Red Cross wants war themed video games to abide by Geneva Conventions.

[Beagle 679]

and i always though that ARMA had next to Americas Army at least some rules set ingame against friendly fire (meaning campaign and specific mission wise)

ofcourse modded wise that's impossible to cover (except preventing any friendly damage being allowed)

sometimes regulation demands are absurd ...

I don't see a problem with official ArmA content, really. It's mostly in multiplayer where rules of engagement don't exist instant Arty is used to retaliate a town loss done by two guys on a bike, nukes are used in excessive rate and as a measure to deny town capture etc. (Warfare BE)

Virtual war is in some kind virtually even more cruel...nothing to regret.

Like the action is compressed in this games so is virtuel cruelty, you get it all in a concentrate.

[Tonci87 161]

I don't see a problem with official ArmA content, really. It's mostly in multiplayer where rules of engagement don't exist instant Arty is used to retaliate a town loss done by two guys on a bike, nukes are used in excessive rate and as a measure to deny town capture etc. (Warfare BE)

Virtual war is in some kind virtually even more cruel...nothing to regret.

Like the action is compressed in this games so is virtuel cruelty, you get it all in a concentrate.

And as always, everything depends on the mission you play and the mission maker.

[Beagle 679]

And as always, everything depends on the mission you play and the mission maker.

Yes indeed and then just have a look at the "ArmA 2 section" of YouTube, nukes, executions, blowjobs in the back of a red hatchback that looks like a Volkswagen...etc.

I don't blame BIS but you know this kind of stuff is made public and spoils the publics opinion about this game.

So, that way we know now that ArmA II must be a game about executions and WMD.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Beagle

[Archosaurusrev 12]

I lol'd at the Medi Vodnik part.

Isn't that tank from Isla Duala?

[metalcraze 290]

I don't see a problem with official ArmA content, really. It's mostly in multiplayer where rules of engagement don't exist

Clans that run servers have clear RoE. Like even when we are in a desperate need of a transport commanders deny squads from shooting the civ to get his car. We even had campaigns where a mission maker was changing the following mission depending on whether civvies were killed and how.

Of course public servers are public servers.

[Daniel 0]

How about we all act like adults and understand that people are capable of doing stupid things with anything. It's all fictitious messing around, it's all harmless.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Daniel

[NacroxNicke 11]

Mh, I don't think that anybody will go rampage and start shooting at all people in real life just because in a game he could, after all, mad people will go mad with a game, or without it.

[Beagle 679]

What the hell Beagle. How about we all act like adults and understand that people are capable of doing stupid things with anything. It's all fictitious messing around, it's all harmless.

This is about the question if the rules of war according to geneve convention should be applied to wargamnes depicting actual warfare and I say YES. Logically this can't be done for user made content but official mission should always keep this convention in mind.

So no mission where you can slaughter Reuters Journalists and familes in vans from your Apache with 30mm and get away with it...that's a wrong signal to young gamers and yes the hell I know, I have seen too much young recruits goofing around with deathdealing gear like it's just toys....and a parked car crushed" just by accident" by a Leopard and someone at night just panicking and shooting blind into stuff.

Soldiers are usually not the most clever kind of people and there is no need to give any wrong depictions of "tacticool" heroism in games depicting actual warefare.

As I said, BIS did it quite right the last 10 Years, but this is about ALL games of that kind not ArmA II or III

But indeed I always had some scruples about ArmA in the way it depicts mission objectives...there was always too much killing involved in reaching this mission objective. RL Objective never are issues in the way like "kill em all". It's about reaching soem point, clear it of enemys (cleared is also when enemy retreats) and holding some point (your presence is keeping enemy away).

I know this is due to A.I. since A.I. is suicidal and does handle retrea very well, thats why i really like the use of the surrender module in my own scenarios.

I see nothing wrong with stickign to geneve convention in games....no shooting at unarmed vehicles with red cross on it and no shooting at unarmed medics with red cross sign retreiving causualties ... simple

[Daniel 0]

I totally agree in principle, i'd like official Arma missions to be as true to life as possible. It adds to immersion and can be a gaming mechanic if you have to think twice before engaging or using high yield ordnance.

That being said, you're still going to get people uploading videos to youtube of fifty civilians being blown up by a satchel charge. I don't think that should be taken as representative of the game, especially not by an institute like the Red Cross.

[rangerpl 13]

If we ban people from blowing up civilians in the ArmA editor then we might as well ban Garry's Mod since you can kill civilians in that game too. It's a sandbox for fuck's sake. A guy with a backpack full of satchel charges blowing up groups of civilians on Utes isn't exactly a likely real-life war scenario.

As for actual missions, nothing stops the creator from scripting something to prevent the killing of civilians by the player. If BIS created an engine-based solution, that would just take power away from the mission developers.

[ProfTournesol 952]

Sure Bashar El-Assad will agree with the International Committee of the Red Cross taking care of video games violence.

[PELHAM 10]

Well there is a solution.......we could all play as Insurgents. Then we could kill whoever we like, blow up civilians and not pay the slightest attention to International Humanitarian Law or Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and no one would mind would they?

I have just searched the ICRC archives for 'Taliban'. Going back 10 years there are about 5 instances of the ICRC reminding the Taliban of it's obligations and 1 instance of direct complaint over the looting of ICRC vehicles and equipment. The ICRC delegates seem to spend all their time criticising and reminding NATO and the Afghan authorities of their obligations under international humanitarian law concerning the treatment of prisoners, care for the wounded and protection of the civilian population. They conveniently ignore Pakistan's role and the Taliban.

It's quite laughable to read that the ICRC and Taliban leadership have frequently come to some sort of gentleman's agreement: "It was agreed with the Taliban leadership that it was no longer safe for ICRC expatriate staff to operate in Taliban controlled areas." Oh well, glad you came to a nice understanding that any foreign looking ICRC staff member would get their head lopped off if they happened to be caught in the wrong place.

They do much good work in very dangerous situations and that should be applauded. This silly 'criticising only when we can get away with it' policy makes the whole organisation look partisan and more than a little stupid.

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------

I see nothing wrong with stickign to geneve convention in games....no shooting at unarmed vehicles with red cross on it and no shooting at unarmed medics with red cross sign retreiving causualties ... simple

I like the inclusion of ambulances - we can simulate real life and use them to transport armed men and military equipment in safety on the battlefield :D:

VIDEO REMOVED

Edited December 9, 2011 by Max Power
Video depicting killings

[KEVINMGXP 20]

they are joking yes? I mean common it says it all virtual victims :o Is this world getting crazier by day or what :rolleyes:

[mrcash2009 0]

Well if games claim to follow realism, then this is null & void already eh.

[HyperU2 11]

Will the rules only apply to one side like in real combat?

[Beagle 679]

Will the rules only apply to one side like in real combat?

Rules applie to both side...remember...Afghanistan is no war, its an anti terror campaign...the US is not in war with the souvereign of Afghanistan. More and more people seem to forget what a war is.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Reminder: Currently the US and NATO is neither at war with Iraq, nor with Afghanistan and this is for years now.

I have no Idead why people get killed there in military actions but I'm told daily by germen medie that the germen army is not involvend in a war.

Thats practical because since ther is no state of war the geneve convention does not apply.

Thats the new way of fightugn a campaign...just do it but outside of the state of war.

NATO is also not at war with Pakistan but nevertheles armed US personal or drones kill people in Pakistan.

[maddogx 12]

Will the rules only apply to one side like in real combat?

Good one. :D

[igneous01 19]

More and more people seem to forget what a war is.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

Are the taliban or hamas not a party as described here? Then I guess its a war afterall - huh go figure.

[Beagle 679]

Are the taliban or hamas not a party as described here? Then I guess its a war afterall - huh go figure.

When parties fight parties, thats a civil war

When states fight states, that's a war of independence

Whan countries fight each other that a full war

When continents fight each other that a world war

but when a souvereign country fight a party inside another souvereinn counrty thats not war by the defininition because there is no state of war beetween the countries.

That's what usually is described as a dirty war, and the opposing forces can be calles Insurgents, Partisans, Terrorist and in that case the geneve convention does not apply to them.

A state of war is not defined by the fact that oen bunch of people shoot another bunch of people...there are rules according to internation law and the US as well als russian likes to bend them over till it snaps.

I fear that Cicero's quote from 2063 years ago: "Inter arma enim silent leges" applies again and I always assumed the age of romans and barbarians long gone.

Civilization disintegrates when it is not maintained daily.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Beagle

[st_dux 26]

Real war doesn't abide by the Geneva Convention, so I don't see why any simulation of it should.

[andersson 285]

So my arma2 missions should comply with geneva but my operation arrowhead missions must not? What about the zombie missions I like?

[PELHAM 10]

What you need to do is go to wikipedia and actually READ the Geneva conventions. You will swiftly come to the conclusion that in Arma2 OA it would not universally apply to all factions. As in real life it does not apply to terrorists or if the opposing side does not apply the conventions itself.

The ICRCs statements on the universal application of the conventions in real life or in games do not have any legal basis. They base their argument on an emotional view not a logical or legal view.

Treaties, like the Geneva Convention, are more like commercial contracts in that they are traditionally viewed as binding only among their parties. The ICRC has demanded mandatory application of the Geneva Conventions "wherever a situation of violence reaches the level of an armed conflict." They obviously want that to extend to the portrayal of war in video games. However that viewpoint is completely fictional. The ICRC has no legal basis in reality or simulation for their ideas. The Geneva conventions are an international agreement, they are not a form of customary international law. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the ICRC and many others quote them as if they are a form of universal international law. That simply is not a valid legal argument.

Read the first few lines of the 1949 document:

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

"Contracting Parties" - nuff said.

So my arma2 missions should comply with geneva but my operation arrowhead missions must not? What about the zombie missions I like?

Well the Geneva convention probably would not apply in any game as the parties have not signed it. If you were to program a signing ceremony, it could be argued that the treaty was signed under duress.

RE the Dead - Article 17 of the 1949 convention deals with the treatment of the dead. As Zombies or the undead are not mentioned I would say they are not protected by it lol.

Edited December 5, 2011 by PELHAM

[andersson 285]

I know, just trying to make a point :)

The only laws I wished arma2 would follow is newtons (as long as we can brake them lol)

Its too bad that whoever in ICRC dont understand and the organisation take the blame.

[Beagle 679]

So my arma2 missions should comply with geneva but my operation arrowhead missions must not? What about the zombie missions I like?

Zombies, Aliens, Robots and stuff like that have no regular combatant status....so do what you want ;)

[KEVINMGXP 20]

lol sorry? :D I can not help it but I am laughing my ass of on like every reply so far.

I am repeating I know! is this world getting more crazy by day or what? :p hahaha

Let me say it in something more understandable, first off all people try to find an explanation and react in various ways surprisingly serious on it. While the video it selves Uses footage of games e.g. ArmA2 to try and enforce the geneva convention on something that can only be applied on and I quote beagel on this one but i will be a little more specific about it.

When REAL parties fight REAL parties, thats a REAL civil war

When REAL states fight REAL states, that's a REAL war of indepence

Whan REAL countries fight each other that a REAL full war

When REAL contionents fight each other that a REAL world war

A developer like bis is not bound to enforce and it is not even there job to enforce the rules of the Geneva convention because there are no real casualties and I am not bound to take the video serious, I personally doubt even that they can USE footage of some called game developers to even think about to enforce it because it is in fact a promotion video and I think even when they try to cover them selves at the start of the video that it is kinda against the rules. What they can however do from the game developers perspective is to let players know that real war is a bad thing or something in that line ...

But thats just my 2 cents, besides that I still laugh my ass off .. lol

Edited December 5, 2011 by KBourne