Two Swiss human rights organizations tested over 20 games under the eye of lawyers who are skilled in interpreting the humanitarian laws and came to the conclusion that several games broke laws under the Geneva Convention. Link I find this rather odd. Games are a virtual representation of activities, whether it be tennis or war games, they're not real life activities. And sure, while the actions seen in some games indeed technically would break the human rights laws, they're still just that, games. I've seen worse scenes in movies. These researches are in my opinion a complete waste of time and money, because almost all of the people playing these games are completely capable of interpreting their actions and understanding that these actions are wrong and should not be attempted in real life. I don't think people would try to re-enact their epic race car skills in real life because they rule on Generic Race Game 6 for the Nintendo DS. Opinions?

Quote: It noted that, even though most players would never become real world combatants, the games could influence what people believe war is like and how soldiers conduct themselves in the real world.

Yeah, because I learnt how real scientists conduct themselves by playing Half Life. I learnt how real archeologists conduct themselves by playing Tomb Raider. And I learnt how real private investigators conduct themselves by playing Sam and Max Hit the Road...

Then I wonder why people play games, since the "real world" must be exiciting enough already...

Yes this is stupid.

"Do characters in games violate human rights laws?"
"Do characters in books violate human rights laws?"
"Do characters in films violate human rights laws?"
"Do characters on TV violate human rights laws?"
"Do characters in music lyrics violate human rights laws?"

Do any of these questions matter? It's fiction!

It will always be easier to speak bullshit (specially if you're a lawyer) than to make a cutting-edge game. Really. Having so much injustice in this fucking world that IS REAL I by no means can stand that a group of bored grandmas invent such a load of crap like this.

It makes me think of them when I play Postal2.

First of all there is a difference between "Games violate human rights laws" and "Gamers violate human rights laws".

You can take a list of laws, and a list of games, and check and see if those games allow the player to break those laws. So what? Its not a very clever thing to do. Im not surprised that games break laws. Games are supposed to be a change from real life. To draw any conclusions from this obvious fact is pretty stupid. Whats next? Coming up with a list of books in which the characters violate human rights laws? Seriously, get a better hobby.

Technically Minesweeper violates human rights laws because you would never send an untrained civilian into a minefield to check for mines by making educated guesses and then taking a step.

I think the key point they were trying to raise was in this quote:

Quote: It noted that, even though most players would never become real world combatants, the games could influence what people believe war is like and how soldiers conduct themselves in the real world.

It said games were sending an "erroneous" message that conflicts were waged without limits or that anything was acceptable in counter-terrorism operations.

"This is especially problematic in view of today's reality," said the study.

In particular, it said, few games it studied reflected the fact that those who "violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners".

In other words, it's raising the question as to whether overexposure to fictional stories where violation of human rights is seen as neutral or even heroic will make people apathetic or even encouraging to violations in real life.

At the moment, all this study does is act as a talking point for whether it could be a problem. To get a better understanding of this, they'd need to actually test gamers for their opinions, such as handing a few study groups a questionnaire and gauging their tolerance to human rights violations.

I'm not sure their argument is without merit. While I think people are generally able to tell fantasy from reality, I suspect that some of the meta aspects of the fantasy creeps into people's perception of how the world acts, like how people might expect hospitals to act like a medical show, or courts to act like a law show. I'd like to hope people don't take hints on human rights violations from action stories in media, but when some people seem to genuinely hold up Jack Bauer from 24 as a model for how the government should act, you've got to wonder...

Quote: The group chose games, rather than films, because of their interactivity.

"Thus," said the report, "the line between the virtual and real experience becomes blurred and the game becomes a simulation of real-life situations on the battlefield."

Firstly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Secondly, there's no academic consensus supporting the notion that video games or other interactive media "blur" the line between virtual and real experience. Last I checked, academia was close to binning that premise entirely.

Quote: It noted that, even though most players would never become real world combatants, the games could influence what people believe war is like and how soldiers conduct themselves in the real world.

It said games were sending an "erroneous" message that conflicts were waged without limits or that anything was acceptable in counter-terrorism operations.

"This is especially problematic in view of today's reality," said the study.

In particular, it said, few games it studied reflected the fact that those who "violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners".

Considering the nature of warfare conducted in the major conflicts of the 20th century (and to an extent the 21st thus far), this seems like a grossly naive interpretation of the typical realities of war. They wouldn't dare try to project such idealist expectations on cynical artworks in visual arts and literature, why can't games portray extensive atrocity?

Those researches claim that games should be created with respect to the IHL to make them more realistic:

Quote:
[...] incorporating the essential rules of IHL and IHRL into their games
which may, in turn, render them more varied, realistic and entertaining.

(Page 4)

However I wonder why games are less realistic, when they portray war crimes. After all, they do happen in reality as well.

Quote:
Another scene portrays soldiers executing civilians. [...] Even though it is seemingly not the player who is committing the violation, it would be recommendable to avoid putting these kinds of scenes in video games as they could mislead players in terms of what is allowed to be done.

(Page 38)

I really don't like the idea of not showing/mentioning crimes in games/media. Of course it depends on the context and the method this is delivered to the player, but after all, a lot of games are similar to our reality and thus incorporate certain aspects of our reality in their world to seem more realistic.

Maybe it's personal preference, but I want to play games that make me think about morality rather than games that dictate certain rules and immediately throw me into prison when I don't play by them.

*Edit*
After reading through half the paper, I had the strange feeling that the people who wrote this would not have a problem with those mentioned scenes in games if there were no rules against them. I don't think that this was their intention, but always backing up their claim with nothing else but rules from several international treaties just made me feel sick.

Quote: Original post by SiS-Shadowman
*Edit*
After reading through half the paper, I had the strange feeling that the people who wrote this would not have a problem with those mentioned scenes in games if there were no rules against them. I don't think that this was their intention, but always backing up their claim with nothing else but rules from several international treaties just made me feel sick.

In some ways that flavour is unavoidable. When you are publishing research such as this, you have to be very careful not to taint your theory/findings with other issues, so it is essential that they not bring the general issue of 'violence in video games' into the discussion.

This makes me want to make a game called "Murder Cop", and intensely realistic game about a cop that dispenses justice... by feeding criminals into a wood chipper.