Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Red Cross: War crimes in video games should be punished

  1. #1

    Default Red Cross: War crimes in video games should be punished

    http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged...163921830.html

    So what would the Red Cross think about my favorite bear shaman fatality: the 'hit them where it hurts' with a big stick 'then pulls off their little head' scenario?

    __________________________________________________ ___________
    "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.".......

    __________________________________________________ ______________

    Note: they did state that fantasy games are not involved. But still...a foot in the door?

  2. #2

    Default

    The Red Cross wants to be a part of developer teams now.
    They took away the red cross sign from games: now they hunger for more! They are like Al Gore's wife who tried to sue several heavy metal bands for creativity. The average IQ of the world is falling.
    • Remove daily rewards and the raid finder;
    • remove membership bonuses;
    • disable PVE XP for daily challenges;
    • remove WBs forever on Crom;
    • slow down the AA gain;
    • lower the PVP XP gain or remove the streak system;
    • remove AoE looting;
    • add the missing mobs back to Khesh., F. of the Dead, and Eigl. Mount.;
    • fix the 250+ms ping;
    • take the key away from Saddur;
    • revert T3, T3.5 (10.21.15), T4 (10.21.15), and GGG changes;
    • remove energy and add skills (like taunt) back.

  3. #3

    Default

    They have a point though, if you only look at statistics...

    But the point is: Do i want my video game to be realistic? Do i want to roleplay post-traumatic syndromes? Should i play a video game like this, if i am a person either offended or affected too much by such things?

    On the other hand, if you don't take it from an "us and them" perspective, it might be creative influx...to add a bit more consequences depending on situation...take an assasin for example: if i want a clean kill, should i be rewarded for a bloody headshot?
    Should a fatality be something i want to be awarded for or could there be situations i want to avoid them?

    You can take certain modern series (like spartacus) or even the older mel gibson movies...do we really need this frequency of brutality? (in braveheart for example, the amount of fatality rating on the scottish must be immense, while the english rather seem to have zero...).

    I can fully see the problem with the attitude of "violence is cool!". But if it can be affected by video games to a degree worth the effort or by censorship is a completely different matter. A little bit of more sensitivity on the designers side can't be bad. As artist you always have a question of how far you want to go, since in theory as painter i could paint "anything". But do i want to or do i have to? Will the effect be the same, if i start repeating it? Will it be something i want? Do i really want it for a broad or limited audience?

    I would prefer the red cross approach over the sometimes ridicolous and needless censorship you see now though. We should also bear in mind, that we are not really talking about a mature environment. Even though games are sold and advertised as 18+ usually, they are not the target audience or the average player maybe.
    Last edited by Kurt2013; 4th October 2013 at 07:07.

  4. #4

    Default

    What makes me a bit confused is that i thought there were enough real wars for red cross to worry about, so why would they spend resources on virtual wars.

    But this is not the first time red cross tries to make the news with videogames, as some of you remember, it was just back in 2006 red cross forced developers to remove the red cross(the symbol) from videogames.

    So back then red cross did not want to be in virtual wars at all, so games adopted asklepian(sometimes in form of caduceus) and with that came the rules of war from ancient greece. Maybe if red cross wanted to be in virtual wars to begin with i would allow them to have a say now.

    It is sad to rag on a organisation like red cross, but there are men in suits there acting as bad as the people on wall street.
    Last edited by Civilix; 4th October 2013 at 12:37.
    I am Stian ingame...

  5. #5

    Default

    *roll eyes*

    oh plezz,

    What happened Red Cross? You used to be cool...
    Retired

  6. #6

    Default

    I think they just want to prepare the next generation of soldiers properly.

    We all know that big dudes who can carry 50kg backpack 30km will be replaced by geeky Korean kid who can carry out 600 clicks per minute

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Invino View Post
    We all know that big dudes who can carry 50kg backpack 30km will be replaced by geeky Korean kid who can carry out 600 clicks per minute
    Well big dudes carrying 50Kg backpacks 30Km can also play video games no ?

    Personnally i don't see any problem with this request. It's pretty normal to be concerned by the influence more and more realistic war games might have.

    And if it's not game breaking or "preachy" as they said, why not. The main issue i see is it might actually induce players to torture and kill civilians to have the game in "hard mode".
    Vali~The Mental Mushroom
    Vehl~The Pink Flamingo
    Vahlie~Redhead's bane
    Tisane~Kettle of Xotli
    Nvah~ . . .

  8. #8

    Default

    If I do not like a certain scene in a game, I do not play it. What does the Red Cross have to do with that?

    Doom was asked to remove all the first-aid kit graphics recently by the Red Cross; also, someone already has pushed on Fallout publishers to take out the childkiller perk (along with making children invincible). That someone also mentioned that some icons were too graphic(!!!) and asked the company to remove them. Is it about realism? I doubt it. George Carlin would probably say a lot about this incident if he knew about it.

    Overall population becomes more sensitive to anything around it, finding a way to extirpate something they do not like. Soon we shall see large black squares across the character models during and after our fatalities (as a punishment, lasting for an hour), and we will suffer -99% damage penalties for two weeks for hitting a chicken or rabbit in Age of Conan (do not take me wrong: I do love animals, but Red Cross is already beyond ridiculous).

    There is also a theory that someone takes his stress out on computer games. With the Red Cross on the way, I expect more violence in the streets on account of unreleased negative energy.
    Last edited by LunaticAsylumLA; 7th October 2013 at 05:40.
    • Remove daily rewards and the raid finder;
    • remove membership bonuses;
    • disable PVE XP for daily challenges;
    • remove WBs forever on Crom;
    • slow down the AA gain;
    • lower the PVP XP gain or remove the streak system;
    • remove AoE looting;
    • add the missing mobs back to Khesh., F. of the Dead, and Eigl. Mount.;
    • fix the 250+ms ping;
    • take the key away from Saddur;
    • revert T3, T3.5 (10.21.15), T4 (10.21.15), and GGG changes;
    • remove energy and add skills (like taunt) back.

  9. #9

    Default

    I disagree with you Alan. Personally i dislike the domino theory that is used way too often, imo, and favors immobilism. And that's what you are saying by erecting this minor change as rempart against censorship.

    Removing first aid kit graphics is legitimate if they don't want to be associated with this kind of games and still contrôle their franchise. Nothing to do with censorship.
    And as far as war crimes penalities go, it's here again not censorship but just minor suggestions to orientate one aspect of the future of video games that will most definetly not be less violent than those we have today. And in the uncertainty violent video game have an impact on real life violence having this concern is legitimate.

    But anyway like often, much ado about nothing.

    I don't believe video games allows you to get your stress out. I usually don't play war games where my character is chased all the time by bullets when i want to relax ^^
    Vali~The Mental Mushroom
    Vehl~The Pink Flamingo
    Vahlie~Redhead's bane
    Tisane~Kettle of Xotli
    Nvah~ . . .

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vehl View Post
    ..I don't believe video games allows you to get your stress out. I usually don't play war games where my character is chased all the time by bullets when i want to relax ^^
    Usually the relief comes from screaming at the pixel on screen and bashing keyboard.
    ...
    I didn't actually realise Red Cross have a copyright on the 1st aid kit box.

    That they are jumpy about it I am not in the least surprised ... I am an accountant who did accounts for charities and for this reason alone I refuse to give a penny to ANY charity organisation that is not headquartered above a kebab shop in the dirtiest and cheapest part of the town. Needless to say NOT one of them is and kinda made me sick to think Salvation Army spent £18mil on their St Paul's HQ in London, right in the heart of the most expensive office space. Until I see homeless people living in it and their directors are not earning £100,000s salaries.

    95% of charity cash never actually leaves the country in which it is donated.

    /charity rant over
    Last edited by Invino; 7th October 2013 at 17:18.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •