I cannot haz firebomb?

In Modern Warfare 2, you have the option of NOT playing that mission, and it's in there as piece of plot device to show exactly how far over the edge that General Shepard has gone. It sort of gives you a wee look at how far over the line he's gone.

It's a storytelling medium, and it's odd that folks take on video games as their clarion call, and not television or other storytelling mediums--oh, wait, they have and they keep getting their touchises handed to them.

Here's a hint: if you're shocked by pretend violence, then maybe you should put down the television and the paper, because the real world is probably too damn scary for you.

I love how the guy who makes sense gets put at the bottom of the article.

Mr Rossignol said there was plenty of evidence that gaming violence is "fully processed" as fantasy by gamers. Studies of soldiers on the front line in Iraq showed that being a gamer did not desensitise them to what they witnessed.

I actually find the rules of war to be astonishingly retarded. I will follow them if ordered to do so. I still think it is retarded. It is akin to two little kids fighting and making rules about not punching in the face or kicking in the balls. While that might be good for a sport it isn't good for groups of people who are actively trying to kill enough of each other until someone stops fighting. If you're going to bother killing each other then having rules is pretty farking pointless.

hubiestubert: In Modern Warfare 2, you have the option of NOT playing that mission, and it's in there as piece of plot device to show exactly how far over the edge that General Shepard has gone. It sort of gives you a wee look at how far over the line he's gone.

It's a storytelling medium, and it's odd that folks take on video games as their clarion call, and not television or other storytelling mediums--oh, wait, they have and they keep getting their touchises handed to them.

Here's a hint: if you're shocked by pretend violence, then maybe you should put down the television and the paper, because the real world is probably too damn scary for you.

What's most annoying is when people speak on it without even knowing what they're talking about. They see a clip of the airport scene and scream "OMG! TEACHING TERRORISM!" They don't play the game, they don't even play the scene. One day I was watching Fox talk about it and they said shiat like "In this new game you play a terrorist who goes through an airport and you kill innocent Americans." How much more wrong could you possibly get!? It's not all bad though, at least it'll keep more dumbass parents from buying the game for little 10-year old Jimmy while saying "Well my son SAYS it's not a bad game and well he really is mature for his age so I think he can play it."

Does this make Civilisation the worst game ever? I mean, I regularly raze my opponents cities to the ground if they are where I want to build. Even holy cities are not spared my wrath!

/nerd, I know.
//I guess that rules out the slavery, theocracy, serfdom civ choices too.

so is spawn camping a war crime and can I find the 12 year old f*cker responsible and have his ass hauled to the Hague for it?

wyltoknow: hubiestubert: In Modern Warfare 2, you have the option of NOT playing that mission, and it's in there as piece of plot device to show exactly how far over the edge that General Shepard has gone. It sort of gives you a wee look at how far over the line he's gone.

It's a storytelling medium, and it's odd that folks take on video games as their clarion call, and not television or other storytelling mediums--oh, wait, they have and they keep getting their touchises handed to them.

Here's a hint: if you're shocked by pretend violence, then maybe you should put down the television and the paper, because the real world is probably too damn scary for you.

What's most annoying is when people speak on it without even knowing what they're talking about. They see a clip of the airport scene and scream "OMG! TEACHING TERRORISM!" They don't play the game, they don't even play the scene. One day I was watching Fox talk about it and they said shiat like "In this new game you play a terrorist who goes through an airport and you kill innocent Americans." How much more wrong could you possibly get!? It's not all bad though, at least it'll keep more dumbass parents from buying the game for little 10-year old Jimmy while saying "Well my son SAYS it's not a bad game and well he really is mature for his age so I think he can play it."



No shiat. For those that still haven't played the game and don't want spoilers, please don't read this:

You play as an undercover American in a terrorist group that is shooting up a Russian airport. It turns out you are a pawn in the whole plot anyway and it was a setup to start a war between Russia and the US. You end up getting killed at the end of the mission so that the only dead terrorist is a CIA operative, thus infuriating the Russians. Not only can you skip the mission, but you can choose not to shoot the civilians as well.

Now it is true that you will probably have a high propensity of teenage boys playing the level and finding it hilarious that they get to shoot unarmed civilians. I played the level and was actually pretty disgusted, but in a way that made the plot even more engrossing and made me hate the villains even more.

I thought it was sad that professional reviewers (some IGN editors etc) missed the point of the level. It's supposed to make you torn, disgust you, unsettle you. That is what makes it such a good plot device. Like I said, some teenage boys will probably enjoy the level much like I thought it was funny to mow down pedestrians in GTA2 when I was their age. But most of the people I've talked to thought it was an interesting and effective way to enhance the plot.

But putting several Sims in a room with no doors and setting it on fire is still ok, right?

I played that mission and I did not shoot any civilians. I didn't start shooting until it was just the swat team blowing us away. I have morals dammit

Osama bin Laden plays Katamari Damacy.

But how will I play Global Thermonuclear War?

Don't tell anyone, but I violate all kinds of traffic laws and regulations when I play Mario Kart. I'm pretty sure that the blue shell is not exactly street legal.

hahahaaha call of duty 5: vietnam

rape your way to freedom while murdering gooks and banging dirt

In Age Of Empires when my cavalry and cannons start to assault the women villagers, I guess I should be hung, drawn and quartered too.

The combat and party management system of Arcanum was a war-crime. I hope people were executed over it.

The frequency of effeminate male protagonists in JRPGs is also something I want to see punished.

It's cool, they're just following virtual orders.

Weaver95: so is spawn camping a war crime and can I find the 12 year old f*cker responsible and have his ass hauled to the Hague for it?

Please do so.

I can has blacklight virus?

Swampthing in Korea: The combat and party management system of Arcanum was a war-crime. I hope people were executed over it.

Combat in Arcanum consisted of Dog beating the everloving snot out of all the enemies on screen and everyone else is just sitting there doing nothing.

I remember this one porn of Japanese soldiers raping a villager and at the end shot her.

That was shocking and disturbing.

A couple months later, imagine my lovely surprise to see an news article about an group of soldiers in Iraq that did things similar to the porn, they raped and then murdered a 14 yr old.

Am I stupid enough to assume that the porn lead to this?

Who in the hell is that stupid?

Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself with out this law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "if I die you are forgiven, but if I live I will kill you. Such is the rule of honor."

Phased(?)

The study condemned the games for violating laws by letting players kill civilians, torture captives and wantonly destroy homes and buildings.

Lightweights. I've obliterated solar systems by collapsing stars into black holes or exploding them into nebulas, thus achieving kiloHitlers in single turns.

For that matter, I've sacrificed enemy civvies to summon demons, ejected them in deep space, shattered their planets while they were still on 'em, hired inexpensive troops just to absorb the lance hits from enemy knights or pin them down while I rained spells and missiles...

Korovyov: Lightweights. I've obliterated solar systems by collapsing stars into black holes or exploding them into nebulas, thus achieving kiloHitlers in single turns.

For that matter, I've sacrificed enemy civvies to summon demons, ejected them in deep space, shattered their planets while they were still on 'em, hired inexpensive troops just to absorb the lance hits from enemy knights or pin them down while I rained spells and missiles...

You sound fat.

I played that "America's Army" game...or tried to. I ended up in prison for shooting my Drill Sergent in the face. Never actually managed to finish that game's Basic Training. I guess it's for the best. I would have just spent my time in the missions shooting other soldiers in the face and killing civilians.

In video games laws, rules of war, human rights should be as flexible as the laws of physics in most video games. Video games is a great place to escape reality, and what fun is escaping reality if fantasy reality is governed by assholes who want me to follow the same rules I have to follow in reality?

I shot ever motherfarking civilian I could in MW2.

CrispFlows:
Am I stupid enough to assume that the porn lead to this?

Who in the hell is that stupid?

Yes you are Captain jumptoconclusions.

sunbird: Does this make Civilisation the worst game ever? I mean, I regularly raze my opponents cities to the ground if they are where I want to build. Even holy cities are not spared my wrath!

/nerd, I know.
//I guess that rules out the slavery, theocracy, serfdom civ choices too.

Lolz for my nerve stapling and planet buster weaponry.

Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself with out this law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "if I die you are forgiven, but if I live I will kill you. Such is the rule of honor."

Wait what? This sounds vaguely like Omerta, the code of silence adopted by the Mafia and other criminal groups. These groups promote this law for their own benefit, of course they don't want people appealing to the actual laws of the land.

I'm not even sure of the context of that quote for this matter, but it seems quite silly now, who would adopt such a silly code in any modern society?

I think this is the game that the BBC wants.

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks (video)

CrispFlows: I remember this one porn of Japanese soldiers raping a villager and at the end shot her.

That was shocking and disturbing.

A couple months later, imagine my lovely surprise to see an news article about an group of soldiers in Iraq that did things similar to the porn, they raped and then murdered a 14 yr old.

Am I stupid enough to assume that the porn lead to this?

Who in the hell is that stupid?

You're the one that watched the porn. Did you telepathically implant the desire in the soldier's heads?

But remember, REAL war is started by those greedy crazy old men sitting behind desks in air-conditioned offices, pulling the puppet strings.

And the young go like lambs to the slaughter.

Video games are irrelevant.

CrispFlows: A couple months later, imagine my lovely surprise to see an news article about an group of soldiers in Iraq that did things similar to the porn, they raped and then murdered a 14 yr old.

It's probably safe bet that almost every war more than a few years and involving more than a token force has probably led to soldiers eventually snapping to the point where murder and rape seem appropriate -- at least where there's a significant difference in nationality, ethnicity or religion. I don't happen to know if there were gang rapes and murders during the ACW, for instance.

sunbird: Does this make Civilisation the worst game ever? I mean, I regularly raze my opponents cities to the ground if they are where I want to build. Even holy cities are not spared my wrath!

/nerd, I know.
//I guess that rules out the slavery, theocracy, serfdom civ choices too.

My wife and I were playing Civilization last year (we weren't married then). She was annoyed that some bastard was enslaving her people. She got really pissed when she discovered it was me doing it. Near the end of the game, she and I were the only remaining super powers. I declared war on her right before sending twenty nuclear missiles into her territory. Pity they no longer take out cities.

I must be the next Milosevic. I often execute POWs in Medieval 2 Total War, and I always exterminate Muslim settlements.

In video games laws, rules of war, human rights should be as flexible as the laws of physics in most video games. Video games is a great place to escape reality, and what fun is escaping reality if fantasy reality is governed by assholes who want me to follow the same rules I have to follow in reality?

Although you have a point in principle, video games are nevertheless self restricting and self censoring. The people developing games that have mature or controversial material decide on certain lines, sometimes pushing the boundaries, but even then they restrict themselves, and therefore the players.

For example, you can do all sorts of things in Grand Theft Auto, but there are no children npcs in that game, and of course it's not by some accident. They let you mess with random people on the street, kill cops and blow things up, get with hookers, etc etc, but they draw the line at children, and thus you the player can't cross beyond that line.

Dear old people. It's a video game. Grow up and Get over it.

Fano: You're the one that watched the porn. Did you telepathically implant the desire in the soldier's heads?


I doubt the soldiers even saw it, My point is the fact the material exists does not imply that it is the cause.

It's kinda like those assuming any teenager going on a shooting spree in a mall or a school must have gotten it from videos, games or books.

Way to miss my point, genius.

BigSnatch
I played the level and was actually pretty disgusted, but in a way that made the plot even more engrossing and made me hate the villains even more.

Same. I had heard about the airport level beforehand.. but that didn't stop my jaw from hitting the floor when they opened fire. Anyone who did not find it disturbing likely has some problems, which was kinda the point.

In war, if you miss a target and hit a mosque with an artillery shell, it probably won't even be an issue. You're bombarding a city, some mosques are going to eat it. If it was determined you screwed up horribly and compromised the mission, you could face some kind of punishment, perhaps a demotion.

If you do the same thing in a video game, the mission ends. Done. No finding redemption in jail, no making restitution. Instant karma, no grey area. Fade to black. Either that, or the building endures the explosion with zero structural damage, as though it's a solid piece of scenery and not affected by your weapons.

kill a civilian in a friendly fire accident? It happens in real life. It's dark, you're fighting for your life, sometimes innocents are in the wrong place at the long time. If it wasn't a risky clusterfark of a situation in the first place, soldiers wouldn't have to go in.

Video game? Instant, summary execution. Your life comes to a complete halt.

Torture a hostage? Come ON. We farking DO THAT. Some dude is getting warterboarded RIGHT NOW for NO REASON. Somebody please show me a videogame where war crimes are encourage. Army of Two? Yeah, buildings were getting destroyed, but believe me, it wasn't by the player. There is A) a hurricane that floods the entire last level and B) the ENEMY spends that same level farking with the monorail, not you. Call of Duty? Oh please. Just try looking at a friendly soldier the wrong way and you'll have the life ripped from your body by an invisible hand.

No Russian.

And U.S. foreign policy, amiright?

MIguy: I shot ever motherfarking civilian I could in MW2.

This, because they were Russians...

tortilla burger: Swampthing in Korea: The combat and party management system of Arcanum was a war-crime. I hope people were executed over it.

Combat in Arcanum consisted of Dog beating the everloving snot out of all the enemies on screen and everyone else is just sitting there doing nothing.

No, it consisted of your characters running off and engaging overly powerful monsters, critically failing with a dagger and cutting themselves in half, standing in doorways so you cannot retreat, knocking themselves out by trying to heal magic-immune dwarves and the player generally tearing his hair out.

vexle: In war, if you miss a target and hit a mosque with an artillery shell, it probably won't even be an issue. You're bombarding a city, some mosques are going to eat it. If it was determined you screwed up horribly and compromised the mission, you could face some kind of punishment, perhaps a demotion.

It's an issue not only because of the moral dimensions, but the resulting hostility from the locals may cause strategic problems that overwhelm whatever benefit you were hoping for.

If you do the same thing in a video game, the mission ends. Done. No finding redemption in jail, no making restitution. Instant karma, no grey area. Fade to black. Either that, or the building endures the explosion with zero structural damage, as though it's a solid piece of scenery and not affected by your weapons.

Depends greatly on the game.

For instance, the _Combat Mission_ series lfocused on tactical combat. No civvies are present to kill, and usually the only penalty associated with methodically leveling city blocks was the expenditure in ammunition and time. Reconstruction? Preservation of factories? Didn't matter.

Many, many real-time strategy games explicitly encourage the slaughter of unarmed peasants / MCVS / et cetera to cripple an opponent's economy. I'm not sure if there's been any mass-market RTS which distinguished between population as illegitimate targets and government / military as acceptable.

Many 4X games feature at least razing of enemy structures; genocide as a matter of policy is often permitted. 'Reputation' sometimes exists, but generally 4X games expect you to be an aggressive, warmongering asshole who's going to piss off everybody else anyway if you're expanding and exploiting enough to have a chance to win.

So yeah, some games are picky with respect to conduct (I hear that a lot of modern FPS games are), but others sometimes encourage it through game mechanics, or are based entirely on war crimes (e.g. 'Defcon', where you 'win' a nuclear war by scoring points regarding how much of your own civvies you lose vs. how many others you kill).

See, in the old days, the rule of war was, "wipe them all out." Brutal, but rather free of hypocrisy.

The sad truth, and insidious utility of our "humane" rules of war is that they legitimize war. War should not be legitimate. War itself is a crime against humanity. Rules only obscure that fact and create a premise by which war is deemed legal and normal if its rules are followed. It's a lot like the Bush administration's torture memos, in fact. If you want to do something horrible, make some rules that say you can't do something worse than what you're going to do. Then, even though you're morally depraved, you're following the rules. Magic!

If we waged war all out, like in the old days, we probably wouldn't wage it as often, or perpetually as seems to be the case now.

CrispFlows: Way to miss my point, genius.

Was the point that you watch Japanese child rape and murder porn?

Because that's the point that I came away with.

This is actually one of the more balanced articles I've seen on the subject. I'll give some credit to the BBC here for not losing their shiat over this. Imagine if it had been the Daily Mail instead.

Nem Wan: If we waged war all out, like in the old days, we probably wouldn't wage it as often, or perpetually as seems to be the case now.

How often did people wage war prior to the codification of any rules of war? I would imagine there were just as many if not more wars back then.

By the way, if I remember correctly, the earliest incarnations of "rules of war" weren't intended to be humane, but to reduce the amount of chaos on the battlefield so that the combatants could kill each other more effectively.