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

[Bison]

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...

[Jack Nastyface]

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   So "decision" and "choice" have been replaced by - let's face it - some pretty predictable techniques, like switching between foreground and background enemy spawn points, or maybe they'll throw in some nifty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.

[Dolan50]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

Never seen a game called Auschwitz or Gulag either.

There's Train

[MengJiao]

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.

[Boggit]

  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

[Boggit]

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