As some of you know, the International Red Cross is urging publishers to incorporate the Geneva Convention in video games (by penalizing players who violate the laws of war). For the more experienced players, can you give some examples you've seen - or done - that violate the Geneva Convention?
Michael
In Warfighter 101: The Guards (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/23062/warfighter-101-the-guards) there are explicit rules to allow for the targeting of civilians, mainly because that's what terrorists / insurgents do. If The Guards have to protect the civilians, then there inherently needs to be a mechanism by which the civilians can be attacked. And while that's completely against about 23894104815730489 different "rules of war" the faction that is attacking civilians is representative of those factions that tend to do exactly that - attack civilians.
That's an interesting point, Brant. The Red Cross told me they actually want war crimes in video games, as an educational feature (though with penalties for actually doing it).
As usual, board games have done a much better job of addressing the danger of collateral damage.
Michael
I've killed captured enemy soldiers by the hundreds (if not thousands) in various Total War games. And in space 4x games, I've slaughtered planetary populations by the hundreds of millions.
I think they're more worried about shooter games where the player's character personally shoots civilians.
Michael
The most "infamous" criminal act of war in a FPS that I can think of is from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, where the player is in deep cover with a group of Russian terrorists. The scene generated a lot of public outcry (ie. publicity) at the time, but seems to have been forgotten rather quickly.
Basically, the player is ordered to shoot civilians during an attack on an airport. The scene did not hold out in my memory and I can't remember if the player is given any choice in the matter. I'm pretty sure that in order to advance in the campaign, the player must shoot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLwgjDQ07Ro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLwgjDQ07Ro)
The only other FPS gaming instance that I can think of truly involving acts of violence against civilians or prisoners, and that involves player freedom to choose, is in the SWAT series, primarily SWAT 3 and SWAT 4. Although this is not in the international military context, and does not involve the GC, it is still in a government/law enforcement framework and does permit the player to use judgment in attacking, injuring and/or murdering innocent civilians and/or surrendered perpetrators.
There are other games that involve war crimes tangentially, such as Army of Two (the player is a mercenary pretty much killing anything that moves), Far Cry 2 (player as mercenary in Africa, how cliche) and Battlefield Bad Company where the player moves through villages pretty much destroying everything. Heck, even in the ARMA games, the player can participate in military assaults on villages and towns occupied by any forces...but does this combat, which I don't think features NPC civilians, really constitute war crimes? Steel Beasts ProPE 3.0 now also models civilians, so there is potential for collateral damage in this game in its present version.
There was a game under development that was going to cover the Marine assault of Fallujah. By all accounts, this game would have addressed criminal acts of war by and against unconventional military forces and civilians. However, due to wide criticism, the project was unfortunately cancelled.
EDIT: I almost forgot...VBS1 and VBS2 both are capable of modeling civilian populations and livestock. There is massive potential here to develop scenarios which permit the player to avoid and/or participate in war crimes against a civilian populous or a POW. However, these products do not have wide distribution commercially and the scenarios must be designed by users as the developer has not made any for the commercial market.
Hmmm...that airport video is a little bit chilling considering what happened at LAX this week.
Quote from: WallysWorld on November 04, 2013, 06:04:39 PM
Hmmm...that airport video is a little bit chilling considering what happened at LAX this week.
Other than the fact that they both involved shootings and airports, I don't think much else is comparable. But yes, I see your point.
Good point, Jarhead. How a computer game could totally adjudicate the laws of war (which do allow proportionate firing into civilian areas if fire is coming from that area) is beyond me. On the other hand, a well-designed game wouldn't allow enemy NPCs to shoot from a hospital window.
Michael
What does the Geneva Convention say about Nerve Stapling?
Quote from: tgb on November 04, 2013, 07:03:22 PM
What does the Geneva Convention say about Nerve Stapling?
Swap 'Nerve Stapling' with 'Massive Phosgene Bombardment' and you have your answer.
Thanks, you're reminding me of how many atrocities are in non-shooter games.
Michael
Non-shooter, but I've leveled cities in Civ V and in Total War. I don't like doing things like that though, it makes me feel uncomfortable even if it is 'just a game.' Ask anyone who knows me here how I reacted to Toy Soldiers...mowing down enemy soldiers in that game (also not FPS but tower defense) made me depressed.
I think this exercise must only include modern games into the equation. It is not fair to judge morality in a game dealing with ancients or the pre-modern world when it comes to modern rules of war. There was no GC in the days of the Caesars or of Alexander, so why judge the player's actions in those games through a modern lens with our modern global sensitivity?
how about Defcon?
I remember playing that part in Modern Warfare 2.. I did not shoot any civilians.. I don't think it had any repercussions on how the game played out (don't remember - something happen at the end of the scene, I forget) , but I definitely was not 'into' that segment..
does the GC have any restrictions concerning necromancy? whenever i die i keep being resurrected by some unknown force. that has to go against the laws of nature, its an abomination ;)
then theres the whole GTA series of games.
The GC doesn't say much about the deploying the twilight movies against civilians either so we may need to be a bit creative in our interpretation.
Hmmm... where have I heard that before? ???
IIRC, the Delta Force: Blackhawk Down game (and add-ons) by Novalogic had a few maps that took place in populated souks and proximate neighborhoods. Also IIRC, some of the villagers would throw stones at you (causing very minor damage) but you could scare them off by firing a round into the air / ground. I am pretty sure that if you killed more than a couple of them (or more annoyingly, caused the enemy to kill a couple of them by taking cover and therefore drawing fire next to a cowering citizen) you would lose the mission.
I am currently playing through a campaign of B-17 II. On my last mission over Hamburg I missed the target due and pasted a nearby neighborhood. No staff cars with stern faced officers were awaiting me back in England.
FWIW...this topic was discussed with some heat elsewhere in this forum. One of points I made was that some games specifically prohibit you for commiting acts against the GC...like not allowing you to place a "target" marker on surrendered units (for example, Close Combat and Combat Mission), whilst in other games (Red Baron I) you would get a warning if you did something like strafe an ambulance. Do it more than three times and you are cashiered.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 04, 2013, 10:33:17 PM
then theres the whole GTA series of games.
Yes...good one. And what about that Postal series the caused an uproar because you ran around a schoolyard shooting children? Never played it but read about it.
Quote from: Rayfer on November 05, 2013, 08:52:36 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 04, 2013, 10:33:17 PM
then theres the whole GTA series of games.
Yes...good one. And what about that Postal series the caused an uproar because you ran around a schoolyard shooting children? Never played it but read about it.
As far as I know neither of those games is depicting war - they're just common or garden mass homicides - so the GC does not apply.
This discussion is reminding me of a game from way back when (90's or late '80's) which used news teams as a kind of third player. This was before the age of embedded journalists, and I think the concept was that if the new media doesn't see it, it doesn't happen.
Never owned that one (though I was tempted), but the premise was delightfully sick. The fourth-estate angle certainly applied to casualties, and may even have applied to atrocities (I think it may have come out just after Kosovo). From what I remember reading about it the wargame itself was adequate (not great), but may have suffered from putting too many demands on computer systems that were available at the time.
The name of this particular game escapes me, but the media-spin angle for victory points is fascinating. Take that hill and spill too much blood, and Vietnam syndrome sets in (or sumfink). Imagine Jagged Alliance with news teams running around, and having to remember to massacre your enemies when the cameras aren't rolling. It gets a little more complicated in the age of cell phones, but the concept of playing for perceived victory points as opposed to how much damage you actually do is intriguing. And probably a good albeit frustrating way of modelling reality (tm).
I think the game you might be thinking of is Beyond Good and Evil, which is set in a Sci-fi environment.
The one I'm thinking of came out shortly (?) after Steel Panthers MBT. It had tanks, insurgents, and television news cameras. I'll research Beyond Good and Evil and see if that was it, it the title doesn't sound right.
I'm pretty sure that's not it. The game I'm thinking of was staged in contemporary non-fantasy third world hot spots. What sticks in my mind is a battle with vehicles in sub-Saharan Africa (a bit like Angola). I think the inspiration was the later phases of the Cold War.
Hmm...no can't be Beyond Good and Evil. Totally different melieu. Great game though.
I have thrown dozens of nukes at rival civilizations and city states in CiV5. Why? It saves my own armed forces.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 04, 2013, 10:33:17 PM
then theres the whole GTA series of games.
...good they didn't had seen Let's Plays of the last GTA installment
The torture scene, where the player as the psychopathic-leaning character 'Trevor Philips' get forced (by rough FIB agents/thugs ...some inside agencies rivalry) to torture someone for info, while the hitmen team is on the target and need the positive ID-info, asap ...as a mini game! not just as a cutscene.
and you get 'accomplished click boxes' (IMHO that's a little over the edge) for using all four tools: the pliers on tooth, a wrench for a hit a knee, electricity, and last but not least -a fluid from a gas-can for the popular 'water boarding'
go figure :o
Quote from: Philippe on November 05, 2013, 11:02:47 AM
This discussion is reminding me of a game from way back when (90's or late '80's) which used news teams as a kind of third player. This was before the age of embedded journalists, and I think the concept was that if the new media doesn't see it, it doesn't happen.
Never owned that one (though I was tempted), but the premise was delightfully sick. The fourth-estate angle certainly applied to casualties, and may even have applied to atrocities (I think it may have come out just after Kosovo). From what I remember reading about it the wargame itself was adequate (not great), but may have suffered from putting too many demands on computer systems that were available at the time.
The name of this particular game escapes me, but the media-spin angle for victory points is fascinating. Take that hill and spill too much blood, and Vietnam syndrome sets in (or sumfink). Imagine Jagged Alliance with news teams running around, and having to remember to massacre your enemies when the cameras aren't rolling. It gets a little more complicated in the age of cell phones, but the concept of playing for perceived victory points as opposed to how much damage you actually do is intriguing. And probably a good albeit frustrating way of modelling reality (tm).
I believe you are referring to a game called Kuma War, which released a series of episodes based upon modern conflicts making news around the world.
I don't think so. The game I have in mind was not an FPS. It used isometric views and (from my recollection of the screenshots) you could see half a dozen vehicles and a couple of squads at a time.
Quote from: Philippe on November 06, 2013, 09:22:27 AM
I don't think so. The game I have in mind was not an FPS. It used isometric views and (from my recollection of the screenshots) you could see half a dozen vehicles and a couple of squads at a time.
RTS?
Quite possibly, and that would explain why I never got around to getting it.
you know whats a war crime?
Matrix prices!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/11/should_you_be_allowed_to_use_chemical_weapons_in_a_video_game
Good grief. Maybe we should just pass laws where death is outlawed in all games. That includes Pacman. That incomplete circle has been killing ghosts for decades now. Completely out of control and unacceptable.
How do you kill a ghost?
You eat one of those power pellets and it turns the ghosts edible. I'm not sure how it works. That secret is held deep in the vaults of Namco.
No I mean in reality.
Are you daring to suggest Pacman isn't "real"?
I guess it depends on many factors.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc03.deviantart.net%2Ffs49%2Ff%2F2009%2F224%2F7%2F0%2Fpacman_eats_ghost_by_glenramirez.gif&hash=cb44a7be871cea9d44fcac4d30565faa40020bc2)
See? Ghost have emotions and Pacman doesn't care. In fact, he gets crazy eyes as he's eating them while they are still whatever passes for alive as a ghost.
I am almost shamed into silence by that .gif.
As Matlock would say, "I rest my case, your honor."
I think the Red Cross needs to investigate this board.
Michael
There are some places even the Red Cross won't go.
Quote from: Bison on November 11, 2013, 08:47:48 PM
See? Ghost have emotions and Pacman doesn't care. In fact, he gets crazy eyes as he's eating them while they are still whatever passes for alive as a ghost.
Those power pellets are probably bath salts.
As I recall, Ms. Pacman was just as bad. I think that's why they never had children. Eating ghosts causes infertility. Of course the ghosts did look an awful lot like little colored condums. So..... ::)
Found this interesting.
It seems in certain circumstances nuclear weapons are still legal to use but would be frowned upon by the IHL.
"There is no comprehensive or universal ban in international law on the use of nuclear weapons. However, in July 1996 the International Court of Justice concluded that international humanitarian law did apply to the use of nuclear weapons and that their use 'would generally be contrary' to IHL's principles and rules."
"While the Court found that the use of nuclear weapons seemed "scarcely reconcilable" with respect for humanitarian law, it declared it could not reach "a definitive conclusion as to the legality or illegality of the use of nuclear weapons by a State in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be at stake."
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/nuclear-weapons/overview-nuclear-weapons.htm
I wonder if we can justifiably nuke countries who we feel violate the other rules of the IHL.
If so,looks like Iran may have a few nukes with their name written on it in their future.
somehow I just dont think US Strategic Command gives a shit. 8)
seriously Gus???
If not then I suggest a Proton Pack Mark 1/1
Philippe: the only RTS game I know of where the media had a prominent place was Combat Zone, a mediocre but entertaining game.
As to war crimes: there are times, when playing wargames, when I have to stop for a moment because I'm treating the deaths of millions as a statistic (which it is, in the game). In a way, I still find it scary how the process works: if you're up close and personal with your units and see them die, you're more inclined to care for them than if they're little more than an abstracted bunch of numbers. When you play WitE, you can see how Stalin could make his famous quote about the issue: for the Stavka, casualty reports would just depict numbers and units would be drawings on a huge map.
I also can't play as the Axis for a while after reading about the Holocaust (even though you're not killing the Jews and other targeted groups/individuals yourself in a wargame), or as the Allies after reading about the bombing of Germany and Japan. In wargames, we'd bomb "Manpower" points, but what we're really doing is killing civilians. The game just packages that in a different way, just like the air force did (which officially insisted the targets were military targets most of the time). Games like Bombing the Reich have a limited appeal to me for that reason, because the game would mostly come down to killing civilians and it would encourage me to become more efficient at it.
Destroying enemy forces in the most efficient way is something I find enjoyable, it's like solving puzzle comparable to solving a chess problem in my opinion, but deliberately attacking civilian targets is something I'm not fond of.
I know it's only a video game, but I also find little appeal as playing the Axis in games.
Playing the TW games, on many occasions I would execute enemy soldiers of a power that was really annoying me. Ill show them!!
Playing Arma2 within many of the sandboxes I made, protecting civilians (at least avoid killing them) would be part of the mission while hunting down insurgents. I can't say I was careful enough flying around in my Mi-24, though :)
I would agree, if the setting requires you to protect civilians (or at least not kill them), there need to be consequences if you do.
GTA is probably the biggest offender of all time when it comes to the possibility of committing cold-blooded murder without realist repercussions.
I think we should have the opportunity to commit more war crimes in video games.
Put that in your pipe!
;)
;D 8)
Quote from: Nefaro on November 13, 2013, 06:41:13 PM
I think we should have the opportunity to commit more war crimes in video games.
Put that in your pipe!
;)
Maybe more blood, gore, and violence in games would have a reverse effect on people?
Quote from: Nefaro on November 13, 2013, 06:41:13 PM
I think we should have the opportunity to commit more war crimes in video games.
Put that in your pipe!
;)
Maybe if we had a more definite position in the chain of command, this would be part of the mess of decisions we would face. For example, if our gaming role actually approximated a command role. For another example, in the aftermath of Bir Hakiem, Rommel was supposedly advised to kill all the Jewish prisoners that had been captured there (which could not have been all that many since most of the garrison escaped). He apparently ignored that advice. But that might have been all the better since the Italians who were technically his superiors might have frowned on executing prisoners of war. Anyway -- to have the opportunity, you have to have a more realistic command role.
Needless (perhaps) to say, it didn't occur to the 90th Light Division to shoot any of the prisoners they captured at Bir Hakeim, which is something worth considering. And to move to larger areas of command roles -- the Wehrmacht took 3 million Russian prisoners in 1941 so they can't have been shooting many of them. They left it to the German high command to let those 3 million starve to death.
I thought the issue was whether or not the Free French were to be
considered regular or irregular soldiers,since France had surrendered to
Germany before the battle of Bir Hachiem.
The British told the Germans that if Germany executed the free French
soldiers then they sadly in return would execute German soldiers as
well.So the Germans rescinded the order.
The Germans didn't seperate Jews from regular prisoners taken from Western
armies,but in Russia they would seperate the Jews from the regular
prisoners because they felt the Jewish soldiers were most likely to be
soldiers of higher rank and/or communist political officers(Commissars) in
the Russian army.
The Russian army would seperate the SS from regular German prisoners for almost the same reason.
That's not correct. Jewish-Americans soldiers were separated from other GIs and sent to special work camps. Many of them died. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4672288
Michael
Quote from: Dolan50 on November 14, 2013, 11:47:13 AM
I thought the issue was whether or not the Free French were to be
considered regular or irregular soldiers,since France had surrendered to
Germany before the battle of Bir Hachiem.
The British told the Germans that if Germany executed the free French
soldiers then they sadly in return would execute German soldiers as
well.So the Germans rescinded the order.
The Germans didn't seperate Jews from regular prisoners taken from Western
armies,but in Russia they would seperate the Jews from the regular
prisoners because they felt the Jewish soldiers were most likely to be
soldiers of higher rank and/or communist political officers(Commissars) in
the Russian army.
The Russian army would seperate the SS from regular German prisoners for almost the same reason.
About Bir Hakiem and a nearby smaller mined box battle, there seem to be plenty of different stories. In any case, apparently Hitler wanted some of the prisoners shot, but Rommel didn't follow the order and of course it probably never occured to the victorious Axis troops to shoot any prisoners even if technically maybe the GC didn't protect partisans at the time.
So in game terms, shooting prisoners was only ordered at the highest command levels and not carried out either by the troops involved (since they knew how to take prisoners) or any lower levels of command (since there are long-standing rules about offering terms and so on).
So in game terms, for a regional or front commander like Rommel, there could be some gaming of the problem of direct orders from higher up to shoot prisoners, and the fact that under many circumstances other rules (as understood by soldiers and lower commanders) would be applied. BUT, I think the role of the player in the game would need to be clarified in terms of rewards and punishments. So, in Rommel's case, he might have lost some credibility in the inner circles of German power and he might have gained some in Italian eyes and even added to the sense his enemies might have of his mental integrity perhaps leading them to overestimate his forces or something.
Quote from: DicedT on November 14, 2013, 12:06:10 PM
That's not correct. Jewish-Americans soldiers were separated from other GIs and sent to special work camps. Many of them died. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4672288
Michael
And...for that matter, there was the British army paratrooper captured at Arnheim who was sent to Aschwitz because he had a letter from
Hiafa in his pocket. Which seems a bit harsh.
So...okay, there's a difference between killing civvies in a game (say, CoD MW 2) in person and mass murdering/cleansing millions in a 4x space game (as was mentioned earlier)?
First, I guess I'm wired wrong, because I don't see the difference. Sure, if I'm walking through that airport in CoD MW 2 and 'AK'ing' "people" into heaps, that's up close and personal. Dropping a nova bomb on a planet and cracking it in half, thereby 'killing' billions of "beings" is the same thing, even if they're not there to see. All in all, it's all electronically-generated pixels and none of it is real. That's the bottom line.
2, how people can get themselves worked up into a righteous indignation over video games, I can understand. Of course, that airport scene is rather horrific. But I played through it, just so I could say I did. (Note: I never said I did, until now anyway.) But again, it's a game; it's not real, it's not a training simulator for wannabe terrorists. Of course there's going to be people with hidden sadomasochistic natures that suddenly get sticky in the pants when they start mowing down unarmed civvies with automatic weapons. Regardless of whether you're moving a yellow circle eating pills and chomping ghosts, or planting zombie-eating flowers, or going through Russian airports and shooting civvies, or jacking cars left and right...it's all a game. It's not a real massacre. It's not real flowers. It's not real civvies.
Third, does the Red Cross not have enough to do with real-world events and tragedies without spending valuable resources looking at something as silly as that? The Red Cross is something of a national joke among blood centers for constantly screwing up blood draws, having unsafe working conditions, and being fined millions by the federal government for being so bad at their jobs. Why they would feel the urge to do this is laughable.
So, if we're going to police video games and start applying Geneva Convention rules to them, might as well start applying other real-world laws. Which will turn every video game ever into Pong, and we're back to square 1.
Sorry, rant over. I'm tired and cold right now and should be working instead of reading this board (oops, I might get fired from my SimJob now).
There's lots of money in the gaming industry and it seems the Red Cross is
looking for an angle/way to cut themselves in on the profit and popularity
of these games.
Wonder how fair and balanced they would be in exerting their influence
once they started getting paid off to turn a blind eye away from games
with a huge profit margin that don't adhere to these rules.
It just looks like a blackmail and hush money scheme to me.They just want you to believe this shit is real with real world consequences so as to get real money from you.
How many people actually buy these games for the sole enjoyment of commiting war crimes.
I look for balance in a wargame so I can play either side for a challenge.
Most of the wargames I play don't even involve civilians and the prisoners
can't be targeted after they surrender anyways.
Regardless,if I own a game I should be able to commit war crimes if I
feel like it.I don't need the Red Cross telling me what is right or wrong
in a virtual world.
If the Red Cross thinks that the modern rules of warfare would make a game more interesting and exciting to play then maybe they should try their hand at creating one and see how much profit they generate for themselves,instead of gambling with other peoples money and profit margins.
Quote from: Dolan50 on November 14, 2013, 04:39:45 PM
There's lots of money in the gaming industry and it seems the Red Cross is
looking for an angle/way to cut themselves in on the profit and popularity
of these games.
I suppose so. Considering how many millions the FDA fines the American Red Cross, I wouldn't doubt they're looking for a new revenue stream to make up the difference.