Red Cross: Punish War Crimes in Video Games

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Source:

While you typically play a hero in military shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield, some of your actions aren't exactly heroic. You've likely partaken in more than a few actions that international law would frown upon, to put it mildly.

If so, the Red Cross wants a fitting in-game punishment for your crimes.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is calling on game publishers to penalize players who violate real-world international war conventions. But before you start complaining about "censorship" or "overreaction," the Red Cross wants to make it clear that they're not looking for these moments to ripped out of games.

"We're not asking for censorship, we don't want to take any elements out of the games," said spokesperson Bernard Barrett. "We're not trying to make games boring or preachy, but we’re hoping that the ones that offer a realistic portrayal of a modern battlefield can incorporate some sort of reward or penalties depending on whether they follow the basic rules of armed conflict."

The Red Cross in concerned that some game situations can trivialize violations of the Geneva Convention. And it worries that in doing so, it could open the door for those actions to be considered acceptable on the battlefield.

Among the areas of concern: Torture sequences, shooting civilians and killing prisoners.

Barrett also noted that the agency's concern was focused on games that mimic contemporary armed conflicts, though he stopped short of naming the obvious candidates: Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Medal of Honor. Other genres, like fantasy games, weren't a focus, he added.

While the request might take some of the spontaneity out of modern action games, it could potentially give them bragging rights in the ongoing fight over which games is more true-to-life.

"It’s just making it more realistic, the same way the military has rules on the battlefield, then gamers have the same rules," says Barrett.

Of course, previous studies have yet to determine a causal link between in-game and real-world violence, which could derail the Red Cross's argument. Observers are keeping a close eye on a study by the CDC, however, as the issue continues to simmer on the political radar.

**Alfndrate**

Thankfully Skyrim is immune to this, it really puts a cramp on my style if the Imperials try me for war crimes because I slaughtered everyone but the children of Solitude...

**LordofHats**

Because the people in the world actually responsible for war crimes would be sure never to commit them if modern media showed them how bad they were

**Peregrine**

I wonder which franchise will be the first to include a level where you massacre a bunch of red cross workers as retaliation for this.

**Kilkrazy**

Actually that would be against the law.

**Manchu**

Alfndrate wrote:
I slaughtered everyone but the children

There's a mod for that.

(And I'm not talking about me.)

**sing your life**

Don't some games already have this?

Peregrine wrote:
I wonder which franchise will be the first to include a level where you massacre a bunch of red cross workers as retaliation for this.

LOL, that would be a brilliant easter egg.

**Peregrine**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually that would be against the law.

That's why you change the names a bit to avoid any trademark issues. For example, Blue Square aid workers are distributing food to the enemy, massacre them and drop these AK-47s near the corpses so we can blame the terrorists.

**Noir**

My grandpa came back from the Korean War. Got off the boat, Red Cross gave him and his militray buds coffee and donuts. Then after the ate they CHARGED (yes charged) them for it. Red Cross knows were they can shove it.

**spiralingcadaver**

Well, I actually thought they're making a pretty reasonable case. Way better than most "censor stuff we don't like!" arguments that come up.

**cincydooley**

spiralingcadaver wrote:
Well, I actually thought they're making a pretty reasonable case. Way better than most "censor stuff we don't like!" arguments that come up.

I did too. Until they said that they wanted to take out torture in games. I think it's a bit naive to think that it doesn't happen in warzones.....

**Alfndrate**

Manchu wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
I slaughtered everyone but the children
There's a mod for that.

(And I'm not talking about me.)

Yeah, but I like to think that if I leave the children alive, they'll develop a Lord of the Flies type society, or learn to live in fear of my character since I took away their parents and will do the same to them once they age.

**d-usa**

I think it sounds like a pretty neat idea for games to implement. I wouldn't want it to be a legal requirement though.

**Frazzled**

Noir wrote:
My grandpa came back from the Korean War. Got off the boat, Red Cross gave him and his militray buds coffee and donuts. Then after the ate they CHARGED (yes charged) them for it. Red Cross knows were they can shove it.

Yes grandpa thought they were jokes. They would sell same to merchant marine sailors.

**MrMoustaffa**

If this got implemented games like Spec Ops the line would be 90% spent in a courtroom

**Kilkrazy**

cincydooley wrote:
spiralingcadaver wrote:
Well, I actually thought they're making a pretty reasonable case. Way better than most "censor stuff we don't like!" arguments that come up.

I did too. Until they said that they wanted to take out torture in games. I think it's a bit naive to think that it doesn't happen in warzones.....

Certainly there have been a number of trials during the Iraq War, involving US or UK servicemen maltreating prisoners.

**Soladrin**

Okay, can we also implement a law that punishes misuse of donations by charities?

**Wyrmalla**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
If this got implemented games like Spec Ops the line would be 90% spent in a courtroom

I suppose if games took that game's stand point the Red Cross wouldn't be making this case. Spec Ops: The Line was a great game, not really because of its average gameplay, but rather that it wasn't shovelling how *awesome war is down your throat. Considering that parents buy their kids R18 games and sit them in front of them for hours children are going to be growing up with a skewed view of the world. Though maybe games that cover this subject just need to grow up a little and quit acting like cheap Hollywood action flicks. =/

**DemetriDominov**

A law? No. A strong suggestion of some sort of poetic justice? Why would developers not have that in a video game? Oh.. wait.... isn't that the end of almost every villian ever? It'd be nice to see some sort of karma implemented in a game though. Put good in, get good back, do bad, get bad back.

**welshhoppo**

Peregrine wrote:
I wonder which franchise will be the first to include a level where you massacre a bunch of red cross workers as retaliation for this.

If you play the game Silent Hunter 3, you occasionally come across Hospital Ships. Those big red crosses on the side of that pristine white hull are practically begging for a torpedo.......

But hasn't COD MW2 already done this? I mean you couldn't get any trophies for the level when you gun down an entire airport, so their is no reward for that.

**Mr. Burning**

This has reawakened memories of conversations in college.

I had an ideas for a game called UN peacekeepers. The premise being you would be sent to different conflict zones and have to prevent escalations and serious human rights violations. You would also get hosed by various child soldiers toting Ak's, Be functionally useless, standing by as civilians were murdered - or worse.

You could also engage in theft and smuggling, with the height being drug smuggling and people trafficking.

Side quests included evading the mother of your illegitimate child.

**kirsanth**

I am entirely against most related legislation.

However, I cannot really think of a downside to having more layers of verisimilitude added to games touting exactly that as a good thing.

"We're not asking for censorship, we don't want to take any elements out of the games," said spokesperson Bernard Barrett. "We're not trying to make games boring or preachy, but we’re hoping that the ones that offer a realistic portrayal of a modern battlefield can incorporate some sort of reward or penalties depending on whether they follow the basic rules of armed conflict."

How would that, really, be bad?
I get how it COULD be - but with the real assumption that the above quote is sincere, I only find it an interesting layer to add.

Take out the enemy position?
+points
Take out the entire block, including homes and collateral damage?
- points

Of course, it pretty quickly leads to the somewhat obvious inclusion of folk/teams that swap those values, quickly invalidating the stated REASONS, but not the benefits, oddly.

**nels1031**

Red Dead Redemption sorta did this.

**Velour_Fog**

This really isn't necessary. It's quite hard to explain to people who don't play videogames, but I might run around and laugh manically cutting people up with a buzzsaw in fallout 3, but I wouldn't to do that in real life because
a) real people have feelings
b) i'd be in prison for the rest of my life or I'd be shot dead.

If people can't distinguish between fantasy and reality it might be indicative of some mental health issues which aren't the game's fault.

Also, why not do the same thing with movies?

**kirsanth**

Velour_Fog wrote:
Also, why not do the same thing with movies?

I have seen people punished for war crimes in movies.

**Velour_Fog**

kirsanth wrote:
Velour_Fog wrote:
Also, why not do the same thing with movies?

I have seen people punished for war crimes in movies.

Yeah, but there's plenty of violent movies where villains don't get put in front of a war crimes court.

**kirsanth**

Note that the same was suggested here.

**Orlanth**

Peregrine wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually that would be against the law.

That's why you change the names a bit to avoid any trademark issues. For example, Blue Square aid workers are distributing food to the enemy, massacre them and drop these AK-47s near the corpses so we can blame the terrorists.

Yep the Red Cross is a protected symbol by international law. You can lampoon a national flag but to lampoon the Red Cross or Red Crescent in certain ways is in breach of the Geneva conventions, I kid you not.

If a game did include a level where the Red Cross workers were shot by the player the Red Cross would sue, they would also win, and the game would have to be edited. If someone added a mod with that content the company is in the clear.

A good example of this is the James Bond film The Living Daylights included drugs shipped in Red Cross aid packages. The film producers were forced to add disclaimers.

**Kovnik Obama**

Mr. Burning wrote:
This has reawakened memories of conversations in college.

I had an ideas for a game called UN peacekeepers. The premise being you would be sent to different conflict zones and have to prevent escalations and serious human rights violations. You would also get hosed by various child soldiers toting Ak's, Be functionally useless, standing by as civilians were murdered - or worse.

You could also engage in theft and smuggling, with the height being drug smuggling and people trafficking.

Side quests included evading the mother of your illegitimate child.

Would totally play that.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim?**

Would the Fallout franchise count? The Karma system in that game is pretty important.

~Tim?