Well well well . . . most likely yes if these guys are right.

 

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Games-War-Crimes-humanitarian-Virtual,news-5188.html

 

Games Are "Permitting" Virtual War Crimes

By Kevin Parrish, published on November 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Source: Tom's Guide US

 

Humanitarian groups are the latest to tear into video games, saying that many titles violate humanitarian laws.

 

Are gamers breaking humanitarian laws when playing the likes of Modern Warfare 2 or other war-themed titles? According to the BBC News, a recent study conducted by two human rights groups--Trial and Pro Juventute--claim that certain games violate humanitarian laws by allowing players to destroy homes and buildings, torture captives, and gun down innocent civilians.

 

Staff members of both organizations played twenty games in the presence of lawyers versed in the interpretation of humanitarian laws. The titles included Army of Two, Call of Duty 5, Far Cry 2, Conflict: Desert Storm, and many others. Why not use popular Hollywood movies as test subjects? Because they don't involve hands-on interaction.

 

According to the BBC, the testers looked for violations of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols. They also analyzed how surrendered prisoners were treated, and what happened to civilians who were caught in the conflict. While few games rewarded players for minimizing damage and protecting civilians, other titles allowed the destruction of churches, depicted interrogations, and even recreated torture and degradation.

 

Ultimately, the study determined that the games are sending an "erroneous" message that conflicts are waged without limits. The study also determined that games provide an impression that anything is acceptable in counter-terrorism operations. Other studies outside the humanitarian groups have indicated otherwise, reporting that the games don't desensitize players, and that they are fully aware the experience is simply fantasy.

 

think they've been out of the loop for a while as games that allow 'war crimes' have been around for years. Anyone remember good old Syndicate with your gauss guns and miniguns where you can run around and gun down whoever you want? what about RPGs? hell what about SimCity, you can demolish homes there with out any of the poor little sprites on the screen complaining or being put into detention camps, no they prolly just jump onto SimBoat and go to SimAustralia to become SimAsylumSeekers or SimRefugees . . .

No such thing as a civilian in a war zone only Collateral damage

they're a bunch of idiots if they think shooting a civilian in a game is the same as shooting one irl

Let me analyse:

 

Games Are "Permitting" Virtual War Crimes

By Kevin Parrish, published on November 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Source: Tom's Guide US

 

Spun title. 'Virtual War Crimes', aren't crimes under the Geneva convention and its protocols.

 

Humanitarian groups are the latest to tear into video games, saying that many titles violate humanitarian laws.

 

Humanitarian Groups. Spun wording, could have said 'two small humanitarian organisations' or 'a couple of humanitarian groups'. "Humanitarian groups" makes it sound like there is broader consensus than there is.

 

Are gamers breaking humanitarian laws when playing the likes of Modern Warfare 2 or other war-themed titles? According to the BBC News, a recent study conducted by two human rights groups--Trial and Pro Juventute--claim that certain games violate humanitarian laws by allowing players to destroy homes and buildings, torture captives, and gun down innocent civilians.

 

Within the context of the game, if there were say a "Virtual Geneva Protocol I", then yes the game would "virtually" violate may such a virtually applicable law. However, the Geneva Convention and its Protocols, applies to soldiers and civilians caught up in real world conflict. Not on your 22" LG LCD. As far as I know, virtually generated characters dont have human rights.

 

Staff members of both organizations played twenty games in the presence of lawyers versed in the interpretation of humanitarian laws...

According to the BBC, the testers looked for violations of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols. They also analyzed how surrendered prisoners were treated, and what happened to civilians who were caught in the conflict...While few games rewarded players for minimizing damage and protecting civilians, other titles allowed the destruction of churches, depicted interrogations, and even recreated torture and degradation.

 

And what were the lawyers actually asked? Were they asked, 'do these actions, irrespective of theirvirtual representation, violate core international humanitarian law?' or 'do these games violated core international humanitarian law as it stands under convention and protocol today?*' It's superficial reporting at best. Id rather hear the lawyers speak, and hear what they say. For any gamer could answer easily that yes, games do break certain protocols within the context of the game. You dont need to be a lawyer to answer that question FFS. Anyone up for shooting a medic res'ing? But he's wearing the red cross!

 

Ultimately, the study determined that the games are sending an "erroneous" message that conflicts are waged without limits. The study also determined that games provide an impression that anything is acceptable in counter-terrorism operations. Other studies outside the humanitarian groups have indicated otherwise, reporting that the games don't desensitize players, and that they are fully aware the experience is simply fantasy.

 

What study? Where are the the links. Where are the facts? What is acceptable in Counter-terrorism operations? What are the "Other studies". Why would people assume some conflicts are waged without limits? Some conflicts ARE waged without seeming limits. Duh! Congo, Somalia, fkin Rwanda, Stalingrad, Malaya, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. I mean WTF? If those battles and wars had limits, please let me know about them!

 

Basically this whole seems to just fog the field with more BS about gaming and gaming culture. Hopefully, as this debate I think is pertinent, we will at some stage see some reasonable reporting about it. Not glib articles about articles that dont actually deal with the real issues of gaming culture and violence. Instead reporting constantly focuses on the outrage and sensationalist headlines, just because its easy or something.

 

It's alarming. There is a reasoned debate to be had about gaming culture and violence. And its being hijacked by crap articles like this, who simply dont understand the nuance of games and gaming in general.

 

* I just read the original BBC article and it states the lawyers were asked:

 

The games were analysed to see "whether certain scenes and acts committed by players would constitute violations of international law if they were real, rather than virtual".

(Source BBC)

Edited November 25, 200915 yr by Hambang101

+1 to that Gourmetrail

Lol, I still love how everyone misses the point in all these issues. If you want to make video games look bad there are far easier ways to do it.

 

Instead of singling out virtual crimes in legitimate wars which are often unavoidable collateral in war times, "Oh noes I wounded a civilian in the crossfire!!" or that infamous level in MW2 where you can choose to open fire on civilians.

 

Why not look at games that not only allow you to commit horrific immoral criminal acts but even force you to in order to pass the level and progress in the game. Most important of all many games actually reward you for committing these acts.

 

Carmageddon: Road killing innocent civilians for bonus points.

Hitman series: Murdering people for money.

Assassins Creed: Again as you would guess the game revolves around murdering people in particularly brutal ways.

Manhunt series: Brutal execution style murders make up the majority of the game.

GTA series: The entire game revolves around serious crimes mainly murder, again for money.

 

And they are just the perfect candidates that people could immediately relate to and that I could immediately think of off the top of my head.

 

 

That all said, a game is a game nothing more nothing less. If I played a game where I had to kill the president/PM in a mission it would not make me any more (or less) likely to commit such an act in real life.

 

Saying that violent videos games make people more prone to violence is like saying Cluedo players are more likely to kill Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick holder.

Edited November 25, 200915 yr by mrchickenfool

Thats utter crapola !what are these ppl thinking... there are games out there that allow you to fly too... but we can do that !! NO !! coz its fictional, seriously people have nothing better to do than bitch about of the biggest industries in the world !

I wonder what it means for all the people who get those playboy mansion games...

but I guess we don't need a lawyer to prove that they are bona fide tossers...

Uh, bandwagon anyone?

 

The report isn't even about people distinguishing video game violence from rl violence. It's a study about how video games portray real life laws and whether game developers should adopt some responsibility about how those laws are viewed within the context of their video games.

 

The orignal BBC document even says:

 

The authors said they did not wish to make games less violent, instead, they wrote: "[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games."

 

It's a legit, albeit not very good argument. The "controversial" airport scene in MW2 WAS pointless to the point of forgettable. It didn't even need to be in the game - if it was essential you wouldn't have been able to skip it. IW just wanted to see how far they could push the envelope. If someone wants to question that then that's fine.

 

If anyone's putting a spin on anything it's the Tom's Guide writer. He'd probably do well with a job writing for ACA or Today Tonight.

 

And what's with us gamers adopting the same lame, textbook liberal atittude whenever something like this comes along?

 

"Woot, screw "The Man"! I want to be an individual and express my rights through gaming! All your political hate mongering is getting tangled up with the strings that all the games developers are using to keep me dancing!"

Who is hate mongering?

 

Or are you just referring to the stereotypical outraged gamer?

Were all going into this far too deeply

 

The question - "Am I a war criminal for playing MW2, PR or Arma?"

 

the answer - "No, that is f'ing ridiculous."

Technically it'd be the character/guy/girl you're playing as that's committing the war crime.

dont you get technical here scrim (heh heh, technical, it has a machine gun on it LAWL )! we're busy having a highly shallow discussion on whether or not we're war crims . . . so doom on you!

I guess Ahnuld is the worst of us then by this logic, because he's fictionally killed 405050050 fictional characters on celluloid.

 

Damn.

What? Civvies aren't valid targets?

 

No wonder my scores suck at these games...God damn it...why didn't anyone tell me?

 

Next thing you know, you wont be able to tk for vehicles...WHAT?...you cant do that either?...screw you guys i'm going back to Hello Kitty adventures

 

Serious note: In order to ensure I dont get into any trouble with these humanitarian groups I will no longer fire upon the opposing team until either myself or my team mates are fired upon first.

Edited November 26, 200915 yr by kevinmiller

What? Civvies aren't valid targets?

 

No wonder my scores suck at these games...God damn it...why didn't anyone tell me?

 

Next thing you know, you wont be able to tk for vehicles...WHAT?...you cant do that either?...screw you guys i'm going back to Hello Kitty adventures

 

Serious note: In order to ensure I dont get into any trouble with these humanitarian groups I will no longer fire upon the opposing team until either myself or my team mates are fired upon first.

 

As un-teamworkish as this may be - I still find myself opening fire on a group of Insurgents in PR instead of bothering to check for civilians first.

 

So yes, I might just be a war criminal.

 

 

This debate has given me an idea for a new game - "War Criminal". It's one hell of a catchy title...

And they say games are no good?

 

Retailer Game, Activision and Xbox Live have teamed up for a UK-based charity drive based around Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

 

Activision will donate £1 to the War Child charity for every UK gamer playing MW2 on Xbox Live on December 5th and 6th. Additionally, Xbox Live Gold Memberships will be free that weekend in an effort to boost participation in Games for Good.

 

War Child benefits children affected by war.

 

http://gamepolitics.com/2009/11/25/game-good-uses-mw2-benefit-kids-charity

Or are you just referring to the stereotypical outraged gamer?

 

Not just the stereotypical outraged gamer, the gaming community as a whole and it's so called "moral group". Most of the comments on this page don't even relate to the article at hand. They're just a bunch of knee-jerk over-reactions seemingly based on nothing other than the title of the thread.

 

And then, all we do as a gaming community is complain about the knee-jerk over-reactions of the religious moral brigade. Kind of hypocritical.

 

Were all going into this far too deeply

 

The question - "Am I a war criminal for playing MW2, PR or Arma?"

 

the answer - "No, that is f'ing ridiculous."

 

That's not the question at all. They aren't saying that gamers are war criminals, they're saying that game developers should be more concientious about how they portray war. The people doing the original study even say that they realise most gamers will never be in a real war situation in real life.

If anyone's putting a spin on anything it's the Tom's Guide writer. He'd probably do well with a job writing for ACA or Today Tonight.

 

I agree with what you say. Not just about the aformentioned quote but also what you say about the situation with gaming and violence and the subsequent the moral and ethical issues surrounding it.

 

My argument is similar to quote myself

 

Basically this whole seems to just fog the field with more BS about gaming and gaming culture. Hopefully, as this debate I think is pertinent, we will at some stage see some reasonable reporting about it. Not glib articles about articles that dont actually deal with the real issues of gaming culture and violence. Instead reporting constantly focuses on the outrage and sensationalist headlines, just because its easy or something.

 

It's alarming. There is a reasoned debate to be had about gaming culture and violence. And its being hijacked by crap articles like this...

 

My attack is on the article because it polarises and miss represents what the BBC article said, and by doing so produces anything but reasoned understanding of what's at stake.

 

Namely a few things that are undisputed.

 

i.)Violence in gaming.

ii.)Interactivity as being part of the gaming medium.

iii.)The culture of violence and conflict outside gaming which is deeply influencing to games and gaming culture.

iv.)The reality that gaming is not 'gaming' anymore. Especially not those who 'train' on the same technologies we 'play' on (ie simulators etc)

 

Gaming is not for children anymore. Its not wii or pong, halo or mario brothers. It has moved into a realm where the demand for games comes not only from 13 to 14yo consumers but from civilian and military commercial markets aswell.

 

So what is the reality of the gaming domain in 15 years time? Interacivity has always been a key tenet of gaming and gaming culture and will only increase in popularity.

 

Over the last 15 years ive seen gaming culture move mainstream. And as it does you get more resistance from a broader public about the violence in games that for the last decade and a half we all took for granted (because...well, no-one cared and thought all games were for kids)

 

So we've got a situation we're classification is inconsistent with what has been and what will come. And humanitarian lawyers and the broader public still playing catchup to the whole affair in a struggle to understand gamings impact on society.

Edited November 26, 200915 yr by Hambang101

All these years of clicking the EXECUTE button in Medieval 2: Total war might just catch up with me then

All these years of clicking the EXECUTE button in Medieval 2: Total war might just catch up with me then

 

omg lol. but you make so much gold!

All these years of clicking the EXECUTE button in Medieval 2: Total war might just catch up with me then

Nevaaaa!!! Chivalry FTW!!!