The BBC asks... Should the rules of war be included in computer games? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24318061)
Previous discussion of this issue at PAXsims (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/should-the-rules-of-war-be-included-in-computer-games/):
Virtual military training and international humanitarian law (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/virtual-military-training-and-international-humanitarian-law/) (7 December 2011)
International humanitarian law and electronic gaming (http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/international-humanitarian-law-and-electronic-gaming/) (2 December 2009)
So, you can't kill Elves any more, it's a war crime? ::) That's right but, you can still kill a 100 people per hour on TV.
What's the point of including the rules of war in media intended for entertainment? Are we shipping drivers' handbooks with GTA now? What about the Asimov's laws of robotics in sci-fi games?
Why only the rules of war in combat-themed games? What about games from before the Treaty of Westphalia? Were there treaty-based "rules of war" that should be shipped with Rome II?
Why not simply design the game such that the feedback to the player encourages the adherence to the 'rules'?
I think the Red Cross is confusing fantasy with reality.Which is really what most wargames are.
If the military wants a more realistic game to train their soldiers on the rules of modern warfare,then they should go to these private companies and fund them to make these types of training aides.
Who wants to play a pirate game that doesn't let you act like a pirate or an ancient empire building game that doesn't have looting,plundering and pillaging or allow you to conspire against or kill off heads of states.
The Red Cross should stick to what they are funded to do and stay out of the private gaming industry.
What's next, PETA (animals are people too) suing game companies for killing animals in video games?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 29, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
Why not simply design the game such that the feedback to the player encourages the adherence to the 'rules'?
Isn't this precisely what Bohemia interactive is implementing? If you start wasting everything that moves, your squaddies finally decide you've gone totally loco and attack you? Granted, this may not be totally "realistic" (I would think that most rampages would end with the shooter being subdued, incarcerated and then court-martialled) it does provide the feedback that you are talking about - don't kill non-combatants or you will suffer consequences.
IIRC, many of the old Dynamics flight sim games implemented similar rules for breaking ROE. In Red Baron I (I think) and Aces of the Pacific, your pilot career could come to and end via court-martial if you shot down friendly aircraft or (in RB) straffed an ambulance. I believe Falcon 3 or perhaps one of it's expansions enforced similar ROE. Other games such as SWAT have "mission fail" rules if you whack civilians (or even bad guys who haven't opened fire and you haven't yelled compliance), and even some missions in games like Combat Mission: Shock Force "punish" you via victory point loss if you destroy certain civilian buildings, etc.
I would say that for those companies that build games and pride themselves on verisimilitude or detail or historical accuracy, enforcing some kind of ROE isn't necessarily a bad thing. As Brant and the guy from Bohemia suggests, perhaps the best way to do that is through the gaming experience.
I personally would actually LOVE to play a game - say a colonial American wars game - where razing an First Nations village or Colonial settlement might change the attitude and strategies / tactics of your allies and enemies.
Admittedly, such things usually sit low on game developer radar. Most games still suffer from crap AI, so adding complex decision trees to all game "characters" might still be a way off.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
Just because something is brought up doesn't mean it will be implemented.
The church strove mightily to have crossbows banned and no battles on the sabbath and neither ever worked.
In any WWII strategic game you play by invading another country you are breaking the law.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on September 29, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
I personally would actually LOVE to play a game - say a colonial American wars game - where razing an First Nations village or Colonial settlement might change the attitude and strategies / tactics of your allies and enemies.
Jack Nastyface
This a mechanic in a number of games. Rome 2 uses it for example.
Quote from: Bison on September 29, 2013, 07:00:12 PM
This a mechanic in a number of games. Rome 2 uses it for example.
Really? So you can actually decide whether to conduct operations or actions against cities, trade routes, production areas or other civilian centres? I definately need to check that out. Once I upgrade my crap-ass computer, which should be soonish.
J Nf
Well let me caveat it a little bit. Let's say you conquer a city. You can occupy, raze, or pillage it. Each has an effect on the local population, their allies, and your allies view of you . So please don't let me misrepresents exactly what happens, I'm not sure that it ultimately matters much in the long run since you are going for conquest and empire building anyway. So who really cares if one of the German tribes you just conquered has allies you're going to make distrust and dislike you more? Since you're most likely are or are going to be going to war and conquering their cities too eventually.
Quote from: SgtRock on September 29, 2013, 01:03:03 PM
What's next, PETA (animals are people too) suing game companies for killing animals in video games?
Don't laugh. I've killed thousands of pixelated zombies.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 29, 2013, 09:23:12 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on September 29, 2013, 01:03:03 PM
What's next, PETA (animals are people too) suing game companies for killing animals in video games?
Don't laugh. I've killed thousands of pixelated zombies.
don't even mention the orc carnage. It's too much to comprehend and very sad.
Quote from: Bison on September 29, 2013, 09:24:45 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on September 29, 2013, 09:23:12 PM
Quote from: SgtRock on September 29, 2013, 01:03:03 PM
What's next, PETA (animals are people too) suing game companies for killing animals in video games?
Don't laugh. I've killed thousands of pixelated zombies.
don't even mention the orc carnage. It's too much to comprehend and very sad.
Ooooh. I'm getting thirsty. For blood.
Orc blood!
Thanks for reminding me.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 29, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
Why not simply design the game such that the feedback to the player encourages the adherence to the 'rules'?
That would be an unappreciated level of complexity and not necessarily all that easy for the AI to follow (in Rome II, say shifted to
80-years-war III). For example, certain Imperial Commanders might decide that killing all the mutineers even when they have negociated a surrender with honors-of-war, is a good idea. What what AI mutinies look like after that point? Or the Sea Beggars might try to claim rights of pilliage even over towns that were not summoned to surrender. Now that's a tricky one. I'm not even sure how the Treaty of Westphalia might have delt with that.
I'm not saying it would be easy.
I'm pointing out that there's some pretty transparent political motivation behind putting the "rules of war" in the box of a video game.
If you want players to follow them, you build it into the game. If you don't care if players follow them, but are instead shooting for points for political grandstanding, then you try to obliquely shove it down the players' throats through PR machinations.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 30, 2013, 10:50:50 AM
I'm not saying it would be easy.
I'm pointing out that there's some pretty transparent political motivation behind putting the "rules of war" in the box of a video game.
If you want players to follow them, you build it into the game. If you don't care if players follow them, but are instead shooting for points for political grandstanding, then you try to obliquely shove it down the players' throats through PR machinations.
It depends on what you're trying to simulate or if you are trying to simulate at all. I think some kind of political context would help some games. I t does sort of happen even in RomeII. Being a Zoroastrian Empire, I release all captives and this gets me lots of negative political hits, but it does reduce my slave rebellions.
The RoP game simulates lots of political stuff -- even honors of war -- BUT, I'm not sure political stuff is very relevent to say a fighter plane simulator.
Rome II sounds like it is a step in an interesting direction, although it would be cool to see tactical military decisions have more effect on gameplay than just diplomacy or political alliances. That is...I think it would be interesting if, when you decide to raze a villlage, the AI responds in kind by attacking and razing (instead of occupying or plundering) your villages. Time and time again, we have seen this kind of quid-pro-quo response in battle.
IHMO, I think only the most thought-provoking game devs are consider the implications of giving players what they want versus providing a meaningful gaming experience. It is possible in many "sandbox" games to play as misanthropically as one wishes...murder innocents, blow sh*t up, etc, precisely because those self-same games don't or can't actually model the complexity of the real-world sandbox in which we live.
FWIW, I think games that involve a RPG or at least personal "campaign" element do a better job of this. You can't play a personal flight sim campaign if you resort to ramming or kamikaze attacks....so you shouldn't really be able to win a "rescue the hostages" mission just by blowing everything thing up (bad guys AND good guys). Well, not unless you are playing as the Algerian Army....
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
The addition of modern warfare rules are just the opening salvo.
Next they'll be asking to put warning labels on the product because it doesn't conform to these rules.
Once the precedent is established that these games are bad for you hence the warning label,you will start to see new demands like if your product doesn't conform to the new public safety decency standards then it should be taxed like beer or cigarettes unless you modify the game to meet the new established norms.
So in essence what you'll start seeing are ahistorical games because the developers will not want to deal with the extra hassle of cost and production or the negative feed back because they dared to go against the new grain.
The Red Cross has a job already and they should concentrate on that.
They don't belong in the private gaming and entertainment industry.
^Your post is missing a "they can take my video game...from my cold dead hands" tirade.
You're going to have to do better than "this is just the first step" if you want to move up in the ranks of paranoid delusional schizophrenic conspiracy theorists.
"The aim of the study is to raise public awareness among developers and publishers of the games, as well as among authorities, educators and the media about virtually committed crimes in computer and videogames, and to engage in a dialogue with game producers and distributors on the idea of incorporating the essential rules of IHL and IHRL into their games which may, in turn, render them more varied, realistic and entertaining."
Call me paranoid then.I prefer to be paranoid instead of naive.
Quote from: Dolan50 on September 30, 2013, 06:57:21 PM
Call me paranoid then.I prefer to be paranoid instead of naive.
LOL
Amen, brotha.
Quote from: Dolan50 on September 30, 2013, 04:10:46 PM
So in essence what you'll start seeing are ahistorical games because the developers will not want to deal with the extra hassle of cost and production or the negative feed back because they dared to go against the new grain.
At this point most games don't have much in the way of negative impacts if you don't follow the historical rules of war. Rome II has some impacts if you raze towns or enslave prisonners, so some kind of "rules of war" logic can have some impacts in some games. What is in fact ahistorical at the moment in most games is that the player doesn't have to give the rules of war much thought at all.
On a related note, most naval games have no provisions for rescuing ship or air crews, though this could be a consideration, historically.
So it seems possible that many games could be made more historically accurate by allowing for some consideration of impacts in the area of prisonners or search and rescue or historical norms of behavior.
If a developer wants to add historical modern rules of warfare to his game to enhance realism as to what was inherent during that appropriate time and period than I have no problems with this.
I like historical accuracy in my games.
But I don't think it should be forced on the gaming industry.
I'm not happy with the idea that virtual crimes can be perceived as real crimes and some people feel the need to enforce or exact some kind of concessions from the gaming industry as a punishment for these perceived crimes.
Wargames are fantasy not real life and are entertainment not training tools regardless of what some people would like to use them as.
Let the developers make what they want and let the people decide for themselves whether or not they want to buy what they are selling.
Virtual crimes my ass this is a thought control issue.
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 01, 2013, 12:15:00 PM
Virtual crimes my ass this is a thought control issue.
Definitely another attack from the Political Correctness Police. ;)
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 01, 2013, 12:15:00 PM
I like historical accuracy in my games.
Okay, so in some instances of wargames (of whatever ilk) there are going to be situations where, to be historically accurate, you have the option to cross the line in terms of international law. If you want to be historically accurate then your decision in game should have some consequence in terms of how you are treated by the international community in game.
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 01, 2013, 12:15:00 PM
Wargames are fantasy not real life and are entertainment not training tools regardless of what some people would like to use them as.
Virtual crimes my ass this is a thought control issue.
I feel like i've wasted my Life. IT'S NOT REAL??!!
Quote
I feel like i've wasted my Life. IT'S NOT REAL??!!
:D The only thing real,is the amount of time you wasted thinking it was real.
Oh peuh. Good thing the wasted time was related to my thinking and not the oppisit.
Quote from: Father Ted on October 01, 2013, 04:42:42 PM
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 01, 2013, 12:15:00 PM
I like historical accuracy in my games.
Okay, so in some instances of wargames (of whatever ilk) there are going to be situations where, to be historically accurate, you have the option to cross the line in terms of international law. If you want to be historically accurate then your decision in game should have some consequence in terms of how you are treated by the international community in game.
For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare. In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other. No international treaties were necessarily involved. In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled. The idea of making life easier for the non-involved local population was not a major consideration and to some extent this is still the case. Still, even the locals could have an impact: in the English Civil War there were (for example) the Club Men who hunted soldiers and sometimes even a siginificant impact on minor operations. When Western Europe fell into total anarchy around 990 AD there were mass movements to control the violence and they were quite successful. Anyway, this is a pretty difficult area to model and all I can suggest is that for some periods different ways of dealing with the rules of war would have some impact.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 02, 2013, 11:21:31 AM
For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare. In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other. No international treaties were necessarily involved. In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled.
Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history. To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on September 29, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 29, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
Why not simply design the game such that the feedback to the player encourages the adherence to the 'rules'?
Isn't this precisely what Bohemia interactive is implementing? If you start wasting everything that moves, your squaddies finally decide you've gone totally loco and attack you? Granted, this may not be totally "realistic" (I would think that most rampages would end with the shooter being subdued, incarcerated and then court-martialled) it does provide the feedback that you are talking about - don't kill non-combatants or you will suffer consequences.
IIRC, many of the old Dynamics flight sim games implemented similar rules for breaking ROE. In Red Baron I (I think) and Aces of the Pacific, your pilot career could come to and end via court-martial if you shot down friendly aircraft or (in RB) straffed an ambulance. I believe Falcon 3 or perhaps one of it's expansions enforced similar ROE. Other games such as SWAT have "mission fail" rules if you whack civilians (or even bad guys who haven't opened fire and you haven't yelled compliance), and even some missions in games like Combat Mission: Shock Force "punish" you via victory point loss if you destroy certain civilian buildings, etc.
I would say that for those companies that build games and pride themselves on verisimilitude or detail or historical accuracy, enforcing some kind of ROE isn't necessarily a bad thing. As Brant and the guy from Bohemia suggests, perhaps the best way to do that is through the gaming experience.
I personally would actually LOVE to play a game - say a colonial American wars game - where razing an First Nations village or Colonial settlement might change the attitude and strategies / tactics of your allies and enemies.
Admittedly, such things usually sit low on game developer radar. Most games still suffer from crap AI, so adding complex decision trees to all game "characters" might still be a way off.
Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface
+1
Quote from: Nefaro on October 02, 2013, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on October 02, 2013, 11:21:31 AM
For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare. In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other. No international treaties were necessarily involved. In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled.
Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history. To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.
+1
A pretty accurate statement. Even in recent wars the issue of self preservation can lead to "atrocity". I recall back in the day, that we were instructed as a matter of practicality that unless we were ordered to take prisoners you destroyed the enemy position, and shot the wounded - who perhaps feeling desperate - might grenade or shoot you if you helped them - and I was in an Army that was signed up to the Geneva Convention. That all said, I was in at the time of the Falklands War and we took prisoners outside "formal" surrenders, so I guess different officers had different views within the army. I recall a similar view from Shlomz - an IDF veteran - who indicated much the same - that he'd rather visit a comrade in prison than at the cemetery. I understand the point and have no issue with that.
From the perspective of someone in the safety of their home, in a modern country far from war, I am conflicted with the view, as I try to be a "decent" guy. But war is war, and is very ugly. If you don't want people to get killed then then don't go to war if you intend to win. I think the best chance of surviving a surrender is if it's "organised", but at the tactical level taking prisoners can be a very risky option for those taking them. Would you put yourself or your mates lives before someone who had just been trying to kill you?? That said a Canadian officer was court martialled for a "mercy" killing of a mortally wounded Taliban, so maybe times are changing? I thought the charge was stupid, but ROE's seem to be emphasised more.
In gaming terms, I can see surrenders being reasonable at the operational level - being organised, but at the tactical level, I'm less sure if it can interfere with your squad/sections survival. FWIW, Europa Universalis, HOI3, Victoria 2 uses an infamy rating to act as a brake on aggressive wars.
QuoteThose explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history. To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.
Exactly,only the favored side will be seen as adhering to these rules and get all sorts of + modifiers while the side held in contempt will get a whole host of negative modifiers.
All the games will play out the same way with the side using the new rules of warfare basically always winning.
Then you'll probably have to pay extra for a patch to add the historical non-modern rules of warfare element back to your game so that you can recreate a more historical event.
Wonder who gets the profit from that deal?
after all the WW2 games Ive played I have yet to see the button that lets me kill Jews, firebomb civilians, starve prisoners or use chemical weapons. just saying....
Quoteafter all the WW2 games Ive played I have yet to see the button that lets me kill Jews, firebomb civilians, starve prisoners or use chemical weapons. just saying....
Never seen a game called Auschwitz or Gulag either.
The industry already moderates itself pretty well.
It doesn't need another outside influence with a political axe to grind thrown into the mix.
I doubt most people who play these games are interested in trying to recreate the horrors of war,but are mainly interested in recreating and gaming the tactical and strategic aspects of these conflicts while keeping it in its true historical context.
Im not wanting to recreate those kind of horrors either. wargame producers are smart enough to stick to the frontline war part.
Well that's basically my point.
I'm not seeing a house burning here.
What I am seeing is a group of people trying to set the house on fire then nominating themselves as the firemen and then trying to exact concessions from the homeowner for putting the fire out.
oh we're agreeing here. I think the topic is dumber then the US congress.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 02, 2013, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on October 02, 2013, 11:21:31 AM
For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare. In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other. No international treaties were necessarily involved. In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled.
Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history. To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.
Yet if you really want to be historically accurate, those rules should have some impact on the game. To cite another example, after the Indians under French command massacred part of the surrendering column at Fort William-Henry, the French never received any Honors of war in the Americans from the British Forces in the Seven-Years War.
But you could go deeper: the Indian rules of war specified taking either captives or scalps. Captives were preferable, but a scalp was better than nothing so the French insistance that the captives be released resulted in a some extra scalp-taking.
So if you wanted to go even deeper: there may be multiple rules of war in play at the same time (actually Rome II simulates this fairly well since releasing captives causes the enemies of those captives to have a political gripe against you) and you may be able to game them so that the savages at least are satisfied.
Quote from: Boggit on October 02, 2013, 06:56:31 PM
[From the perspective of someone in the safety of their home, in a modern country far from war, I am conflicted with the view, as I try to be a "decent" guy.
Sure, but in a game you are often not playing the role of a decent guy, but rather some antique style of a man that we really don't know much about except that -- for his time and place -- he was working according to some rules and some of those rules were what can be generally termed "rules of war". From what I've seen in Rome II and RoP, having some impact on the game that results from these rules can add some depth to the game.
The question was should modern 20th century rules of warfare be introduced into wargames.
I no more want to see these rules in a game of Rome II or Mount and Blade then I would a modern tank or a jet.The whole concept is bizaar.
Vitual reality is not real life.
Remember that the next time you jerk off and don't find yourself in a real life jail while being brought up on rape charges because the object of your affections doesn't perceive your intentions in the same light.
I no more need the modern rules of warfare in my games then I need a condom in a porn video box.Your fantasies are not real events taking place with real people in a real world.
If people are having a problem distinguishing virtual reality from real life,then I think it's time to leave the virtual bubble and start reconnecting with the real world.They may also have problems with the concepts of fact and fiction or truth and lies too and may want to seek some real life emotional help.
I think these virtual wanna be hall monitors need to get a real job and produce things of real value.
I think you've completely mistaken the intent of anything that is being done not only by the Red Cross, but also by legitimate, reputable and respectable game developers like Bohemia Interactive, Sierra, Vivendi, Bioware, Bethesda, etc etc. Go fire up a copy of Close Combat (any version). Now select a unit, and try to get them to "fire" at a friendly unit. Doesn't work, does it? Guess what that is? ROE. Now go start up IL-2: 1946 and jump into a British spitfire and go shoot down a bunch of Brit Hurricanes. Then look at your score - it's negative! Also guess what that is? ROE. Now go play mount and blade, enter a village, and kill off villages. Leave village. Come back to village. See how everyone is trying to kill you? Again, ROE...
Not every game should be Grand Theft Auto or Team Fortress. Not every developer wants to create meaningless (albeit enjoyable) sandbox games where there are no "rules". You appear to like those games...others don't. You probably like playing flight sims that allow you pull 20G's in a canvas biplane and fire 1000's of rounds of 303. Others don't. Why not let people who like and look for complexity in games pursue and enjoy those games? Why do you feel compelled to tell us why we are all a bunch of stooges because Bohemia Interactive doesn't want to encourage gameplay where someone can just blow ths sh*t out of everything without and in-game consequences?
For a guy who is so incensed about the thought police you sure are spending loads of time trying to tell people how to think.
And now back to your regularly scheduled paranoid delusional conspiracy episode...
It seems to me you have a hard time comprehending what people write or of understanding the implications of these statements and only read the positive aspects when it agrees with you.
I stated that if the gaming companies want to add this type of rule to their games it should be of their own free choosing.
You on the other hand have no problems with forcing this type of garbage down every bodies throats as long it suits your particular needs.
You probably fancy yourself as one the new intelligentsia in this form of communistic utopian bliss.
Your the one who is delusional if you think you are anything more than a tool a pawn or a dupe.
If and when we ever have to live under this new form of utopian bliss you will soon come to realize that you will be just as equal under the boot as the rest of us and the only difference being while I will be looking for a way out from underneath the boot,you will still be licking it.
This isn't about ROE, which is a strategy standard. I'm pretty sure the thread got started because some organization was trying to push Geneva Convention rules into digital video games.
Geneva Convention Agreements and ROE aren't the exact same thing.
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 03, 2013, 06:03:44 PM
It seems to me you have a hard time comprehending what people write or of understanding the implications of these statements and only read the positive aspects when it agrees with you.
I stated that if the gaming companies want to add this type of rule to their games it should be of their own free choosing.
You on the other hand have no problems with forcing this type of garbage down every bodies throats as long it suits your particular needs.
You probably fancy yourself as one the new intelligentsia in this form of communistic utopian bliss.
Your the one who is delusional if you think you are anything more than a tool a pawn or a dupe.
If and when we ever have to live under this new form of utopian bliss you will soon come to realize that you will be just as equal under the boot as the rest of us and the only difference being while I will be looking for a way out from underneath the boot,you will still be licking it.
That's me exactly...it's like I'm looking into a mirror. You've even captured the pathos of my life that arises from over-protective parenting when I was a child. Oh Mother! Why wouldn't you let me play hockey like all the other boys?
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 03, 2013, 06:03:44 PM
You probably fancy yourself as one the new intelligentsia in this form of communistic utopian bliss.
Your the one who is delusional if you think you are anything more than a tool a pawn or a dupe.
If and when we ever have to live under this new form of utopian bliss you will soon come to realize that you will be just as equal under the boot as the rest of us and the only difference being while I will be looking for a way out from underneath the boot,you will still be licking it.
Uh...
Quote from: Nefaro on October 03, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
This isn't about ROE, which is a strategy standard. I'm pretty sure the thread got started because some organization was trying to push Geneva Convention rules into digital video games.
Geneva Convention Agreements and ROE aren't the exact same thing.
Very true...and I admittedly simplified my arguement to show that many games do now and have for a long time been including concepts that are put forward by the Geneva Convention, although admittedly they do so by the simply "preventing" the gamer for doing X or Y (ie: not being able to specifically "target" surrendered units in the old Combat Mission games is essentially the game developers enforcing Geneva Convention concepts albeit without the penalty that may result if you broke those same rules).
Point being...there was a time when companies developed games that actually involved options, choices and decisions. You actually had to THINK about what you wanted to do, what the possible impact might be and how that may effect the outcome in the game. More recently, however, companies have confused "game features" with "game experience". So now games generate excitement if they have new or futuristic technology, interesting guns that can be customized, cool uniforms, or perhaps witty dialogue. Meanwhile, the basic goal of the game: blow the sh*te out of everything you see. So "decision" and "choice" have been replaced by - let's face it - some pretty predictable techniques, like switching between foreground and background enemy spawn points, or maybe they'll throw in some nifty POV tricks like putting you AND the bad guy on bouncing snowmobiles or a gyrating helicopter so going "bang" is going to a little bit harder. Okay..this can be fun (for short time, anyways) but ultimately the only challenge to these games is "put the cross hair here"....And the only "decision" one typically makes in most of these games is "assault rifle or smg". Even the AI soldiers never make decisions, like "should I or should I not run out of this building where so many of my buddies have been blown to pieces". In fact, sometimes the mission itself follows a scripted and immutable path, with no decisions, no thinking, and no relevance. (As an aside, I would suggest that the reason why many gamers like choosing the sniper rifle in an FPS game is PRECISELY because it is the only weapon that requires a you to consider options and make choices and decisions.)
And so where does this leave us? Well, we now have games that look great, have cool features like Infra-red vision and customizable guns and UAV strikes and destructable terrain, but require almost no pre-frontal cortex engagement. You're off to kill Osama...follow the yellow brass road. If purposefully hose down your squadies you will be reprimanded with an annoying "check fire" but they miraculously keep on truckin'.
Whether or not you want to strictly define the rules of war as those that are outlined within the Geneva Convention, IMHO (AND TOTALLY IMHO) those games that seek to implement some kind of complex choice-and-decision, reward-and-punishment model are superior to the run-and-gun-and-bunnyhop-to-the-power-up genre. You don't like the Geneva Convention? Okay...no problem...but how about at least provide the gamer with SOME kind of experience where they might actually have to think, and may actually face - wait for it - a dilemma.
It has been done; it can be done; but it doesn't sell well with 10 year olds. I think all anyone is asking here is why not include some kind of idea over-and-above X marks the (kill) spot. Jeez...even baseball teaches you something about Newton's laws of motions.
That's it. Sorry about the flame-baiting Dolan. Guys like you with immutable intransigence always bring out my contentious side.
I 'll refrain from posting on this issue any further.
I think it's been established that I'm firmly in the nay camp.
I'm sorry I took the bait and called you a Communist Jack.
I get a little touchy when I think an issue is being purposely diverted from the original intent of a topic as a means of distraction.
I don't think my input on the subject requires any further debate on my part.
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 02, 2013, 11:14:10 PM
Never seen a game called Auschwitz or Gulag either.
There's Train (http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/11/brenda-romero-train-board-game-holocaust/)
Quote from: Dolan50 on October 03, 2013, 02:56:39 PM
Your fantasies are not real events taking place with real people in a real world.
Sure, but if I want to fantasize that I'm the war God of Prussia in 1758 (and who doesn't?) then I want my Prussians to act in
a Prussia in 1758 kind of way -- otherwise the fantasy doesn't have much kick -- so I want them to follow all the 18th century rules of war:
Honors of War, Plundering Hussars, beating Saxons until they turn Prussian etc. etc. As it happens only RoP can support my fantasies in this
respect. But that makes it a better game. IE including relevent rules of war makes a fantasy game better.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 03, 2013, 11:12:56 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 02, 2013, 05:33:10 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on October 02, 2013, 11:21:31 AM
For most of the time there have been wars, there have been some kind of explicit or implicit rules of warfare. In most cases these were just conventions that had grown up and were understood by some set of people who fought each other. No international treaties were necessarily involved. In most situations these conventions tended to make life somewhat easier for soldiers by formalizing surrenders and mutinies and so on and a lot easier for the ruling elites who wanted violence to stay somewhat controlled.
Those explicit or implied 'rules of warfare' have been regularly ignored throughout history. To enforce a rigid adherence would forgo historical possibilities, making such enforcement an attempt at rewriting history to favor the modern views of those pushing such an agenda.
Yet if you really want to be historically accurate, those rules should have some impact on the game. To cite another example, after the Indians under French command massacred part of the surrendering column at Fort William-Henry, the French never received any Honors of war in the Americans from the British Forces in the Seven-Years War.
But you could go deeper: the Indian rules of war specified taking either captives or scalps. Captives were preferable, but a scalp was better than nothing so the French insistance that the captives be released resulted in a some extra scalp-taking.
So if you wanted to go even deeper: there may be multiple rules of war in play at the same time (actually Rome II simulates this fairly well since releasing captives causes the enemies of those captives to have a political gripe against you) and you may be able to game them so that the savages at least are satisfied.
+1
Quote from: Jack Nastyface on October 03, 2013, 09:15:05 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 03, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
This isn't about ROE, which is a strategy standard. I'm pretty sure the thread got started because some organization was trying to push Geneva Convention rules into digital video games.
Geneva Convention Agreements and ROE aren't the exact same thing.
Very true...and I admittedly simplified my arguement to show that many games do now and have for a long time been including concepts that are put forward by the Geneva Convention, although admittedly they do so by the simply "preventing" the gamer for doing X or Y (ie: not being able to specifically "target" surrendered units in the old Combat Mission games is essentially the game developers enforcing Geneva Convention concepts albeit without the penalty that may result if you broke those same rules).
Point being...there was a time when companies developed games that actually involved options, choices and decisions. You actually had to THINK about what you wanted to do, what the possible impact might be and how that may effect the outcome in the game. More recently, however, companies have confused "game features" with "game experience". So now games generate excitement if they have new or futuristic technology, interesting guns that can be customized, cool uniforms, or perhaps witty dialogue. Meanwhile, the basic goal of the game: blow the sh*te out of everything you see. So "decision" and "choice" have been replaced by - let's face it - some pretty predictable techniques, like switching between foreground and background enemy spawn points, or maybe they'll throw in some nifty POV tricks like putting you AND the bad guy on bouncing snowmobiles or a gyrating helicopter so going "bang" is going to a little bit harder. Okay..this can be fun (for short time, anyways) but ultimately the only challenge to these games is "put the cross hair here"....And the only "decision" one typically makes in most of these games is "assault rifle or smg". Even the AI soldiers never make decisions, like "should I or should I not run out of this building where so many of my buddies have been blown to pieces". In fact, sometimes the mission itself follows a scripted and immutable path, with no decisions, no thinking, and no relevance. (As an aside, I would suggest that the reason why many gamers like choosing the sniper rifle in an FPS game is PRECISELY because it is the only weapon that requires a you to consider options and make choices and decisions.)
And so where does this leave us? Well, we now have games that look great, have cool features like Infra-red vision and customizable guns and UAV strikes and destructable terrain, but require almost no pre-frontal cortex engagement. You're off to kill Osama...follow the yellow brass road. If purposefully hose down your squadies you will be reprimanded with an annoying "check fire" but they miraculously keep on truckin'.
Whether or not you want to strictly define the rules of war as those that are outlined within the Geneva Convention, IMHO (AND TOTALLY IMHO) those games that seek to implement some kind of complex choice-and-decision, reward-and-punishment model are superior to the run-and-gun-and-bunnyhop-to-the-power-up genre. You don't like the Geneva Convention? Okay...no problem...but how about at least provide the gamer with SOME kind of experience where they might actually have to think, and may actually face - wait for it - a dilemma.
It has been done; it can be done; but it doesn't sell well with 10 year olds. I think all anyone is asking here is why not include some kind of idea over-and-above X marks the (kill) spot. Jeez...even baseball teaches you something about Newton's laws of motions.
That's it. Sorry about the flame-baiting Dolan. Guys like you with immutable intransigence always bring out my contentious side.
+1. Again........ ;D