Human rights groups: No in-game war crimes

Human rights groups: No in-game war crimes

news.cnet.com

After evaluating the 20 games, the group found that in many cases, "shooter" games failed to take into consideration international humanitarian law.

"The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is nevertheless astonishing: civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity, in scenes portraying interrogations it is possible to torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned for it and extrajudicial executions are simulated," the groups wrote in a statement. "At least a few games punish the killing of civilians

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is going a little too far. Further into the story, it tells that they picked video games over film because of the "interactive" manner. Really? No kidding? It's a video game. An escape from the crappy reality that is life. If this crap keeps up, we are going to have a society of zombies, watching Teletubbies and playing Sesame Street ABC's.

Again, IT'S A VIDEO GAME. Fantasy, not reality. If for some reason a kid thinks that he or she can go out and saw somebodies head off, then the parents should be a little more pro-active and explain fantasy and reality, and mainstream media should stop playing videos of terrorists doing it.

news.cnet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

These games do not train you to kill or destroy anything, they take away empathy, thats what they are doing. The military train you to see your enemy as nothing, and having no feelings or pain etc...

I think they miss the point of it all, thats why people get all games do not kill.

Originally posted by andy1033
These games do not train you to kill or destroy anything, they take away empathy, thats what they are doing.

Bad - or non-existant - parenting is the only thing taking away empathy...

Either way, the argument is incredibly retarded.

Personally I just played World In Conflict and launched a white phosporous attack against enemy soldiers, oh the horror! The pain! Someone charge me with war crimes before I die from guilt!

Yeah what a waste money, they should be focusing on actually doing something about the human rights abuses we have here on Earth, instead of in our television sets.

Or create a UN video game which deals with the fall out of the hardcore violent video games.

Ohh that's right, you'd never win, cause the US would VETO all the bills.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


No man, it'd just be a bunch of troops standing around in blue uniforms watching the engagements, running away when things get too close and then writing reports about it.

Anyway, seems like wasted man-hours to come up with this story. Video games are an escape where one can do things that would normally be impossible or unacceptable.

edit for grammar

[edit on 11/24/09 by surfinguru]

[edit on 11/24/09 by surfinguru]

reply to post by Mekanic


it's not a cultural divide, it's a gender divide, methinks.
if you get in touch with your feminine side, you suddenly lose
touch with common sense, is the impression you're supposed to get.
which of course, isn't true, it's just extreme examples are better news.

I'm an avid gamer myself and I can discern between reality and a virtual world. There is only one game that I will not buy or play because of one "scene". It struck a chord with me when I saw it. It is the airport level in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I heard about it and cringed just a tiny bit. For that level alone I will not purchase it or play it. However, I will not scream to people about my opinion and beg for any store/government/association to ban it. Just because I don't want to play it doesn't mean others can't.

reply to post by undo


Maybe I just don't drink enough estrogen laced water?

I do know alot of females who like the violence as much as I do.

reply to post by Mekanic


i have a ton of video game characters. i think it's (theoretically) addiction to adrenalin.

edit to add that it may work like a runner's high. they are addicted to endorphins.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by undo]

Were the freaking the Human rights groups when serbia got bombed by united states back in 1999? how thats right they didnt care about the serbs since they said the serbs started the war, america was pure and gentle in helping those bosnian mujahideen.


Where were the outcrys of that same idiots group when mujahideen in bosnia used child soilders from the middle east and eleswhere to the fight the war in bosnia?


You know what this news made me sick to my stomach it would be better for the world if the humans right group never existed.




After all all human rights group are nothing more then pro western governments.

I am a avid gamer as well, which just so happens to favor FPS style games. Playing these games does not make me think it is " OK " to kill some one or what ever, because I know the difference between game play and the real world. A violent game is just like a violent movie... they both have ratings. I think this " study" was just a complete waste of time. I mean if parents do not want there kids to play violent game then, IDK, maybe don't buy them for them. I'm sure all the games they tested that are violent are rated M. I don't see why adults, the only people that should be playing rated M games, should be penalized for the game being too violent.

I completely agree with they poster who stated " If this crap keeps up, we are going to have a society of zombies, watching Teletubbies and playing Sesame Street ABC's. "

I don't know what games these "human rights" people are playing, but most war games I play penalize big time if you kill civilians. Anyone ever play Mercenaries? The whole point of the game is to make money, and you get fined bigtime for killing civilians but it's not going to stop me from carpet bombing a city for fun

Personally I think these guys are mad that they suck at playing violent video games. Seriously, get real. Would they rather people play violent video games or commit actual violent acts against other people?

reply to post by merka


world in conflict has some bits of rules of engagement, well 2 at least. 1st when a french officer yells at you for blowing up a church (which is occupied by hostile soviets), and second when your fellow officer shoots some surrendering troops.
mind you, thats just part of the story line, other than that you can spend all day napalming those poor commie b'tards

so long as 13 year olds dont get access to fire support and air strike assets, i think the civilized world is safe for the time being.

They're right, of course. It's obvious. The games though, intentionally or not, act as conditioning. I don't happen to believe that war is ever necessary, but if we must have wars then part of me thinks it's stupid to have wars with rules.
The efforts toward humanitarian war would be better spent on avoiding war entirely. There's simply no excuse for it.

This is such a ridiculous story.

Ultimately, it implies that most "video games" should be edited to promote the agenda of people with motives which are likely ulterior based on a perceived notion of ethics.

Hello, they are "games"! Perhaps better described in this context as "simulations".

The same thing can be said about fictional movies.

It isn't real.

A basic philosophy I follow is.... if an act is not directly responsible for producing a real victim, then a real crime has not been committed by such act.

reply to post by Mekanic


Every crusader needs a evil against which to crusade. Just some aren't the sharpest tools in the shed so we get silliness such as this.

Notice to the courts and other 'do gooding' people.

THEY ARE GAMES.FICTION.FANTASY.MAKE BELIEVE.CREATED PIXELS ON A TV SCREEN.

Not real life.

Virtual war crimes indeed, shouldn't you be chasing up the REAL war criminals?
Oh thats right , your too scared to aren't you?
so you pick on an easier target.

Get a grip , Games do not encourage ANYONE to go on a shooting spree, nor corrupt the minds of people to indulge in fantasy you have books and the internet for that..
Yes you can interact with a game, but you can also interact with a video film too. Its called the fastfoward, stop and eject buttons on the remote control.

[edit on 26/11/09 by DataWraith]

Ridiculous! Of course games depict violations of humanitarian law. It would be extremely unrealistic to portray a violent conflict where everyone follows the law (or everyone who breaks it is punished). There are no real rules in war. Torture, executions, civilian deaths are an unfortunate part of war but when survival is on the line, people will do whatever it takes.

Games should reflect the horrible reality of war. Sanitizing portrayals of armed conflict may actually increase future wars and abuses.

reply to post by ChristinaA



Trouble is 'real' depictions of virtual war they don't include the backward or gullible children used as suicide bombers, the concientious objectors nor do they include the legions of peace activists hunched over their keyboards banging their heads in frustration as the world goes to poop around them, nor do they include the war profiteers laughing as the bodies pile up as they count their cash.

Just "Oh look a raghead terrorist, lets kill him " as always in the games, oh and by the way I bought call of duty 5, and I played the airport massacre level, but even though I like and play these games there are some actions I will not do, I didn't shoot the civilians as the scripted bots did, I just shot the glass, of course you cannot shoot your terrorist buddies although I did try.
Virtual morality at its best.

War games should include all of these before the busy bodies try to accuse the game designers of 'war crimes'