Red Cross Wants Consequences For Video-Game Mayhem 288
Nerval's Lobster writes "The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wants developers to consider building "virtual consequences" for mayhem into their video games. 'Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict, in other words war crimes,' read the ICRC's new statement on the matter. 'Game scenarios should not reward players for actions that in real life would be considered war crimes.' Like many a concerned parent or Congressional committee before it, the ICRC believes that violent video games trivialize armed conflict to the point where players could see various brands of mayhem as acceptable behavior. At the same time, the ICRC's statement makes it clear that the organization doesn't want to be actively involved in a debate over video-game violence, although it is talking to developers about ways to accurately build the laws of armed conflict into games. But let's be clear: the ICRC doesn't want to spoil players' enjoyment of the aforementioned digital splatter. 'We would like to see the law of armed conflict integrated into the games so that players have a realistic experience and deal first hand with the dilemmas facing real combatants on real battlefields,' the statement continued. 'The strong sales of new releases that have done this prove that integrating the law of armed conflict does not undermine the commercial success of the games.'"
Man i hate this game (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:4, Interesting)
in assassin's creed if you kill 3 civilians then the level ends. i think this is a fair approach. of course in GTA if you kill a civilian then you get his money and his car, although that's not a war crime so much as a regular crime. I don't play the CoD type games so I don't know how they address the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that depended on server settings. Or at least I think it should. I'm sure that I would like with FF on during serious matches and NOT get kicked for FF.
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oic. Figures. Thanks for the info :D
Maybe I'm just too use to Q3/QL (and general Quake Series) TDM settings where FF is a thing that matters and doesn't get you auto-kicked.
Re: (Score:3)
In my homemade version of Candyland, if you land on the Gumdrop Pass you are sent to Dentist Detainment for 3 rounds. Gotta have real consequences!
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:4, Interesting)
of course in GTA if you kill a civilian then you get his money and his car, although that's not a war crime so much as a regular crime.
And a wanted level. In GTA V, I believe murder gives you a two star wanted level which means the police come after you with force and will open fire to stop you. You could argue that evading the cops and getting them to forget about you is difficult, but having a crime witnessed in the GTA games does come with a consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
And in GTAV when they force you to torture someone, the torturer (who is a fucked up sociopath) drives the victim to the airport and tells him along the way that torture is useless as an interrogation tool and the victim is going to escape the US and tell everyone about what happened.
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want to get too deep into spoiler territory, but the person who orders the torture works for a parody of the real life US Government Agency that uses torture (or "used" torture, I suppose these days it's just "enhanced interrogation techniques"). I haven't gotten much further in the story than that scene, but I assume that the people who order the torture get what's coming to them. But regarding the Trevor driving the victim to the airport while talking about how torture is a useless interrogation tool, Trevor mentions he that did that because he was instructed to kill the victim and refused to be their hired gun. (I believe the government guys who ordered the torture threatened the main characters if they *didn't* torture the victim)
We could have a discussion on that scene and its effects on the player, but I doubt many people played through that scene and felt good about what they were forced to do. Assuming that's true, I think the game just had a more powerful effect on behavior than any Red Cross warning could.
Re: (Score:3)
Torture doesn't work because no one talks. Obviously everyone talks after enough persuasion has been applied. The problem with torture is that you cannot be sure that the info extracted is actually accurate or not. If you don't actually know the answer your handlers are looking for you will give them something reasonable sounding simply because you want the pain to stop. Whether or not the data is true is immaterial to you, all that matters is pain and the cessation thereof.
That's the problem with torture,
Re: (Score:3)
The Red Cross might use its high-profile brand to mailshot politicians and armed-forces leaders. They have an opportunity to lead by example - once they've learned that "there are consequences to war-crimes" - aren't there Bush/Obama/Blair/etc? oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
in assassin's creed if you kill 3 civilians then the level ends.
Remember Time Crisis? I think it only took 2 civilian deaths before you had to pump in another handful of quarters.
Re: (Score:3)
COD ends your mission as soon as a civ is killed. so their complaints are based on games from the early 90's as most every game I have played causes you pain if you start a murder spree.
Are they outraged about Postal 1 and 2? or redneck rampage? because those are the only things I can see fit their complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
They could remedy that in GTA by introducing a permanent wanted level system. Each time you commit a crime that has a witness, it raises your permanent wanted level. It could get to the point where a cop starts chasing you as soon as he sees you, even calling in backup, or having cops waiting outside your house when you leave. Getting caught with a high enough wanted level would forfeit all of your money and maybe a house or two, or whatever cars you have in garages. It would make it more realistic, but
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:5, Funny)
If they wanted to make it realistic, they should just have the UN pass an unenforceable resolution against you and have the International Court of Justice send you a very nasty letter once a year.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The cool thing about this is that if you play on the US team and they actually *do* try something, a new scenario called Invade the Hague [wikipedia.org] is unlocked, in which righteous US commandos get to kill everything they see to bring our boys home. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol no kidding. Or in the case of killing first responders with drone strikes like the US, everyone can just look the other way. You think the Red Cross would be more interested in that, given that they are first responders, but no, video games. Must interfere with video games.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the games are silly already. Ask a real veteran how many people they killed, and the answers will usually be "0", "1", "just a couple", things like that, only rarely getting into double digits. Now ask how many people were killed in a video game and the stats may show 500 or more (even if it's not a war game).
A real war isn't about killing every last enemy you see. Instead you block the roads, halt their advance, force them to retreat, get them bogged down, etc. But in a game the standard play sty
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory The Onion Video:
http://www.theonion.com/video/ultrarealistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiti,14382/ [theonion.com]
Re:Man i hate this game (Score:4, Funny)
That was my experience with the America's Army game. My first game I was nervous and a little trigger happy and shot my teammates when they rounded a corner. I got shipped off to Ft. Leavenworth and decided I didn't like that game so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see any sign of the Red Cross in any online game. They should stop whining, get off their butts and help the poor and wasted I leave in my wake.
It's almost as if the Red Cross has no Playstations or XBoxes!
No sign of MSF, either. Think of how helpful they could be in TF2.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the real-life, actual war crimes are committed by people who never play these computer games. (More likely, ever play any computer game.)
Can't you just see the terrorists in Nigeria, Mali, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc., hauling their laptops around with them so that they can play computer games and commit "virtual war crimes" once the real battles are over?
On the flip side, how many gamers that commit "virtual war crimes" actually commit real-life war crimes? This is a "solution" without a problem. Mo
What? (Score:2)
oddly, I support this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:oddly, I support this (Score:5, Informative)
FTA - "Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games?
No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space. "
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? GTA sends the cops after you after you do shit. Or at least it tries to. When it notices it.
Ever since Vice City, I've thought they should add in the feature that if a cop sees you commit a traffic violation (running a red light, speeding, etc.) it should automatically generate one star.
'Twould make things more interesting... add a kind of a 'stealth element,' you know?
Re:oddly, I support this (Score:5, Funny)
Ever since Vice City, I've thought they should add in the feature that if a cop sees you commit a traffic violation (running a red light, speeding, etc.) it should automatically generate one star. 'Twould make things more interesting... add a kind of a 'stealth element,' you know?
That would definitely increase game lengths. It would take hours to complete one mission.
What I hate is when I am sitting there minding my own business, and a cop takes off after somebody and runs into my car. Then all of a sudden I have one star, even though I didn't do anything wrong (at least it is modeled after real life). Then if you run away, you have two stars. And apparently running away is enough to get the cops shooting at you. Also like real life, at least in DC.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they've probably thought of that, and maybe even tested it out. I think it would just make everything really annoying though. Even worse than "Hey cousing, do you want to go bowling?".
If you like that kind of stuff, try the Driver series. They were a lot more stealth based and difficult than GTA. Driver San Francisco didn't really hold my attention like the earlier games though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bullshit.
fantasy is fantasy.
many of us liked watching the sopranos on HBO. does that mean we also have problems knowing the diff between fantasy and reality?
sheesh.
Re: (Score:3)
> fantasy is fantasy.
No doubt about it. But the control freaks attack fantasy too. So you spend time bothering about electrons in your PC and don't spend energy defending yourself in the real life.
They lose the battle in the virtual world, you feel you have achieved something while nothing changed in practice. Good (for them). They win the battle in the virtual world, they have put another limitation in the way you think. Good (for them).
This is why police states and totalitarian regimes bother with seem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wish GTA would make it a choice between choosing good path, i.e. become a cop. It would be nice to be able to align yourself to more than what they offer.
I do this anyway. I try to do as little harm as I can do while still completing the missions. I don't run over pedestrians, kill hookers, etc. i don't even jack cars that have people in them. I just take the parked cars (Hey, you gotta get around).
Re:oddly, I support this (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever read a book called "The Sacred Art of Stealing"? It kinda changed my perspective when I read it. One of the core principles was that just because you're a criminal doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The modern GTA games are fundamentally built arround a story, you sometimes get a little bit of choice in how you carry out the story or what order you do bits of it in but fundamentally you are following a story. Putting a "major choice" in at the start would mean basically writing two seperate stories.
P.S. ever played LA noire? it has many of the aspects of GTA but has you playing as a detective.
Depends on the context of the game (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, I don't recall a single time I've seen during normal gameplay any serious war crime committed by the player. We do see torture (BLOPS2) in a context I'm actually okay with seeing (no-mans land + outside the law agents). Civilians aren't featured that much on CoDs series (no, No Russian does not count as you are an undercover agent that should, in fact, shoot the civilians to keep your cover. Well, "cover") and of all those times I can only remember them in places they can easily be caught
Ultra reaslitic games (Score:2)
If I wanted a game that I had to do a 9-5 and be scolded by my boss when I was mouthy to a customer I'd just go to work.
Part of the reason we play games is because we can do unrealistic things. Sure, run around town, shoot up the place and drive off in a car you;d never be able to steal, let alone afford.
Perhaps what they should concentrate on is educating children and young adults about real life consequences and how video games differ from real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural selection works on average, not on an individual level.
Re: (Score:3)
Next DLC: (Score:2)
Experience the thrilling recreations of standing in front of a judge.
Re: (Score:3)
Press X to flip him the bird.
Accounting simulator pro (Score:2, Interesting)
Earn a bunch of money in a completely ethical way, as you make sure to not cook the books when your boss asks you do. Do trivial sums, and make sure the black outweighs the red, in the most action-unpacked simulator of the year.
Escapism is bad, and we should get as much boring reality into our games as possible. No more unrealistic lack of consequences from violence.
Play the new military shooter, where you patrol the same ground for 3 weeks straight, and nothing happens until several of your friends are i
Re: (Score:2)
Rule #2 (Score:2, Funny)
Also, all games should respect all laws of physics, including gravity. Even if a game is focused on, say, Superman, we can't trust people to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, so no flying or bending steel bars w/ bare hands anymore. K?
Before people get critical, RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
"the ICRC is not interested in all video games – only in those simulating real-life armed conflict. Some of these games are being designed and produced by the same companies developing simulated battlefields for the training of armed forces where the law of armed conflict are a necessary ingredient."
They actually make some valid points and they aren't too preachy. They want realistic war games to be more realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want realistic war games to be more realistic.
No, they want to teach "rules of war" and they think that violent videogames promote real-world violence. It isn't about "being realistic". Game developers leave out a *ton* of stuff from wargames - your character doesn't need to pee, eat regular meals, clean his gun or restock rounds, clean toilets, put up with the bureaucracy of a military establishment, or boredom of nothing happening for days on end. Having consequences for bad behavior is another one of those (many) "not fun" things that gets left ou
Not sure how this will work (Score:2)
Could be fun...but (Score:3)
I like game mechanics and games that try to do things and model consequences. Fallout, fable, these games have presented consequences. Kill a named character and they are gone. Kill and rampage, or even steal, and it has consequences for how people interact with you and what is available to you.
However, so far, these mechanics all are a bit simplistic and buggy. If I am careful to steal only when nobody else is around, I am still known as a thief, if I kill when there are no witnesses, I am still known as the murderer. Hell.... in New Vegas, I can dress up as a faction, use that to slip past people or get into situations but... anything I do is still on me, even though I am in disguise.
In terms of real possibility, with cameras and "soldier of the future" programs, the idea of every soldier having video that can be reviewed later almost makes the mechanics of something like this less of a diversion from reality than many of the other attempts at it.... except... anyone who thinks the reality is ever going to be "the film is reviewed and people are charged with crimes", that is totally far fetched and is never going to happen, video will be reviewed for effectiveness and intel only, ever in a real military....and even blatant crimes will be buried in mountains of data.
So I don't see why they want a game to give people unrealistic expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
What's even more fucked up is that to make this realistic we need models of babies, children, disabled, sick and elderly in game. Then add weapons like napalm and sarin gas.
Like sure I'd love to design a great asymmetric warfare scenario that punishes the player for deliberately murdering non-combatants however I'm also introducing the means to allow someone to carry out fantasies of murdering non-combatants. It's just a matter of modding the code a bit and it could be a realistic game called War Criminal
Re: (Score:2)
an idea that might work (Score:2)
a few features that could be fun
1 have a number of noncombatants that you get "points" for keeping alive
2 lose "points" for excessive property damage
3 have a meter with "good will" that can get you allies/help
4 have your supply officer gripe about your ammo use (and or be happy about how much ammo you captured)
Re: (Score:2)
Make it ultra-realistic. (Score:4, Insightful)
"The ICRC believes there is a place for international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) in video games". Because it's just too hard to apply these rules in reality. Unless you're the disarmed loser of a conflict.
When is the last time any member-state of the permanent security council was tried for war-crimes? So in the game Russian, Chinese, American, British and French players should get a free pass, but all others will get their asses kicked in a court of law.
That is if they manage to survive the kidnapping, torture and assassination.
Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
I think some of you are missing the point: what the Red Cross is worried about is that if you've spent all day shooting villagers in Black Ops 2, and this is your only view of what warfare is like, then when you see things like the Collateral Murder video you are much more likely to shrug and go "What's the big deal? The president says it's ok to do this, so it must be ok.".
If you consider yourself to be too informed for that to work on you, think of how informed the average person you know is, and then reflect on the fact that half of them are less informed than that. And that half is absolutely convinced that they are right about all things. Since a (large) portion of the other half is apathetic or cynical, at least 75% of the population is just fine with the status quo no matter how many war crimes the US commits (provided the war crimes are committed against someone else).
Thus, certain video games end up unintentionally acting as a very good propaganda tool in support of war crimes.
I think that is an actual problem, and is something that the Red Cross is absolutely right to worry about. I don't think that there's a good general way around this (and censoring games is the opposite of a good way to do anything), but I absolutely think that a better implementation of RoE belongs in America's Army. This is a discussion we should be having.
Re: (Score:3)
Well you'd have to start by having the game play heavily edited [liveleak.com] for political smear purposes if you want it to resemble the collateral murder video. After having your game play taken out of context and having your name smeared on the international news than you'd get to spend the rest of your life defending yourself from people who thought you slaughtered innocent civilians. You do want your game play resembling reality, right?
Next up, MMO's (Score:2)
...in which a raid is only complete when the Guild Leader sends an apology note to the instance's main boss for their unannounced intrusion of his secret lair, their slaughter of his guards, and a compensatory money-order for the treasure they looted.. /facepalm.
Who cares? (Score:2)
First they're blaming crime on video games. Now they're blaming war crimes? They can't be serious. I'm glad that my experience with real world war and war crimes is zero. I'm not relying on a video game to be realistic, hell they won't even show civilians in the war zones.
Re: (Score:2)
First they're blaming crime on video games. Now they're blaming war crimes?
RTFA. No, they did not do those things. In fact, they specifically state the opposite!
However the ICRC is not involved in the debate about the level of violence in video games.
Teaching the law of armed conflict? (Score:2)
So then ... (Score:2)
They should pissed off at EA's 20% of simcity DLC (Score:2)
http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/ea-and-the-red-cross-to-offer-aid-in-simcity [simcity.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. That's pretty insulting.
Modern Warfare: Chechnya (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you are playing as Russia, you should turn the capital into the most destroyed city on earth [wikipedia.org] and kill tens of thousands of civilians and a few ICRC members too [wikipedia.org]. And the accurate-to-real-life consequences of that is that the Chechens laid down their arms and we haven't heard peep from them about independence for a while. Oh, and the political status of the leaders in charge was buoyed by the success, which was seen as redeeming Russia after the loss of status during the dissolution of the USSR.
And before anyone someone jumps on the idea that criticizing Russian conduct in the war is an endorsement of the rebels, they were also guilty of many crimes. This isn't about taking sides, it's about how in real life there are plenty of instances where committing war crimes leads to very positive tactical and strategic advances. I could say it would be nice for cosmic justice to ensure that the guilty never profit from their crimes, but so far that ain't how it is.
Eh... (Score:2)
As for whether acceding to their requests is a good idea, I think that that's a matter of genre, or sub-genre. There's plenty of room for games where ICRC-respected rules are irrelevant to, or would be actively detrimental to, gameplay. Are voracious space bugs parties to the geneva convention? O
Realism (Score:2)
"Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict"
So, let me get this straight, they want to get rid of realism in games, completly?
This Would Make it Impossible (Score:2)
To ever realistically show any past, current, or future war.
War crimes against zombies? (Score:2)
Is it even possible to commit war crimes against zombies? I mean, they'll just climb out of those mass graves, right? Should Kratos from God of War offered surrender terms to that Krakken before or after it swallowed him?
But I see their point, I always thought that Captain Olimar should be tried for enslaving the local natives into helping repair his ship. And while it's possible to genocide species on Nethack, I always found that vaguely disturbing. Then again, being evil is more of a gameplay mechanic wi
Wrong goals, Red Cross (Score:2)
Gameplay is fantasy. Plenty of mentally healthy people can play a shoot-em-game and walk away hours later with a civilized outlook on mortality and how it relates to an armed conflict. Maybe the Red Cross could instead be focusing on creating IRL programs for people who do not have such a mentally healthy outlook on life? Perhaps it would be rehabilitative enough that these afflicted people could one day enjoy the same fantasy games without blurring the lines between reality, emotion and responsible/civili
A Problem with the Theory (Score:2)
Seems like a good idea, until you take into account the fact that the most likely people to commit war crimes probably don't play video games.
Then again, what do I know? Assad, Bush, Kony, and Obama could very well be PSN buddies.
No More Playing as America Then (Score:2)
"Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict"
So basically, we will not get to play as the Americans anymore.
Re:Real life the game (Score:5, Funny)
Not forever. You can revive him for a $5 micropayment.
You've just reinvented the arcade game (Score:2)
Re:Real life the game (Score:5, Informative)
Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games? No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space.
So... no. They're making a more specific recommendation that would not apply to Mario, or even most games.
Also, they're not making a general critique about more realism. Again, reading their website, their suggestion is much more specific:
The ICRC is concerned about scenarios that, for instance, depict the use of torture, particularly in interrogation, deliberate attacks on civilians, the killing of prisoners or the wounded, attacks on medical personnel, facilities, and transport such as ambulances, or that anyone on the battlefield can be killed.
So again, they're not talking about most aspects of most games. They're basically suggesting that media not sanitize human rights violations. Which is an issue. The news doesn't show war carnage. And after terrorist attacks, the public becomes much more okay with torture in theory. Perhaps its because they have little idea what actually happens. Torture scenes are ugly, so they're rarely included in most media. Videogames too, there's killing galore, but not much torture. I mean, there was that one level in Super Mario Bros 2 where Mario sodomized and waterboarded... wait, sorry, that's in my as of yet unreleased mod. Forget I said anything. Anyway, I think they're right that showing torture, attacking civilians, and other human rights violations, and the negative consequences could be something that videogames could actually inform the public on.
Call of Duty doesn't get much respect, I think it's a hipster like response, but that scene in Modern Warfare 2, where you went in and shot civilians in an airport, and then a war broke out... say what you will about the gameplay, but that was a ballsy inclusion and didn't shy away too much from how ugly it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Torture scenes are ugly, so they're rarely included in most media. Videogames too, there's killing galore, but not much torture
There's a mission in GTA V where you have to torture someone with pliers, a wrench, electrodes and waterboarding. It's not pretty.
Re:Real life the game (Score:5, Insightful)
Waterboarding isn't torture, it's just an enhanced interrogation technique
Re:Real life the game (Score:4, Insightful)
So again, they're not talking about most aspects of most games. They're basically suggesting that media not sanitize human rights violations. Which is an issue.
This ties in a lot to my research groups area!
And the ICRC doesn't get it.
If you give players consequences for choices then those choices have to be interesting - or they shouldn't be choices. The reason you don't put prisoners of war in a game is because the consequences for improper POW treatment come well after the actual events - and only if you lose. What are the choices with POW's? Follow the geneva conventions and essentially nothing interesting happens. You may have to feed them or not - but not feeding POW's is more food for you, less food for them - win win if you win the war. That's a bad choice because it's essentially reinforcing the idea that starving a million POW's to death is actually a useful idea - and that's problematic because well, that's exactly why people do it. Do you want to reward people for starving POW's to death?
If you give players a choice to torture - and then they do - they have to have some gain out of it, or they'll just reload and not do it. That's a problem, because you've had to deliberately reward torture. When you don't give players a choice - or when you don't put on a consequence (e.g. blowing up an ambulance in a game) then you're neither rewarding nor punishing - it's just.. a game.
Things are banned in the real world because they either don't work and cause all sorts of problems for no benefit, or they are incredibly effective to the point of being too dangerous. Torture on one end of the spectrum, chemical weapons on the other.
Re: (Score:2)
War is a horrible thing, and some people take advantage of the situation, and get away with it. The games I've played rarely let you do anything other than kill the enemy, one of the main points of war. In fact, when they do have civilians, they are either invulnerable, or quickly respawn. Both of which are unrealistic, but then again, it's supposed to be unrealistic, it's
Re: (Score:3)
Things are banned in the real world because they either don't work and cause all sorts of problems for no benefit, or they are incredibly effective to the point of being too dangerous. Torture on one end of the spectrum, chemical weapons on the other.
That line always seems a little bit ridiculous to me. The concept of "rules of war" in general is just odd. How about this rule: no war? No? That's not going to work for everyone?
I was visiting my brother-in-law at Camp Pendleton and checking out the museum of things that blow up. One of them was a grenade, I think a 40mm grenade for a launcher, and it was cut away and on the inside were maybe 40 flechettes, basically tiny darts or nails. So the grenade blows up, and whoever is nearby gets loaded with
Re:Then it should be applied across board... (Score:4, Informative)
FTA - "Why does the ICRC show interest in video games but not, for example, in books, comics, TV series or films?
The ICRC is occasionally approached by filmmakers or authors who want to portray its activities in past or present armed conflicts. It has thus had contacts with various segments of the entertainment world beyond the developers of video games. But video games represent an unprecedented novelty. Unlike traditional media such as movies, they require players to make active decisions, for example to use or refrain from using force.
Again, the ICRC is not interested in all video games – only in those simulating real-life armed conflict. Some of these games are being designed and produced by the same companies developing simulated battlefields for the training of armed forces where the law of armed conflict are a necessary ingredient."
Re: (Score:3)
I think that system has been tried...in socialist and communist countries.
What? I don't recall any part of socialist or communist doctrine headed "Consequences in fiction". Are you maybe thinking of totalitarian countries, where the emphasis is more about adherence to the glorious leader's wishes?
Games like GTA are fulfilling a need
You're also confusing "need" with "demand".
Re: (Score:2)
Films should at all times should add scenes which show the consequences of those serious violations.
They already tried that in the U.S. It was called the Hays Code [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Films should at all times should add scenes which show the consequences of those serious violations. Songs should at all times have a chorus that show the consequences of those serious violations. Books same thing. Of course, the media will get quickly boring when they are forced to follow a recipe.
It would get boring if the consequences were tacked on in predictable way like the disclaimers and warnings at the end of a prescriptional drug commercial on TV. But the idea of writing realistic consequences into the plot of a video game is interesting. And I don't mean simplistic stuff like "if you shoot civilians without justification, you may bet caught and thrown into the brig". How about a "reputation meter" which would indicate how others view your actions. As it got lower, your enemies would be able
Re: (Score:2)
More than movies and games, I'm concerned about reality. Currently, it seems some wars are pretty rewarding or consequence-free for the warmongers. Look at the latest Iraq war. The UN has not sanctioned the US or the UK even though they lauched an unilateral, illegal war based on wrong, unproven excus^H^H^H^H^Hassumptions.
Also, the Red Cros received funding from Humble Bundle initiatives that included games like Saints Row 3. Where's the line of disapproval? Tropico? Evil Genius? Rainbow Six?
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think that may be a good thing. Turns out, watching Law and Order: Fuck the Suspect with a Baton for years has more impact on police officers than the police academy. The result is that more and more of them think it's okay to violate someone's civil liberties if you are really sure that the are guilty.
There are other examples, but in general people emulate their media heroes. If their hero does
Re:made up rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of human history has been a low-intensity meatgrinder, moderated primarily by the fact that we lacked the technology and competence to field armies much above 'band of thugs' size for more than a few months without disease or starvation killing them off.
We never really stopped tolerating(and often aiding, abetting, and stirring up) ghastly little wars in ghastly little countries nobody cares much about; but post WWII is a crazy peaceful period by historical standards (especially when you factor in the number of countries and non-state actors who could field an army without it starving or dying of cholera and just don't bother).
But, yeah, I'm totally so scared of commies that I'll stoop to their imagined level.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity tried constructing limited governments that nobody, even by vote, could seize control over everybody in most aspects. Even that seems to be on a slow, grinding down failboat.
Failing isn't the problem - rather, we'd expect failures of old systems as society evolves and the old ones become obsolete. Communications technology is certainly a big part of why they're becoming obsolete - in retrospect we may conclude (by reduction) that the telegraph killed the Republic.
What gets to be a problem is when
Re: (Score:2)
These "laws" only hamper the good guys.
See, this is what happens when your only view on international politics is through Hollywood action movies and FPS video games. Simple to understand good guys (Americans, naturally) and bad guys (communist foreigners). The former; all that is right and god fearing in the world. The latter; inhuman, unthinking, immoral evil who eat babies.
Re: (Score:2)
These "laws" only hamper the good guys.
See, this is what happens when your only view on international politics is through Hollywood action movies and FPS video games. Simple to understand good guys (Americans, naturally) and bad guys (communist foreigners). The former; all that is right and god fearing in the world. The latter; inhuman, unthinking, immoral evil who eat babies.
Fine fine, it's the bad guys versus the guys that won the war and wrote the history books after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like: "Go to the bathroom. Take a bucket of water. Lie down face up. Cover your face with a wet towel. Slowly pour the water over your mouth and nostrils until you're convinced you're dying. Keep pouring for about half a minute after that. Stop, refill your glass and repeat ten to twenty times."
Re: (Score:2)
Except they are asking for all the consequences to be the same in every game, and for them to be completely unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2)
We go there to escape reality.... not imitate it.
Please read replies to the other Anonymous Coward who said the same thing [slashdot.org].
Only half-hearted realism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks are a separate issue (Score:3)