or Mosanto.
The problem is that it could also be considered as a political opinion, protected by free speech. I think it is an interesting debate. I am not sure what my opinions are on this one but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed as a silly one.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Interesting)
How to shoot yerself in the foot in 3 steps:
1. piss off 30% of the world population
2. watch your donations decline
3. watch real people die due to shrinking budget
But at least those virtual soldiers can now rest assured that red cross is thinking about them, which was all worth it.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation
Actually, parts of MW2 had this; I recall the Brazil level particularly which is a frantic run through shanty towns, and it is hard to tell who is a combatant and who is not, as they all rush at you sometimes. If you hit any civilians the game ends, with a warning saying not to shoot civilians.
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this is being overblown.
Look at the number of war videogames that exist, and then compare them to how realistic war is.
1. Unlimited ammo in many cases ~ Game is too fictional
2. The player can respawn ~ Game is too fictional
3. Opponents respawn ~ Game is too fictional.
4. Health meter = Yes you might be able to take a few bullets if you're wearing armor, but, one to the face and you're dead
5. Consequences for killing the wrong guys, friendly fire = In real life this might traumatize someone
6. PvP play = Closest you get to "realism" in first person shooter games. You know, except the infinite respawning.
Overall there's a small amount of games (Homefront comes to mind) where the game bends a little to close to "not fun" due to the consequences from failure. Playing the game once was okay, and felt like it might be something realistic, you know only minus the fact that I don't think North Korea would ever unite under the North's flag.
Now compare this with a similar premise in Halflife 2:
1. Opponents do not respawn unless you die
2. Opponents are aliens, robots or ex-humans (zombies)
3. The world was taken over by aliens.
When the game is played from the perspective of "the rebels", you're automatically exempt from the rule of law in the name of "fun" gameplay.
Now compare to something like Mass Effect, when you start of working for the military. You have the option of playing the good guy, or you could pick darkside options in conversations that sometimes opens up killing innocent characters. In the second game, you work for Cerebus which more of a grey area.
So in my opinion, if the game comes from a military perspective in a fictional war (eg US vs USSR, US vs China, US vs North Korea, etc) that the US isn't currently really engaged in, then the game already is fictional, and should loosely base consequences of mistakes or evil actions on what would happen in the US military should you really do that. Look what happened with the Iraq Invasion when the camera crew was killed by the military. That is the very action that might happen in a video game... "looking for targets" not "evaluating if it's a target."
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Interesting)
>>Every time I think Peta can't go any further off the deep end, they top themselves.
Actually, more to the point on war gaming, they directly protested *the killing of a rat* in the Battlefield series because it might, lead to violence against humans.
Like, seriously.
(bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefield-3-criticized-by-peta-over-animal-cruelty/)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Interesting)
Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Mother Teresa. Not suggesting you take it as God's honest truth without some critical thought, but interesting nonetheless.
Hmm.. Victoria 2? (Score:5, Interesting)
So at the moment I'm playing through a Japan campaign in Victoria 2, which is Paradox's pseudo-realtime complex conquest and development game simulating from 1836-1936. The Brits obviously start the game with a huge advantage (as do the other European powers) and indeed, Japan starts as an uncivilized nation, with major penalties to research and the inability to industrialize among other things. There is however, a path to becoming civilized (which Japan can do through the Meiji restoration decision) and indeed by 1878, I'm in a war with my allies France and (uncivilized) China against Great Britain and the North German federation in an attempt to take Northern India. In this war, about 2.5 million men are fighting on either side, and there will be about 3 million dead (mostly through the British and Chinese armies marching over the Himalayas) by the time the war is over.
In Victoria 2, each soldier is a member of an individual 'pop' living in a certain province, and having its own needs, incomes and political positions. In this war, there are many conscripted regiments who belong to specific 'poor strata' pops of jobs such as farmers, laborers and craftsmen (which I will note, separate men of working/fighting age from women and other parts of the population). Each death on the battle field decreases the size of the 'pop' by the same number of men. Also, I've enacted policies of minority building restrictions, and a discriminatory schooling system to speed assimilation.
By this rationale, aren't I doing worse (in both war and peace) in a single playing session than all the Call of Duty players can do in a similar session combined?