Video Game War Crimes Should Be Answered For, Says The Red Cross

To sign up for our daily newsletter covering the latest news, features and reviews, head HERE. For a running feed of all our stories, follow us on Twitter HERE. Or you can bookmark the Kotaku Australia homepage to visit whenever you need a news fix.

The International Red Cross isn’t against allowing players to go against the established laws of armed conflict in their video game battles — it just wants to make sure those violations don’t go unpunished.

One might expect an international humanitarian organisation to look down on video games featuring realistic depictions of modern-day military conflict, but the International Council of the Red Cross‘ view of the matter is refreshingly forward-thinking. War happens, and video games like Bohemia Interactive’s ARMA III can be used to train current and future soldiers how to react in an armed conflict, as long as the letter of the law is enforced.

From the organisation’s website:

The ICRC believes there is a place for international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) in video games. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has publicly stated its interest in the implications of video games that simulate real-war situations and the opportunities such games present for spreading knowledge of the law of armed conflict. The rules on the use of force in armed conflict should be applied to video games that portray realistic battlefield scenes, in the same way that the laws of physics are applied.

Areas of concern include scenes of torture, attacks on civilians, the killing of prisoners and the wound, attacks on medical personnel. Rather than rail against the potential of situations like these arising in video war games, the ICRC believes they should be included, along with appropriate consequences, to educate players on the real rules of engagement.

Sanitizing video games of such acts is not realistic. Violations occur on real battlefields and can therefore be included in video games. The ICRC believes it is useful for players to learn from rewards and punishments incorporated into the game, about what is acceptable and what is prohibited in war.

And when they say punishment, they aren’t talking about pop-up messages or long, boring lists of violations. They’re talking about games having mechanics built-in where the consequences occur as they would in real-life.

The International Council or the Red Cross is ready to work with the makers of war video games to add what could ultimately add a great deal of value to an otherwise fire-and-forget experience, preparing soldiers for war as well as helping them cope.

Video games get real [ via ABC WorldNews]


  • This came off much more differently then the statements uttered by gaming press a few days ago. Less having a go at video games and more making a rather decent point out to developers and players of military games.

    If a game follows the geneva convention they could start placing civilians in the battlefield making the fighting more intense if you are on the defender front. Without creating a media shit storm over killing civilians and being “rewarded” for it.

  • How about the red cross make their own game under their concept and see how much of a place that factor has in videogames.

  • I’m very pleased. You could probably have a lot of fun with a game that combines a bit of Mass Effect with Deus Ex, set in a sci-fi universe that sees the player fighting asymmetrical wars against guerillas/insurgents and having to handle all these delicate political, moral and military decisions. Do you apply massive firepower to neutralize the enemy, but risk civilian casualties that multiply your enemies? Or do you let them slip, losing the battle to help win the war? Could be interesting.

  • In the original America’s Army friendly fire or breaking ROE would end you up with a stint in the in game jail, literally.

  • When I saw the headline I was thinking that they were proposing to start locking people up for war crimes in games like that other idiot who said something similar.

  • One might expect an international humanitarian organisation to look down on video games featuring realistic depictions of modern-day military conflict

    Why? One would expect an international humanitarian organisation to want the word to spread of exactly what’s going on and how to bring it to a quick solution. Video games can make a powerful message of what’s actually happening if they’re done right and somewhere an attached message reads “this stuff actually happens”.

    Once you get past the ensured lol-ing when attaching that statement to a game bug, “falling through the ground actually happens“, of course.

    I’m quite happy to see their views are for it.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!