Red Cross Wants Gamers Punished For War Crimes

It also amuses me that in a world where we bitch that games lack depth, we go crazy on someone for suggesting that a game could use more depth in a certain area :p
 
Stiletto said:
This is the Red Cross. They're a big enough and high-profile organization that none of their public statements on these kinds of things are spontaneous.
Click to expand...

I did look up the actual statements (out of curiosity) and they are fairly balanced (http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/film/2013/09-28-ihl-video-games.htm ) ... they are only suggesting a dialog and given that they (and not the developers and certainly not the gamers) get to see the realities of warfare on a daily basis they are certainly entitled to an opinion ... for the truly reality based games (especially those produced by the military) I don't see why they can't at least consider the implications (whether that is a penalty of some sort or those ridiculous warnings you get on porn, "this is an entertainment medium and depicts scenes and situations that may not represent a healthy sexual relationship ... etc" should be up to them) ... I also suspect that a few game developers might add a lot of new game elements if they had to experience actual warfare ;) ... and maybe that is the best overall solution ... have some of the developers visit actual war zones and see how the reality compares to the game ... it might make for some striking new additions to the medium and make people think (which should be an element of many games) :cool:
 
Tudz said:
It was simply, "In a game about modern real war simulation, we think killing civilians should have penalties that are related to modern real war laws".
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what he said, his actual quote is "The ICRC is suggesting that as in real life, these games should include virtual consequences for people's actions and decisions. 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. This already exists in several conflict simulation games. Game scenarios should not reward players for actions that in real life would be considered war crimes."

I would think a lot of finesse gamers could actually support this idea ... if you were in a ladder or point based game wouldn't you like to have the option where players who made clean kills got higher scores and rankings than players who killed everything in sight and let God sort them out ... I don't think he is talking about sending people to the virtual hoosegow, but why shouldn't you be able to get better scores or rewards in a game for fighting the "good fight" ... I think people are making too much out of this and reading way more into it ;)
 
Stiletto said:
They're not talking about killing civilians. They're talking about shooting targets in a video game. That's the difference. Nothing that happens in video games is of concern to the Red Cross as an organization. They deal with real-life tragedy. They're speaking up now because a high-profile title just released and is generating a lot of media buzz, and they want to catch the wave of condemnation for the purposes of appearing morally superior.

It also isn't the first time.
Click to expand...

Well, yea. They need PR. These guys aren't Zen monks. I'm not terribly offended by them trying to drum up support this time. I don't care if they're a little pretentious.

Were this about video game violence, like last time, I'd be offended.
 
I'd like it if people were punished in WoW for coming into an opposing faction town and killing all the non-combat NPCs. Sure, they could kill guards all day, but what's the use in killing the quest givers and vendors? That's just mean.
 
dgingeri said:
I'd like it if people were punished in WoW for coming into an opposing faction town and killing all the non-combat NPCs. Sure, they could kill guards all day, but what's the use in killing the quest givers and vendors? That's just mean.
Click to expand...

All is fair in love and war.

Heh, I used to do that when I played Wow.. take my high level to low level towns and just slaughter all the NPCs.

I even used to go to towns where I knew I would have to run away after killing a few before getting killed. Let the aggro go away and then go back and kill more.

Usually did that when I was bored.

I actually started doing it in retaliation for the other faction doing it to places I actually had quests I needed to pick up/turn in.

then I started doing it just for the fun of it when I crossed paths of a town I could pwn really easily.
 
Is Mafia 2 the most recent game that features prison time? It's part of the plot though so maybe it doesn't count...?
 
Don't they have better things to do than save virtual people?

Ok, that's it. Stop the planet and let me off.
 
I appreciate the argument of reality v fiction/fantasy - we (typically - gonna overgeneralize here) play games to satisfy the escapist impulse i.e. the fact that life is not always rosy (along with dysfunctional governments, families, jerkbags, douchebags, et cetera). So I don't have an objection to games that don't have these mechanics - if you don't want to put it in, nobody should be able to force you to. If you actually want to, go for it - by the same token, you are free to express your own artistic vision (and have it enjoyed in turn). As some have pointed out, there is actually a portion of the market that might pay to follow you down that rabbit hole (but please, no deliberate war crime simulations... unless you're artfully making a point somehow)... but I'm getting off track.

I guess the main rub is this: we're essentially on the topic of freedom of expression. The Red Cross probably pulled this out (again) because they feel as though they are being ignored (i.e. there's no such thing as bad press, especially when it's free). However, they have about as much sway with the studios as the Green party has in national elections (well, at least in the USA), but people are incensed because they sound like they want to encroach on your freedoms to make and/or enjoy games. They might have been misguided in their approach, but you have to understand there's a certain desperation behind it.

The Red Cross can't force developers to put you on trial. However, I would actually like to see a creative response to this from developers and, of course, from the gamers who help decide what games succeed or fail.
 
Adelante said:
I appreciate the argument of reality v fiction/fantasy - we (typically - gonna overgeneralize here) play games to satisfy the escapist impulse i.e. the fact that life is not always rosy (along with dysfunctional governments, families, jerkbags, douchebags, et cetera). So I don't have an objection to games that don't have these mechanics - if you don't want to put it in, nobody should be able to force you to. If you actually want to, go for it - by the same token, you are free to express your own artistic vision (and have it enjoyed in turn). As some have pointed out, there is actually a portion of the market that might pay to follow you down that rabbit hole (but please, no deliberate war crime simulations... unless you're artfully making a point somehow)... but I'm getting off track.

I guess the main rub is this: we're essentially on the topic of freedom of expression. The Red Cross probably pulled this out (again) because they feel as though they are being ignored (i.e. there's no such thing as bad press, especially when it's free). However, they have about as much sway with the studios as the Green party has in national elections (well, at least in the USA), but people are incensed because they sound like they want to encroach on your freedoms to make and/or enjoy games. They might have been misguided in their approach, but you have to understand there's a certain desperation behind it.

The Red Cross can't force developers to put you on trial. However, I would actually like to see a creative response to this from developers and, of course, from the gamers who help decide what games succeed or fail.
Click to expand...

People are applying their own bias and interpretations to this:

  1. They made a suggestion for games to consider the results of different actions in the "realistic" war type games
  2. They did NOT call for legislation
  3. They did NOT call for virtual war crime tribunals or prison
  4. They simply asked for the possibility of virtual repurcussions for undesirable virtual actions (like docking points or some other negative impact to the rankings or the scores perhaps). Some games do this already in various ways.
  5. In genres where we are constantly pushing the developers to raise both the body count and realism of the game it is at least worth examining the issue and discussing it
  6. The ICRC most likely knows more about the depradations of war than we ever will (hopefully) and they are perfectly entitled to express an opinion about the subject

Also, they did NOT call for censorship, although there are many subjects that neither developers or players really want games about (CoD: Genocide, BF Child Soldier, etc). Games find innovative ways around this all the time (bonus points for no civilian kills, locking out interaction with kids in FO3, etc). Yes, it is a touchy subject for some but it always worth considering all options to expand the game experience and make it more challenging or interesting.
 
Indeed... they aren't actually wanting gamers to be punished. They want the characters to have repercussions, in accordance to how real wars are.

However, punishment is only when someone turns themselves in or when they get caught. So.... unless the person is doing it in the sight of someone (character) that would tattletale on them. The games are fine as it is. It would be nice to see stuff that would enhance the game because of it. Probably won't hold my breath though.
 
Didn't America's Army have a feature like this?
 
I foresee a Saint's Row 5 which goes out of the way to reward me for crazy and wacky war crimes committed in game as a result of this
 
I've collected over a couple of million dollars in video games. I want the red cross to pay it. I'd like to make it clear that my time is valuable and I should be compensated.
 
Ultra realism has generally always made for terribly boring games that no one plays.

Stick to Charity Red Cross, keep your meaningless opinions about things you are clueless about to yourselves.
 
I demand that in Minecraft, when you use your fists to punch trees, that bones break and blood shows up on your hands, so that after a few swings you're unable to do anything in the game.

Because reality.
 
Actually, in Wing Commander IV, this sort of already happens. Final battle is a court-room showdown with you vs the bad guy, with the loser getting busted for war crimes. And it's awesome.

Honestly, it's not a terrible idea if a game wanted to go super-realistic. You guys need to stop overreacting to everything you read on the internet.
 
bigstusexy said:
I've collected over a couple of million dollars in video games. I want the red cross to pay it. I'd like to make it clear that my time is valuable and I should be compensated.
Click to expand...

Related... how?
 
I get it, its a way to protect dummies used in training.
Perhaps the military should stop using effigies and use real people instead...
oh wait!

How about a force feedback body suit so that game players can really get shot, then when you die in game you really die.
Then we can continue to play war games without guilt, the penalty is the same for both sides.
Of course you'd need a medic nearby just in case you could be saved, and a hospital on standby.
This is going to get expensive.
 
Nenu said:
I get it, its a way to protect dummies used in training.
Perhaps the military should stop using effigies and use real people instead...
oh wait!

How about a force feedback body suit so that game players can really get shot, then when you die in game you really die.
Then we can continue to play war games without guilt, the penalty is the same for both sides.
Of course you'd need a medic nearby just in case you could be saved, and a hospital on standby.
This is going to get expensive.
Click to expand...

Or since many of the FPS games that would be affected by their suggestion are point and ranking based how about you take a much more pragmatic and easy to code approach ... dock the user points or give them damage for killing civilians or unauthorized targets ... kill them and end the mission of they commit a gross enough violation (SNAFU model) ... they didn't ask for anything beyond virtual rewards for "good" behaviors and virtual penalties for "bad" behaviors ... many games do this already so this isn't that big of a potential change ;)
 
So if the Red Cross invades video games, will the reverse come true? I can't wait for the day we get CNN coverage of soldiers are all across the battlefield tea bagging their kills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top