The Red Cross is suggesting that some games that depict War like game play include provisions for punishing players for War Crimes committed during play, such as killing prisoners or torture.

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/red-cross-war-crimes-video-games-punished-163921830.html

No they don't mean real world punishment, but some in game penalty for this. Not sure how I feel about this in a game, as we usually play a game world rule set that may be based on Real World rules, but it is still a game. Some would say this would make it more realistic or increase the challenge. But I also see it becoming a goal of some players, "Woot, they just took my character to the Hague for a War Crime Trial" so it could potentially back fire.

The Red Cross is an excellent organization, and I am sure they are just trying to drive awareness of the real world problems, but is this just a little too much Nannying or is it something we should be reminded of when we are playing a game?

Don't I already get punished for this sort of stuff?

Might work as a mechanic in a 4x strategy game.

But adding it for the sake of just having it wouldn't work.

I think that's definitely too much nannying. I mean, most games that depict war crimes, are supposed to be for ages 17 and up, so it's not like lots of impressionable children are getting subjected to it (though there are some, but that falls on the bad parenting if anything). It would probably cost more money to have game devs to make sure that all their bases are covered when it comes to in game punishment on war crimes, and overall I think it's just bad for anyone.

People should go into video games already knowing they aren't real, instead of having the game remind them that 'killing is wrong' or whatever the case happens to be.

Also, I don't think the Red Cross is in a position of telling anyone what to do, especially with their record.

Just kill everyone at the trial.... Scroll of Genocide

I think it likely is more of a way to try and bring these issues to the public attention than the Red Cross really being all the interested in changing the way videogames work. Either way i don't see that much of a problem with the idea.

More than necessarily needing to incorporate "punishments" for players committing war crimes via videogames, I could see some potential benefit to the more "realistic" shooters applying some of these concepts to storytelling at the very least. There's a whole treasure trove of ideas to explore just from the concept that soldiers do have rules of engagement to follow or that are potential consequences to certain actions.

To me, that's kind of more important than adding a "you lost 100 points for breaking the Geneva Convention" mechanic. If someone could make a game that explores these concepts in a meaningful way without being heavy-handed... I'd consider that a good thing. (Maybe a bit of a long-shot, but hey you never know...)

In other words, I feel like "game-ifying" that sort of thing would be less desirable than more simply a game that acknowledges this stuff in the first place.

It really kind of makes me laugh: Torture bad - kill OK

Why not have a penalty? Alignment suffers in RPG's, so apply it here as well.

Or only apply it if you get caught? Kind of like the real world? then hire lawyers to define acceptable torture

Most games do penalise you in some way. Insta-game over for killing friendlies and civilians. Would work in a game like COD or Battlefield, a strategy game maybe..

I'm inclined to side with Nu_clear_day here. Seems more likely they are just raising awareness of the issue in general.

Only in games where it would fit and those would I think be non-linear strategy games. It just wouldn't work in a story-driven shooter.

I can imagine in a world-conquering sim for instance that it might be neat if lots of crimes against humanity had a detremental effect of some sort. Neutral nations refusing to trade, boycotts and so on.

CIV had penalties for nuclear weapons. Climate change was not fun.

Games are expressions of human fantasy and as such portray the gamut of human emotions, experiences and imagination.

For the exact same reason that you can't force a novelist to include certain things in his writings when he is discussing certain topics you can't force that from a gamemaker.

It has to fit, first and foremost and that is the decision of the creator.

I hear that Spec Ops: The Line handled this topic well.

Well, it makes you commit a war crime, and then says "How could you do that!? "

But yes, it's far from a generic shooter story wise. Alas gameplay wise it is the definition of a generic shooter

So Red Cross has become the new PETA?

Maybe its cause im well an truly sleep deprived but what now if my brain dead brain is making sense your saying or the red cross is saying that war crimes should exist in the virtual world to punish gamers who enjoy killing various players over an over again.

Or am i just lost an confused also anyone a dr that can give me a strong sedative.

I would be for this in grand campaign, which I don't ever really play. That's the only place where it would make any sense.

But I sincerely doubt that most real-life war criminals actually get charged for it.

I think it'd be an interesting mechanic, to have to own up to your actions in some of these games. It wouldn't really make sense to put it in every game, but it would be fitting for some of today's typical game settings, such as first person shooters were you play as a soldier.

It'd also make for increased player choice, which is always good.

There are many, perhaps mostly military vets, that would disagree with you about the excellence of the Red Cross.

Aren't there many real world problems for the Red Cross to worry about? This is almost as ridiculous as PETA protesting the treatment of an alien race in a video game...people are really losing touch with reality and what's really important in life. If I was a rich man then I would have a game made called "Hitler" where you play as him and rewrite history by taking over the world

Video games should only be regulated by age, not content. If you're not mature enough to commit warcrimes unpunished or any atrocity that you wouldn't do in normal life then don't play a "Mature" rated game. Simple as that

But, but.. Enhanced Interrogation and the Relocation Camps.. Can I be the Judge, Prosecuter and Defendant at the Trials?

No one is suggesting regulating games and requiring them to punish you for war crimes, it was just a suggestion made to bring the issue to light. Stop trying to find offence in something totally innocuous.

From the article: "we’re hoping that the [games] that offer a realistic portrayal of a modern battlefield can incorporate some sort of reward or penalties depending on whether [players] follow the basic rules of armed conflict."

I actually quite like the idea of achievements and medals and such based on more realistic standards - rather than just "you did it really fast well done" you could have moments in game where you get to choose whether or not to take a bullet for someone, or something...

Besides, as the article mentions; these games aim for realism, and this is just another aspect of that.

Maybe "regulate" was a poor choice of words in this context but what I mean to say is that I should freely be able to commit crimes in games that I can't/won't in real life. I'm all for realism in a game but to make it so realistic as to mirror real life would be boring and take the fun out of trying to be the villain in a game. If I'm playing a game where I can be the bad guy and torture or kill civilians then why should I be punished, especially if I'm a general or leader of some sort? In real life the "bad guys" don't follow the rules so why should I be forced to follow the rules of war in a video game? I could list some real life examples of leaders mistreating their people in horrible ways but that would touch upon politics and isn't really the point here...the point is that games are games and should not be forced or "recommended" by anyone to follow real life rules.

Like being rewarded some award for burning down some village for insurgents then cover up the dead non combatants and friendlies like in real life?

None of what you've said makes much sense, but I really don't have time to take it apart. Suffice to say, this clearly wasn't about games where you have the choice of being the good or bad guy, it's about modern shooters which almost exclusively cast the player in the role of the "good guy" and don't really give them a choice about that (whilst putting forward quite an unrealistic portrayal of what "being the good guy" actually involves, and yet also putting an emphasis on realism).

Also, once again, no one is "forcing" or "recommending" anyone do anything - it was, as I said in my previous post, a suggestion...

No, they're just suggesting that - a lot of these videogames are pushing the realism factor, especially military shooters. And that if you're striving for a realistic depiction of war, then a realistic depiction of the rules of war and engagement would probably be a good thing to add alongside that. I don't believe anyone is saying that you, as a player, should be punished for your actions in-game.

Also keep in mind that the Red Cross is hardly going to be the most gaming-savvy organization out there. I kind of like that they're not suggesting specific mechanics or game design paradigms that they likely have little knowledge of or background in, and are more kind of throwing out an open suggestion on improvement that they'd like to see in gaming culture.

I don't see anything wrong with placing those actions in proper context, however. I didn't see anything in that article that would suggest these guys want to take away any opportunity to allow you to play as a villain. But I do personally feel that if you're going to be having this sort of questionable content in a videogame, that it be given at least some manner of context and weight, and be dealt with in a mature manner.

If you're already playing as an evil military dictator in whatever hypothetical videogame we're talking about here - then being wanted by world authorities to answer for your character's war crimes would be not only appropriate, but could potentially offer more compelling gameplay alongside that.

I suppose it comes down to what you want to read into that article. I'm just not seeing it as a flat statement that "every violent videogame needs to deduct points from a player for acting out of accordance with international law, regardless of context." What I rather got out of it was that, yeah, some acknowledgement that these concepts exist and that your character in whatever game is taking action within those contexts - for better or worse - could make more better games, potentially.