It focuses on First Person Shooters (FPS) from various historical conflicts demonstrating that story lines do not show the players a correct way to fight a war.
It decided to include World War 2 and modern scenarios together then beat them with the same yard stick as it states that most players do not have in-depth awareness of the laws so they could compare them with broad strokes (they would be applying the 1949 and 1907 acts where appropriate though). It did differentiate between player and Computer Controlled Players (CPU) however it did count CPU imagery as it demonstrated the law incorrectly
However reading the report you can see the how heavily is forced in to making sweeping statements on the usual issue of “CONSOLE GAMES ARE BAD”. Click on the Link to read it,
http://trial-ch.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Evenements_et_manifestations/Playing_by_the_Rule.pdf
I’ve played these games and want my side aired on the thin “violations”
Violations
1) Destruction of Civilian Property.
The law states that in a war zone civilian property should not be directly targeted however may be inevitable. However in Bad Company there are no civilians. Each hamlet is a stronghold that you need to clear and thus making it a military target. The report makes out your running through houses and blowing down Granny Clampet’s living room as she watches countdown with a grenade launcher and then stepping over the cat to shoot a mercenary. No you don’t. Houses are empty, no furniture. Presumably cleared by the enemy and thus breaking another law.
2) No assessment of proportionality.
True. But would a game be exciting when the level starts off with a risk assessment. Let’s just pretend that we had that meeting and it was deemed an appropriate response.
3) The stealing of Gold from Civilian Houses
Looting is prohibited in modern law however what the report fails to pick up is that the gold isn’t civilian it’s actually the enemies. Yes that breaks the law too but the report hints that you are robbing Ma Dingle of her pearls once you have blown a hole in her wall.
The premise of the game is that your team have gone rogue from the army (so probably not following any rules as your now wanted) and you are now trying to get rich from stealing gold paid to the mercenaries as wages, who have taken over an eastern European state. This gold is scattered not just in houses but on woods and islands.
Violations
1) A woman is captured and turns up later to be hanged and you attack a church which is in use as a military target.
Yes these do happen in the game and is a violation. But what it fails to mention is that it’s not by you but the CPU player in the back ground. Yes that is a horrible crime to execute civilians. However the report failed to mention is historical context when applying historical laws. This is my problem – you can’t pick out historical law violations without applying the context.
The CPU player is in fact the SS, which were not famous for there rules of engagement and Geneva abiding. Are we to pretend these things never happened? Surely reminding of us of why we fought for the liberation of Europe is a good thing?
Violations
1) Helicopter attack does not take into account of civilians.
Well there one reason for that – there are none. Like Battlefield it does not place civilians in the way of danger during the attack.
2) Civilian Property in towns destroyed
Again like battlefield the down is deserted (I assume cleared by enemy forces). However in call of duty you cannot destroy building and only go in ones that are objectives. Eg a TV Station
3) Introduction Movie includes killing of civilians
This is slightly interactive in the sense that you can move your head however contextually it does set out what is happening in a coup.
4) Killing of interrogated informant.
Yes these are definitely illegal but the report fails to mention that this section is not interactive but a movie sequence. The reason why the report focused on human rights violations in games and not movies was that they were more interactive. The scene itself does not require you to interact at all merely watch. So really they were scraping the barrel at this point.
Violations
1) Brutal Police interrogation
Again this isn’t an interactive part just a movie your see
So really that’s all I have to say on the subject. Yes they do portray what technically be deemed as virtual crimes however the report leaves out massive detail and fails to realise contextual background theatrics. Whether the games industry takes note is really up to them but I’m guessing its already in the bin. Keith Vas however is probably wetting his pants.
Additional
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8373794.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment