The International Committee of the Red Cross recently caused a stir by implying that military first-person-shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield might (fictionally) break international armed conflict laws with its hyper-realistic depictions of violence. In a new FAQ on its site, the ICRC said games have the potential to raise awareness of humanitarian law, and it would like to see them rise to that challenge.
"In real life, armed forces are subject to the laws of armed conflict," said the organization. "Video games simulating the experience of armed forces therefore have the potential to raise awareness of the rules that those forces must comply with whenever they engage in armed conflict -- this is one of the things that interests the ICRC. As a matter of fact, certain video games already take into account how real-life military personnel are trained to behave in conflict situations.
"... The ICRC has expressed its readiness to engage in a dialogue with the video gaming industry in order to explore the place of humanitarian rules in games. The ICRC welcomes the fact that certain video games on war-related themes already take the law of armed conflict into account."
While some were worried that the ICRC wanted to have games tried for war crimes, its actual concerns are legitimately interesting. I'd love to see it working with developers to create a game about this very subject. It'd definitely add a new element to the "military FPS" genre.
Jim Sterling serves as reviews editor for Destructoid.com, head of the Podtoid podcast, and produces a number of news stories, original features, one-of-a-kind videos. With his passionate argumentative style, controversial opinions, harsh delivery, and dedication to brutal honesty Sterling is a name that you can't help but recognize.
Likes
PS2, iPod Touch, Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid, Dynasty Warriors 3
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
66 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
10:00 AM on 12.09.2011 | 
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.
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tRNs2X5Q4
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.
Otherwise it is still in the realms of unrealistic entertainment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 fun to go through the comments and guess which ones were written as a knee-jerk reaction to the headline.
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.
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.
Also they lose respect points for copyrighting the fucking red cross, it's a universal symbol you greedy assholes.
Gamers tell developers how to develop their games all the time.
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.
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.
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.
play this game.
<a href="http://www.gettatable.com/featured/friday-food-fight-best-answer-game/
">friday-food-fight-best-answer-game</a>