The Red Cross seems to think so:
Earlier this year, game maker Activision counted up that 62 billion people had been ‘killed’ virtually in online games of Call of Duty: Black Ops - including 242 million stabbed to death at close range.
That’s just one title among hundreds of modern war games - most of which lack any kind of ‘surrender’ button bar switching the machine off.
Now, a committee of the Red Cross is debating if gamers might be violating the International Humanitarian Law as they slaughter each other online.
Humanity are such fucking pussies
It’s a fucking video game! What happens in the game isn’t real.
This committee is waaaaay out of touch.
Is this really what charity money is going towards these days, stopping virtual avatars from being killed?
Six Hundred Million Gamers Are War Criminals
apparently they’re mad that when you down people in CoD or similar games, you HAVE to kill them.
Activision might actually have to put something new in their game next year instead of just covering its old shit up with other shit.
Ridiculous. This is like being sued for malpractice because we screwed up while playing Operation.
War has changed.
It’s not about nations, or ideologies.
It’s not even about profit, resources, or ethnicity.
It’s an endless series of proxy battles,
fought by 12 year olds and virtual characters.
War, and its vast consumption of virtual life,
has become a rational, well-oiled business transaction.
War has changed.
ID-tagged soldiers carry ID-tagged weapons,
use ID-tagged gear and DLC skins.
Perks inside their save files
enhance and regulate their actions.
Speed control… Information control…
Emotion control… Battlefield control.
Everything is monitored, and kept under control.
War has changed.
The age of deterrence is now the age of noobs,
averting catastrophe from killstreaks.
And he who controls the battlefield, controls the leaderboards.
War has changed.
When the battlefield is under total control,
war becomes entertainment.
Did the Daily Mail pick up an Onion article because C’MON…
JACKIE CHAN MEME
If they didn’t rage quit every time they died, they’d now they would respawn
War, War is hell.
Surrender button sounds hilarious.
lmao anyone read the comments section
My brother used to be normal. Together we would walk merrily together in the woods, skipping hand in hand, delighting in the presence of the animals. Tentative at first, they became accustomed to our daily visits, and once we discovered that the squirrels and assorted vermin loved mac and chees, we were able to tame them and stroke them. One even fell asleep in my arms once; it was cuteness on a level that surpassed even the most simpering Disney character. All that changed when my brother discovered Call of Duty. It started small, with him shouting at the animals, calling them noobs and campers. Then he acquired hand grenades and flashbangs, and he would run through the woods throwing flashbangs to temporarily stun the poor creatures. While they stood there dazed, he cooked his frags to ensure that the animals would have no chance of escape from their blast radius. I finally had to report him to the authorities when he shot a badger with a silenced AK-47. Now he’s in jail.
They might be on to something with that. I thought rage quitting was the same thing, though.
yeah, i thought the power button on the console was a surrender button
i loved this comment I read elsewhere:
Ban this game: Its a sick, violent and racist game that cannot be played without a high body count. ** The whites versus the blacks in this war against race, but the people who make the game decided that whites are superior and must start with an advantage.** There is a strong caste social system in the game and players are encouraged to happily send the poor people out to die so that the more wealthy characters are more likely to survive. The sick bastards who play this game never feel remorse with the violence. I tell you, speaking as a mother, this game is making our children into sociopaths. ** We must ban chess now!**
Somewhere, Jack Thompson is smiling
Next up, Poker. It’s fraud because you’re lying to people for money.
But what does this do to Street Fighter tournaments…if Daigo/Tokido/Poongko/whomever comes over here and sons someone for $300 - is that an official act of war?
Land of the Free…sigh…
The International Committee of the Red Cross upholds the Geneva conventions in all manner of armed conflict, but they recently gathered at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva to discuss whether their mandate extends to virtual victims in video games.
The event harkened back to a 2007 study held by TRIAL, a Geneva-based organization that monitors and reports on international crimes. The study examined 19 games set in real-world war environments to see if the games adhered to international law and found that:
[INDENT=1]“In computer and video games, violence is often shown and the players become ‘virtually violent … However, such games are not zones free of rules and ethics. 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. They limit excessive violence and protect the human dignity of members of particularly vulnerable groups.”[/INDENT]
Anyone who has played a first-person shooter video game has seen some pretty grizzly digital action. Characters are blown up by rocket launchers, recently killed characters have full clips emptied into their bodies, civilians or unarmed combatants are shot and that’s not even counting the sometimes brutal multiplayer arenas where its not uncommon for players to gloat over kills by shooting or even miming sexual acts.
and Halo isn’t affected, because you’re killing aliens. My head hurts
Well instead of killing people in online matches they can put in an option to take them as a PoW and after each round you can play a mini-game where you water-board them.