BBC News features ArmA in Red Cross call to not encourage War Crimes in games.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The BBC News has featured ArmA and Bohemia Interactive as the first game Developer to apply the rules of war to its effect on players as per requests from the Red Cross that Games not promote war crimes.

Should the rules of war be included in computer games?

4 hours ago

The Red Cross wants to have a greater influence in the virtual world of battlefields.

The aid organisation is arguing that as virtual war games are becoming close to reality, the rules of war should be included...

...Imogen Foulkes reports from Geneva.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24318061

As Allways follow the link to the original article in full and to SEE THE VIDEO!

The Following is my honnest opinion:

I think there will be some agreement that the developers and moders of ArmA have allways been a bit more thoughtful in their view of war gaming, and the effects of increasing realism in sims, on the moral and ethical influence of game violence on the player. To a large extent IMHO this has been because of the influence of a larger than average millitary contingent in the ArmA community compared to other games and the influence of the VBS simulation development teams in the ArmA community. People who have actualy been to war seem more wary of the gung ho blast everything and ignore the consequences crowd that seem to inhabit other games.

The average ArmA gamer tends to think a little more before getting them selves into the situation where the trigger must be pressed. And run and gun has never been a big element in BIS's games or in the ArmA community.

Kind Regards Walker

[progamer 14]

So this means that Arma shouldn't keep it's increased realism or become more realistic? And just because things may be against the Geneva convention, doesn't mean a group will follow those rules in real life.

What I like about Arma is it is a very tactical game that is more realistic than others. This does not mean it is a problem however. The idea of people playing war simulations having to follow rules is just wrong. Because in real life those rules may or may not be followed. Now I hope that the choice of vehicle names was because of monetary related issues and not because of it was too realistic.

---------- Post added at 01:50 ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 ----------

Now on the actual article I lol'd at cod and medal of honor being realistic. And how they show a screenshot of Arma 3. The Red Cross has no idea about any of these games and just are spewing out nonsense and jumping on the I hate war games bandwagon without concrete facts other than they think. This really isn't news or anything, its the games cause violence philosophy rather than realizing violence was always there before games showed up.

Edited September 29, 2013 by ProGamer

[walker 0]

Hi all

In Reply to ProGammer.

In reality people who commit war crimes often face a court marshall and the firing squad and summary execution. The red Cross is asking games to apply that reality on moral and ethical grounds.

As Marek is quoted in the video, BIS and ArmA already do this. It has been a feature for some time in the ArmA series that if you shoot civilians and your side AI see you do it they will tell you to stop and if you persist the AI will treat you as enemy, also I believe you may even be signalled as enemy to human players. Since I have not done it in a while I guess it had the desired effect, operant conditioning in action :D. That seems realistic to me, a bit like having a wanted poster and an APB being put out on you for war crimes.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 29, 2013 by walker

[das attorney 858]

This really isn't news or anything, its the games cause violence philosophy rather than realizing violence was always there before games showed up.

Disagreed.

This is about the Red Cross trying to change the general mindset of gamers. A noble effort I think.

Action/Consequence.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

source:

BBC

status:

disregard

[mistyronin 1181]

This is about the Red Cross trying to change the general mindset of gamers. A noble effort I think.

Action/Consequence.

Agree. As we ask for good and realistic physics in war games, I think we should also ask for realistic human reactions.

If you kill civilians or destroy their properties that should affect in-game, as it affects in real life. The prevention of civilian damage and trying to gain their support is an important war aspect, can change entire operation planing, in fact all military strategist have had that in mind since Sun Tzu.

IMO even troops morale should be included in game, as its an important variable in the battlefields. A lot of games already include it, like the Close Combat series.

Edited September 29, 2013 by MistyRonin

[Pac Man 10]

Disagreed.

This is about the Red Cross trying to change the general mindset of gamers. A noble effort I think.

Action/Consequence.

Yeah. They'll stop the base Tk'rs for good! hahahaha. Just kidding, couldn't resist :p

[Harbinger2456 10]

Like I give a shit what the unethical, crooked Red Cross thinks. They're just trying to paint over all the unethical stuff they have done.

[froggyluv 2136]

LOL, yeah send gamers to the Virtual Hague for virtual war crimes ;)

Dunno, I'm a morality type player and always try to avoid civilians and have no problem if the official campaign punishes the player for killing them. Theres no way to stop people as long as there's an editor though... No one gets punished for civilian death war crimes anyways.

[mistyronin 1181]

Dunno, I'm a morality type player and always try to avoid civilians and have no problem if the official campaign punishes the player for killing them. Theres no way to stop people as long as there's an editor though... No one gets punished for civilian death war crimes anyways.

War crimes consequences are not only "legal punishment" ( which IMO it would be nonsense to apply in game ), but the lost of the population support, can make things really hard for soldiers ( it could mean the lose of guerrilla support, or even create/increase insurgents making missions harder).

[nodunit 397]

Perhaps instead of forcing games, they should be pushing to raise awareness of the distinction between reality and games.

One of the only games I've known that sends you to jail for killing friendlies is americas army, the original one.. But honestly there is no way anyone is going to change gamers mindsets..gamers...the mindset of the gamer is not the mindset of a person, it is an alter, someone you wouldn't want watching your family and loved ones, someone you wouldn't want to put barrels with a fire warning on, good luck making them think otherwise...

Edited September 29, 2013 by NodUnit

[instagoat 133]

I liked VBS BAF lite's way of doing it. If you friendly fired, the game completely uninstalled itself immediately with a "The british army doesn't tolerate teamkilling asshats" prompt or something like that.

Would be kinda harsh in this game, though.

[cozza 24]

I liked VBS BAF lite's way of doing it. If you friendly fired, the game completely uninstalled itself immediately with a "The british army doesn't tolerate teamkilling asshats" prompt or something like that.

Would be kinda harsh in this game, though.

I liked Americas Army way aswell. In the shooting range training. If you shot the instructor you were taking to a jail cell :D

[andersson 285]

Get shot for shooting civilians isn't anything new in the arma series.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

This again? Uh so let me guess....... Battlefield 4 is out later this month and predictably this story/campaign is dusted off and recycled yet again? We had the same thing in 2011 when Battlefield 3 was released and I'm sure that clip of Marek Spanel was used last time? BORING!!!! (I'm sure there are also several threads open from last time so why start a new one?)

2011 Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/05/video-games-human-rights-war-crimes-red-cross_n_1129256.html

Discussed widely on forums 2011.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?205291-Red-Cross-wants-war-themed-video-games-to-abide-by-Geneva-Conventions&

Top 10 War Crimes in Games, April 2013

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/14143/article/top-10-most-atrocious-war-crimes-in-video-games/

Why pick on games when this sort of violence is depicted more often and more graphically on film and television? Tell you what I thought in 2011 - nice publicity exercise by the Red Cross lol.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Baleur 10]

They don't know what they are talking about. They never even played the game, or any game in their lives.

They say these games allow players to shoot with impunity, killing civilians left and right.

No? There ARE no civilians in Arma 3. In multiplayer, everyone you shoot is either part of the NATO faction or the Iranian faction, or the independents which represent rebels.

Armed rebels, certainly not civilians. Granted there may be civilians in single player missions, but even so there is no benefit to killing them, in fact in most missions you LOSE if you kill too many civilians.

And no Arma player what so ever actually plays with the intent on killing civilians, because there's no point.

They say that the decision to kill is very real.

No? There is no decision to kill, because we don't kill anyone... We shoot virtual bullets at pixels walking around, controlled by other players.

How can they be so utterly clueless and doomsday invoking to claim that a person that shoots a game character has a "very real decision to kill". Who's being killed here? Nobody.

Just yet another media report by people who never played a game in their entire lives, and don't understand the distinction between games and reality.

It's funny how people who DO play games regularly are far far more aware of the differences between real life and games, than those who do nothing but see horror in it but never played themselves.

Facepalm.

[Pac Man 10]

I liked Americas Army way aswell. In the shooting range training. If you shot the instructor you were taking to a jail cell :D

Reminds me of the evolution jail I seen in A1. It even forced the player to listen to the banana phone song =P

---------- Post added at 08:30 ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 ----------

No? There ARE no civilians in Arma 3.

There are though. Not that i agree with the red cross or anything!

[NeuroFunker 11]

so, they want to have more realism in games? Gore, guts on the trees from explosion, decapted arms and legs? Well, all that happens in reality sadly, maybe preparing people to this via video gemes, is not the worst idea. Also showing, that it will have consequences, for shooting anyone just for fun. Maybe in arma 4.

[Hellbeard 10]

To realistically simulate the inclusion of the rules of war whichever side loses, rules will be drafted to retroactively make their actions immoral(whatever those were) and the winners will get a pass.

Then everybody will have a party to sign agreements to prevent whatever that was with the foreknowledge that the only purpose of them is to appease the conscience of the masses and at the first sign of large scale conflict to be chucked out the window with no ceremony.

The only other people to ever "suffer" the legal bite of these war rules will be dethroned dictators who don't have big friends.

[mercenar1e 10]

They have nothing to worry about. ARMA 3 civilian population is non existent.

[clydefrog 3]

They don't know what they are talking about. They never even played the game, or any game in their lives.

They say these games allow players to shoot with impunity, killing civilians left and right.

No? There ARE no civilians in Arma 3. In multiplayer, everyone you shoot is either part of the NATO faction or the Iranian faction, or the independents which represent rebels.

Armed rebels, certainly not civilians. Granted there may be civilians in single player missions, but even so there is no benefit to killing them, in fact in most missions you LOSE if you kill too many civilians.

And no Arma player what so ever actually plays with the intent on killing civilians, because there's no point.

I've played plenty of Arma multiplayer games with civilians in them. Arma multiplayer isn't all about Domination, Invade and Annex and Wasteland you know, maybe when you've played it for more than 10 minutes you might realise that.

[-ZiiP- Jester 10]

Personally - I've not explored all aspects of ARMA, so forgive my possible ignorance - but the Red Cross seems to be missing the point. Wars are rarely as simple of side A verses side B who just stand around waiting for them to attack - There are usually aspects of attacks on civilians, ethnic cleansing, genocide, refugees and aid distribution etc... so rather than criticizing games on mass and putting ARMA in the same boat as MW3 - maybe they should use their experience in the real world to influence game developers. They could include missions and scenarios that have a more realistic approach to the guarding of aid transportation or defending a corridor of refugees. There could be the added challenge of dealing with the logistics of what that could entail. The Red Cross could use decent games like ARMA to educate and show a wider picture.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to several posters:

Hint watch the BBC report and engage brain before letting clutch out on keyboard. The report is highlighting that ArmA already includes moral and ethical consequences as distinct from other games which do not consider the effects of exposure to immoral and unethical world views on the player. IT IS NOT DISSING ARMA quite the reverse.

To understand the concepts the Red Cross are lobying for I suggest a perusal of this website which was started by Col. David Grossman a Member of the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security; and the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute former West Point psychology professor, Professor of Military Science, and an Army Ranger, several of his books are on the U.S. Marine Corps Commandant's required reading list:

http://www.killology.com/

Of particular interest is his work and studies on the effects of simulation and games on the process of desensitization and incorrect operant conditioning effects inherent in simulations and games as they become more and more realistic.

http://www.killology.com/books.htm

If you play the ArmA series and have not visited this site or read any of the books, you are missing out it is of particular interest and use to those taking a leadership role in Multi-player and anyone involved in mission making or modding ArmA.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 29, 2013 by walker

[smallhill 0]

Well, I always found it strange the the medics in the serries are armed and that ambulances are considered fair game (to the AI anyway). Not a big deal to me it's only a video game, but I suspect it does break some international rules.

btw. does anybody know the reason the medical symbol in ArmA is a red diamond and not a red cross or cressent?

[krycek 349]

Hi all

In reality people who commit war crimes often face a court marshall and the firing squad and summary execution. The red Cross is asking games to apply that reality on moral and ethical grounds.

In reality some armies don't give a crap about Geneva Convention.No matter how many rules you have in a conflict there will always be war crimes.Any type of war brings the worse in a human being.Geneva Convention members are so far from reality that they don't realize you need to have a way to impose those rules if they want them to be respected(don't get me started how "efficient" are those Courts-Martial).Not saying everyone or all armies are bloodthirsty barbarians but in a conflict there are many situations where moral rules fly out the window.The sad truth is that the civilians and pows suffer the most.

Check how many cared about Geneva Convention rules in african conflicts,in Balkan wars,Caucasus,Georgia vs Russia(or Abkhazia in 1992),Chechen wars,Iraq,Libya and so on.

I'm not sure who's the "brainiac" in there but if the Red Cross wants to have greater influence on those rules of war they should do that in real life,if someone respects or not the war rules in games should be the least of their worries.It sure as hell doesn't look very good right now(or ever was).

Kudos to BI though for implementing basic conduct of war rules in their games,they did that since OFP,but not the gamers are the problem.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Krycek