New study analyses war crimes in games News
PC
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
News
by
Robert Purchese
A pair of Swiss organisations have tried a number of videogames under International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law to discover how many feature war crimes.
Pro Juventute Switzerland and TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) watched as experienced gamers ploughed through 19 games, ranging from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty 5: World at War to "Metal Gear Soldier 4" and Army of Two.
"The aim of the study is to raise public awareness among developers and publishers of the games, as well as among authorities, educators and the media about virtually committed crimes in computer and videogames, and to engage in a dialogue with game producers and distributors on the idea of incorporating the essential rules of IHL and IHRL into their games which may, in turn, render them more varied, realistic and entertaining," the study, which can be read in full online (via GamePolitics), stated.
"The goal is not to prohibit the games, to make them less violent or to turn them into IHL or IHRL training tools."
Entitled Playing by the Rules, the paper said today's violent shooters "clearly influence" your view of what combat situations are like and the role of the military within them.
Call of Duty 5: World at War committed a few war crimes. Using flamethrowers for close-range combat is, apparently, against the rules. "The use of these weapons clearly violates the prohibition of causing superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering which was already an obligation established in the Hague Regulations of 1907 and thus already prohibited during the Second World War," the study reasoned. "Today, employing 'weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering' is considered as a war crime." Oops.
Furthermore, World at War allows players to shoot injured enemies. Tut tut, said the study: "This was also already prohibited by the Hague Regulations of 1907 which states in Article 23 that it is especially forbidden 'To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion'."
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was, on the other hand, praised; during the helicopter scene where players provide aerial support for a team on the ground, the game prohibits you from shooting at a church. Well done, said the study: It is commendable however that this scene incorporates the prohibition of attacking one particular civilian objects, namely the church.
"Nevertheless," added the study, "Other civilian objects in the town such as houses, water towers and the graveyard, which also benefit from protection against attacks,68 may be completely destroyed without any punishment or warnings."
In conclusion, the study said "violations of the principles of distinction and proportionality" as the most frequent offence. This covers "extensive" destruction of civilian property and injury and death to those bystanders. Also "common" was "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture" and "direct attacks against civilians".
"The incorporation of rules of IHL and IHRL in a consistent manner in video and computer games is not only possible, but would surely render the games more interesting and would create players with a more accurate perspective of what is lawful and what is not in real armed conflict situations or law enforcement operations," ended the study.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-41 of 41 in total
|
darkmorgado
23/11/09 @ 09:14
+6
Suitably twisted Daily Mail article coming your way soon.
"Videogames encourage breaking human rights!", "Gamers are war criminals!" etc. |
|
+9
Probably just a bunch of gamers at the IHL who want early copies of the game for "evaluation" purposes. ;)
I think it could be quite interesting to incorporate some sort of counter of the number of atrocities committed during a level. That way the game doesn't need to prevent you from firing on civilians, but instead tells you off afterwards. This way you are taught the rules of war and it then becomes your responsibility to actually follow those rules throughout the game. Maybe you could get some achievement points for not committing any atrocities? |
|
TravisTouchdown
23/11/09 @ 09:24
+1
What about games in which you simply can't commit atrocities of any kind? Wouldn't that be, y'know, nicer?
|
|
+4
"The goal is not to prohibit the games, to make them less violent or to turn them into IHL or IHRL training tools."
Sounds fair. "The incorporation of rules of IHL and IHRL rules in a consistent manner in video and computer games is not only possible, but would surely render the games more interesting and would create players with a more accurate perspective of what is lawful and what is not in real armed conflict situations or law enforcement operations," Sounds didactic. Whether incorporation of IHL/IHRL rules would makes games more interesting is wholly subjective. As for accuracy - Nobody plays shooters for an "accurate perspective of what's lawful" in combat. People play them because they're fun.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 23/11/09 @ 09:38
|
|
TravisTouchdown
23/11/09 @ 09:45
-3
@MiniAmin
Misguided it may be, but your post belies a certain intelligence. Perhaps then you'd reconsider using such an abhorrant username? |
|
Stegofreak
23/11/09 @ 09:53
+1
While on the whole I see the point of their arguement I see some of it as being harder to impliment that they seem to think, especially the don't kill civilians bit. From playing through the Modern Warfare 2 Spec Ops missions (more specifically the favella one where you have to take down enemies without killing civilians) I've found that on ocassions the AI civilians run right into your gunfire. Imagine what it would be like if the game instantly gave you a game over for all your accidental kills. That would be completely unrealistic. Every war brings its civilian casualties.
As for shooting injured enemies in CoD, when have they ever "laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion," I've been killed a few times by these guys. I'm taking no chances. |
|
HistoryTeller
23/11/09 @ 10:10
+1
@ MiniAmin: great thougts on a delicate subject. Applause for you.
|
|
+2
That's a pretty interesting article, and I think I would like to see some games implement those rules of combat in some shape or form. If they do, I don't think it should be an instant game over if some AI civilian runs into a stream of bullets. Perhaps there should be a number of crimes that the developers deem acceptable i.e. that a small number could easily be an accident. If the player commits a greater number of crimes, some form of in-game consequence could be good.
To be honest, though, I wouldn't be surprised if war crimes are committed in all wars and covered up to an extent. I imagine we only hear about the worst, or those that can't be easily concealed. Perhaps you would find yourself having to "massage the truth" to avoid being taken to task for your crimes in-game. @Eraysor: Flamethrowers may have been accurate. That, however, does not make them legal. |
|
+2
Interesting article, and nice to see for once someone is doing a study on games with some merit.
I was not aware flamethrowers were technically illegal in WWII. However the fact they were used by both the Axis and Allies probably explains why no prosecutions ever took place (as far as I know). Likewise Britsh forces certainly used phospor grenades to suffocate enemies in bunkers, possibly contrary to conventions, but without any prosecutions. @ Stegofreak Regarding shooting injured enemies, it's perfectly legal to shoot an injured enemy who is armed with a pistol and shooting at you. It is a war crime to shoot unarmed injured or surrendered enemies. You have the opportunity to do this (or not to) when playing as both a Russian and American in COD WAW. |
|
+3
I don't think preventing the player from doing that stuff helps the game. Maybe they could add a new score, let's call it the "Atrocity score" that starts at 0 and goes negative, that reflects how many breaches of the law you have commited - that would make the game more interesting. Plus, you could check out if the people saying "the conventions are rubbish, you can't uphold them in a real war" have any point.
The only downside is the Americans would have it easier, since they didn't ratify some of the protocols ;) |
|
kangarootoo
23/11/09 @ 10:40
+3
"These people don't seem to realise that flamethrowers are actually a historically accurate addition to WaW"
Of course they realise that. That isn't the point of the study. Interesting that someone would conduct a study like this. Though I agree that they seem to blending observation and opinion. Its good that they did this, but a little less of the unfounded "games that adhere to the rules would be more fun" would be better. It may or may not be true, but that study didn't test that so its unsafe to state it. |
|
Bigglesworth
23/11/09 @ 10:47
+3
Am I understanding correctly that allied forces lobbing RPGs into people's houses in Afghanistan are actually war criminals?
|
|
M_of_the_sys
23/11/09 @ 10:48
+2
Is it wrong to set zombies on fire at close range too?
Also, Lt Ripley comitted a lot of war crimes. For shame. That's a pretty interesting article, and I think I would like to see some games implement those rules of combat in some shape or form. If they do, I don't think it should be an instant game over if some AI civilian runs into a stream of bullets. Perhaps there should be a number of crimes that the developers deem acceptable i.e. that a small number could easily be an accident. If the player commits a greater number of crimes, some form of in-game consequence could be good. How about you get to finish the level you're on but then you're pulled out of battle and tried in a Federal Court of Law for your war crimes. You can press X to plead innocent because the civilians ran into your stream of bullets. Evil allies looking to save their own a**es will no doubt turn on you and lie about how you slaughtered innocent people from point blank range with a flame thrower. This would make the game more realistic and would thus "render the games more interesting and would create players with a more accurate perspective of what is lawful and what is not". Or they could just program the darn game so that civilians don't run directly in front of the enemy you're trying to shoot.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 23/11/09 @ 10:57
|
|
Stegofreak
23/11/09 @ 10:53
0
@kipper
Thank's for clarifying that. I remember very little of the WaW campaign if I'm honest. |
|
+1
Many popular FPSs miss out on consequences and responsibility. MW2 is just bombastic hollywood-style entertainement. And the violence is meaningless, even with it's "story".
While it would be good to have have consequences in such games, such as actual penalities for harming civillians if your a soldier, or some-sort of court-marshalling mini-games - it really does depends on the type of game. If you're making something for sheer awe then that's not going to be relevant, but if it's a heavy simulation then of course (Something like SWAT4) Well, I agree with a lot of the other posts... You should be able to have freedom in games, but there should be consequences. In this respect GTA4 is better than MW2 (I know, I'm name dropping). In GTA4 if you do bad you can expect trouble from the police and gangs, but you are free to choose that and suffer for it. In MW2 is linear with no real alternative and consequences to your actions. But that is a game design aspect. EDIT: Really bad spelling, my god!?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 23/11/09 @ 11:01
|
|
+1
reading these comments reminds me of swat 4 for some reason. there you had to wait to get shot a couple of times before shooting back, else at the end of the level the game would penalize you for unmotivated kills, and with enough penalties you wouldn't pass the level. oooooh, yea, that was fun.
he was clearly going for the shotgun! he wasn't gonna back down quietly, dammit!! ... sorry. still have some unfinished business with that game hehe. |
|
+2
This may be the first reasonable study on games, but how fucked up the real world is, as we have nice rules for killing ourselves, not to mention the term war crime which *doesn't* cover casually killing somebody during a war.
Wouldn't it be nice if instead of the ratification of what is not allowed while killing others during a war, we have a new ratification that *having* a war to kill others is condemned? You know, instead of our world fucking "leaders" juggling about with the term war as a normal instrument in their "leading" and negotiations. |
|
Mooglepies
23/11/09 @ 12:49
0
Boneparte: They've tightened up their KYC (Know your Customer) checks a bit more now, so not so much.
Interesting article and paper; I do find it interesting that as we reach the peaks of realism in terms of graphics we're not pushing realism in terms of actions. I suppose that's escapism for you though; no one likes rules I suppose. |
|
thesombrerokid
23/11/09 @ 12:58
+1
maybe having one game that does this is of merit but claiming all games must conform to this is censorship and so would not make them more varied or educate people, because in war atrocities are committed, soldiers do have the choice to commit them and deluding players into believing that's not the case is far more reprehensible.
|
|
the_sas_man
23/11/09 @ 13:06
+1
Would be great if the government implememnted these rules in Iraq
*cough* cluster bombs *cough* |
|
0
My god, these people are totally insane.
"The aim of the study is to raise public awareness among developers and publishers of the games, as well as among authorities, educators and the media about virtually committed crimes in computer and videogames," Was especially hilarious somehow. Maybe they should try to raise awareness of these crimes under soldiers in warzones? These guys obviously aren't aware that flamethrowers are only legal if the person you're aiming at cannot get hit by the nasty flames. Something has to be done... |
|
Climhazzard
23/11/09 @ 20:04
-2
These are people who as always have no understanding of games in the real world. Theyre all idiots placing blame on something they just dont get or even try to comprehend. Pathetic.
|
|
TheGuvernor
23/11/09 @ 23:55
+1
People think about it....
It's going to be far easier for weak willed politicos of all stripes to force change against developers/gamers regarding human rights violtions in fictional worlds than in the REAL world we elect them to manage. Rise Up - we need a new system (political not console!)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/11/09 @ 00:37
|
Comments: 1-41 of 41 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
