I suggest folks read the article before going "OMG PC" or "OMG IDIOTS." I don't think anyone would appreciate someone saying that about us based on a headline.
I don't see where Red Cross is calling for gamers to be punished. If you look at the Guardian article, Red Cross is suggesting that videogames be more realistic and have in-game consequences for committing war crimes:
And Red Cross says they don't want to ruin anyone's fun; they just want "realistic" war games to address the same political and social consequences of real wars. Seems like a reasonable suggestion to improve the quality of videogames, if you ask me, but I like fiction that deals with consequences of war with ambiguity and complexity.
As for war crime laws themselves... they aren't working terribly well, if the Bush years taught us anything, but that probably a rant for another day.
(10-06-2013, 10:34 PM)elisan Wrote: I imagine that while the Red Cross has their heart in the right place, most people find this idea to be absurd. Most civilized countries have laws regarding war crimes that are very specific and quite frankly - whomever thought this up has no concept of reality. Video games, while violent and often depicting death, do not result in the real world equivalent of dead people. Without an -actual- crime, I don't see how anyone could be held accountable for war crimes in this manner. Not to mention that a vast majority of first person shooters are played by teenagers and young adults - to think that anyone would seriously consider incarcerating hundreds of thousands of children because they play video games blows my mind. It sounds to me more like some guy's personal vendetta against gamers.
I don't see where Red Cross is calling for gamers to be punished. If you look at the Guardian article, Red Cross is suggesting that videogames be more realistic and have in-game consequences for committing war crimes:
Quote:The ICRC is suggesting that as in real life, these games should include virtual consequences for people's actions and decisions. Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict, in other words war crimes.
And Red Cross says they don't want to ruin anyone's fun; they just want "realistic" war games to address the same political and social consequences of real wars. Seems like a reasonable suggestion to improve the quality of videogames, if you ask me, but I like fiction that deals with consequences of war with ambiguity and complexity.
As for war crime laws themselves... they aren't working terribly well, if the Bush years taught us anything, but that probably a rant for another day.
