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

[Rex Brynen]

The BBC asks... Should the rules of war be included in computer games?

Previous discussion of this issue at PAXsims:

Virtual military training and international humanitarian law (7 December 2011)
International humanitarian law and electronic gaming (2 December 2009)

[SgtRock]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

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'?

[Dolan50]

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.

[SgtRock]

What's next, PETA (animals are people too) suing game companies for killing animals in video games?

[Jack Nastyface]

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 

[magnus]

 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.

[Bison]

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.

[Jack Nastyface]

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

[Bison]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[Bison]

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.

[LongBlade]

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.

[MengJiao]

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.

[bayonetbrant]

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.