Light em up and watch em burn!

[CrossLOPER]

No russian. That is the crux of the matter, the red cross were really offended by the no russian level of modern warfare 2.

Glad to see that they are working on their backlog from 2009.

Makarov was a terrorist. The player took control of a US operative undercover as a terrorist under Makarov's command. At the end of the level, when Makarov puts a bullet between the player's eyes, his plot becomes apparent, and the next scene is of the US in the middle of an invasion by the RF. The irony is that the CIA operative killed was working to prevent the conflict. It was relevant, in context, and showed consequences of the actions the player was part of.

Oh, and there are no points, no achievements, no trophies, nothing. All you get is an invasion of the US due to Joseph Allen's failure to see through the ruse woven by Makarov.

[Greyblades]

And you think the red cross even noticed that? I doubt they even had a guy play it and just watched a youtube video and closed the weindow before it finished.

[Husar]

I would not care if they did not have the power to affect me.

Yes, that's exactly why I'm saying gamers may not want to respond to them in a way that convinces them even more that games make us gamers aggressive and bloodthirsty.

In most cases, the overall objective to earning all these points is not really focusing on the face-stabbing mechanic, but reaching the next rank or netting an achievement, which is something a game design/behavioral psychologist double major such as yourself should immediately recognize. Competitionist goals are something a little bit different than a person actually glorifying the act of face stabbing. There most certainly exist nutbars that have developed a perversion for forming virtual slits in virtual human bodies in virtual worlds, but I have yet to meet them. Perhaps I did, it's just that they betrayed their nutbar nature and I tend not to associate with those individuals.

Oh, but I'm not, I just happen to read a (german) online gaming magazine that likes to cover these topics and do specials and interviews with people who actually do have majors in these fields.
You also misunderstood what I was trying to say, in a way the point is reaching the next rank, but that is what the player thinks and what the player should think.
The other side is the one where the developer/game designer thinks about how he can get the player hooked, and he comes to the conclusion that letting the player gain ranks is a good way to do that.
In the next step he asks himself how the player could gain ranks, it has to be in a way the player enjoys, or enjoys enough to keep grinding, and then he decides to award points for things like killing somneone with a landmine, points for stabbing someone etc. I don't even think stabbing someone is wrong, the red cross just wants to discuss whether it's a good idea that games reward people for killing others with virtual landmines while in reality a lot of people fight against landmines because they're not as funny and rewarding as games might make some people think.
Would it really ruin games to take away landmines or not to reward people for using landmines in online shooters?

You mentioned in your previous point that it is worth studying the effects of gaming on individuals. This has already been done. The general consensus is yes, games tend to be very immersive and there is a very large degree of input with video games.

Yes, but I'm not sure whther it's been done exhaustively.
But anyway, how about gamers tell the red cross that instead of becoming all aggressive towards them?
After all they invited people to come and give them their opinion on the story, if they wanted to destroy gaming they could just skip the discussion and go straight to the lobbying phase, no?

Though in practice, scoring three kills in a row in Modern Warfare 3 is not moving in the direction of becoming the knife fetish demographic. I don't think they are going to "take away" my "most precious hobby". At most, the stated objective is to modify the scoring mechanic to reflect Geneva Convention rules. How? Negative scoring if you shoot a friendly/non-combatant? That already exists. It's call "friendly fire kill" and most servers have that disabled to prevent minimize lessen griefing.

Uhm, I don't think the Geneva Convention doesn't allow killing enemies, does Modern Warfare 3 even have a significant number of non-combatants in MP?
I'd think shooting friendlies isn't a big issue as it's wrong on every level, rewarding people for killing with mines or showing a lot of torture etc. in SP can be discussed though, from a moral standpoint IMO.
Of course it would only be fair if they brough it up in relation to TV shows like "24" as well.

There is no application. There is no cause for this to exist. Who is this meant to protect? Civilians? I don't even recall civilians existing in the core gameplay of major titles. Oh wait, there were civilians in those really old FMV arcade games where a bunch of random people would come out from behind boxes in a warehouse and you had a second to decide whether to shoot them or not. Usually, you received major penalties for killing a hostage/civilian.

The cause is to make us as persons or us as a society reflect on what we are doing now and then, to check our behaviours, their effects etc. and possibly find ways to improve ourselves.
Even if it leads to nothing for now, it doesn't have to be in vain and it often makes sense to take a step back and reflect.

I am looking at a wall full of game boxes I have collected over the past two decades. You want a more recent example? SWAT 4. Automatic game over if a civilian dies. Massive penalties for not being able to bring as many people out alive - friend or foe. Thief constantly reminded you that "you are a thief, not an assassin". Try executing a civilian in within earshot of a security officer in any Deus Ex game. Even Duke ****ing Nukem had a few little bits where, if you killed a dancer, aliens would immediately teleport in to "fry your sick ***". In Doom 3, if for some bizarre reason you decide to kill UAC personnel trying to assist you, bad things would spawn in the next room to punish you. Subtle. Even a simple revamp of a classic shooter, without any help from the Red Cross, offhandedly managed to tackle this non-issue.

Again, I ask you: Why is this necessary?

Yes, I played SWAT 4 and know Thief.
It's necessary because other games don't do this, telling the player that torture is a good thing etc. (which is arguably another discussion but it has also been studied and found not to work etc. as far as I understand).
You could even say it's not necessary but it's good to take a step back and reflect, whether you see a necessity or not.
Sometimes it takes a closer look to see the necessity, or not, in which case you should have nothing to fear.

[CrossLOPER]

Yes, that's exactly why I'm saying gamers may not want to respond to them in a way that convinces them even more that games make us gamers aggressive and bloodthirsty.

Look, EA, Activision and all the other companies with money piles are going to lobby this to oblivion. I don't care. Moreover, how is saying "that is stupid, you should go do something else" bloodthirsty?

Oh, but I'm not, I just happen to read a (german) online gaming magazine

Should have pretty much stopped reading right there but...

that likes to cover these topics and do specials and interviews with people who actually do have majors in these fields.
You also misunderstood what I was trying to say, in a way the point is reaching the next rank, but that is what the player thinks and what the player should think.
The other side is the one where the developer/game designer thinks about how he can get the player hooked, and he comes to the conclusion that letting the player gain ranks is a good way to do that.
In the next step he asks himself how the player could gain ranks, it has to be in a way the player enjoys, or enjoys enough to keep grinding, and then he decides to award points for things like killing somneone with a landmine, points for stabbing someone etc. I don't even think stabbing someone is wrong, the red cross just wants to discuss whether it's a good idea that games reward people for killing others with virtual landmines while in reality a lot of people fight against landmines because they're not as funny and rewarding as games might make some people think.
Would it really ruin games to take away landmines or not to reward people for using landmines in online shooters?

Why don't we just take away the guns and just press X to sing along?

I would like to remind you again that these are games that we are talking about. No normal human being is going to say "hurr mines are awesome let's go plant more mines" after making a few claymore kills in Modern Warfare 2. Conversely, no one is going to say "mines are bad, we should stop using mines" if the mines do not exist in the games.

Yes, but I'm not sure whther it's been done exhaustively.
But anyway, how about gamers tell the red cross that instead of becoming all aggressive towards them?
After all they invited people to come and give them their opinion on the story, if they wanted to destroy gaming they could just skip the discussion and go straight to the lobbying phase, no?

I'm so glad that they took the time to discuss some serious issues, like how video games should depict violence.

Seriously. They couldn't think of constructing another campaign concerning something specific such as landmine use or whatever? They have to go after games? Do they seriously think that normal adults are going to be pro laying minefields in schoolyards after playing Call of Duty?

Uhm, I don't think the Geneva Convention doesn't allow killing enemies, does Modern Warfare 3 even have a significant number of non-combatants in MP?
I'd think shooting friendlies isn't a big issue as it's wrong on every level, rewarding people for killing with mines or showing a lot of torture etc. in SP can be discussed though, from a moral standpoint IMO.
Of course it would only be fair if they brough it up in relation to TV shows like "24" as well.

What games are you playing that have you torture human beings? I vaguely remember a trailer for Black Ops where you have a guy getting electrocuted while being interrogated. Guess what? YOU are that guy. YOU are being tortured. It sucks. In Splinter Cell, the only people torturing others are the grimiest, sleaziest human beings imaginable. I don't remember a game that ever had an achievement or gave you points for installing nipple clamps hooked up to some dude.

The cause is to make us as persons or us as a society reflect on what we are doing now and then, to check our behaviours, their effects etc. and possibly find ways to improve ourselves.
Even if it leads to nothing for now, it doesn't have to be in vain and it often makes sense to take a step back and reflect.

Why must they hijack games as their medium to do this?

Anyway, I don't think Call of Duty: East African Grain Distribution Mission is going to sell. However, guess what? The Red Cross can fund their own game and sell that.

Yes, I played SWAT 4 and know Thief.
It's necessary because other games don't do this, telling the player that torture is a good thing etc. (which is arguably another discussion but it has also been studied and found not to work etc. as far as I understand).
You could even say it's not necessary but it's good to take a step back and reflect, whether you see a necessity or not.
Sometimes it takes a closer look to see the necessity, or not, in which case you should have nothing to fear.

What games feature and reward torture? More specifically, what war games reward the player for committing atrocities? Again. There are none.

[Husar]

Moreover, how is saying "that is stupid, you should go do something else" bloodthirsty?

It isn't, some other posts or quite simply the topic of this thread are to an extent.

Should have pretty much stopped reading right there but...

Racist...

Why don't we just take away the guns and just press X to sing along?

Because guns are allowed as a means to mutilate and kill an enemy in the Geneva Convention?

I would like to remind you again that these are games that we are talking about. No normal human being is going to say "hurr mines are awesome let's go plant more mines" after making a few claymore kills in Modern Warfare 2. Conversely, no one is going to say "mines are bad, we should stop using mines" if the mines do not exist in the games.

I would like to remind you that I never claimed that games make people want to murder others while violating the Geneva conventions.
This isn't necessarily abput the real life impact of games either IMO, could be simply about whether it's okay to glorify things in games which we outlaw in the real world while simultaneously trying to make the games more "immersive". Or is there actually a point at which the game is so immersed that it gets influenced more than it does by playing Super Mario on a Nintendo?
You think not, I think it's worth investigating.

I'm so glad that they took the time to discuss some serious issues, like how video games should depict violence.

Seriously. They couldn't think of constructing another campaign concerning something specific such as landmine use or whatever? They have to go after games? Do they seriously think that normal adults are going to be pro laying minefields in schoolyards after playing Call of Duty?

I don't know what they seriously think, I just know what they want to think about.

What games are you playing that have you torture human beings? I vaguely remember a trailer for Black Ops where you have a guy getting electrocuted while being interrogated. Guess what? YOU are that guy. YOU are being tortured. It sucks. In Splinter Cell, the only people torturing others are the grimiest, sleaziest human beings imaginable. I don't remember a game that ever had an achievement or gave you points for installing nipple clamps hooked up to some dude.

Manhunt comes to mind, although I didn't play that. I don't know much about the newer Call of Duties as I got bored halfway through MW2 and only played MW1 otherwise.

Why must they hijack games as their medium to do this?

They're relatively new, and they mostly appeal to younger people, or at least many people think that's the case. Like most things that are relatively new and appeal to younger people they go through a lot of scrutiny by older people. Lead-painted toys failed that test.
Skateboards pulled though and games are very popular nowadays, so I'm not very worried because some people want to have a discussion of the effects.
I'd be much more worried if the older generations didn't even try to care about the well-being of the younger generations anymore.
I can tell you that EA and UbiSoft don't care a lot about your well-being as long as you pay money for their products (similar to how chinese toy-manufacturers...).

Anyway, I don't think Call of Duty: East African Grain Distribution Mission is going to sell. However, guess what? The Red Cross can fund their own game and sell that.

That's a really nice sarcastic remark that has nothing to do with the topic and even less with what the red cross wants to discuss.
It just makes you look like you hate the red cross in general and everything they do.

What games feature and reward torture? More specifically, what war games reward the player for committing atrocities? Again. There are none.

RTW, it's generally agreed that exterminating cities yields the most benefits, and it's just the click of a button to murder thousands of virtual people represented by a number!
But if you would look on the bright side for once, if not many people reward violating the geneva convention, then the red cross will not really do much to change our gaming experiences, whatever the outcome of the debate may be. So why the outrage then?

[Ironside]

I would like to remind you again that these are games that we are talking about. No normal human being is going to say "hurr mines are awesome let's go plant more mines" after making a few claymore kills in Modern Warfare 2. Conversely, no one is going to say "mines are bad, we should stop using mines" if the mines do not exist in the games.

Car explosion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thought fireball? Wrong!

Gun shot.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thought it sounds as TV shots? Wrong!

Shot down.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thought he flew backwards? Wrong!

Knock out someone.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thought it's safeish? Wrong!

My point is that there's still a subtile influence by media exposure. Sure we all know murder is bad in real life. The problem occurs when there's more gray zones, like the ticking bomb scenario. Or dealing with those annoying injured enemies.

[CrossLOPER]

Racist...

Victim. I was talking more about the gaming part.

Because guns are allowed as a means to mutilate and kill an enemy in the Geneva Convention?

By this logic, anything depicting violence should be banned.

I would like to remind you that I never claimed that games make people want to murder others while violating the Geneva conventions.
This isn't necessarily abput the real life impact of games either IMO, could be simply about whether it's okay to glorify things in games which we outlaw in the real world while simultaneously trying to make the games more "immersive". Or is there actually a point at which the game is so immersed that it gets influenced more than it does by playing Super Mario on a Nintendo?
You think not, I think it's worth investigating.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but about glorifying things that are outlawed: Anyone who thinks that they can pull off something from Saints Row 3 in real life needs to placed into a situation where they are given adequate, professional attention to their mental health. That or their parents need to be slapped. War isn't outlawed, but banging keys on the the keyboard is not going to make you a super duper adept mass murderer. We are no where near that point.

Manhunt comes to mind, although I didn't play that. I don't know much about the newer Call of Duties as I got bored halfway through MW2 and only played MW1 otherwise.

It is a visceral game, yes. Note that the game began with a lethal injection. The culprit behind all of the killing was a murderer who was placed into his unsavory position because he broke the law. He will always be hunted. Also despite all that, Cash, the character you play, does not exactly walk around killing helpless human beings.

They're relatively new, and they mostly appeal to younger people, or at least many people think that's the case. Like most things that are relatively new and appeal to younger people they go through a lot of scrutiny by older people. Lead-painted toys failed that test.
Skateboards pulled though and games are very popular nowadays, so I'm not very worried because some people want to have a discussion of the effects.
I'd be much more worried if the older generations didn't even try to care about the well-being of the younger generations anymore.
I can tell you that EA and UbiSoft don't care a lot about your well-being as long as you pay money for their products (similar to how chinese toy-manufacturers...).

I'm always curious when people bring an argument like this up. Who buys games for these children? Who controls what they are able to do and not do? Who is responsible for instilling values? The way you keep talking about how games affect people, it is as if we are forced to play.

Also, I don't care what gaming companies think of me, so long as they produce good games and quit trying to scan my personal files.

That's a really nice sarcastic remark that has nothing to do with the topic and even less with what the red cross wants to discuss.
It just makes you look like you hate the red cross in general and everything they do.

I think the Red Cross wants to bring their agenda to the table. I am saying that they don't have to hijack a media to bring their message across. They can embrace it instead.

RTW, it's generally agreed that exterminating cities yields the most benefits, and it's just the click of a button to murder thousands of virtual people represented by a number!
But if you would look on the bright side for once, if not many people reward violating the geneva convention, then the red cross will not really do much to change our gaming experiences, whatever the outcome of the debate may be. So why the outrage then?

The TW series has always been horrendously designed and it is easy to exploit certain parts of the games. Extermination is supposed to be the worst, considering that it would raise other problems and it would cost much to undo the damage. In M2TW, you can just make a ton of stacks of heavy swordsmen and murder up and down the map until the game crashes. This is not an example of the philosophy of game design, this is an example of its limitations.

[Husar]

Victim.

Pity me. I also demand justice!
Let's assume your girlfriend got raped, would you still want to use victim with a negative connotation?

I was talking more about the gaming part.

And I wasn't serious, however that doesn't disqualify their opinion or even that of the people they interview.

By this logic, anything depicting violence should be banned.

Please read my sentence again, I have a strong feeling you understood the opposite of what I said...

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but about glorifying things that are outlawed: Anyone who thinks that they can pull off something from Saints Row 3 in real life needs to placed into a situation where they are given adequate, professional attention to their mental health. That or their parents need to be slapped. War isn't outlawed, but banging keys on the the keyboard is not going to make you a super duper adept mass murderer. We are no where near that point.

Indeed, and that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about an idealistic "Where should we take our society" kind of debate, not about the real life ramifications bloody games can have.
Even if I could mask murdering my neighbor and get away with it (and all his money and other beneficial things), not having to fear any real ramifications or punishment, there is the question whether I should do it. It's a moral question.

It is a visceral game, yes. Note that the game began with a lethal injection. The culprit behind all of the killing was a murderer who was placed into his unsavory position because he broke the law. He will always be hunted. Also despite all that, Cash, the character you play, does not exactly walk around killing helpless human beings.

That's a lot of story attempting to justify that the whole gameplay revolves around killing people in the most brutal ways.

I'm always curious when people bring an argument like this up. Who buys games for these children? Who controls what they are able to do and not do? Who is responsible for instilling values? The way you keep talking about how games affect people, it is as if we are forced to play.

No, we aren't forced to play, but drug addicts also want to have drugs even though they're not good for them. No, that's not a direct comparison but it means that even though we aren't forced to play, that doesn't mean there can't be problems for society.
And children often buy games themselves, are age restrictions binding for shop owners in the USA?

Despite all that, I wasn't saying the red cross is right in assuming that games are only for children, in fact I was pointing out a view that I find outdated myself, but it still exists.

I think the Red Cross wants to bring their agenda to the table. I am saying that they don't have to hijack a media to bring their message across. They can embrace it instead.

Well, so are others, who doesn't have an agenda? Games are for everyone, even the red cross.

The TW series has always been horrendously designed and it is easy to exploit certain parts of the games. Extermination is supposed to be the worst, considering that it would raise other problems and it would cost much to undo the damage. In M2TW, you can just make a ton of stacks of heavy swordsmen and murder up and down the map until the game crashes. This is not an example of the philosophy of game design, this is an example of its limitations.

Then maybe read what I said afterwards?

[Lemur]

I guess you sick perverts are safe from war crimes prosecution ... for now.

Gamers worried their actions on the virtual battlefield could land them at the Hague war crimes tribunal can relax.

The International Committee of the Red Cross says media reports that it is investigating whether the Geneva Conventions apply to video games are false.

The Swiss-based humanitarian group assured gamers Thursday that "serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations."

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah, so its the Daily Mail wot done it, then?

[Fragony]

You are wrong Frags, it has nothing to do with feeling attacked. I am upset about it because someone is proposing legislating game content. As a gamer, that would have consequences for me that I would dearly like to avoid.

There is always somewhere to draw the line, see no harm in musings on where. We also have various degrees of comfort with free speech.

[Husar]

I guess you sick perverts are safe from war crimes prosecution ... for now.

Gamers worried their actions on the virtual battlefield could land them at the Hague war crimes tribunal can relax.

The International Committee of the Red Cross says media reports that it is investigating whether the Geneva Conventions apply to video games are false.

The Swiss-based humanitarian group assured gamers Thursday that "serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations."

What a letdown! So I was wrong all the time, and here I thought we almost had you guys...