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.'"
It's like every two missions i'm spending a month in the clink.
It would ruin Grand Theft Auto, but for games that we're using to train soldiers, I'd definitely support this.
Not forever. You can revive him for a $5 micropayment.
which is totally what she said
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 injured in an IED attack, and you heroically call for backup and occasionally provide cover fire, setting the stage for the next 8 weeks of recovering in the hospital.
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?
"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.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
This is very well intentioned to be sure, but I don't see how it would work. In the real world, most people are literally and metaphorically able to get away with murder on the battlefield; the only time they aren't is when they are captured by an opposing force. Is the Red Cross suggesting that if the game AI senses that you have committed gross acts of violence that it should cause the enemy force to overwhelm you as "punishment"? Or that an international tribunal should materialize on the spot to try you?
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
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."
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
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".
Were you asleep during history class?
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.
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.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"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.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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.
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.
Press X to flip him the bird.
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 in the crossfire so.. it's kinda pointless to try to shoot them -- need them bullets for the enemies. IIRC CoD also resets you to the checkpoint when you shoot civilians or friendlies (unless obvious he popped into my line of sight and I couldn't do much about it), though I'm not so sure about this.
On the other spectrum, Arma 1/2 ends the game if you shoot blues too much (some blue on blue is okay as long as it's an accident) or civilians (at least in the campaign/official scenarios). And while it is a costume for Dslyecxi and his group to shoot enemy wounded combatants, we must also remember the fact that when they become conscious again they *can* and *will* shoot you on the back. Disarming them is often if ever not a possibility (under fire/need to move fast), so shooting them is... well... logical.
They also mention medical personnel, facilities and transports which I can't recall seeing beyond Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, in which the medic gets killed (presumably by a stray bullet). Oh, and combat medics -- which is to say soldiers that know how to apply first-aid (and magically heal soldiers).
Honestly? I don't know what they want with this. If they had provided some examples I'd be more than happy to look at it... but...
Unless, of course, they are talking about using your enemy's uniform which I kind of understand but disagree with and I think I have seen it done in some games but it isn't a really good dynamic to be using.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
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 to justify the use of more agressive measures against you and parties which had been trying to stay out of it might join in and start fighting you.
This is a pattern which has played out in numerous real wars. Rushing in with advanced weaponry and shooting the place up is fun, but the neigbors really, really resent it. Break too much stuff, shoot to many of the 'wrong' people, disrupt their lives too much, utter too many threats, strut around too much, and they will get angry and try to put you in your place. Before you know it, you will be caught in a quagmire.
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.
So if you are playing as Russia, you should turn the capital into the most destroyed city on earth and kill tens of thousands of civilians and a few ICRC members too. 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.
Waterboarding isn't torture, it's just an enhanced interrogation technique
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 holes. But they outlawed putting an anti-coagulant agent on the flechettes. So it's fine to fill a guy with 40 holes, but you have to give him a chance to clot, or that's just mean.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Let current and past Government officials take the lead on it. And let heads of business get some accountablilty too.
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, you get plenty of data I'm sure, but the quality of the data is very debatable and bad data is even worse than no data at all.
The trademark issue that you mention is orthogonal to the laws of war issue. Trademarks must be respected in all games, be they realistic or fantasic. Laws of war (other than the trademark-like laws protecting the Red Cross logo) need be respected only in realistic games.