It’s still pretty dumb. What Senechaud is proposing is that not far off from the Hayes Code. He’s also suggesting going about it the hard way. Instead of simply proposing that players not be able to commit war crimes, he’s asking that there be an in-game system that punishes players committing war crimes in accordance with international law. His stance is also based on the premise that video games now have realistic enough graphics that they could be used to fake footage of real war zones. In no way does a video capture of Call of Duty resemble reality, even when players are deliberately trying to behave realistically due to a combination of things like walking animations still being kind of off, especially when starting or stopping, and gameplay concessions, like bullets spawning in blatantly incorrect positions when guns are shot. It’s really obvious he’s never played these games he’s complaining about.
What Senechaud is proposing is that not far off from the Hayes Code.
I don’t think it’s so much that games depicting war crimes shouldn’t be allowed to exist, but rather wanting a game (or more games) to depict realistic consequences.
His stance is also based on the premise that video games now have realistic enough graphics that they could be used to fake footage of real war zones.
That’s not true at all. It’s not about faking footage, it’s about the games being realistic enough to feel immersive. From their website:
The ICRC is concerned that certain game scenarios could lead to a trivialization of serious violations of the law of armed conflict. The fear is that eventually such illegal acts will be perceived as acceptable behaviour.
If their concern was about fake footage, they’d be calling for it not to be depicted at all.
The article has been cropped so it can be used as reactionary rage bait.
It’s still pretty dumb. What Senechaud is proposing is that not far off from the Hayes Code. He’s also suggesting going about it the hard way. Instead of simply proposing that players not be able to commit war crimes, he’s asking that there be an in-game system that punishes players committing war crimes in accordance with international law. His stance is also based on the premise that video games now have realistic enough graphics that they could be used to fake footage of real war zones. In no way does a video capture of Call of Duty resemble reality, even when players are deliberately trying to behave realistically due to a combination of things like walking animations still being kind of off, especially when starting or stopping, and gameplay concessions, like bullets spawning in blatantly incorrect positions when guns are shot. It’s really obvious he’s never played these games he’s complaining about.
You say that, but Arma footage keeps being aired on the news.
I don’t think it’s so much that games depicting war crimes shouldn’t be allowed to exist, but rather wanting a game (or more games) to depict realistic consequences.
That’s not true at all. It’s not about faking footage, it’s about the games being realistic enough to feel immersive. From their website:
If their concern was about fake footage, they’d be calling for it not to be depicted at all.