Read-a-long with Nintendo Power #253 (April 2010)
March 21, 2010 – 10:40 am | Comments

This issue has some very good news about two games I’ve been monitoring, plus some bad reviews for two games I was going to get. And a little middle-of-the-road news about WarioWare DIY. Stuff your …

Read the full story »
Reviews

Check out what we have to say about the latest, greatest and, er, not-so-greatest games right here.

Articles

We have important things to say. Come listen to us and be awed.

Podcasts

Our podcasts rock. No, seriously. Don’t believe us? Come and check us out if you think you’re awesome enough.

ones to watch

We play a lot of bad games so you don’t have to. Read about what games we think are worthy of your time and money.

read-a-long

It’s like elementary school. Only with video game magazines and no spelling tests.

Home » Culture

In-game actions contravene Geneva Convention.

Submitted by Adam Englebright on November 24, 2009 – 1:29 pmComments

Geneva-Conventions-e The BBC is reporting about some human rights groups in Switzerland (Trial and Pro Juventute, in case you’re interested) who have done some rather interesting research into actions committed in games, and have condemned developers for allowing players to commit war crimes (as described by the Geneva Convention). Hit the jump for more.

The groups tested games such as Army of Two, Far Cry 2, Call of Duty 5 (I’m guessing Modern Warfare 2) and Conflict: Desert Storm(?), and examined them to see “whether certain scenes and acts committed by players would constitute violations of international law if they were real, rather than virtual”. They were looking for things like damage to buildings, treatment of civillians and surrendering foes, use of torture, and damage of “protected buildings” – churches, mosques and suchlike. Some games carried penalties for killing civillians (although some didn’t). “The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is… astonishing,” the study said.

They acknowledged the complexity of the games, and said that due to the player only experiencing one aspect of the conflict, it may be difficult for testers to gauge the scale of the conflict which can affect how humanitarian laws are enforced, and also that it was possible that their testers may have missed some violations in the games where violations were present.

They didn’t seem to note that most gamers can distingush between reality and fiction, something John Walker and Jim Rossignol from Rock, Paper, Shotgun picked up on on theor comments at the end of the BBC’s article. My favourite line of the report, though, had to be this: “Those who violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners. …[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games.” Yeah.

Oh, here’s the list of games they used for the study, by the way.

  • 24, The Game
  • Army of Two
  • Battlefield Bad Company
  • Brothers in Arms – Hell’s Highway
  • Call of Duty 4
  • Call of Duty 5
  • Close Combat: First to Fight
  • Conflict Desert Storm
  • Far Cry 2
  • World in Conflict
  • Frontlines: Fuel of War
  • Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
  • Hour of Victory
  • Medal of Honour Airborne
  • Metal Gear Solid
  • Soldier of Fortune
  • Tom Clancy Rainbow 6 Vegas
  • Tom Clancy Splinter Cell Double Agent
  • True Crime: Streets of LA

There are a few in there that make me wonder whether they were taking this study entirely seriously. I mean… True Crime: Streets of LA?

blog comments powered by Disqus