we’re challenging you to play FPS by the real Rules of War, to show everyone that even wars have rules—rules which protect humanity on battlefields IRL.
The only reason for the red cross to tell players to do such a thing is if they think players are likely to become soldiers and act like they're still in the videogame - which, aside from being retarded even as a basic premise... would still make this a bad idea.
The lesson players will learn from playing like this is that it's a losing strategy and expecting your honor to be reciprocated is a recipe for disappointment and feeling like a fool for even trying. They will learn they that can be killed trying to render aid to a downed enemy. They will learned that a downed enemy who begged for his life may turn around and kill you and teabag your corpse the first chance he gets. They will learn that there is absolutely no benefit to them to not kill every enemy they encounter no matter how helpless their situation may seem in that moment, because situations can change in an instant. You won't have to play many rounds of PUBG to learn this.
I sometimes wish the world these people live in existed, because it sounds so much better than reality. Because I spend most times playing games wishing we could just kill the bad guys instead of letting them get away to make continuous trouble.
assuming a set of responsibilities that included responding to people in crisis, defusing landmines, and submitting to journalists’ interviews
One of these seems not like the others and in fact betrays something I think that inspired a lot of this initiative.
calling on governments to impose regulations forcing developers to limit violations like torture, extrajudicial executions, attacks on civilians, and other atrocities if they could not be convinced to do so voluntarily
So if people won't submit to your idea you want to government to force them to do so. How humanitarian of you, I'm sure that doesn't run opposite to almost every other time in history the government did something like that.
Also, how many games do these limits actually violate? Because in almost any game attacking civilians comes with heavy penalties and is outright discouraged in pretty much the same manner as real life. Torture I haven't seen since like Manhunt, and most killing in games happens in either outright combat zones (where the judicial system doesn't apply the same way) or in worlds without a judicial system like ours to begin with.
Like, this feels like Jack Thompson misunderstanding and then whining about GTA again, but now its CoD and treating it as the only game in existence.
Facing backlash for spending its time fretting over virtual genocides rather than preventing real ones, the ICRC argued it had plenty of staff to do both
TIL the red cross has way too much money and more staff than they know what to do with, and you'd have to be a moron to donate to them. Thanks for making that clear.
“If you have an unused med kit that works on others, you must give it to those who need it—be they friendly or enemy,” the Red Cross says. “The Rules of War mandate that the sick and wounded—no matter which side they’re on—have the right to be cared for.”
This only works in a game where you have a fourth state - stabilised/captured - and not just combat ready/downed/dead. Because if you don't have that fourth state then you are restoring an enemy combatant to full fighting capability, and the only reason why there's any obligation to provide medical care is because that's not what happens in real life.
I can think of ways to implement it that might even be fun/intersting, but my gut feeling is that it'll not only slow down gameplay a lot, but be open to abuse.
"All I wanted to do was play a game set in the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, I was downed and then captured and raped and tortured for seven hours, unable to do anything, before my partner hit the power button and tore me away from the computer" -- t. games journalist
But right now, armed conflicts are more prevalent than ever
Wait, what? More prevalent than ever?! During World War 1 there were millions of soldiers fighting. I guess modern day Chicago must be even worse than I expected.
So we’re back to the old early 90s fright about violent vidya games but instead of the conservative fear of “if you punch someone in game it’ll make you want to punch someone in real life” (which has been pretty well disproven), it’s now a liberal fear that, um… we shouldn’t oppress nonexistent characters I guess?
The only war crime is losing, and I don't lose.
Unironically yes. The shit you do in war is only a crime if you lose.
Well that settles it, next Rimworld colony will use toxic gas and psychic attack on everrthing.
I see many cowboy hats and armchairs on the horizon.
Once Biotech came out I created gene packs to eliminate black and brown skins in my colonists.
and send the extracted genes and any wastepacks to your enemies
Setting up waste packs near the borders of my zone, to stack toxic debuffs on invaders.
We live in a vault anyway, and the hydroponics keep us fed. Fuck the outside.
The only reason for the red cross to tell players to do such a thing is if they think players are likely to become soldiers and act like they're still in the videogame - which, aside from being retarded even as a basic premise... would still make this a bad idea.
The lesson players will learn from playing like this is that it's a losing strategy and expecting your honor to be reciprocated is a recipe for disappointment and feeling like a fool for even trying. They will learn they that can be killed trying to render aid to a downed enemy. They will learned that a downed enemy who begged for his life may turn around and kill you and teabag your corpse the first chance he gets. They will learn that there is absolutely no benefit to them to not kill every enemy they encounter no matter how helpless their situation may seem in that moment, because situations can change in an instant. You won't have to play many rounds of PUBG to learn this.
Lawl.. one thing you learn from tarkov is dont trust anyone. Friendly scav will just blow you away for your backpack.
I sometimes wish the world these people live in existed, because it sounds so much better than reality. Because I spend most times playing games wishing we could just kill the bad guys instead of letting them get away to make continuous trouble.
One of these seems not like the others and in fact betrays something I think that inspired a lot of this initiative.
So if people won't submit to your idea you want to government to force them to do so. How humanitarian of you, I'm sure that doesn't run opposite to almost every other time in history the government did something like that.
Also, how many games do these limits actually violate? Because in almost any game attacking civilians comes with heavy penalties and is outright discouraged in pretty much the same manner as real life. Torture I haven't seen since like Manhunt, and most killing in games happens in either outright combat zones (where the judicial system doesn't apply the same way) or in worlds without a judicial system like ours to begin with.
Like, this feels like Jack Thompson misunderstanding and then whining about GTA again, but now its CoD and treating it as the only game in existence.
If you want to set gooks on fire with napalm you could check out Rising Storm 2: Vietnam on Steam
Don't forget the Willy Pete.
SEAs aren't human, so they lack the human rights to violate.
Except that game is zero fun no matter which side or class you play.
TIL the red cross has way too much money and more staff than they know what to do with, and you'd have to be a moron to donate to them. Thanks for making that clear.
This only works in a game where you have a fourth state - stabilised/captured - and not just combat ready/downed/dead. Because if you don't have that fourth state then you are restoring an enemy combatant to full fighting capability, and the only reason why there's any obligation to provide medical care is because that's not what happens in real life.
Rule #1 ... he who lives writes the history.
murks everyone
America's Army did this correctly, which is hardly surprising. You got points for securing downed combatants.
I can think of ways to implement it that might even be fun/intersting, but my gut feeling is that it'll not only slow down gameplay a lot, but be open to abuse.
"All I wanted to do was play a game set in the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, I was downed and then captured and raped and tortured for seven hours, unable to do anything, before my partner hit the power button and tore me away from the computer" -- t. games journalist
Low-T, nu-male, beta-faggot detected.
They already stated games journalist
I’m glad the Red Cross has no other pressing issues
Wait, what? More prevalent than ever?! During World War 1 there were millions of soldiers fighting. I guess modern day Chicago must be even worse than I expected.
MUH ROOLS OF WAR
How is ANYTHING a crime in a game when I can press a reset button or do a new game plus and everyone is back to normal?
Unless you can't tell that apart from reality in which case you are an extremely disturbed individual
it might be fun to run up to people and yell "surrender pussy! The Red Cross said fragging your ass is a warcrime."
Fires up Civilsation 2 with significant intent
Try Stellaris is you really want intent.
Is it even possible to play Stellaris if you're not going to enslave or slaughter the other races?
No. Trust me I’ve tried.
Actually, thinking about it, Alpha Centauri is far better for that kind of thing...
I'm going to reinstall stellaris just to genocide all the alien species in it because of this post.
Pardon me while I load up ARMA III and murder civilians just for shits and gigs.
I suddenly feel the need to create a videogame where you play as UN peacekeepers but all you do is rape women, children, and small animals
That's the best part of gaming
Full circle. Chris shooting zombified africans is racist (even though re cast shoots european, american, and even chinese zombies).
Its rape if you teabag someone in games.
Then.. its misogynist if you like sexy looking female characters.
The only dillusional assholes are the leftists that seem to get real life and internet/gaming confused.
Funny for an org that’s been nowhere near war zones for the better part of 75 years.
So we’re back to the old early 90s fright about violent vidya games but instead of the conservative fear of “if you punch someone in game it’ll make you want to punch someone in real life” (which has been pretty well disproven), it’s now a liberal fear that, um… we shouldn’t oppress nonexistent characters I guess?
This is called teaming and you will get banned.
It's time for everyone to post their "Imp is right" frustrations. ICRC appointed a female chair in October.