Play video games? Red Cross says you might be committing war crimes

The issue: http://kotaku.com/5863817/war-crimes-in-video-games-draw-red-cross-scrutiny?autoplay

An editorial praising the attention: http://kotaku.com/5865042/its-time-for-a-war-game-that-respects-the-geneva-conventions

My response: http://pixelatedgeek.com/2011/12/played-video-games-red-cross-says-you-might-be-a-war-criminal/

Pretty sure we already have a thread on this.

Ah, I didn't know, my apologies.

Where?

The Red Cross next plans to put famous videogames on trial in Geneva, to answer for their crimes. Duke Nukem has already been sentenced to five consecutive life sentences, and the whereabouts of B.J. Blazkowicz are still unknown.

^^^ So link to it, then.

edited 9th Dec '11 2:23:55 PM by Talby

I read one comment on the first article that called out Price for executing prisoners, but I would like to point out that he executed two weapons traffickers that were directly responsible for WMD attacks, one a nuclear attack that killed 30,000 US troops + unspecified civilians, and another that enabled a widespread chemical attack against the greater European continent with casualties that had to range into the hundreds of thousands, at minimum.

So I view Price as more the personified punishment for violating LOAC for those monkeys.

You know, how many contemporary military games ( FPS or otherwise ) actually encourage the player to engage in *actual* violations of the Geneva Convention? Multiplayer doesn't count, I'm talking the actual story and gameplay of the main game.

To note, right off the bat you can exclude every game that has you fighting against non-uniformed combatants. The Geneva Conventions don't protect those who don't follow them, and "not wearing an identifiable uniform" is a big violation. So by shooting terrorists and guerillas dressed in random clothing, you are actually *enforcing* the Geneva Conventions.

( I presume everyone involved in wise enough not to try applying the Geneva Conventions to games that don't involve something at least vaguely approximating modern military combat )

The Quake series has a history of having a nailgun as a weapon... I think the conventions ban flechette weapons or something like that.

Then there's plenty of flamethrowers, toxic waste barrels, and what not in at least 25% of all FPS games ever made.

And I'd imagine that various international organizations would have quite a few things to say about the GTA series - both for the player's actions and for the police response!

EDIT: I also once made a mod for a WW 2 board-style game (Advanced Tactics) where you can build landmines and spread them all over the place without marking them properly, recruit "fanatic soldiers" (for which the Axis version was Hitler Youth), the game already had kamikaze pilots un-modded, the game also let you bomb cities into the ground, etc. etc.

edited 9th Dec '11 2:41:20 PM by ssfsx17

@: OP

edited 9th Dec '11 2:40:40 PM by dmysta3000

Pretty much any military game is heavy-handed about following the Law of Armed Conflict. You're expressly forbidden from firing on the church in Modern Warfare on Death From Above, shooting civilians in levels that they appear in (except No Russian) gets you immediate "friendly fire will not be tolerated." In Halo Reach, the one level that has civilians will reward you with an instant death if you kill a civilian. Ace Combat Assault Horizon tells you, repeatedly, not to use heavy weapons around ruins that are culturally significant in the AC-130 level.

So really, the Red Cross needs to do some more research before they start talking about war crimes.

However, I will admit that I am not above using an anti-aircraft gun against infantry in BF 3 if some sod walks in front of me.

I don't play COD, so I'm safe.

Using AA guns on infantry? Crap... that's about 75% of all Advance Wars players, then.

Dude, nobody who plays Call Of Duty would even care. Most people play it for the multiplayer to begin with.

Also, how would this affect Real-Time Strategy games? I mean, besides the nasty support powers, some games let you order a tank to fire its main cannon on infantry (though this is more due to gameplay limitations).

edited 9th Dec '11 3:09:22 PM by RocketDude

I don't make the rules. It falls under using excessive force. And apparently a 20mm anti-aircraft cannon used against squishy people is more than necessary.

Well, yeah, I think the biggest round you're allowed to use on infantry is .50-caliber, though I might be wrong on that.

They're not prosecuting, stand down from alert.

http://www.itworld.com/application-management/232085/red-cross-vows-not-prosecute-players-violent-video-games

brb, going to kill everyone with landmines and the nailgun in New Vegas...

I doubt there's much of a red cross left then...

Do the Half Life games violate this?

In other news, this is stupid.

Wait, there's rules against overkill? What the hell?

Can I ask why the OP needs to link his response offsite instead of just posting it here?

Ha, I could care less what the Red Cross thinks about what I do in games. Games are fantasy, thus the Geneva Conventions don't apply to a fictional world.

edited 9th Dec '11 7:25:03 PM by MarkVonLewis

Uhh there's no limit to bullet size for use against infantry. (Not according to Geneva anyways...) There is a limit (lower limit to be precise) to how small you can make explosive ammunition according to the Hague Convention of 1899.

Meaning if you could make a gun that fired battleship rounds, you can use it directly against infantry. (But make an explosive .30 caliber rifle round and you run afoul of the Convention.)

^Ah, I knew there were size restrictions on ammo.

edited 9th Dec '11 7:30:26 PM by RocketDude

Hmm...playing strategy games and military shooters with the Geneva Convention as a self-imposed rule. Sounds interesting.

Granted, with RTS games, you don't send tanks after infantry simply because the tank cannons may not really damage infantry that much, depending on the game.