Light em up and watch em burn!

[Vuk]

The title expresses my opinion on this crap.

[Ronin]

the red cross should thread lightly...it's one thing to piss of warlords..
messing with gamers...now that's another thing.....we will get them...we are legion.

I´ll shoot a wounded guy tonight on MW3 just to piss them off.

[rory_20_uk]

Does Gears of War count? I love that chainsaw.

If not, I'm going to play Black Ops to shoot all those civvies at the airport.

[Vuk]

Boot Deus Ex up and start burning 8 year old children and post a vid of it on their Youtube channel. lol

[Andres]

Good to see that the money people donate to the Red Cross is spent on useful purposes...

Violation of International Humanitarian Law in videogames

[Fragony]

Does Gears of War count? I love that chainsaw.

If not, I'm going to play Black Ops to shoot all those civvies at the airport.

NOOB that was Modern Warfare 2. In World at War you can execute germans who surrender, you burn them to death. That may be a bit much. I know that World at War is supposed to be hellish storywise but it kinda felt wrong

[rajpoot]

While the whole premise of upholding human rights in video games (or limiting violence in video games) does sound a bit silly, but it was actually a topic me an a pal were discussing over coffee today.
Both of us have been playing Skyrim, and discussing a certain quest. He said (and I agreed) that games such as this that allow players to make moral decisions (or to put it better, immoral decisions) aren't a serious issue by themselves, but what do you do if you get a chance to kill an innocent civilian in a game?
Many players will probably turn away and follow the moral path. Many will probably go on a killing rampage ala GTA games, just for fun and causing mayhem. But wouldn't there also be some people who'll deliberately pick the sadistic choices? Aren't the games catering to this last class of people too by allowing them to indulge in something which is socially immoral?
I mean as long as someone does it solely for roleplay purposes it does not matter (I mean it would be a little sick....who'd want to roleplay as a terrorist?)....but what if someone does it because they actually 'want' to do it?

Truth is even now as I think about it, I feel that it's really a silly little thing of no real consequence.

But then the thought of some twelve year old out there, sitting in his room, running around killing NPCs in Skyrim just because he can, is slightly disturbing.

[Vuk]

But then the thought of some twelve year old out there, sitting in his room, running around killing NPCs in Skyrim just because he can, is slightly disturbing.

Why? When I was a kid I ran around knocking people out in Thief and then throwing their unconscious bodies into water or fires. :P Look how sane I turned out! (Ok, maybe that was not the best example. :P)
Seriously though, one of the funnest things about games like Oblivion is being able to run around wiping out a whole city of whining civies and block-headed guards. :P How can that not appeal to you?

[rory_20_uk]

12 year olds are generally not allowed to pay these games, in the same way 12 year olds are not allowed to drink, smoke, have sex own guns.

Things should not be banned merely as those who should not have them will get hold of them.

[Ronin]

But then the thought of some twelve year old out there, sitting in his room, running around killing NPCs in Skyrim just because he can, is slightly disturbing.

Skyrim is a 18+ game.

[rajpoot]

All right I think you guys are missing the point I was trying to make....although it was not so much as a point as a...musing.
I'm not against violent games, or sex in games, or sadism in games or anything of that sort. Games are a medium like any other medium...with one difference that they are interactive to some degree.

All I'm saying is, to put it as simply as possible, that games sometimes allow people to engage in activities that can be considered immoral to varying degrees, depending on who is doing the 'considering'. Most people would find this sort of game abhorrent. Many would also find a game which allows players to roleplay as terrorists placing bombs/killing people disgusting. Some people would even find sex in games distasteful.
All this not because the person playing the game is (in reality) like any of the characters he's playing as, but because the very fact that the person was interested in experiencing from that point of view.....but then it's all relative.

[Fragony]

Why? When I was a kid I ran around knocking people out in Thief and then throwing their unconscious bodies into water or fires. :P Look how sane I turned out! (Ok, maybe that was not the best example. :P)
Seriously though, one of the funnest things about games like Oblivion is being able to run around wiping out a whole city of whining civies and block-headed guards. :P How can that not appeal to you?

Those are fantasy-titles, I don't think this is all that silly. Do we really want it to be possible to shoot down surrending enemies in a game that wants to be realistic. It would be realistic of course but still. I say yes it should be possible as it clearly says 18+ but I can understand the Red Cross a bit

[PanzerJaeger]

The title expresses my opinion on this crap.

I concur. I wish I could get paid to ponder such nonsense. I may send in my resume...

[drone]

All the pixels in my POW camp call me the Doctor of Death. It's no coincidence that my favorite MTW VnV is Butcher.

[Nowake]

Personally, I find their video presentation was a cute effort.
I don't think they are up to curtailing anyone's enjoyment. If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks. In games depicting historical events, having at least the option to treat a wounded enemy according to the Geneva conventions would be a solid addition.

[rory_20_uk]

Personally, I find their video presentation was a cute effort.
I don't think they are up to curtailing anyone's enjoyment. If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks. In games depicting historical events, having at least the option to treat a wounded enemy according to the Geneva conventions would be a solid addition.

Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes. Summary execution of anyone using a flamer has been undertaken since they were first used.

If they make it so one can follow all the rules often one should get heavy in-game penalties for doing so - stealth mission plus 3 POWs? Good luck with that.

[Fragony]

Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes. Summary execution of anyone using a flamer has been undertaken since they were first used.

If they make it so one can follow all the rules often one should get heavy in-game penalties for doing so - stealth mission plus 3 POWs? Good luck with that.

I don't know where to draw the line but a game is a game, and I can see how it can be tasteless when insisting to be anything else

[Ronin]

Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes.

not really...like we all know, only the losing side is guilty of war crimes......right?

[Husar]

I think it's a great idea, if just for the first bunch of immature posts in this thread.

I also don't get why people have to throw a tantrum because someone wants to have a serious discussion about video games.
Noone said they will actually go ahead and try to ban things, so far they want to discuss and think about violence in video games.

The more video gamers talk about killing and mutilating red cross members over this, the more I'm convinced that the discussion is necessary.

For many years videogamers have felt like outcasts and been seen as nerds, now that we get public attention, for the good or the bad, the first course of action seems to be to prove to the general public that we love our "perversions" and really are a bunch of freaks...?!?

I for one could certainly do without attention-grabbing missions and mutilations in video games, doesn't mean I think they should be banned but at some point it may be valid to ask whether the constant tearing down of moral borders is actually a good thing.

And just because the world is a bad place, there's no reason to celebrate that.

[Nowake]

Personally, I find their video presentation was a cute effort.
I don't think they are up to curtailing anyone's enjoyment. If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks. In games depicting historical events, having at least the option to treat a wounded enemy according to the Geneva conventions would be a solid addition.

Rules of warfare are set by lawyers a long way away from the front line. Every side in every war has committed war crimes. Summary execution of anyone using a flamer has been undertaken since they were first used.

Sure. The possibility should be given to you. And the legal consequences and illegal cover-ups should be simulated in game if you prove yourself to be acting like a war criminal. It's simply historically sound up to a point. If the game is too simple for that and you're merely scoring points for killing Nazis, perhaps you should at least not be awarded extra points for torching a wounded NPC "who" surrendered and is simulating a cry for help (or for his mother, whatever really).


We have so many on this board and even in this thread who are very concerned with promiscuity and sexual morality, and yet they come out in favour of the vicarious "pleasure" of simulating the burning of a human being to death. Bit too much cognitive dissonance for me.

[Vuk]

I think it's a great idea, if just for the first bunch of immature posts in this thread.

I also don't get why people have to throw a tantrum because someone wants to have a serious discussion about video games.
Noone said they will actually go ahead and try to ban things, so far they want to discuss and think about violence in video games.

The more video gamers talk about killing and mutilating red cross members over this, the more I'm convinced that the discussion is necessary.

For many years videogamers have felt like outcasts and been seen as nerds, now that we get public attention, for the good or the bad, the first course of action seems to be to prove to the general public that we love our "perversions" and really are a bunch of freaks...?!?

I for one could certainly do without attention-grabbing missions and mutilations in video games, doesn't mean I think they should be banned but at some point it may be valid to ask whether the constant tearing down of moral borders is actually a good thing.

And just because the world is a bad place, there's no reason to celebrate that.

Really? I am suddenly perverted or violent because I like chasing down and killing civies in a video game? Do you really think that makes me any more likely to go kill someone in real life? I love to hack and burn random bums in DX, but the sight of human blood in real life makes me nauseous. I have taken punches to the face to avoid having to fight someone I hated because I was afraid I would hurt them (mostly of the legal consequences of that). Where is the connection exactly between video game violence and violence? I will tell you, there is none. You will have all kinds of people who like to do crazy things in video games, and 90% of them are just normal people. The ones that are really violent people are already violent people to begin with, and not a product of video games.
I'll tell you what, buy a copy of Thief II if you do not have one, and then download the fan mission Mr. Oh Dear and you will have an idea of the types of stuff I played when I was young. (and extreme example) :P My little sisters played and loved that fan mission, and they are probably the most peaceful, non-violent people I have ever met (yet they like playing a game where a servant boy is brutally tortured over and over again).
Of course I am giving you extreme examples, that is certainly not the type of thing I seek out or play the most, but I still find it funny and enjoyable.
You see, what you don't get Hussar is that people can realize that it is only a make believe world and have fun with it. They can have fun doing things they would never find fun or want to do in real life. When I play shooters I some times jump around seeing how many ways I can die gruesome deaths...just for fun. Does that mean I would find jumping in front of a semi fun irl? You don't seem to get the distinction between reality and video game (or at least you believe other gamers incapable of making the distinction).

[Husar]

You don't seem to get the distinction between reality and video game (or at least you believe other gamers incapable of making the distinction).

Uhm, that assumption is completely pulled out of your nose and has nothing to do with my post or what I said.

I said people shouldn't throw a tantrum because other people are having a serious discussions or concerns about video games.

Neither did I say perversion, I said "perversions", I play (violent) video games myself, you know, the question is just why it gets so much to you that the red cross may decide to disencourage video game developers from including torture scenes in their games? Are torture scenes that important to you or are you just getting upset for no reason at all?

I don't really care about the red cross discussing this because video games are fun for me even if they don't revolve about mowing down civilians at an airport, dismembering people with landmines or having my guy look tough and patriotic while he tortures someone. The reaction to this discussion makes it look like the really gory atrocities are the only thing in video games you people care about, that's why it can easily look "perverted" to outsiders. Hardly anyone believes that playing video games turns lovely people into killers anymore, the discussion has mostly moved beyond that and it's absolutely not what I said, your outrage and excuses are completely superfluous.

[Montmorency]

Why not? If it acts as more than a gimmick, bring it on. RTT games, at least, would be more interesting if civilians were simulated. Think of the local consequences civilian activity might have for who wins a particular firefight, or whether a squad successfully sneaks into a structure, etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This kills the game.

[Vuk]

Uhm, that assumption is completely pulled out of your nose and has nothing to do with my post or what I said.

I said people shouldn't throw a tantrum because other people are having a serious discussions or concerns about video games.

Neither did I say perversion, I said "perversions", I play (violent) video games myself, you know, the question is just why it gets so much to you that the red cross may decide to disencourage video game developers from including torture scenes in their games? Are torture scenes that important to you or are you just getting upset for no reason at all?

I don't really care about the red cross discussing this because video games are fun for me even if they don't revolve about mowing down civilians at an airport, dismembering people with landmines or having my guy look tough and patriotic while he tortures someone. The reaction to this discussion makes it look like the really gory atrocities are the only thing in video games you people care about, that's why it can easily look "perverted" to outsiders. Hardly anyone believes that playing video games turns lovely people into killers anymore, the discussion has mostly moved beyond that and it's absolutely not what I said, your outrage and excuses are completely superfluous.

They are discussing whether or not video games should be 'held to IHL'. That means what exactly? You could not have a game where it is possible to kill a civy? So much for giving the player freedom. You know what? If you have a civy and soldiers in the same map, they will shoot at them even if the game tries to stop them. The exact same things will go through their mind. The last thing we need is the stupid Red Cross trying to get the government that is way to big to start sticking their noses further into the video game industry and controlling what we can and cannot do. I am sorry, but I do not give a pox about their intentions; I am firmly against the government further controlling the forms of media and entertainment available to me.

[Husar]

They are discussing whether or not video games should be 'held to IHL'. That means what exactly? You could not have a game where it is possible to kill a civy? So much for giving the player freedom. You know what? If you have a civy and soldiers in the same map, they will shoot at them even if the game tries to stop them. The exact same things will go through their mind. The last thing we need is the stupid Red Cross trying to get the government that is way to big to start sticking their noses further into the video game industry and controlling what we can and cannot do. I am sorry, but I do not give a pox about their intentions; I am firmly against the government further controlling the forms of media and entertainment available to me.

Except the red cross isn't government and the red cross hasn't come to a conclusion yet, they just invite people to a discussion on the topic. If the gamer-side in the discussion starts to flame them and call for them to be burned and shot, it's hardly going to help anyone.

If you look at the trailer they made they may just be against awarding people for cruelties, as in you can shoot civies but you get a lower score if you do so. Some games already have or had similar restrictions.
I'm also missing the big outcry about not being able to kill children in Skyrim and other games, but when the red cross invites people to a discussion of the topic, people rage and complain?

And since when is there a problem with people lobbying the government? The RIAA and others do so quite successfully as well last I heard, if the customers want their gorefests then surely EA and others could lobby right back.

Not to mention that if you're against restrictions on your media usage, you might want to look in the direction of companies first.

[Veho Nex]

Personally, I find their video presentation was a cute effort.
I don't think they are up to curtailing anyone's enjoyment. If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks. In games depicting historical events, having at least the option to treat a wounded enemy according to the Geneva conventions would be a solid addition.

Actually in certain game modes enemies can spawn from half tracks edit: meant medic trucks. Blowing it up was a tactical decision.

[Vuk]

Except the red cross isn't government and the red cross hasn't come to a conclusion yet, they just invite people to a discussion on the topic. If the gamer-side in the discussion starts to flame them and call for them to be burned and shot, it's hardly going to help anyone.

If you look at the trailer they made they may just be against awarding people for cruelties, as in you can shoot civies but you get a lower score if you do so. Some games already have or had similar restrictions.
I'm also missing the big outcry about not being able to kill children in Skyrim and other games, but when the red cross invites people to a discussion of the topic, people rage and complain?

And since when is there a problem with people lobbying the government? The RIAA and others do so quite successfully as well last I heard, if the customers want their gorefests then surely EA and others could lobby right back.

Not to mention that if you're against restrictions on your media usage, you might want to look in the direction of companies first.

Just what we need, the gaming industry soaking Washington with money (which means the price of games will go up)! Perfect!

[CrossLOPER]

If you need gore, you can always go back to Doom 1 and play it for 12 hours straight with the other freaks.

Doom was boss, but I don't think I ever went over eight hours.

The more video gamers talk about killing and mutilating red cross members over this, the more I'm convinced that the discussion is necessary.

For many years videogamers have felt like outcasts and been seen as nerds, now that we get public attention, for the good or the bad, the first course of action seems to be to prove to the general public that we love our "perversions" and really are a bunch of freaks...?!?

IT. IS. FANTASY.

Gamers are tired of idiots crapping on a hobby because they seem to completely fail to grasp this simple fact.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You know who also played doom? The Columbine kids.

Checkmate. Red Cross 1, gamerz 0.