Well, folks, it’s official. Some delegates at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent have begun to consider extending the reach of “International Humanitarian Law” – the breach of which can constitute war crimes – into its most daring and unexplored realm: video games.
“While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law (IHL) worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL,” read the Daily Bulletin of the conference for Thursday, December 1st. “Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games.”
That’s right, folks; the Red Cross wants to start taking action against war crimes in the realm of virtual fiction.
And just in case you’ve played mostly Paragon in games and think you’re safe, a little tip. Ever shot a healer or medic in a game (not attacking you)? Ever played dead to ambush the enemy? Ever used non-standard ammunition of any sort in a modern war shooter?
Congratulations, you would be a war criminal according to the Geneva Conventions if this was real life.
I’m hardly the first person to bring this up. News.Com.Au did so just on December 8th, and Kotaku’s had the story up for six days. (For an excellent full coverage of the issue, the original story is well worth a look.) And Kotaku also ran an editorial praising the raised concern.
Now, if I say this is a waste of the Red Cross’ time, this isn’t to say that there aren’t genuinely serious questions about the effects of violent media upon those who consume it, particularly the young and impressionable. Even if consistent studies on the presence of violence in media and its effect upon the audience have shown that correlation is not causation.
And I’m no bad boy here. I consistently play good guys, feel deep empathy for fictional characters, and seek to minimize harm against sympathetic or civilian targets. My difficulty with this topic has nothing to do with a fondness for virtual war crimes or playing a grade-A jerk.
But here we have an international, respected institution seriously attempting to police fiction, much as Resident Evil 5 required an official UN ruling for people to finally accept that it wasn’t unusually racist. This should raise alarm bells for every member of our readership concerned with freedom of speech and consumption.
It should really raise alarm bells for anyone who wants to see the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations concentrating on the manifold very real humanitarian crises around the globe.
This breed of allegations is nothing new. We’ve seen moral critiques of every new media, from the Comics Code and the Hays Code to the accusations of rock’n roll’s degenerative effect upon America’s moral fibre. As always, whenever something new and unfamiliar becomes popular, you’re going to find those who greet it with suspicion, indignation, and ridicule, blaming all manner of ills real and imagined upon it.
In reality, violent media is as old as human history.
The Illiad is filled with incredibly graphic, grotesque descriptions of maiming, mutilation, death and cruelty dished out by its heroes upon relative innocents, often individuals characterized with homes and family. Beowulf tears a human-like monster’s arm off with his bare hands. King Arthur is laid low in a savage battle with Mordred, his own son, after the latter is impaled and drags himself up his father’s spear to deal a mortal blow. The Bible, of course, is positively littered with death, dismemberment, mutilation, plagues, and suffering of every sort, not to mention a host of nonviolent sins that remain no less repulsive.
And that says nothing of more recent fiction, such as the entire pantheon of classic 80s action movies so beloved by much of mainstream America, where protagonists slaughter their way ruthlessly through legions of expendable henchmen by trick and crook, by feigning surrender or hiding weapons. Or 24, where torture is indeed sometimes the answer. Or films like Battlefield: Los Angeles, where heroic soldiers, portrayed in a highly realistic fashion, vivisect a live alien soldier (and the film took pains to portray them as thinking, rational beings) on-screen, and by doing so learn its weakness and help turn the tide.
The Red Cross supposedly highlighted games and the special risk when portraying breaches of international humanitarian law because of their interactive nature. However, this allegation rings false when one considers the inherent artificiality of a video game. Certainly at many points I’ve felt emotionally stirred by a game, immersed in the narrative, but never once have I confused even the most realistic titles with reality. Real people do not respawn. Real people do not simply fall down when shot. Real people have homes and families and loved ones and no matter how many virtual kills I’ve scored I still flinch at the sight of real blood.
The opening scene of Saving Private Ryan on the beaches of Normandy is infinitely more visceral and affecting than the vast majority of games, and bears far more resemblance to real life. Yet no one is protesting some of the implicit messages of that film – for example, that the foe may well be incorrigibly evil, and sparing him will only kill more of your comrades. Or that otherwise-heroic Allied soldiers may cheer as German troops scream and burn to death engulfed in burning napalm.
And that film’s over a decade old.
Brian Crecente’s editorial praising the decision argued that it was “an important moment for gaming as a medium of expression.” That’s precisely the wrong message to take from this. If the Red Cross is acknowledging games as a serious medium for adults, yet singles out games as especially pernicious, what then do they think about other traditional forms of media that often not only portray war crimes but portray them as necessary, the acts of hard men making hard decisions? Are some of the greatest and oldest works of literature in human history mere trifles, unable to leave lasting impact on impressionable minds? Because last I checked, I read the Illiad in ninth grade.
We don’t have anything to prove, Mr. Crecente. I share your belief that games can be more than mere jingoistic exercises, largely because I’ve played quite a few that were. But being subject to unreasonable sanction doesn’t make games seen as more mature and legitimate, it continues to confine them within an inferior sphere.
Games rely on a host of special artifices that serve to disconnect the player from reality. Medics in real life prevent a soldier from dying; they do not return him to the fray as game medics do. All games, even the most “realistic,” are fantasy realms, and many are considerably more fantastical – unless you’ve heard of a zombie or draconic invasion lately.
Yes, games seek to portray that artificial realm in as believable and intense a fashion as possible. But verisimilitude is not the same as reality, particularly not in multiplayer formats where actions usually have no greater context than a soccer game. Trying to claim that games have a special obligation to uphold the laws of war, when violations in every other, far-more-realistic medium are rampant, is a sign that those calling for these genuinely do not understand the medium – if they aren’t simply unreasonably prejudiced.
And games often do seek to reinforce some of the “laws of war.” Civilian targets are usually presented as sacrosanct and minimal force is praised. The use of chemical and biological weapons is often relegated to the villainous or morally-dubious. Shooting wounded and helpless soldiers or prisoners is often discouraged if not actively prohibited.
You want your proof? Think back to the Modern Warfare 2 “No Russian” controversy, where a game did require a hero to kill or at least witness, without interference, the death of civilians. Not only did the game portray this as an unmistakably evil action, it caused a world war.
And how did players respond? Many of them objected strongly. Some of them simply refused to fire altogether. The developers predicted enough controversy that they put in a way to skip the entire thing. (Which, mind you, was a pivotal chapter in the game narrative.)
What other reinforcement do you want?
—–
UPDATE:
I understand that the ICRC has attempted to clarify its position on games and war crimes. A new FAQ entry had this to say:
Why is the ICRC interested in video games that simulate real warfare?
The ICRC is interested in issues relating to video games of this type, i.e. games simulating warfare where players face choices just like on a real battlefield.
In real life, armed forces are subject to the laws of armed conflict. Video games simulating the experience of armed forces therefore have the potential to raise awareness of the rules that those forces must comply with whenever they engage in armed conflict – this is one of the things that interests the ICRC. As a matter of fact, certain video games already take into account how real-life military personnel are trained to behave in conflict situations.
Part of the ICRC’s mandate, conferred on it by States, is to promote respect for international humanitarian law – also known as the law of armed conflict – and universal humanitarian principles. Given this mandate and the ICRC’s long history and expertise in matters relating to armed conflict, the development of these games is clearly of interest to the organization.
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 situations, not in video games.
Kudos to the ICRC for admitting that gamers can’t actually commit war crimes in fiction. Nice to know. Also good to know was the clarification that this was “an informal discussion” with no resolutions made. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone seriously thought that gamers were going to start getting tagged as war criminals for shooting enemy medics, and a problem with this mea culpa is that it’s an interesting comparison with the December 1st Daily Bulletin. There, the intent certainly seems more in line with Kotaku’s statement of their intentions:
If they agree those standards should be applied, the International Committee of the Red Cross says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or “encourage” governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.
But the legal consequences were never a serious problem I had with the ICRC’s discussion. I don’t even necessarily have an issue with games being employed as ways to teach people about the laws of war, though it raises the same question I’ve been asking all along: why?
Why games and not films? Why are films consulted on a voluntary basis, but for games the issue is somehow more vital? Why are films permitted to cast aspersions on the international humanitarian laws, and games, which are usually far less realistic, are not?
Outsiders seem to have this strange image of gamers as impressionable saps, their morals and beliefs easily overridden by the electronic siren of the video game. Believe me, if any such power to brainwash existed, it’d be used far more consistently and perniciously.