If Real-Life Rules Applied to Video Game Shooters

Reading like a cross between a gaming Web site feature and a piece of anti-gaming smear, a study by Swiss human rights organisation TRIAL and youth rights advocate Pro Juventute Switzerland looked at how real-life rules would apply to military or war-themed shooters. Seriously, the study (PDF via Shacknews), called “Play By the Rules,” examined 20 shooters, including Army of Two, Far Cry 2 and Brothers in Arms — Hell’s Highway, and shocked us with the determination that most games aren’t grounded in reality. Here’s what the study says about Call of Duty: World at War:

“This game portrays the use of flamethrowers by American soldiers against Japanese soldiers … The use of these weapons clearly violates the prohibition of causing superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering which was already an obligation established in the Hague Regulations of 1907 and thus already prohibited during the Second World War.”

Thanks, Debbie Downer! More fun excerpts after the jump.

“Metal of Soldier [sic] 4″:

One of the scenes portrays the killing of an injured soldier from whom no danger was emanating, thus violating the prohibition of attacking combatants who have laid down their arms.

Frontlines: Fuel of War:

In one scene the player can choose to drop cluster bombs on a military target. If no civilians are around, this conduct would still be prohibited by the Convention on Cluster Munitions at least for the states parties. However … it is important to point out that even if used against a military target, cluster bombs often fail to explode on contact which means it may later injure or kill civilians.

Battlefield Bad Company:

In this game, no such distinction is made. Many battles take place in civilian areas and there is no limit to what the players can destroy in order to find and combat the enemy. We have classified the violations in these scenes as “strong”.

And my personal favorite, Army of Two:

The context of the game does not seem to indicate that the members of the “Army of Two” are part of official armed forces of a state. All the contrary, they have left the U.S. Army. Neither does the context seem to point out that they are members of an organized armed group. Assuming that the U.S. is not a party to the conflict, they fit rather accurately what in IHL is defined as mercenaries. As mentioned above, mercenaries are considered to be civilians and as such, they have no right to participate in the hostilities.

The list goes on. Now, if only we could get real armed forces to read this study, the world might be a better place. [via Shacknews]