"It's difficult to make out the difference between real footage and the footage you get from video games." "Video games that represent contemporary battlefields are very close to reality," he said. In a BBC news report earlier this week, however, Francois Senechaud from the International Committee of the Red Cross told a 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 you won't get is a military tribunal and a dishonorable discharge. These days, if you accidentally (or otherwise) shoot a civilian or comrade in a military shooter, you'll probably get a 'mission failed' message and a one-way trip back to the last checkpoint. Of course, this was really more about mechanics than ethics: players were being tested on their reactions and visual awareness, and failure meant a reduction in game time rather than a few moments' reflection on innocent victims. But what it wouldn't let you do was kill passing civilians: collateral damage of this sort took a big chunk off your health bar. It even let you control the action with an Uzi-style sub-machine gun bolted to the cabinet. I remember my first go on Taito's explosive arcade title Operation Wolf – it was the late-80s and this frenzied blast-'em-up, with its jungle environment and hostage rescue missions, was clearly gunning for a generation of Rambo II fanatics. This is something military games have been telling us for many years.
0 kommentar(er)
