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

Whatever Red Cross, Now if you excuse me, I have a town to nuke and cute people to break

^^Read the article and thread. The title is...highly misleading.

I disagree Red Cross, or Strawman of Red Cross.

I have no idea what's really going on here, but it sounds stupid.

^What they actually seem to be saying, as I understand it, is that games claiming to be realistic portrayals of modern war are ignoring the Geneva conventions.

And before anyone steps in to say X follows them, they probably don't mean every war game

edited 10th Dec '11 10:49:29 AM by hnd03

@Major Tom, last page:

Oh hey, that reminds me of that Concerned strip:

"A Medic! The Rebels will love me for my healing skills, and the Combine won't open fire on me in accordance with Subsection B of the Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference! Of October. 1863."

To elaborate, the Red Cross seems to want to educate game developers on the Geneva Convention, etc. in the hopes that they will at least keep them in mind when making games, thereby educating their audience as well.

edited 10th Dec '11 10:50:21 AM by BadWolf21

Is there anything about desecration of a a corpse? I think teabagging would fall into that category.

I now wonder of the definition of looting if applied to video games.

edited 10th Dec '11 11:04:54 AM by VutherA

Says right there than censorship may be on their agenda.

Dear Video Game Designers,

Please don't allow the players to kill Medics, use chemical weapons to kill enemies, or portray the inhumane torture or destruction of their enemies.

With love, Red Cross

Was that the Kotaku article? There's another link somewhere in this thread that has a Red Cross spokesperson debunk any rumours that they want to mandate that the rules of engagement apply to video games.

The Red Cross is more concerned about the perception of war crimes that is presented by supposed realistic war games. They aren't going to want people hauled to the Hague for using dum dum bullets but at the same time they do want the games to at least acknowledge that normally doesn't fly.

I swear to God, if I have to reiterate that games already punish you for most major violations of LOAC one more time...

They said they took a survey and that most games didn't. They also said that the existence of games that did was evidence that there was no reason more games shouldn't.

In other words, read the damned article.

edited 10th Dec '11 3:50:41 PM by Clarste

I read all the articles, and various other articles a friend of mine has posted on his facebook. Name to me a big-name war game and I will name to you how it punishes you for violating LOAC. You cannot name Halo Reach, Modern Warfare, or Ace Combat, as I have already covered those. Repeatedly.

edited 10th Dec '11 3:54:14 PM by Cganale

Oh, so you're claiming that all (relevant) games do. That's a different claim than you one you actually made earlier.

edited 10th Dec '11 3:55:10 PM by Clarste

It's fake, fellas.

Thanks, Komodin. That's the link I was referencing earlier and was too lazy to go looking for.

Well, what that link just said doesn't contradict my previous understanding of what they were doing, so...

"Interested in working with video game makers" is exactly what we're talking about here. There have already been numerous posts dismissing the stronger claims.

I claim, as I have from the start, that all big-name war games (those being the ones I actually bother to know about) have some compliance of LOAC in one form or another, be it instant mission failure for violation or characters specifically telling you not to do things. I was under the impression that everyone was operating under the equal assumption that the topic was of war games, given that LOAC and the Red Cross are specifically referring to war crimes. 'War games' here having the definition of any game that has a war going on in it.

edited 10th Dec '11 4:04:52 PM by MangaManiac

You gave 3 counter-examples. Which basically proves nothing whatsoever, so obviously everyone would ignore it. Now you're claiming that you have access to better and more complete data than the Red Cross, which is a very different claim. Of course, mentioning that you're limiting it to "big-name" games implies to me that your sample size is smaller and less meaningful.

Red Cross doesn't have the right to use game development as a means to spread their war crimes agenda.

Besides, the law isn't on their side anyway, is it? Games are ruled as an artistic work. They're protected by the first amendment, therefore you'd have to have war movies realistically portray the rules as well. And books. And any other artistic work. Not gonna fly.