I brought in the new year playing Fire Emblem: Awakening (which I’ve been obsessed with after finally getting it working on an emulator). I’d been struggling with lunatic mode but I figured out I can just feed Robin because of the XP boost and then use her to carry the team. Changed her to Pegasus Knight and then Dark Flier and now I can just swoop in and one-shot any enemy and she’s over-levelled enough that the enemies won’t prioritize her, and if they do, she dodges everything and has enough HP to survive a bow to the face.
The early levels were very challenging and I had to heavily abuse save states but once I got rolling it’s been a lot smoother. The two cavaliers you start with literally can’t survive a single hit starting out. Since everyone’s so vulnerable, you just have to get one unit good asap to avoid relying on your Jagen.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call a temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal. Even in death I serve the Omnissiah.
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.
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.