Are you a Video Game War Criminal ?

Article first published as Are You a Video Game War Criminal ? on Technorati.

In a recent article on the Video Gaming news site Kotaku an article entitled, "War Crimes in Video Games Draw Red Cross Scrutiny" caught my attention.  You can read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions but as a gamer I find the premise of the International Red Cross' argument without merit.

There's no denying that the International Red Cross is compelled by its charter to "...protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. That includes war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants."

 It now seems that may move to extend that charter to the realm of video games,

 "... The question they debated this week is whether their mandate should be extended to the virtual victims of video game wars."

I couldn't help but read that last line with a sense of incredulity. 

I find it utterly ridiculous that an organization concerned with the well being of the oppressed would devote its resources to the defense of pixels. 

Are there offensive video games that treat their characters inhumanely with little to no regard for human life?  Of course there are.  There's no shortage of human carnage and wanton disregard for the rule of law in video games.  However, the premise that it's presence is somehow a war criminal training ground is nothing short of an extension of the nanny nation to a global scale.

Let's not forget that video games like movies, TV and music are nothing more than an entertainment medium.  The assertion that involvement  in a violent entertainment medium will somehow contribute to one's deviant behavior is as ridiculous.  If that were the case then we could all be theoretical physicists just by watching a movie about Einstein a few dozen times. 

The prevailing argument against any violent media is that it desensitizes the consumer making violent  and inhumane acts more tolerable in the real world.  By extension showing a character assassinating an innocent will somehow make the real life act acceptable. 

As a gamer, First Person Shooters are part of my repertoire.  Most of these involve some level of armed conflict with military or paramilitary contexts.  I've had my share of violent ends and dispatched a few well textured pixel baddies in my time but I've never had the desire to commit genocide after a spirited gaming session. 

In most First Person shooters, it's the bad guys committing the atrocities.  That's how it is in the Modern Warfare series.  In Modern Warfare there's always some maniacal despot leading a legion of degenerates bent on leaving civilization in smoldering ruins. 

There's little opportunity for peaceful negotiation and the bullets fly fairly quickly after the start of a mission.   Sometimes there's a contingent of innocent civilians hampering your efforts.  Too many misplaced shots in their direction will bring instant repercussion and ruin your day (in a virtual sense).

It's far better to bring the ugliness of atrocity to light in an entertainment medium than to whitewash over it and turn conflict into something neat and tidy.  If a war crime is depicted then let it be as horrific and graphic as the developer can stomach.  Not for some sense of dark satisfaction but rather to dismiss any illusion that such actions can ever be acceptable. 

The problem with neutering violent video games is that you remove the consequence of violence.  It's far more dangerous to have your dispatched opponent morph into a bouquet of flowers than to see the grisly aftermath of a violent action.