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

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Smallhill, medics are armed in the UK in order to protect their patients. I also think the attacking of medical vehicles (not engaged in unauthorised military action) should be punished, as should use of medical assets for millitary tactical purposes.

Kind Regards walker

[sparks50 0]

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

The Red Cross does not like people using the Red Cross symbol in videogames. Why Bohemia went with the lesser known Red Crystal symbol I don't know, perhaps they thought it was safer. They are however all three protected symbols.

Edited September 29, 2013 by sparks50

[dmarkwick 261]

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.

Further to this, any nation who has signed the Geneva Convention, but is fighting a nation that has not, are not beholden to it. It only applies between signing nations. As I understand it anyways.

[RushHour 11]

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

Great, then we´ll just wait until we get an accurate represantation of pain when you get shot in the head, see how many wants to go to war in real life after that.

This argument is as stupid as the GTA argument that people will go insane because you can steal cars in GTA or do what you want.

Usually this is old farts that are hanging on their last life line and just have no concept of the gaming industry or how it affects players.

There´s no mention of movies either or documentaries, books or even previous history where you can read in detail about the misery.

Some guy wanted to tax the gaming industry as well, yea that´ll work you *****..........

[antoineflemming 14]

Great, then we´ll just wait until we get an accurate represantation of pain when you get shot in the head, see how many wants to go to war in real life after that.

This argument is as stupid as the GTA argument that people will go insane because you can steal cars in GTA or do what you want.

Usually this is old farts that are hanging on their last life line and just have no concept of the gaming industry or how it affects players.

There´s no mention of movies either or documentaries, books or even previous history where you can read in detail about the misery.

Some guy wanted to tax the gaming industry as well, yea that´ll work you *****..........

I think you are simply ignorant to what the Red Cross is actually saying. This isn't about someone experiencing pain. It's about things like not shooting civilians and such. You know, the Law of War. But I take it you've actually never heard of that given your response. Go look it up on Wikipedia and educate yourself. There's nothing wrong with the game promoting that.

All they need to do is have an NPC remind the player not to shoot civilians, as per ROE (Rules of Engagement, which should correspond to and go beyond the law of war). Or do like America's Army does, and have mandatory in-game training on each different weapon, each type of vehicle, each type of aircraft, using health packs, and then include training on ethics and the law of war. That would be the effective thing to do if they're serious about this.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

Further to this, any nation who has signed the Geneva Convention, but is fighting a nation that has not, are not beholden to it. It only applies between signing nations. As I understand it anyways.

Not true. It applies to anyone who has signed this, period. That's why it was wrong for the US to torture terrorists and militants overseas (and why the on-the-books CIA program was eventually shut down).

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 ----------

Jester;2520005']Personally - I've not explored all aspects of ARMA' date=' 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.[/quote']

MW3 actually punishes you for killing friendlies and civilians too... so not sure what you think this video was about. Maybe you should actually watch the video instead of viewing the video as a black and white "For Arma or Against Arma" video. The video is about the active promotion of the laws of war in video games. Most shooters actually do punish you for killing civilians (however most will simply end your game rather than just having your teammates shoot you, which isn't realistic either). The fact is that most games do not actively promote following the laws of war, in particular shooting civilians or unarmed enemies or medical vehicles or personnel. And that includes Arma. Best way to do that is to have something like that (brief overview of the Law of Land Warfare) in the Field Manual. Either that or to do AA2/3-like training that is required before you can play the campaign.

But it is so sad that this is what the community has come to - immediately criticizing and bashing anything or anyone that does not automatically, clearly, expressedly praise BIS and Arma 3. The video said nothing bad about BIS or Arma, yet because it didn't explicitly praise Arma, it and the Red Cross are bashed like they are some great evil in the world. This just makes this community look really immature. Hopefully these sentiments here are not reflective of the majority of the community.

Edited September 29, 2013 by antoineflemming

[Pac Man 10]

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

That's spreading misinformation to newcomers. I can go into the editor and place as many civs as I like. There's also game modes where civs are the primary unit. rpg life etc.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Pac Man

[JdB 151]

At least they used footage from the right game/source ... :p

This argument is as stupid as the GTA argument that people will go insane because you can steal cars in GTA or do what you want.

I wonder about this. In CoD you can shoot anything that moves, in GTA you can even do pretty much anything you want.

Armed forces basically reprogram their soldiers to remove the tendancy of soldiers not to kill. This operant conditioning is essentially nothing more than doing something that is against human nature often enough under simulated circumstances to the point where the instinctive behaviour of the person is changed. Who is to say that the same effect can't be achieved through other means of simulation like a video game. The basics are the same. In real life there are legal consequences to breaching the law/geneva conventions as well as consequences in the field or on the streets. If you run a training excercise and you happen to hurt a civilian or a hostage you are going to be on everyone's sh*tlist for the foreseeable future. In games there aren't any such consequences which would seem to make unintentional reprogramming of individuals, especially those with prior mental health problems more likely.

[-ZiiP- Jester 10]

MW3 actually punishes you for killing friendlies and civilians too... so not sure what you think this video was about. Maybe you should actually watch the video instead of viewing the video as a black and white "For Arma or Against Arma" video. The video is about the active promotion of the laws of war in video games. Most shooters actually do punish you for killing civilians (however most will simply end your game rather than just having your teammates shoot you, which isn't realistic either). The fact is that most games do not actively promote following the laws of war, in particular shooting civilians or unarmed enemies or medical vehicles or personnel. And that includes Arma. Best way to do that is to have something like that (brief overview of the Law of Land Warfare) in the Field Manual. Either that or to do AA2/3-like training that is required before you can play the campaign.

But it is so sad that this is what the community has come to - immediately criticizing and bashing anything or anyone that does not automatically, clearly, expressedly praise BIS and Arma 3. The video said nothing bad about BIS or Arma, yet because it didn't explicitly praise Arma, it and the Red Cross are bashed like they are some great evil in the world. This just makes this community look really immature. Hopefully these sentiments here are not reflective of the majority of the community.

If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I wasn't focusing on the whether or not this was a pro-or-against ARMA thing. You'll notice from my low post count that I'm not ARMA fan-boy so couldn't give 2 hoots to be honest with you. My point was that the Red Cross could, if they feel so strongly about the issue, work with developers (note: any developers) to make a more realistic model of an active warzone with the problems that arise beyond that of just 2 sides shooting each other.

Anyhow - Just stating an idea and opinion on a conversation. Wasn't expecting to get slammed for it.. Yet you talk about a community looking immature?

[antoineflemming 14]

Jester;2520367']If you read what I wrote' date=' you'd see that I wasn't focusing on the whether or not this was a pro-or-against ARMA thing. You'll notice from my low post count that I'm not ARMA fan-boy so couldn't give 2 hoots to be honest with you. My point was that the Red Cross could, if they feel so strongly about the issue, work with developers (note: any developers) to make a more realistic model of an active warzone with the problems that arise beyond that of just 2 sides shooting each other.

Anyhow - Just stating an idea and opinion on a conversation. Wasn't expecting to get slammed for it.. Yet you talk about a community looking immature?[/quote']

I said you were viewing the video as for Arma or against Arma because you mentioned "putting Arma" in a "boat". As if that's your take away from the video. Now, maybe that assessment was wrong, and I apologize if so. But most of the comments in this thread are about how they are wrong about Arma and how they are criticizing Arma, and about how Arma is realistic. Your comment, like others, immediately went to defending Arma's realism. It's as if, when Arma is mentioned with other games, immediately there is a comparison of how realistic the game is, as if that's all that matters. Anyone commenting on the realism of the game is missing the point of the video. And that's what I'm saying. Don't view the video as a critique of Arma's realism, or of any game's realism. That shouldn't even come up in discussion. Your "solution" isn't even a solution to the issue they bring up. It's not about a realistic scenario in video games. It's not about modeling active warzones. It's not about whether real war is just two sides fighting. It's about whether games address the law of war, specifically the treatment of civilians and other non-combatants (that includes enemies without weapons) in games. You don't need to have a complex scenario with war crimes or genocide. A lot of times, war is just two sides fighting, especially if it's an area that civilians have already fled. All that's needed is a brief overview of the law of war and the main points of the treatment of different players on the battlefield. That's honestly it.

When you immediately begin to contrast Arma with other games, and you mention viewing Arma as the same as MW3, yes, you are viewing the video as pro-Arma or against-Arma. The immature statement was directed at all of these posts that are so anti-Red Cross and mocking about super realistic games and such. Whatever. This should be offtopic anyway.

And I don't like BI's approach to punishing players for killing friendlies or civilians. The first thing soldiers would do is not to immediately kill you like you've switched to being OPFOR or something. If they can subdue you without killing you they will. So simply ending the mission would suffice. That's just a personal nitpick of mine.

Edited September 29, 2013 by antoineflemming

[-ZiiP- Jester 10]

The thing is, I wasn't replying with a "solution" - I was merely adding to the debate on the basis that if a game decides to include non-combatants in it, then scenarios could be drawn up to reflect their role within a warzone and from that, the Red Cross could lay down accurate experiences. If non-combatants offer no part of the gameplay - then don't include them.

Granted - not the initial topic of the video directly, but in the same realms for discussion. The effect on civilians in warzones isn't just whether they get shot or not.

On another similar note - I remember playing an early PR build on BF2 (if my memory serves me straight) based on Iraq where you could play a civilian.. you could throw rocks at the UK forces but couldn't be shot at or the other team would receive a points penalty. Civilians could then be human shields for actual "rebel" soldiers.. Really really clever... I wonder if that was ever expanded upon?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Red Cross campaign is so much nonsense - looking down the list of the worst war crimes in history certainly most recent ones were not committed by people who play military war games and the worst in recent history happened before FPS gaming was even invented. So I would say it's a cultural problem. Humans are not nice to each other, blaming war games is just a silly excuse. They may as well buy advertising space pleading with humanity to be nicer to each other, particularly when armed (won't work tho, 10 commandments/Quranic commandments/Buddhist philosophy so far haven't made much difference either lol). We will possibly have to wait for evolution to fix the primitive mammalian brain which still exerts influence in stressful situations.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[RushHour 11]

I think you are simply ignorant to what the Red Cross is actually saying. This isn't about someone experiencing pain. It's about things like not shooting civilians and such. You know, the Law of War. But I take it you've actually never heard of that given your response. Go look it up on Wikipedia and educate yourself. There's nothing wrong with the game promoting that.

No what it´s really about is the stupidity of the people at Red Cross. It´s no different then animal organisations screaming at Rockstar because you can kill dogs in the game.

It´s no different then civilians in movies getting assassinated. A stupid argument for stupid people to argue about.

"ohh we should not make Godfather movies because they can promote starting up a gang and create an empire..." You know...stupid shit.

No matter how much i play NHL i will never be Gretzky. No matter how many people i kill in GTA i will never be a serial killer. But stupid people think like that and want to push their ignorant ancient agenda on the gaming industry.

You should educate yourself on neuroscience and what makes killers in this world, perhaps then you will realize how STUPID this argument is.

Edited September 29, 2013 by RushHour

[Harbinger2456 10]

I wonder about this. In CoD you can shoot anything that moves, in GTA you can even do pretty much anything you want.

Armed forces basically reprogram their soldiers to remove the tendancy of soldiers not to kill. This operant conditioning is essentially nothing more than doing something that is against human nature often enough under simulated circumstances to the point where the instinctive behaviour of the person is changed. Who is to say that the same effect can't be achieved through other means of simulation like a video game. The basics are the same. In real life there are legal consequences to breaching the law/geneva conventions as well as consequences in the field or on the streets. If you run a training excercise and you happen to hurt a civilian or a hostage you are going to be on everyone's sh*tlist for the foreseeable future. In games there aren't any such consequences which would seem to make unintentional reprogramming of individuals, especially those with prior mental health problems more likely.

Yep. Just look at the Navy Yard Shooter. According for friends, he was an avid FPS player. These games train pretty well.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:46 ----------

Jester;2520367'

Anyhow - Just stating an idea and opinion on a conversation. Wasn't expecting to get slammed for it..

Have to warn you dude' date=' this is a rather vicous community and you'll probably get attacked by someone for just saying you like Jello.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------

Red Cross campaign is so much nonsense - looking down the list of the worst war crimes in history certainly most recent ones were not committed by people who play military war games and the worst in recent history happened before FPS gaming was even invented. So I would say it's a cultural problem. Humans are not nice to each other, blaming war games is just a silly excuse. They may as well buy advertising space pleading with humanity to be nicer to each other, particularly when armed (won't work tho, 10 commandments/Quranic commandments/Buddhist philosophy so far haven't made much difference either lol). We will possibly have to wait for evolution to fix the primitive mammalian brain which still exerts influence in stressful situations.

Yeah, if you ban everything except vegetable peelers, then we'll just have mass stabbings with vegetable peelers. :p It will never end.

[RushHour 11]

Yep. Just look at the Navy Yard Shooter. According for friends, he was an avid FPS player. These games train pretty well.

He went to a shooting range as well. Perhaps we should ban that too....

He stayed at hotels too, perhaps the hotels made him kill a lot of people.

Or....just maybe.....the guy was a psychopath regardless of what he liked doing.

He wasn´t allowed to buy a hand gun either but for some reasons buying a Remington 12-gauge is perfectly ok. Maybe we should ban gun stores as well. Let´s all just ignore the fact that he was a psychopath and try and look for what he liked doing...

[JdB 151]

Yep. Just look at the Navy Yard Shooter. According for friends, he was an avid FPS player. These games train pretty well.

I don't mean training, I mean conditioning certain already unstable individuals. You can give someone the best possible training to clear out a building, but without conditioning he may well freeze up when the time comes to pull the trigger if he isn't being threatened (activating the human mind's sense of self-preservation) or completely psychopathic. A game can't teach someone flawless tactics, but it can imo de-sensitize people who are already unstable. That doesn't fly for the Navy Yard Shooter as he had received military training so there is a good chance he got his conditioning long ago.

Edited September 29, 2013 by JdB

[laverniusregalis 10]

Jester;2520469']The thing is' date=' I wasn't replying with a "solution" - I was merely adding to the debate on the basis that if a game decides to include non-combatants in it, then scenarios could be drawn up to reflect their role within a warzone and from that, the Red Cross could lay down accurate experiences. If non-combatants offer no part of the gameplay - then don't include them.

Granted - not the initial topic of the video directly, but in the same realms for discussion. The effect on civilians in warzones isn't just whether they get shot or not.

On another similar note - I remember playing an early PR build on BF2 (if my memory serves me straight) based on Iraq where you could play a civilian.. you could throw rocks at the UK forces but couldn't be shot at or the other team would receive a points penalty. Civilians could then be human shields for actual "rebel" soldiers.. Really really clever... I wonder if that was ever expanded upon?[/quote']

Oh I remember that. Those guys kind of pissed me off... A lot. I WAS STONED TO DEATH AND COULDN'T SHOOT THEM DOWN, multiple times too. They loved doing that to us...

[progamer 14]

I don't mean training, I mean conditioning certain already unstable individuals. You can give someone the best possible training to clear out a building, but without conditioning he may well freeze up when the time comes to pull the trigger if he isn't being threatened (activating the human mind's sense of self-preservation) or completely psychopathic. A game can't teach someone flawless tactics, but it can imo de-sensitize people who are already unstable. That doesn't fly for the Navy Yard Shooter as he had received military training so there is a good chance he got his conditioning long ago.

So we should adjust games because of people who shouldn't be allowed to play them to begin with?

[JdB 151]

So we should adjust games because of people who shouldn't be allowed to play them to begin with?

I never said games should be adjusted, but they can imo influence certain people into harmful activities. Witness something bad happening often enough and you get de-sensitized to it (this goes for all media like TV and newspapers as well). Nothing can really be done about it by adjusting games, but I do believe that ingraining a sense of accountability in the forum of the laws of war/Geneva Conventions into players is important if anything for the realism aspect of the game.

[antoineflemming 14]

No what it´s really about is the stupidity of the people at Red Cross. It´s no different then animal organisations screaming at Rockstar because you can kill dogs in the game.

It´s no different then civilians in movies getting assassinated. A stupid argument for stupid people to argue about.

"ohh we should not make Godfather movies because they can promote starting up a gang and create an empire..." You know...stupid shit.

No matter how much i play NHL i will never be Gretzky. No matter how many people i kill in GTA i will never be a serial killer. But stupid people think like that and want to push their ignorant ancient agenda on the gaming industry.

You should educate yourself on neuroscience and what makes killers in this world, perhaps then you will realize how STUPID this argument is.

Did the video say that these shooters were turning people into serial killers? I thought it was merely saying that because they are popular, and becoming more realistic, that they could be used as a medium to educate people on the law of war. Did I miss something then?

[dmarkwick 261]

I think it's well known why school and mall slaughters happen - it's because the news glorifies the entire thing by streaming endless sensationalised and ever more introspective nonsense about it all. If the lunatics were dismissed and losers, nobodies who get very little regard, then less of it would happen. Each lunatic wants to be more extreme and notorious than the last. I wonder if the Red Cross have made similar reproaches to the news outlets.

On the subject of do games encourage violence, I think it's mostly understood that normal well balanced children can easily tell the difference between game violence and actual violence, so we just need to consider the effect on abnormal and unbalanced people. Whether excessively violent games affect them adversely I cannot say. But, I am generally against the nerfing of entertainment because of the actions of a minority.