How about first we charge the real people doing real war crimes, e.g., Netanyahu and Putin? Then we can talk about whether mashing buttons is comparable.
Hey can you just go ahead ban me from any subs you mod? Don’t want to accidentally get into chains where I get sanitized mid conversation because of your Pollyanna version of civility and obvious grudge against me.
I don’t know if I’m excited about the idea of gamifying atrocities.
On the one hand, you’re going to have the inevitable “What’s the most/worst number of crimes I can commit in the game?” reactionary freak streamer.
On the other, you’re going to have the Model UN Liberal insisting that NATO couldn’t be committing any war crimes, because he already played the Liberation of Rafa mission on War Crimes Simulator 4 using the same tactics outlined in the press briefing and got a perfect score.
Of course you have. That’s what that game is for: creative war crimes.
On a side note, I recently did a tree of life plantoid budding build, they grew SO fast. I got big quick, started being really nice to everyone, integrated or vassalized lots of neighbors without having to fight much at all. I called them the vegan borg.
I’ve heard some philosophical musings on the dominant species of life on Earth being wheat, based on how much time and energy the global ecosystem spends cultivating and spreading it.
Does this also apply to more fantasy oriented war games?
No, the ICRC is talking about video games that simulate real-war situations. It is not suggesting that this apply to games that portray more fictional scenarios such as medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space.
A few media reported that certain virtual acts performed by characters in video games could amount to serious violations of the law of armed conflict. Is this correct?
No. Serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life. A person cannot commit a war crime simply by playing a video game.
It’s still pretty dumb. What Senechaud is proposing is that not far off from the Hayes Code. He’s also suggesting going about it the hard way. Instead of simply proposing that players not be able to commit war crimes, he’s asking that there be an in-game system that punishes players committing war crimes in accordance with international law. His stance is also based on the premise that video games now have realistic enough graphics that they could be used to fake footage of real war zones. In no way does a video capture of Call of Duty resemble reality, even when players are deliberately trying to behave realistically due to a combination of things like walking animations still being kind of off, especially when starting or stopping, and gameplay concessions, like bullets spawning in blatantly incorrect positions when guns are shot. It’s really obvious he’s never played these games he’s complaining about.
What Senechaud is proposing is that not far off from the Hayes Code.
I don’t think it’s so much that games depicting war crimes shouldn’t be allowed to exist, but rather wanting a game (or more games) to depict realistic consequences.
His stance is also based on the premise that video games now have realistic enough graphics that they could be used to fake footage of real war zones.
That’s not true at all. It’s not about faking footage, it’s about the games being realistic enough to feel immersive. From their website:
The ICRC is concerned that certain game scenarios could lead to a trivialization of serious violations of the law of armed conflict. The fear is that eventually such illegal acts will be perceived as acceptable behaviour.
If their concern was about fake footage, they’d be calling for it not to be depicted at all.
lemmy.world
Aktywne