Should video games respect international war crimes law?

By Fred Dutton Published 2 December, 2011

The Red Cross is looking into it.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is investigating whether developers should be asked to better respect and reflect international humanitarian law in their video games.

As reported by Kotaku, a "sub-event" was held at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva this week to discuss how games influence the public perception of war crimes.

"While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL," read the event's description.

"Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games. In a side event, participants were asked: 'What should we do, and what is the most effective method?'

"While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action."

A video montage, reproduced below, was released to publicise the event, highlighting offending scenes from the Medal of Honor, Call of Duty and ArmA franchises.

The committee is yet to announce its findings, with an update expected on the ICRC's website at some point in the next few weeks "with a view to stating and explaining our interest in the topic."

Of course, the Red Cross has no authority to impose laws or official restrictions but it is a respected group with the power to influence policy makers. What could the possible outcome of its discussions be?

"In line with the Conference's aim of strengthening IHL, the event aims at achieving a common understanding of the problem and outlining a course of action whereby the Movement could help reduce these 'virtual' - yet very realistic - violations of IHL," it explained.

"One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers/producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry."

The Entertainment Software Association offered the following response to news of the debate:

"We cannot comment on the merits or specifics of the International Committee of the Red Cross proposal because we have not discussed this with them directly or seen any specifics of their meeting. However, we are immovably committed to developers' rights for creative freedom and in achieving their artistic vision."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (91) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Acrid #1 6 months ago

    Oh do fuck off, surely there are some very REAL war crimes you should be worried about rather than pissing and moaning over how many points a kill is worth in a videogame, what's next? The government complaining over the lack of stamp duty when you purchase a house in Monopoly?

  • syra #2 6 months ago

    That's an amusing montage. Clearly theg uy who mde it in the red cross needs to be fired for shooting at ambulances for fun.

  • dirtysteve #3 6 months ago

    Does Jack Bauer torturing his way through 24, while chubby republicans wank off to it also count as a war crime?

    'The International Committee of the Red Cross is investigating whether developers should be forced to better respect and reflect international humanitarian law in their video games.'

    should be forced? No that violates free speech, and they know it. They talk about this 'ever growing industry' like it's new thing. While asking devs to portray IHL as important is worthy, trying to get governments to force the issue through regulation is sinister.

    I'm guessing this 'committee' is a nicely paid number for anyone taking part.

  • krakead #4 6 months ago

    :facepalm:

  • Baranga #5 6 months ago

    Thought crimes ahoy!

  • MoFo #6 6 months ago

    Two words: COMMON SENSE

    I wish some people out there would start acknowledging that we all have it.

  • photoboy #7 6 months ago

    Thought crime!

  • toythatkills #8 6 months ago

    Neg me to fuck if you want, but I like this idea. If you're making something you wish to sell as a fairly realistic (within certain bounds) war game, then you should be taking stuff like this into account as a developer. You shouldn't need the Red Cross to "force" you, you should be doing this yourself.

    The end of the next Medal of Honor should be a war crimes trial like that bit in Chrono Trigger where it takes all your actions throughout the game into account before sentencing you to death, or something.

    That's a videogame.

  • Whizzo #9 6 months ago

    Actual people harmed in the video : 0.

    International organisations making themselves look like idiots : 1

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #10 6 months ago

    Nerds cry and take a strop when someone makes a rightful and thoughtful criticism of videogame content glorifying acts in realistic settings that are considered against the Geneva convention.

    Film continues after the weather.
    Edited by Ironic_War_Criminal at 02/12/11 @ 18:47

  • Whizzo #11 6 months ago

    @toythatkills Plenty of games will come to a screeching halt if you kill a non-combatant. To be honest this is probably more "No Russian" fallout.

  • cw- #12 6 months ago

    That video is wrong too? The first two kills are from single player, and give no points? And the first MP kill states on screen "+20" , yet the on screen text (added by the editor) states you get 50 points??

  • mr_pink #13 6 months ago

    I suppose it could be immersive if the game knew you were breaking the laws and reacted accordingly in a fun way. It shouldn't prevent you from doing so though, I mean if they get their way, where does this end? Hey, who wants to play Good Taste Auto?

  • v.profane #14 6 months ago

    Reminds me of that bit Crysis where you get tortured and it's not a violation because a Nanosuit isn't a proper uniform.

  • TrilbyG #15 6 months ago

    If I couldn't blow up Ambulances in games, I'd actually be out there venting my frustration and blowing them up in real life* so, in effect, war games are actually saving lives. Perhaps we should think about air-dropping them over the homes of prospective war criminals and army bases; they'll then all be too busy playing Call of Duty to commit genocide...

    *Not true.
    Edited by TrilbyG at 02/12/11 @ 18:55

  • Springchicken #16 6 months ago

    I think this shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. I don't know that those responsible for this proposal are suggesting any of the repeated, unsubstantiated rhetoric about games brainwashing us to be serial killers, more that they provide a view of warfare that portrays acts that, in reality, may be considered war crimes or crimes against humanity, as justifiable or heroic within the scenarios they are presented.

    That alone is not a problem. We are undertaking virtual acts of violence every day and most people here would agree that it doesn't compromise our ability to refrain from murder. Human beings are innately compassionate animals, we are imbued with a conscience naturally. However, we aren't born with a sense of ethics, and we especially don't learn the rules and conduct of war without tuition. The majority of those playing videogames haven't received such tuition, and their knowledge of the various covenants on war crimes is probably sketchy at best. Killing an unarmed mass murderer in a game is fine, but if you didn't know that it was a criminal act, would your opinion of the ethicality of the act be influenced if told of a similar event happening in reality?

    In short, I can't see the harm of being better informed, as long as they don't intend to censor the games.

  • killogrady #17 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:50:35 12-12-2011

  • Kaminari #18 6 months ago

    Interesting read.

    Now back to U3 farming my Headcracker medals.

  • Okamiwolf #19 6 months ago

    Do I think closely monitoring video games for war crimes is the Red Crosses' jurisdiction, or a good use of their time? No.

    Do I think they're well within their right to remind video game developers/publishers/customers to be mindful of their depiction of war crimes and other disturbing behavior in war themed games? Absolutely.

    When you watch that video of the American apache pilots coldly gunning down innocent people, and their behaviour being likened to videogame players, you can see the link nowdays between virtual war and real war.

    This is only going to become more of a problem when more and more soldiers are sitting behind the lines flying remote drones in the future. The temptation for them to just treat real people and civilians like the targets in games increases, particularly if they've been raised since childhood playing shooter games where life isn't given much value.
    Edited by Okamiwolf at 02/12/11 @ 19:02

  • Bravestinsane #20 6 months ago

    @MoFo

    The problem is we don't

    Seriously watch the Daily Show with John Stewart.

    Really good satire show about American News and Politics, just look at the quotes they show it's not common sense at all.

    The sad thing is, people without common sense are put before those with it.
    Edited by Bravestinsane at 02/12/11 @ 19:05

  • menage #21 6 months ago

    IT"S .... FREAKING ..... FICTION!!!!!!!~

    Yes, all of it, cause no man can shoot 250 soldiers in 3 hours.
    Edited by menage at 02/12/11 @ 19:10

  • -cerberus- #22 6 months ago

    First make sure those laws are respected in real life before pointing yet another finger at entertainment, twats.

  • callum9999 #23 6 months ago

    They are just discussing the topic, not demanding all games are vetted for war crimes...

    Can people on here get any more hysterical at the slightest suggestion of negativity in games?

  • Springchicken #24 6 months ago

    I just watched the video. It's good, it's promotional material for an intellectual debate on the topic, not a condemnation.

    Be cool, people, discussion is always good (I implore to comments thread readers). I reiterate, more information is a positive, it's when they start demanding bans (and, therefore, the restriction of information) that we all call them c***s.

  • HerrQwerty #25 6 months ago

    @menage Tell that to my Grandad!

  • Morte-360 #26 6 months ago

    I thinks a good idea to discuss it my only worry about this, is the fact that most of that video was simple multiplayer where everyones fighting and shooting, if you take that out theirs not much of a shooter :).

    I think it's a good idea to discuss it but a very bad idea to 'force' a developer to adopt it, in the majority of games killing unarmed civians etc is not allowed and your punished when you do, making me follow ROE in a video game is likely to drive me nuts their only pixels after all. At least they dont seem to be outright condemming video games or saying they cause war crimes or violence(PETA).

    Quote From Kohaku
    The International Committee of the Red Cross is mandated under the Geneva Conventions to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. That includes war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants. The question they debated this week is whether their mandate should be extended to the virtual victims of video game wars'

    Seriously that however sounds immensly stupid and an utter waste of time 'virtual victims' aka they don't actually exist and are therefore not actual victims. Can someone explain this I dont understand how they can protect virtual victims? I went round in circles arguing this to myself, our they asking for the depiction of laws of war to be clearly shown in video games or our they trying to protect lines of code?
    Edited by Morte-360 at 02/12/11 @ 20:01

  • Nismo400R84 #27 6 months ago

    Well they are going too be pissed with me when they find out how many billions I have killed using nukes in civ iv

  • PaulieWaulie #28 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 13:34:05 08-05-2012

  • Ternon #29 6 months ago

    OH, for fuck sake, I do hope this is some kind of sick joke?

    I refuse to believe such idiotic organizations and people actually exist.

  • goggyturk #30 6 months ago

    I hope they press for a law on the latest indiscriminate weapon of terror that kills millions each year. It is time for an International Convention on 36" Dildo Use.

  • DrStrangelove #31 6 months ago

    Won't anyone think of the video game characters' families?

  • Kanjin #32 6 months ago

    OK fine, as long as it applies to books, films and TV as well.

  • TenderChicken #33 6 months ago

    The US hasn't even ratified the Rome Statute, it's not a part of the International Criminal Court. So, yeah, considering the vast majority of shooters take place in the boots of an American GI this is beyond pointless.

  • Archronos #34 6 months ago

    I already see the Shia LeBeouf thriller being written as we speak. HE THOUGHT MURDERING INNOCENTS IN A GAME WAS OK. HE THOUGHT WRONG. WARCRIMES ONLINE. IN THEATERS SUMMER 2012.

  • Kami #35 6 months ago

    "The International Committee of the Red Cross is mandated under the Geneva Conventions to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. That includes war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants. The question they debated this week is whether their mandate should be extended to the virtual victims of video game wars'"

    Does this seem more sinister to me than anything? That's a step away from wanting to cover all virtual characters in "human rights", therefore playing any game would be tantamount to committing a crime. You play Tomb Raider and Lara dies - crime. You kill an evil megalomaniac in a new Final Fantasy - crime, moreso as it's four or five people on one. Playing World of Warcraft PVP? Oh boy, that'd be a crime (if it isn't already).

    Don't get me wrong here however - I do believe that some ethical standards need to be upheld in development. Pushing the boundaries is one thing; but Call of Duty and Battlefield and their ilk have been really trying to be all "gritty" and "real" but they don't really pose any true ethical debate - if it's shooting at you, you shoot back more or less. It's very black and white. Also, often very "American", yes. True patriotism and all that bollocks. It's... just a bit off. Perhaps this is what is pissing people off - sometimes you just wish America and China would just get a war over with, they both seem itching for one. (Joke - although I suspect there's more than a little truth under there...)

    But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no need for ANY talk of a mandate, no need to bring in the Geneva Convention or IHR. These are programmed AI constructs in a harmless (mostly) virtual environment. They feel no pain, their job is simply to shoot on cue and die. Like zombies in every horror movie and game ever made - their job is to show up, slobber a bit and look dead and then die again.

    None of it is actually real. I agree that more needs to be done to emphasise the ethical implications of actions - the whole getting tried in court or court marshaled at the end of the game depending on your actions is interesting to be honest - but there's no need to wheel out such heavy guns. Hell, this is a small problem and the reaction is to plan to hit it with a tactical nuclear strike.

    It's just... bizarre. Utterly bizarre.

    edit; I haz spellink miztayxe! XD
    Edited by Kami at 02/12/11 @ 20:30

  • loboMuerto #36 6 months ago

    Yeah, every single video-game company should have part of their staff checking if their games are properly respecting every single real-world convention and pact. They also should ask every ethnic or religious group if they are offending their sensibilities in any way. Damn, this should apply to movies, books and music as well, because we the people cannot possible use our common sense.

  • Zyklonbzombie #37 6 months ago

    Nice bit of Daily Mail reporting there, Eurogamer - with some equally kneejerk responses down here. Someone, somewhere, vaguely suggested that it might be nice if the Red Cross did something to encourage an ethical (and legal) awareness amongst developers of realistic war games at some point in a gigantic conference in which much was discussed. Not a bad thing, considering it's the one genre of videogames that is most likely to influence a young player's approach to violence (I have no doubt that there are kids who join, or want to join, the military based on how much fun they have with military themed games - the U.S. Army even use it as a recruitment tool).

    They're not forcing anything. They're not banning games. They're not campaigning against creative freedom. The EU hasn't banned Christmas.

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #38 6 months ago

    @loboMuerto

    Yes, forgive someone for wanting to have a debate on the impact of videogame violence on how wars are fought.

    www.dailymail.co.uk seems more your speed for the "PC Gone Mad" crowd.

  • Frankie_Lee #39 6 months ago

    It's nice to see something in the gaming media that can provoke a more rounded debate about gaming content. One aspect of this debate which isn't mentioned is the fact that a large portion of the people playing these games are aged between 10 - 15 years old. While it's easy to simply "blame the parents" is it right to claim that game makers should bare no responsibility at all?

    At least in cinema and literature, authors attempt to discuss consequences and responsibilities. In gaming (particularly multi-player) there is no consideration – it's simply killing as sport. How do we know what effect this is going to have? We can't. Perhaps none, but perhaps loads. It certainly warrants discussion without knee-jerk reactions on either side.

  • Bluetooth #40 6 months ago

    Well if that stupid little girl in Davis' family vacation stayed away from the pigeons, there would be no war crimes.

  • jimr9999us #41 6 months ago

    rofl...really? I mean, money and time are actually spent on this crap?

  • Shikasama #42 6 months ago

    Here we go, someone not associated with games says some things in games might not be a fantastic influence. Gamers respond like reactionary retards and go a long way to proving the Daily Mail and their ilk right.

  • FireMonkey #43 6 months ago

    @Eurogamer - "investigating whether developers should be forced to better respect and reflect international humanitarian law"

    Ummm... Where does it say or imply anything about forcing developers to do anything?

    They are simply having an intellectual discussion about whether IHL violations are being trivialised in games and if developers could be encouraged to think about them when making the games. They are obviously worried that if they are being trivialised in games then people may stop realising how important they are in real life.

  • FireMonkey #44 6 months ago

    @Zyklonbzombie - "The EU hasn't banned Christmas."

    You mean Winterval don't you? 8P

  • HeNiCiDe1988 #45 6 months ago

    I personally do dislike torture scenes being used when torture was is meant to get people to say what you want not for information and it being seen as ok or awesome combined with how racist subtile games namely military games a lot of the time or just supporting the right wing perception of war. Why I love MGS that never does.

    I dont think it should include all games, but I think military games are pretty unbalanced and rightwing storywise and could do with a bit of critism and stop just producing rightwing crap/perceptions of events and actions and making it out to be ok or awesome or the right thing to do.
    Edited by HeNiCiDe1988 at 02/12/11 @ 22:01

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #46 6 months ago

    @Shikasama

    Gamers respond like reactionary retards and go a long way to proving the Daily Mail and their ilk right.

    Actually, its more that gamers are becoming more like Daily Mail readers in over-reactionary, self-important, rabid sperglords who see any criticism of the media as an attack on themselves.

    Rational conversation has defenestrated itself in the cause of self-euthanasia when it comes to the comment box.

  • SavageEvil #47 6 months ago

    Law during war times are the funniest things, reason they came into being is because of nations having ridiculously powerful weapons that could wipe out the human race. Come to think of it wars are nothing but sporting events of our time, like gladiators of old. Sure we don't take enjoyment in hearing our loved one's dying for a cause, but don't be fooled someone is getting rich off this and that is a FACT! Hunger Games is basically stripping down the outer facade and showing us what the hell wars are really about. We should basically have games and choose our best combatant and have that individual battle it out against the nation that we have issue with best combatant to settle our differences yes...historically that is what the Olympic Games were created for?

    Videogames are meant to be an escape from reality, leave reality out of this. Regardless of how realistic the weapons and movements are it's still a damn game. No way in hell do you get do overs, nor in real life does anyone load out their weapons as haphazardly as you do in CoD. Why the hell would I want to not have a better sight and high velocity bullets if I am going to fight against an enemy which I must defeat? Life and video games are very different, visuals aside they do not cross over at all. Video games are just that, games. We play them to entertain, or to relieve stress of just to plain have fun. When international committees and others start sticking their noses in, then we have a problem here. Watching what is going on in the world today you can for sure say no videogame showed you how to swindle a sizeable amount of people of their life's earnings and live like a fat cat. Too many people looking for someone to blame, so they start studies because some individual who happens to play violent videogames runs amok and kills people. Right, but before videogames were anywhere close to being like they are today, people were doing that anyway...remember the term "going postal" where the hell do you think that came from?

    Every time video games mimic real life people all of a sudden draw conclusions that somehow videogames are responsible...really?

    War itself is a crime against humanity, you are killing your own species because you have such a large disagreement that it boils over into a fight. Get this most wars are basically over who should lead or be the strongest...sounds like a pissing contest with bullets. Thought that we had become so intelligent that we could reason our way to a peaceful solution, face it that is a pipe dream. With the vast range of personalities, which are created by our environments and honed by what we learn; some people will never be swayed. Fact is we all have to share this planet, so wars are inevitable just like the food chain, someone will be on top and everyone else will be beneath. It's in every society, culture and socioeconomic construct, the pyramid set up...everywhere you look it's there. Can we just let games be games, keep the line between clear.

  • Chibi-Kibou #48 6 months ago

    I'm definitely not okay with censorship and lawmaking interfering with game development but..

    I have to admit, I'd love it if all these 'realistic shooters' kept things like international laws on war crimes in mind. Or, heck, not just those - I think I'd love any game that really got into playing with the ramifications of characters' actions, and laws - realworld or otherwise - can be a very good way to do that.
    Edited by Chibi-Kibou at 03/12/11 @ 14:52

  • Markusdragon #49 6 months ago

    I suspect that this entire thing is getting blown up out of all proportion.


    Which is probably a war crime if you do it to an enemy combatant.

  • KampfgruppeRS #50 6 months ago

    you should always snipe medics in company of heroes....

  • septimus #51 6 months ago

    Just fuck off with this namby pamby molly coddling pc nanny state bullshit!

    Yet to update it's findings.... It's a fucking game!

  • ConciliarAxis #52 6 months ago

    Then what will GTA be about, helping grannies cross the street?

  • Devange #53 6 months ago

    Oh not this crap again.
    Stick to real life stuff stay the hell away from the virtual worlds.

  • Blazewamp #54 6 months ago

    *sigh* agian with this shit

  • SEVQA #55 6 months ago

    I always respect the rules of engagement by only firing when fired upon!

  • knocker #56 6 months ago

    The headline a question. The article outlining a discussion.

    "The committee is yet to announce its findings,"

    Yet the reaction below the line astonishing. I am starting to wonder if a fair few of the 29k who phoned in to complain about clarkson weren't eurogamer readers.

    Its a discussion ! And yet some of you want to stifle that under the guise of free speech ?

  • knocker #57 6 months ago

    @Shikasama actually its the sort of reaction I'd expect from daily mail readers.

  • Shikasama #58 6 months ago

    @Ironic_War_Criminal @Knocker

    Good points both.

  • Inmediasress #59 6 months ago

    Whenever a war breakes out International war crime law is forgotten on the spot.
    I don't really se the reason why games should adhere to it.

  • DisneyJon #60 6 months ago

    This is an awesome idea.

    So by realism they mean that after I commit a videogame war crime my character spends the rest of the game in a non extradition country with a very small chance of years in a luxury orison in three hague whilst pressing a button to laugh at the farce of it all. A one in a million chance sees the game send us or nato forces bomb you for the win.

    Yup awesome idea.....

  • RedSparrows #61 6 months ago

    @MoFo It is funny how quick gamers are to defend games from anything remotely critical, or even merely questioning. It's dogmatic. Hardly the much vaunted quality of common sense - which really doesn't do you much good in the realm of international law and the ethics of representation regarding human evil.

    Not saying their necessarily right merely by who they are, but the reaction here is laughable. At least ENGAGE with these possibilities, rather than dressing your hobby up as an impervious bastion.

  • SniperZoz #62 6 months ago

    Waste of time ... c'mon .... in game characters don't have to follow any law ... if they did a lot of games would go bye-bye ... pft!

  • Flipper79 #63 6 months ago

    Apparently the only section of society still able to tell reality from fiction are gamers. I really worry about how deluded certain organisations and government ministers have clearly become. Anyway, I'm off to play some COD, then I'm gonna put together a dossier that provides enough misinformation for me to go and invade France.

  • Ryze #64 6 months ago

    It'd be interesting if they listed what they would 'LIKE' to happen, in the same way that PC gamers made a list of what they would LIKE from every PC game release in terms of DRM, etc.

    Now, how practical these steps would be in a videogame would become up for discussion.

    I'm quite sure that there'd b a developer that would at least endeavour to include a MODE that respects IHL, and punishes the player for violating it.

    It could POSSIBLY make for a decent game, as it would require motivation and discipline on behalf of the player, and would give those complying players an advantage.

    Nothing wrong with discussion, but I'm not sure about all of this 'regulate the industry' bollocks. Right-wing politicians are often utter pricks, and would create an opportunity for themselves to stifle creativity in gaming, via sheer ignorance of what gaming is.

  • PR-SuperStar- #65 6 months ago

    This is completely retarded. Movie certainly don't, why should games?

  • FortysixterUK #66 6 months ago

    No.
    They are GAMES.

  • Lamb #67 6 months ago

    Where is my Saif Gaddafi UK Bully copy? You would not believe the hijinks he gets up to! :p

    Oh Bahrain, Bahrain is in pain. Syrians are dying. The Euro is robbing countries of their economic prosperity. People are multiplying to no jobs and cost of living is rising. Politicians need to get back to the foresight of their founding fathers and believe in more than just themselves.

  • RedSparrows #68 6 months ago

    '"virtual' - yet very realistic"

    Er, what? Surely that is the definition of an oxymoron, or maybe just a moron.'

    Of course it's not an oxymoron. Virtual = either 'almost' or the digital rendering of a scene. A scene can be realistic. I fail to see why this is contradictory.

    After all, a painting can be 'realistic', can't it?

    Carry on people, you're doing a bang up job of looking like fools.

  • RedSparrows #69 6 months ago

    @Lamb What are you talking about?

    This ISN'T politicians, for christ's sake. It's not mutually exclusive with dealing with any more significant issue - by the way, the Red Cross/Crescent don't deal with the Euro, funnily enough.

    It's simply a report of some people discussing the issue. As and when actual legislation appears/looms (which isn't made by these people), then you can worry.

    By all means, disagree with them. But don't do it by bleating about common sense, or that games are 'just games', or that fiction never has any power, or that some vague cabal of thought-police who consist of politicians, NGOs, bankers or any other bogymen that change by the second is actually really threatening your games.

  • Lamb #70 6 months ago

    @RS

    Politicians passing the buck in general, just watch the news on tv or google it.

  • Rajalad #71 6 months ago

    Utter nonsense. Really, what do they think the danger is? That gamers will go out in droves and commit war crimes as a result of a few rounds of BF3?

    And why are they concerned about war crimes? Surely their concern should be with war itself. It's just a technicality whether an enemy combatant is killed with a rifle or a mine.

    Fucking nonsense.

  • hanook #72 6 months ago

    "enlightened and illuminated" are trying to "enlight and illuminate" dumb masses

  • Lalaland #73 6 months ago

    I can see their point the casual abuse of prisoners and such in games today is a bit disturbing. If games get to the point where such scenes are used to deliver overarching themes of the dehumanising side of war then yeah. Torture porn because the player character is a 'bad ass' is reprehensible but '24' used that trope for years as well.

    Notably though James Cromwell said that a senior West Point officer came to the set of 24 to ask them to tone it down. He felt it was influencing young cadets who might make the wrong choice in the field when placed under the stress of command. After all when it's the men under your command who are at risk it's easy to see the appeal, did this prisoner who you caught running from the scene of an ambush attack you? Just a little force to get the 'truth'?

    With all that the 'Hostel' series of films show that exploitation titles are alive and well in other forms of media so games should be allowed to do so too. I'd like to see the leading titles exercise a bit more care though after all the greatest directors use violence as a story telling tool rather than as an end in itself.

  • Uncompetative #74 6 months ago

    Solution: kill absolutely everyone and there will be no one to complain about human rights violations.

  • Camilitus #75 6 months ago

    In other news, The Refugee Council has appointed Abe, from Abe's Odyssey as a Senior Consultant. The International Criminal Court is reviewing video evidence related to the tragic disappearance of The 'Lemmings' over a 15 year period. -Charges are expected shortly.

    Meanwhile Peter Molyneux was acquitted from the Hague, after successfully claiming 'Divine Immunity', after citing, Populous, Black and White and Dungeon Keeper in his defence. Citing the latter he continued "the court found me to be what I already know, divine. Though while i am a God, I may not always do good."

    After a cold case review, the creator of Duck Hunt received a 3 year sentence for animal cruelty. While Nintendo was fined for killing off a known endangered species. :)

  • Code_R #76 6 months ago

    Obviously these people have got nothing better to be worrying about right now. Christ.

  • ShiroBen #77 6 months ago

    For goodness sake. For GOODNESS sake, you people must have something better to do with your time than this. You simply MUST.

  • alcides #78 6 months ago



    torture? ban movies!
    Edited by alcides at 04/12/11 @ 00:34

  • mornegroth #79 6 months ago

    Do movies and books have to follow and respect these supposed laws as well? No? Then there you go.

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #80 6 months ago

    @Lalaland

    And military chiefs also chastised Dick Cheney while he was vice president for praising 24 as again, it would be a poor influence on recruits.

    If people want a rare example of a game that does respect the Geneva convention and was made with military training in mind. Try Full Spectrum Warrior.

    By the way, there is money in a gamer version of the Daily Mail. Bramwell, Fahey. Call me.

  • evilhippo #81 6 months ago

    "what should we do"?

    Simple. Mind your own damn business.

  • emil.albaek #82 6 months ago

    Unless the same rule will be applied to books, movies and stageplay in the future, I say no.

  • superdelphinus #83 6 months ago

    Good dissertation for an llb student in there somewhere!

  • amiga_dude #84 6 months ago

    I will admit to my crimes of mass genocide. I was play CoD and wasn't doing all that well on game. I, I, I dont think should admit this with out lawyer present. I deleted the game save, yes I did, I deleted the game save. As we all know all vitual citizen die in the same process. Millions if not thousends of vitual citizens where excuted during my deletion of the game save.

    The shame ow the shame, think of the children. They might as well put me in jail and thow away the key.

  • attep #85 6 months ago

    Do books or films? I surely this is a medium of entertainment?

  • DeeEss #86 6 months ago

    Sigh. Just... sigh...

  • madjim #87 6 months ago

    Real armies do not respect the international war crimes law. Why the games should?

  • cruxer666 #88 6 months ago

    Feed some ppl in Africa, give them your moneh, your car, whatever you want if you are actually so bored and have fuck all to do.
    To put it another way: FUCK OFF!!!

  • Ironic_War_Criminal #89 6 months ago

    @superdelphinus

    That or why gamers seem to reject any sort of intellectual study into their hobby.

    Something to hide, mayhaps?

  • JadedSoul #90 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 08:10:55 26-04-2012

  • Quint2020 #91 6 months ago

    Are they going to do the same with films then?

    Utterly ridiculous.