BBC: Should the rules of war be included in computer games?

[MengJiao]

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.

[Jack Nastyface]

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

[Dolan50]

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.

[Jack Nastyface]

^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.

[Dolan50]

"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.

[Nefaro]

Call me paranoid then.I prefer to be paranoid instead of naive.

LOL

Amen, brotha.

[MengJiao]

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.

[Dolan50]

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.

[Nefaro]

Virtual crimes my ass this is a thought control issue.

Definitely another attack from the Political Correctness Police.  ;)

[Father Ted]

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.

[Fetrik]

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??!!

[Dolan50]

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.

[Fetrik]

Oh peuh. Good thing the wasted time was related to my thinking and not the oppisit.

[MengJiao]

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.

[Nefaro]

  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.