abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

3 Oct 2013

Author:
Keith Stuart, on Guardian blog

Should gamers be accountable for in-game war crimes?

[T]he International Committee of the Red Cross told a [BBC] reporter that, due to the increasing verisimilitude between first-person shooters and real-life combat, games should start to abide by the international laws of armed conflict...What the Red Cross wants to see then is the player being penalised for carrying out such actions as willfully killing civilians or torturing enemy combatants, both of which are punishable under international law...The ICRC is suggesting that as in real life, these games should include virtual consequences for people's actions and decisions. Gamers should be rewarded for respecting the law of armed conflict and there should be virtual penalties for serious violations of the law of armed conflict...The ICRC says it is now working directly with the developers of modern military simulations...[refers to Taito (part of Square Enix), Bohemia Interactive, Yager Development]