PDA

View Full Version : Story The campaign missions for UN-aligned nations should respect the Geneva Convention.



Alex06
12-24-2011, 02:37 AM
Subject:
The missions for any faction, with the obvious exceptions of the GLA, being terrorists, should respect the Geneva Convention. US, China, Russia, the EU, Australia, India, whatever the country or faction, they should still abide to those laws.

Description:
Most C&C games have unconventional, obscure or outlandish weapons such as flamethrowers, toxins extracted from killer bacteria, explosive shard rounds, high-explosive warheads, mines, booby traps, lasers, microwaves, particle weapons, etc. The Geneva Convention protects civilians from death and injuries. As such, these weapons cannot be used in environments where civilians are present, or at least, cannot be used on or near concentrations of civilians. It should not be possible for a Chinese player to burn civilians with a flame tank in a campaign mission, or for the US to do so with its particle cannon. The solution can range from having all civilians evacuated from the map (as in other C&C games), serving only as an objective where they must absolutely be protected, to making the player lose a mission if a civilian dies from a non-conventional weapon of theirs, limiting available weapons and technology in missions where civilians are present, or even simply having them flee or be untargetable or invincible to unconventional weapons owned by the player.

Pros:
- Can help prevent the ban of the game in other countries (Germany, China, Australia)
- The game looks slightly more respectful and realistic.

Cons:
- People who enjoy killing civilians in C&C games cannot do so anymore. (Though I'd personally see it more as a pro than a con - This isn't a game for sadistic people to achieve their sick fantasies)
- Could potentially affect the gameplay in a negative manner. (IE limited use of technology, unconventional/AoE weapons don't fire when in concentrated civilian areas, thus not letting you easily destroy hordes of enemy infantry in garrisoned buildings)

Seriona
12-24-2011, 04:57 PM
The biggest problem with what you are saying I understand. But half the weapons you stated are actually LEGAL under the current Genova Code.

If you want international fallout to play a role. Then how about a bar that if you commit a warcrime, then when you build a UN support building, you get less resources. They say for sure that EU is in the game so I also willing to bet that US will return and these bloc tend to be very good at making sure the world is not looking down apon them.

Alex06
12-24-2011, 07:45 PM
The biggest problem with what you are saying I understand. But half the weapons you stated are actually LEGAL under the current Geneva Convention.
They are, indeed. Just not on civilians. I'm not saying bar them from use entirely (that's just one of several possibilities), just limit their use in civilian situations or somehow fix the civilian situation by having them already evacuated, or make the civilians important to defend. As such, you don't run into the issues of Generals 1 were there are civilians on the map and people can kill them with inhumane weapons, which could get the game banned in a few countries.

RealWar
12-24-2011, 08:08 PM
This reminds me of an article on Kotaku.

goldenhorde44
12-24-2011, 08:40 PM
If the world in the 2030s is changed enough that NATO is dead and the US is off the world stage, then maybe the Geneva Conventions don't have so much force behind them anymore either

Seriona
12-25-2011, 06:31 PM
Geneva Code will always play a role as long as the world cares which is does.

All the Code really states is what everyone wants anyway, in this game NATO may no longer be around but I seriously doubt the Code is gone.

Also I doubt that EA would do such a thing anyway because they really don't care about public opinion on minor roles anway. Unless they built a campaign around it. Like I remember in CnC, Nod would actually GAIN POINTS for killing civilians and GDI would always a minor role in defending them, some mission objectives would be built around it but majority of the time, GDI would gain a crate with money or XP for choosing to defend them. You could just let them die.

In this game, I believe there should be a benefit for gaining PR with civilians but not a forced objective for it.

ConKid66
12-26-2011, 10:16 AM
Description:
Most C&C games have unconventional, obscure or outlandish weapons such as flamethrowers, toxins extracted from killer bacteria, explosive shard rounds, high-explosive warheads, mines, booby traps, lasers, microwaves, particle weapons, etc.

Those weapons are in many RTS games, not just C&C, and they help to keep units diverse and interesting.


Pros:
- Can help prevent the ban of the game in other countries (Germany, China, Australia)

Australia has had every C&C game so far, and they are only rated as M (Current highest is MA - Only for people 15 and up). As for China, the main reason Generals was banned was it offended the government, not because it was too violent.

Alex06
12-26-2011, 02:28 PM
Those weapons are in many RTS games, not just C&C, and they help to keep units diverse and interesting.

Australia has had every C&C game so far, and they are only rated as M (Current highest is MA - Only for people 15 and up). As for China, the main reason Generals was banned was it offended the government, not because it was too violent.
The game offended the government for these reasons. Use of flame and nuclear weapons, red guard, etc. China was very satire in the first game.

As for the weapons, I'm not saying remove them from the game, quite the contrary, I like them, too, and they keep things diverse. Just don't let us kill civilians with them as China or the EU? :P

sgfan206
12-26-2011, 06:44 PM
Yes, I completely agree with this. No weapons against civilians.

More than that, I would also like to see that your dozers don't kill civilians by driving over 'em, and cars dont get crashed for the same reason. Civilians in Generals are considered as enemies, who just get overrun.

I also would love if the protection of civilians grants advantages rather than killing them.