First, follow the link to the source. The Red Cross is currently debating this issue. They don't have any position yet.
That said, the phenomenon is not limited to video games. Almost all forms of violent media (action movies, video games, etc) trivialize "collateral damage". If the main character survives and the bad guy dies, it's supposed to be interpreted as a happy ending, even if dozens, hundreds, or thousands of civilians are killed.
But really this is still a subset of a larger phenomenon. Media in general depict main characters as real and non-characters or secondary characters as less-than-real, subhuman props.
Maybe this isn't a problem, but I think the Red Cross is right to at least bring it up.
Problem is, that's exactly how the human brain interprets real-life people, too. You can call it the Monkeysphere or Dunbar's Number, but fact is that people are incapable of conceptualizing random strangers on anything like the same level as familiar people. It's the reason you have more emotional reaction to a package being delayed than you have to a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. It's a limitation of the human brain. Movies and games with collateral casualties reflect the way every single human being actually looks at the world; you just notice it because it's someone else's version of who's important and who isn't instead of your own.
It is not a limitation as such. It is a feature. If that worked differently the very idea that unknown, but substantial number of people die every moment (say from accidents and natural causes, to avoid "how it would change humanity" arguments here) it would cripple every person into permanent and severe depression (for the lack of a better word). Imagine a close friend or a lover dying every second.
Mr. T was very disappointed (and I agree with him) at the movie remake of the A-Team, because of the number of random people who get killed in the movie. At one point the "good guys" blow up a few dozen law enforcement dudes who are basically doing their jobs and aren't really "bad guys". I know Mr. T isn't especially relevant anymore, but I though it was good to see someone calling this out.
Mr T is amazingly cool. He always strived to be a good role model, and tried very hard to show that you can be cool while living with morals, that it's a good idea to finish school and contribute to the society you live in. It sounds corny as hell when you say it, but he made it work. I'd buy him a beer any day.
> In recent weeks, Mr. T, reportedly suffering from
> allergies, has already cut down more than a hundred
> of the oak trees on his English Tudor estate here,
> violating an unwritten code of esthetics in this
> picturesque town along the shore of Lake Michigan.
So it's immoral to cut down a bunch of trees on your property that are causing you allergies? Sorry, but I don't equate home owner's association-type rules (an 'unwritten' ones at that) with morality.
This is just a bunch of rich people complaining about the height of 'first world problems.'
Not sure where it mentions morality, but judging by the text you quoted, and your response, I'm assuming you misread esthetics as ethics. If not, just let me know. Just confused by your remark is all.
I for one would support the Red Cross if they decided to endorse a sentiment like "maybe your video games should care about bystanders and not treat them as expendable pieces of trash, because that's not really cool. please consider this! thanks."
At the same time, a would-be Hays Code would be rightly ridiculed and ignored...
> These types of arguments are very similar to the arguments made by those who have requested laws regulating violence in video games in the past. Those people argued that the lack of consequences in the game would influence player behavior in real life.
Of course. Mowing down countless pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto, then climbing up to a high building and sniping the police officers that come to arrest me most certainly affects me - it lets me blow off steam in a way that doesn't actually harm anyone.
I'm too lazy to find a link, but consider this a virtual citation to the study that showed that availability of pornography actually decreases sex crimes.
I'm all for war-themed videogames to acknowledge that there's more to combat than spewing bullets until you win, but I've been playing violent video games for years, and I've yet to Gouranga any Hare Krishnas with my car.
Oddly enough, most games that impose some sort of ethical behavior (either through law, social, or gameplay aspects) exist either before the Convention (Assassin's Creed doesn't allow you to get stab-happy on civilians), after most participating entities have ceased to exist (Fallout), or outside it's jurisdiction entirely (Elder Scrolls, many other fantasy RPGs)
While using legislation might be an overkill, I think that games would use mentioning Conventions. Not even to enforce certain decisions on player, but as a background (e.g. NPCs restraining themselves from torturing enemy soldiers). People pick up a lot of knowledge and awareness from computer games; even mentioning the Red Cross message would help players better understand the reality of real-world combat.
The Red Cross should focus on real-world laws being enforced in the real world.
Also, video games are "art" (regardless of how artistic they may appear, or you personally feel toward them). Art is protected speech in many countries. I know, for instance, that Nazi symbols are banned in Germany, except in art. The spirit of such exemptions makes sense; we don't want to pretend negative ideas don't exist by banning them.
My point is torture happens in the real world. War crimes are real. Maybe the Red Cross needs to focus on trying to stop these real world events, instead of attempting to stop their depiction in media.
The Red Cross does focus on real-world issues. They have almost 100 million volunteers worldwide. This is a tiny portion of their overall humanitarian effort. And if their goal is a peaceful world, they are right to consider factors that could lead to violence. They are trying to find the disease instead of just treating the symptoms.
> Fear of government abuse is a terrible reason to self-censor
I never said anything about self-censoring, just that the Red Cross's stance on this might encourage the government to try and push for new laws. I hate censorship in all its forms.
> Oh, and really, more and more of the electoral base are game players now. The politics have changed.
"more and more of the electoral base are internet users now", so surely the government won't try to push laws that censor that.
killing virtual people in a virtual world - violence, bad. At the same time each and every of us oppresses, brutalizes, tortures and kills in real-life through our hired-for-money agents - governments at all levels.
> It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law.
I never got this way of thinking and I'm a bit disappointed Red Cross "accepts" it. Rules in an armed conflict? Why did we start accepting any kind of killing? How is shooting someone opposed to you better than stabbing them in the eye and then shooting them? The US which should be counted as a developed and civilised country does not even care sometimes to "play by the rules" (torture outside of the country, treatment of jailed people), yet the games should give you an illusion world conflicts do?
I don't oppose cruel games and think they reflect the situation, rather than influence it, but I expected the Red Cross to have a different view on this (and a more strict one).
24 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 63.5 ms ] threadThat said, the phenomenon is not limited to video games. Almost all forms of violent media (action movies, video games, etc) trivialize "collateral damage". If the main character survives and the bad guy dies, it's supposed to be interpreted as a happy ending, even if dozens, hundreds, or thousands of civilians are killed.
But really this is still a subset of a larger phenomenon. Media in general depict main characters as real and non-characters or secondary characters as less-than-real, subhuman props.
Maybe this isn't a problem, but I think the Red Cross is right to at least bring it up.
What you would do for your closest friends, you should do for everyone.
What you wouldn't do to your closest friends, you shouldn't do to anyone.
Your post explains why the first doesn't work, but that has no bearing only the second.
I may not feel as strongly for random strangers as I do for my closest friends, but I still wouldn't kill or torture or otherwise dehumanize them.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/30/us/genteel-chicago-suburb-...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-12-02/news/031202032...
This is just a bunch of rich people complaining about the height of 'first world problems.'
At the same time, a would-be Hays Code would be rightly ridiculed and ignored...
Of course. Mowing down countless pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto, then climbing up to a high building and sniping the police officers that come to arrest me most certainly affects me - it lets me blow off steam in a way that doesn't actually harm anyone.
I'm too lazy to find a link, but consider this a virtual citation to the study that showed that availability of pornography actually decreases sex crimes.
I'm all for war-themed videogames to acknowledge that there's more to combat than spewing bullets until you win, but I've been playing violent video games for years, and I've yet to Gouranga any Hare Krishnas with my car.
Also, video games are "art" (regardless of how artistic they may appear, or you personally feel toward them). Art is protected speech in many countries. I know, for instance, that Nazi symbols are banned in Germany, except in art. The spirit of such exemptions makes sense; we don't want to pretend negative ideas don't exist by banning them.
My point is torture happens in the real world. War crimes are real. Maybe the Red Cross needs to focus on trying to stop these real world events, instead of attempting to stop their depiction in media.
Oh, and really, more and more of the electoral base are game players now. The politics have changed.
I never said anything about self-censoring, just that the Red Cross's stance on this might encourage the government to try and push for new laws. I hate censorship in all its forms.
> Oh, and really, more and more of the electoral base are game players now. The politics have changed.
"more and more of the electoral base are internet users now", so surely the government won't try to push laws that censor that.
"Come on, let us shoot"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
Games are to blame? Or hysterical propaganada dehumanizing arabs, Afgans, etc... and blessing violence against them.
I never got this way of thinking and I'm a bit disappointed Red Cross "accepts" it. Rules in an armed conflict? Why did we start accepting any kind of killing? How is shooting someone opposed to you better than stabbing them in the eye and then shooting them? The US which should be counted as a developed and civilised country does not even care sometimes to "play by the rules" (torture outside of the country, treatment of jailed people), yet the games should give you an illusion world conflicts do?
I don't oppose cruel games and think they reflect the situation, rather than influence it, but I expected the Red Cross to have a different view on this (and a more strict one).