surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I feel like real life doesn't make a good video game. Doing an 8 hour patrol, followed by coming under heavy enemy fire but not being able to shoot back until your request to engage goes up the command chain through 4 or 5 intermediaries and gets approved and then makes its way back to you, taking casualties the whole time; just doesn't sound like much fun.
I was totally ready to rage about this but it turns out, this sounds pretty cool. I'd play the hell out of an Infinity Ward/Red Cross collaboration.
You know, it's kind of funny.
There are certain elements of society that seem to believe we gamers are unable to tell the difference between games and reality.
The funny thing is, it seems like they're the ones who can't tell the difference.
Why should a conflict in a game follow the same rules as a real war?
Last time I check, games weren't real.
To have a group like the Red Cross say that games should be treated like reality... that's just weird.
There are certain elements of society that seem to believe we gamers are unable to tell the difference between games and reality.
The funny thing is, it seems like they're the ones who can't tell the difference.
Why should a conflict in a game follow the same rules as a real war?
Last time I check, games weren't real.
To have a group like the Red Cross say that games should be treated like reality... that's just weird.
Andrew5329:
Simple simulation isn't fun, definitely, but I am sure you can make a game that makes a drama out of it. I mean, having to survive long enough before you get the order to fire back could -- if done right -- be quite a compelling experience.
Now, do I trust the current developers of big FPS games to do it right? Maybe not. But there's always potential.
Simple simulation isn't fun, definitely, but I am sure you can make a game that makes a drama out of it. I mean, having to survive long enough before you get the order to fire back could -- if done right -- be quite a compelling experience.
Now, do I trust the current developers of big FPS games to do it right? Maybe not. But there's always potential.
I find this a fantastic idea. I'm not entirely sure which rules of humanitarian law the Red Cross is talking about: simply the proportionality and targeting of civilian targets (Geneva), or even possibly The Hague law regarding weapons that cause unnecessary suffering.
However, I think it would be nice for either (but preferably both) to be explicitly taken into account in FPS's. These are rules that are simply beyond terrible to break, after all there is a reason that there exist 'war crimes', and some awareness-raising in games could be nice if handled well. Especially for those games that advertise themselves as being realistic.
However, I think it would be nice for either (but preferably both) to be explicitly taken into account in FPS's. These are rules that are simply beyond terrible to break, after all there is a reason that there exist 'war crimes', and some awareness-raising in games could be nice if handled well. Especially for those games that advertise themselves as being realistic.
It is a very good idea. But I don't think there is a way to incorporate the harsh reality of war into a video game, not matter how powerful the technology.
what the red cross doesn't use healing beams and defibrillators can't bring gunshot victims back from the dead? I mean I'm always interested in new mechanics and something like enforcing real rules of engagement might paralel something like steath games in having a strong set of rules like this. strategy games could def take advantage.
I'd actually like if if more shooters follow\ a real military structure to an extent. For championing realism and being "modern" all CoD seems to be good at is doing is glamorizing and sensationalizing war.
I have no love for CoD or Battlefield, but I do have to concede that Battlefield does team work better.
Unless you're the twit flying a jet, anyway, but that's more of a design flaw to stick on DICE. Dumb people just love flying around not being helpful with team objectives.
Kinda like snipers in every other shooter.
I have no love for CoD or Battlefield, but I do have to concede that Battlefield does team work better.
Unless you're the twit flying a jet, anyway, but that's more of a design flaw to stick on DICE. Dumb people just love flying around not being helpful with team objectives.
Kinda like snipers in every other shooter.
I am interested as long as it doesn't get in the way of storytelling don't get me wrong I think there is a place for this. But just as with films/tv there should be a difference between the kinds of films/shows that try to show a realistic vision of war and the ones just made to entertain.
They should only agree to this if they are making real historical events to be playable.
Otherwise it is still in the realms of unrealistic entertainment.
Otherwise it is still in the realms of unrealistic entertainment.
I can see their point in wanting to do this with FPS games that try to take current situations and make them into video games without really showing the implications of your actions, that's one of the reasons i avoid FPS games they aren't any fun to begin with (for me at least).
It's when these groups come out against games like elder scrolls, fallout, dark souls, mario where you can clearly tell that everything is fictional and that the game is meant to be played for fun that certain groups need to shut up and realize it's a game it's no different than watching a movie with mass amounts of violence.
It's when these groups come out against games like elder scrolls, fallout, dark souls, mario where you can clearly tell that everything is fictional and that the game is meant to be played for fun that certain groups need to shut up and realize it's a game it's no different than watching a movie with mass amounts of violence.
Of course they shouldn't clog the gameplay to the point of losing interest. But done right it could be great.
I'd love an fps game where you'd have consequences for being a gun-toting psychotic that is not simply fading to black with a quote or being executed by my teamates.
I'd love an fps game where you'd have consequences for being a gun-toting psychotic that is not simply fading to black with a quote or being executed by my teamates.
Enh. The market will dictate what we get.
Each Michael Bay-ian Call of Duty sells over 20 million because people want to live in an action fantasy, and the Homefronts/Medal of Honor 2010s don't compare because they're not very fun.
While one developer could simply use this idea to make a really cool game (as Jim suggested), if lobbyists took this to congress and ran with it, forcing developers to use these guidelines would have disastrous results, not to mention censorship/slippery slope issues that could be extended to film, music, whatever they want, etc.
Each Michael Bay-ian Call of Duty sells over 20 million because people want to live in an action fantasy, and the Homefronts/Medal of Honor 2010s don't compare because they're not very fun.
While one developer could simply use this idea to make a really cool game (as Jim suggested), if lobbyists took this to congress and ran with it, forcing developers to use these guidelines would have disastrous results, not to mention censorship/slippery slope issues that could be extended to film, music, whatever they want, etc.
seems interesting... and as noted, a lot of games already do integrate some of these rules (I keep accidentally killing civilians in MW3 and have to start the section again!)... though there is also the aspect that, like movies, a game tells a fictional story - and it not always possible to use real world rules of war in the telling of a good story (though I guess it could be noted that executing a bad guy and not bothering to capture him is against the rules... kinda like what happened with Obama - yeah, black and white right? Sometimes stuff gets vague!)
Still, talking about rules of engagement in a game is likely an added bonus even if they're talking about which laws/rules got broken.
Still, talking about rules of engagement in a game is likely an added bonus even if they're talking about which laws/rules got broken.
Considering that videogames like CoD regularly break the laws of physics more than the rules of war, to have those more humanitarian rules implemented would feel out of place and ridiculous in a game that's meant to be more like a Michael Bay film than a war documentary. Maybe this would work with an unestablished franchise, but I doubt you could get any big companies to sign on for a project like that.
@scouserboots
I don't think the ability to bring 'harsh reality' of war to video games relies in the technology, but the experience the developers can create. I could be half wrong on this point where we may need that tech to get better experiences. But without that certain level of experience, then we wouldn't be able to fully believe the characters or the world within our games.
Besides that, I think allowing games to help keep awareness of laws that people wouldn't be aware of would be very educational, and beneficial.
Now your 12 year old son can not only have fun shouting at noobs online yelling slurs, but also learn about humanitarian laws. I think it's a win-win situation here.
I don't think the ability to bring 'harsh reality' of war to video games relies in the technology, but the experience the developers can create. I could be half wrong on this point where we may need that tech to get better experiences. But without that certain level of experience, then we wouldn't be able to fully believe the characters or the world within our games.
Besides that, I think allowing games to help keep awareness of laws that people wouldn't be aware of would be very educational, and beneficial.
Now your 12 year old son can not only have fun shouting at noobs online yelling slurs, but also learn about humanitarian laws. I think it's a win-win situation here.
Keep your self-righteous bullshit out of my escapism, ICRC. Games are meant to be a realm where people can get away with doing the things they can't do in real life. There's a psychological benefit to that. Take your dialogue and fuck off.
I never thought we'd have campaigns for A.I rights this early in the 21st Century, hopefully Jet bikes, inter-planetary holidays and teleportation are just around the corner then.
That's a very interesting suggestion. If it's "realistic" military shooters they're talking about, then I can't help but think it's a good idea to at least touch on the idea. Actual soldiers are given class after class about what they absolutely cannot do in an armed conflict, at least not without serious consequences. If done right, it could add some flavor to a game, and possibly make kids aware that being in a professional military isn't just about killing and blowing up everything in sight.
So they'd like to take boring, drab games and make them more boring? Go for it -- maybe this will speed up everyone's disinterest with the "modern war" genre.
Here's my recommendation: if you want to capture my interest in military fps', put some videogamey elements in them, like a boss fight against a mechanized hitler. Since when was it a good idea for games too focus so intensely on realism? Back when I started gaming in the 8/16 bit era, games didn't need to be "realistic", and they were damn fun.
I'm not saying that there isn't a place for sim games, it's just that they should continue to be a niche genre, like they've always been.
Here's my recommendation: if you want to capture my interest in military fps', put some videogamey elements in them, like a boss fight against a mechanized hitler. Since when was it a good idea for games too focus so intensely on realism? Back when I started gaming in the 8/16 bit era, games didn't need to be "realistic", and they were damn fun.
I'm not saying that there isn't a place for sim games, it's just that they should continue to be a niche genre, like they've always been.
Not to say that it wouldn't be interesting, but I would counter that shows such as 24 have not been obligated to accurately depict counter-terrorism, and Bond films have hardly been dedicated to portraying authentic espionage.
Does it not seem a bit excessive for the Red Cross to push videogames to step to the challenge of depicting accurate warfare in entertainment? These should be decisions that the publishers and developers choose to make, if they so wish.
Does it not seem a bit excessive for the Red Cross to push videogames to step to the challenge of depicting accurate warfare in entertainment? These should be decisions that the publishers and developers choose to make, if they so wish.
It's an interesting idea. But to moment they move their dialog into the realm of laws and regulations is when they can die in a fire, not that they could get much headway as games are a form of protected speech.
Thank god. maybe a respectable war fps will come forth, i hate how CoD has depicted war as something flashy, fun, and totally awesome. Does a disservice to the actual soldiers dying out there, whichever side they may be on.
The Red Cross should probably use donations to help people affected by war, drought, disasters and generally shut the fuck up about fake things that are not real and exist only to entertain by not resembling real life. Seriously.
@Sean Daisy
I think what the ICRC is saying is that they wished more, not all, military games would follow the combat code-of-conduct. They simply are saying that games could raise awareness and are eager for that to happen. Even they realize that fun is fun and that not everything needs to be srs. For every Rambo III there needs to be a Hurt Locker, and the same is true of games. For every Call of Duty there needs to be a Red Orchestra.
I think what the ICRC is saying is that they wished more, not all, military games would follow the combat code-of-conduct. They simply are saying that games could raise awareness and are eager for that to happen. Even they realize that fun is fun and that not everything needs to be srs. For every Rambo III there needs to be a Hurt Locker, and the same is true of games. For every Call of Duty there needs to be a Red Orchestra.
@Jim Sterling
I seem to recall a game that has the features you are seeking. It was called metroid otherM and you had to survive for periods of time while the game simulated command decisions involving your ability to engage weapons you already possessed.
I seem to recall it getting "mixed" reviews :P
I seem to recall a game that has the features you are seeking. It was called metroid otherM and you had to survive for periods of time while the game simulated command decisions involving your ability to engage weapons you already possessed.
I seem to recall it getting "mixed" reviews :P
Some missions in ARMA2's campaign actually have additional objectives where the team is on the lookout for humanitarian atrocities, including taking some eyewitness accounts from survivors, seeing torture, and finding piles of bodies from mass executions. Not to mention the soldiers themselves are under strict orders not to harm civilian populations. It's fun, but it's a very different sort of fun than most games provide. These laws seem somehow appropriate in a simulation type game, rather than arcade-style shooters like Call of Duty, where bending the laws (or outright breaking them) makes for a more compelling narrative in many cases. Not to say it couldn't be done in an arcade style shooter, just that it puts more potential constraints on the story. The opposite, of course, is also bad; when the rules of the world are completely ignored, and a game becomes a sick kind of parody.
I don't really want realism in my games, but I do like games which are based in reality, if that makes any sense. A good example of this is Metal Gear Solid, or Arkham Asylum/Arkham City. There's a certain groundwork to games like these, they're rooted in the same basic world we live in, but creative license brings in things which are much more interesting to see, like titanic nuclear missile launching robots, and crazy people in bat suits.
I don't really want realism in my games, but I do like games which are based in reality, if that makes any sense. A good example of this is Metal Gear Solid, or Arkham Asylum/Arkham City. There's a certain groundwork to games like these, they're rooted in the same basic world we live in, but creative license brings in things which are much more interesting to see, like titanic nuclear missile launching robots, and crazy people in bat suits.
@Scuffles
I wouldn't say because of Other M that such directions shouldn't be thought of as interesting. That game made its self out of a bad narrative and poor design direction. That doesn't mean such an idea can't be fun. Only needs a better design.
I wouldn't say because of Other M that such directions shouldn't be thought of as interesting. That game made its self out of a bad narrative and poor design direction. That doesn't mean such an idea can't be fun. Only needs a better design.
It seems that the IRCC is treating gaming with respect and acknowledging it as a legitimate medium.
It's fun to go through the comments and guess which ones were written as a knee-jerk reaction to the headline.
It's fun to go through the comments and guess which ones were written as a knee-jerk reaction to the headline.
You actually don't need to get higher up authority to fire if you've been fired upon.It's always a bad idea to havenon gamers help with game ideas.
They should have more realistic missions like ones where you use incorrect intel to airstrike suspected terrorist compounds and instead end up killing entire families made up of civilians. That would be sweet.
Nice idea, but it has to be executed flawlessly to not be incredibly boring or frustrating. War is a tedious thing, and we don't play games to replicate that, in general we don't play games to replicate anything in real life.
Sure, driving games replicate real life driving, but usually in cars we will never drive and tracks in countries we will never visit. War games vaguely resemble real world conflict, but in situations that would likely never exist in the real world. There are a few exceptions, but those exceptions never sell enough copies to make a mark in the industry, because they appeal to an extremely niche audience.
We enjoy the illusion of reality, not the actuality of it. Face it, first person shooters are generally more interesting when you're rerouting a nuclear missile launch with only 9 minutes before it obliterates some US city and your team is captured by Russian extremists.
All that aside, it's nice to see a big organization treating the medium with respect and taking a reasonable approach to things. That's a rare thing these days.
Sure, driving games replicate real life driving, but usually in cars we will never drive and tracks in countries we will never visit. War games vaguely resemble real world conflict, but in situations that would likely never exist in the real world. There are a few exceptions, but those exceptions never sell enough copies to make a mark in the industry, because they appeal to an extremely niche audience.
We enjoy the illusion of reality, not the actuality of it. Face it, first person shooters are generally more interesting when you're rerouting a nuclear missile launch with only 9 minutes before it obliterates some US city and your team is captured by Russian extremists.
All that aside, it's nice to see a big organization treating the medium with respect and taking a reasonable approach to things. That's a rare thing these days.
@Scuffles
I wouldn't say because of Other M that such directions shouldn't be thought of as interesting. That game made its self out of a bad narrative and poor design direction. That doesn't mean such an idea can't be fun. Only needs a better design.
I wouldn't say because of Other M that such directions shouldn't be thought of as interesting. That game made its self out of a bad narrative and poor design direction. That doesn't mean such an idea can't be fun. Only needs a better design.
It's an interesting idea, but the Red Cross lives in it's own little optimistic world, nobody follows war "laws." There's a reason war is hell.
Also they lose respect points for copyrighting the fucking red cross, it's a universal symbol you greedy assholes.
Also they lose respect points for copyrighting the fucking red cross, it's a universal symbol you greedy assholes.
This is why I prefer games like Gears to "realistic" military shooters. No one give a a flying frick about being humanitarian to the Locust Horde.
This could actually add some depth to certain games so the player isn't just required to hold down the fire button whilst screaming "AMERICUR FUCK YEAH" throughout the campaign.
No. I don't care who you are, but you can't tell developers how to develop their games. Why is everyone okay with this?
I'd have to see it in action before I decide if it might work or not. I do believe that it would give developers a new challenge. I say, try it out and see what happens.
"rules of war" shouldnt exist. the enemy doesnt care what standards you hold yourself to. they will attack and bomb and kill with no regards to "rules"
@ fetusmilk
What you are describing is murder. When you apply rules to the action it allows governments to pretend what they are doing is fine and hell, even moral. Mind youA, the rules need only be written, not followed, to gain this moral shield.
What you are describing is murder. When you apply rules to the action it allows governments to pretend what they are doing is fine and hell, even moral. Mind youA, the rules need only be written, not followed, to gain this moral shield.
@Zepinephrine
Just be careful with your guessing to not judge people erroneously. While a comment might fit in the "he only read the headline" mold, that might not be true at all.
Just be careful with your guessing to not judge people erroneously. While a comment might fit in the "he only read the headline" mold, that might not be true at all.
I was expecting the worst when I read the headline but this actually seems like an interesting idea and something that could put an interesting new twist on the whole modern war FPS genre.
And yet, a bullet in the foot doesn´t impede you ability to run, bleeding to death is a figment of the imagination, and you can run around with 50 cal. weapons as if they were made of card.
It´s okay though! The next call of duty will make players aware of humanitarian issues! You´ll still run around shooting people like you´re playing laser tag, you´ll just be a more moral person for it.
My point being, you couldn´t make call of duty or battlefield, as they currently exist, into a games that effectively deal with these issues because the gameplay is antithetical.
Still though, it´s good to see videogames receiving this kind of attention for once, as apposed to what we all thought this article was going to be about.
It´s okay though! The next call of duty will make players aware of humanitarian issues! You´ll still run around shooting people like you´re playing laser tag, you´ll just be a more moral person for it.
My point being, you couldn´t make call of duty or battlefield, as they currently exist, into a games that effectively deal with these issues because the gameplay is antithetical.
Still though, it´s good to see videogames receiving this kind of attention for once, as apposed to what we all thought this article was going to be about.
follow
