Slashdot Mirror
Red Cross Wants Consequences For Video-Game Mayhem
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.'"
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. "
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
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.