BI Games at the leading edge ?

[Herbal Influence 10]

A recent study broadly published - at last in Germany today - checked inhowfar humanitarian rights are "violated" "virtually" by computergames.

http://www.trial-ch.org/games.html (deutsch italiano english francais)

Golem (German)

My vote:

Please BIS try to stay at the leading edge - also in this regard!

With phantasy you can modify things to make the game more real and (!) and more human.

Only one example: Wounded soldiers should at a certain degree no more be able to shoot and should also not be killed by gamers without losing points or degree etc.

I would be a proud member of the community if BIS would take into account reality in terms of humanitarian rights and needs.

My vote is NOT against the freedom of the game.

I do not want to restrict anything - let modders be free to do what they like.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[HyperU2 11]

I'd like to see them talk some of the folks we're battling in real life into following the rules before they worry about saving the lives of a few pixels. Wear a kevlar necktie though.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Interesting topic. I'm creating a campaign that is going to show the real horror of war. At the end I'd like to have a player who says "Dude, this whole thing sucks and was into it. What have I done? What asses I've been fighting for and against?". Basicly this comes in conflict with the "rules" you showed above. To be honest, I don't care. If people can't see the differences between a game and real life they should stay away from such things.

"umfangreiche Zerstörung ziviler Einrichtungen sowie um den Tod von Zivilisten, der nicht durch militärische Notwendigkeiten gerechtfertigt ist"

Yeah right ... tell the poor bastards in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Chechnya, ... :( (continue the list on your own)

But sure, blame the games not the people who are responsible for the real suffering.

[Zipper5 74]

The argument that video games are negatively influencing us, giving us homicidal thoughts and leading to an increase in murders and violence, is simply from the people who are too lazy to actually solve the real problems, and instead use video games as a scapegoat.

That's how it's always been, that's how it always will be. They are video games. They are a form of entertainment, just like a movie, or a book. The real issue lies in humanity's co-existence, or lack thereof. Not video games.

[icebreakr 3140]

Only thing that makes me aggresive in RL are these studies and folks who make them :)

[sparks50 0]

Set captive=true

As for most situations in the game, the wounded enemy is still armed and may return fire at any time, therefore still a threat.

[alext223 0]

Trial SetDamage 1; deleteGroup Trial

Wow, they REALLY need something better to do with their time

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

A recent study broadly published - at last in Germany today - checked inhowfar humanitarian rights are "violated" "virtually" by computergames.

http://www.trial-ch.org/games.html (deutsch italiano english francais)

Golem (German)

My vote:

Please BIS try to stay at the leading edge - also in this regard!

With phantasy you can modify things to make the game more real and (!) and more human.

Only one example: Wounded soldiers should at a certain degree no more be able to shoot and should also not be killed by gamers without losing points or degree etc.

What a silly example.

"I can't fight, Sergeant, I cut my finger!" :rolleyes:

You should take your humanitarian rules to the battlefield and see how well they work. :)

[txalin 2]

wtf, this kind of associations are composed by blind people or what? On every game you have the recommended minimum age. If a father buy to his son a game wich is for +18 then that father is an idiot, and that's not the fault of developers, it's fault of the parents.

[W0lle 1048]

Humanitarian rights in computer games! What comes next? These games being responsible for real war crimes and humanitarian rights violations? If they would talk about simulations used by the military then I could understand this. But here we talk about entertainment software? Do they also check movies for violations of humanitarian rights or limited to the evil computer games only?

Laughable, really. :banghead:

Good thing is that we have no other problems on this planet.

[Richey79 10]

With SLX mod, you involuntarily order your squad to stop shooting - once they've taken a certain amount of losses - and they all drop their weapons and surrender. To be honest, this is the only element of SLX I don't particularly like.

Anyway, the enemy continue to shoot at them once they've surrendered until they're all dead! I think that realistic ROE are only really feasible when playing with only human players, unless Bis were to put a lot of effort into this element of the game to the detriment of others.

Red Harvest modelled a game environment in which you felt a responsibility towards the people of Chernarus in a far more mature way than most games (compare kill the Little Sister versus save the Little Sister; which never had any real consequences). IMO, Red Harvest focused too much on these elements of a combat theatre and lost some excitement as a result.

Overall, do I want to see a complex morale system implemented for units in Arma 2? -No. It's always thrilling, although not terribly realistic, to have two or three wounded guys left in your unit and to continue fighting. If you model surrendering troops in a realistic way, then how far do you continue with this model? -Does your unit have to escort them to safety and retire from the field of battle? -Are you then assigned to guard them and make sure the Geneva convention is followed to the letter?

Anyway, Arma 2 is streets ahead of its contemporaries in taking a mature and humanistic perspective on warfare. It attempts to model a theatre of battle which takes place in an area populated by civilians. There are no 'hero characters' with magic bullet-shields or regenerating health. As a result of this approach and general atmosphere, if you do kill a civilian in Chernarus, compare how you feel to if you perform the same action in the infamous mission in Modern Warfare 2. The pictures on the front page of the study show Call of Duty 5, a game which contains very brutal scenes. Yes, that brutality did happen in real life, but it seems pretty clear that a finger-twitcher like COD is enlisting these elements of warfare (burning Japanese alive with a flame-thrower, gloating as you slaughter surrendering Nazis) to titillate, rather than allow players to empathise with the soldiers in these historical conflicts.

Boring as these studies (and no doubt those who conduct them) are, I think they are necessary in order for 'video games' to mature as a relatively young art form and for them to eventually be regarded as having a similar scope to film. Mind you, I doubt whether researchers on a project like this would even be aware of the existence of Arma 2, and if they were, they would simply look at it from a 'tick-box' perspective: 'Can you kill civilians without consequence? Yes. Can you bomb a Church with no repercutions? Yes. Do real world militaries use a version of this game to train? Yes.' It's pretty ludicrous that they're looking at the frequency with which games allow the player to 'intentionally direct attacks against ... civilian objects, including religious buildings'. Yeah, so this proves ... that 13 year old boys like explosions. You've really earned your funding this time!

Edited November 24, 2009 by Richey79

[Colt45_GTO 10]

Humanitarian rights in computer games! What comes next? These games being responsible for real war crimes and humanitarian rights violations? If they would talk about simulations used by the military then I could understand this. But here we talk about entertainment software? Do they also check movies for violations of humanitarian rights or limited to the evil computer games only?

Laughable, really. :banghead:

Good thing is that we have no other problems on this planet.

QFT about the film industry.... do they completely ignore tarentino and the maker of those final destination films?

i didn't read the article in the link i didn't feel it worthy. is this something done in europe or worse still the UK? they are going stupid on the human rights, humanitarian and health n safety... everything is just over the top.

they are trying to stop everyone from enjoying themselves at work at home and at play!

BIS make the most grusome and inhumane game you can. make it fun :D

[mr burns 131]

Quickly read through it yesterday and although ArmA isn´t listed, it´s more than guilty in almost any of the mentioned points -

except for the flamethrower thingie, but that´s subject to change, hopefully :D

Humanitarian rights in computer games! What comes next?

.....

Laughable, really. :banghead:

Good thing is that we have no other problems on this planet.

Obviously they had to write about something, with "have to" meaning final exams blabla etc, and they chose this. Don´t see anything wrong in it, especially as it raises awareness for humanity in some way for gamers (with most of them being youthly, uneducated, ignorant, etc. / add further prejudice as you wish).

The only real wrongs i´ve seen is the reference to AC-130 as a helicopter, and another paragraph being completely wrong about the game in question (can´t remember which one). This however tells us that the writers aren´t ultra-geeks and chose to investigate into this on a fair level even though it´s clearly not their home turf, which is kind of commendable imho.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Thanx for some mature comments on this.

I indeed do not adress those - mentioned - 13yrs-ol'-guys who simply like explosions.

Or those who find "most grusome and inhumane games" simply fun.

Nor do I want to reduce freedom of modding as I stated in the beginning.

My idea is that BIS game could get just more, more realistic than it already is, a bit of a jewel under all those simple firstpersonshooters if it care for a more realistic turn towards humanitarian rights in war.

No doubt, you can question if there are any humanitarian rights in war.

But I must say, my ancestors knew and experienced something like that.

In World War I (1914 - 1918) soldiers of both sides even did do a small common christmas event between the firing lines ... ;-) ... and a few hours later they continued killing each other.

There are already things in that direction in BI games like the possibility to capture people, put them in prison.

I am simply a bit tired of the sole possibility to "deal with armed people" ingame is to shoot them down and I see that something in this way would be an outstanding marketing hit.

There could be things like making them surrender when the situation is without any real hope for them AND thereby (!) gain points or money etc.

Like a group of simple infanterist (without AT-weapons) meeting tanks ...

That would make the game a bit more tactical and real.

Prisoners could get free again .... "rescued" by their own people.

(Maybe that can be done by mod already I am not sure.)

With this - BIS games would surely be in another aspect far ahead of its competitors.

There are a fucking hell a lot of games where you can be inhumane and gruesome like crazy - Fallout 3 etc. etc. ... that's not a niche in the field of FirstPersonShooters or milsims.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[Zipper5 74]

Don´t see anything wrong in it, especially as it raises awareness for humanity in some way for gamers (with most of them being youthly, uneducated, ignorant, etc. / add further prejudice as you wish).

There might not be much wrong with this specific example, but the real issue lies in the suits constantly saying that video games are causing the world's problems. You know, not nuclear weapons, oil & gas supplies or arms trade. It's all video games.

That's the real issue. And it's just getting ridiculously out of hand at the moment. People are becoming far too "politically correct", as they call it now. You need a certain level of political correctness for it to be morally acceptable, but they're taking it way too far now.

[.kju 3242]

Films, books and games can make people familiar with 'stuff' and to reduce their sensitivity.

And of course marketing - to influence the way people judge.

Simple and well understood way humans 'work'.

You are recommended to read some books about physiology,

if you think it is a non issue.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

My idea is that BIS game could get just more, more realistic than it already is, a bit of a jewel under all those simple firstpersonshooters if it care for a more realistic turn towards humanitarian rights in war.

Well from my point of view that's the concern of the mission maker. I can only speak for myself on this topic while working on a campaign that tries to show the horrors of war. There will be consequences. However it's almost impossible to show them ingame.

F.e. I'm having refugee camps of the CDF. However the will turn out to be concentration camps for pro-russian civilians. There'll be a lot of civilian destruction, assassination of politicians, executions of war criminals, lasertargeting of field camps (oh oops it was a civ camp). The player will be fighting the war on different sides to see each facette. I guess each point would fit into the study. Sometimes it's possible to add consequences directly to the game. Some radicals would start attacks basing on revenge. It's hard to punish the player ingame. Would you like to spent the rest of the campaign in court or jail after accidently destroying a civ house? I guess not. Most games or game designers don't bother the consequences as they're not important for story telling. ArmA is the great exception.

Sure you can edit a mission to avoid bad things, but why should anyone do this? That's not an option if there's a cruel story to tell. The funny thing is right now I'm working on a mission where a T-90 and some russians enter a village and kill the innocent people. The player is forced to flee and call the NAPA for help. Now someone can say: Is this necessary? Are russians doing these things in reality? I don't know and to be honest - in game aspects I don't care. It's a fictional story as every game is. At least I'm open to have bad guys even on west side. Every faction has its dark side.

As for other games I can't tell anything because I'm not playing simple first person shooters anymore. Several years ago I tried Counterstrike. Well ... you could kill hostages. They were just dumb AI actors. Nobody cared about them, not even the SWAT forces.

So my basic question would be ... how would you change games as they are to get what you want? ArmA would be the perfect example because you can actually do it in practice.

[froggyluv 2133]

This is just a reality in sandbox gaming. People do what they want. If some wacko gets off on killing innocents and the like, that's basically his problem (hopefully not society's!).

I remember a mod thread in my other favorite sandbox game, Mount and Blade, in which guys and girls (gasp!) were talking about how to implement rape into their mod -obviously I steered clear of these ignorant pubescents.

It appears BI are at least attempting to add things like surrendering as well as other consequences to civilian killings (them turning against you) and I personally like that. Whether a player will care is pretty much up to him. Personally, I can never bring myself to just up and shoot a civilian or frag a squaddie without getting a real gloomy feeling - so I avoid it unless I'm just mission testing :D

Would love to see missions with 'World Opinion' and possible UN forces that could have a real effect on the player's choice of action though. Hmmm....

[celery 8]

wtf, this kind of associations are composed by blind people or what? On every game you have the recommended minimum age. If a father buy to his son a game wich is for +18 then that father is an idiot, and that's not the fault of developers, it's fault of the parents.

Personally I regard parents who strictly abide to games' age recommendations as idiots.

[sparks50 0]

Theres nothing wrong in having a bit of respect to each other folks. Each to hes own.

[Dallas 9]

Humanitarian rights in computer games! What comes next?

PETA held an event on a wow server against animal cruelty, where one faction could go kill a few PETA players, who were on the opposite faction killing different animals. However lots of people joined the opposite faction instead and formed a guild called: "Seal Cub Clubbing Club."

Much hilarity ensued.

[EricM 0]

Some of the games examined in the report include Battlefield: Bad Company, Call of Duty: World at War, World in Conflict, Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Double Agent, and Metal Gear Solid. The researchers trained a group of gamers to look for and record breaches of seven international rules governing warfare (such as summary executions and the taking of hostages) and violations of three specific fundamental human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention. The researchers then played these recordings for a trio of lawyers who specialize in applying international law to war-time events in order to obtain expert opinion on whether any rules, laws, or rights were violated.

Link

The report can be accessed here.

An interesting read, even though Arma isn't in the list...

[maddogx 13]

Already being discussed here. :)

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

These laws are not representative of the REALITY of war, but only of a set of ideals that a certain community has agreed should be put into practice.

I think the "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 was highly irresponsible (apparently Germany and Russia agree with me), but I don't think tactical shooters should be forced to depict some kind of Battlefield Utopia, where everyone wears a white hat.

[Colt45_GTO 10]

it should state on the box that.... ''no humans or animals are harmed in this virtual battlefield, they are all free to respawn again whenever they want!''

that should keep the dogooders quiet.