1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
Article 38. – Recognized emblems
1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.
Article 39. – Emblems of nationality
1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1 ( d ), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.
These are conventions from the Geneva Convention which relate to Perfidy. In relation to these, I would like to bring forth an accusation of the highest order. To a videogame. Yes, A videogame.
Videogames are safe havens where civilians confide in, releasing stress, building up confidence, and more, where media related to war and violence entice them to act recklessly and provide some sort of mood-lifting affect on the player. Many across the world confide in these refuges in order to seek enjoyment, relaxation, mental stimulation, the building of skills such as hand-eye coordination, the quest for a good story and exploration, and many more things. While not a recognized symbol, there are many things in videogames that make them recognized as a pastime and thus should be taken, in my researched opinion, both seriously as such, and games that feign to be such things only to pull the rug from beneath such players, seeking any of the above things, for both libel, accusatory themes, and the injury to both the gamer's stress level, comfort, and many other psychological things, to be morally reprehensible to the highest degree.
There is one game in particular of which I accuse these morally reprehensible behaviors of, and its one who takes themes of Geneva conventions in particular to accuse the player to be responsible for both the atrocities they have committed in the context of the game, to be morally reprehensible themselves, and many other things I am about to discuss.
That game is Spec Ops the line.
In this game, players are forced to commit atrocities, which at the time of doing the player agrees to under the guise of fun and other such aforementioned behaviors which lead them to do so, only to show them that the player has been mislead to commit such crimes as unleashing white phosphorous onto a group of civilians and blame them for commiting them. The main characters in the game are shown in the ladder half of the game to be both morally corrupt, psychologically damaged, and the developer's representations of the player. One of the endings reveals that the enemies of the game are entirely made up, and the main character is accused of both secretly wanting these horrible crimes to have occurred even though nobody real has been hurt, which is in actuallity an accusation towards the player as well.
In short, it accuses the players of being terrible, psychologically damaged individuals who cater to their inner desires for destruction, and the player is left both emotionally scarred, psychologically damaged, feeling guilty, and even worse, to be traumatized to some extent.
Therefore, because this game accuses the player of things stated and unstated I hereby accuse Spec Ops: The Line of not only moral reprehensibility but to have morally breached the Geneva Convention itself.
Let me make myself clear: while these things that spec ops: the line does may, in a literary sense, have worth, it is the accusation and betrayal and even damage this game does to the player, who only wished to receive enjoyment, only to have their minds betrayed and to be accused of such libel as to be both deranged and subconsciously damaged by the media they confide in, it is my belief that this game to have committed a serious moral and perhaps legal offence of the highest nature.
While others more legally aware than I can speak greater in the context of this article, I personally wish to speak on how this game affected me personally.
The atrocities the game wishes to convict you of are outrageous and inaccurate. It is impossible to harm a virtual human being, and as such, to harm a virtual human being, who contains no mind, heart, soul, pain, or even real intelligence; whose lives begin the instant the level loads and end when their mannequin-like façade is ended, is not morally reprehensible in any way other than the disgust in regards to their portrayal of those who do not participate in such virtual activities. As such, not only are the creators reprehensible, they have commited errors in their storytelling and game crafting.
I suffer from a variety of disorders known to inhibit my capacity to read social cues, as well as provide me with a tendency towards psychoses as well as disorganized logic and thinking when unmedicated. While I am very high functioning and have control over most of my symptoms, the fact that this game accuses me of being both psychologically deranged and subconsciously stained by my media is both offensive and immediately recognizable as a farce. How could my games affect me when I am so aware of my psychoses, when I have suffered with them for 24 years and know the ins and outs of my disorder through proffessional help? Even if such things are true, I am both aware of them and capable of telling right from wrong and virtual from real at the time of writing. Obviously such a feat is to my benefit, not my detriment. Even more, if these people wish to fill my head with lies, knowing my past where such things could have easily swayed me, earlier in my development where I was not as stable, I know that there are others like me who are not as lucky as I am, who must have become both depressed, scarred, and mentally unstable as a direct result of this game as the developers of this game set out to dissuade.
Not only is this game false in its portrayal and advertising, it is false in its themes and overall logic in how it goes about achieving its goal: to force the player to think about how games have affected them.
Now, just to be clear, this is a very important goal to have and the developers of this game should be commended for their strides. However, this game has clearly been designed to accuse and harm, not to provide the enjoyment the player has been drawn in to as a direct result of their intentional misleading. As such, I stand by my accusations. I hope that my short, sloppy analysis of this game can be properly dissected, my disorders and lack of revision notwithstanding, for this will most likely be a mere forum post if anything.
My intent is not to bring down the developers of this game, the people selling it, the fans who enjoy it, or anything other than the calling out of such moral misdoings that have such been mentioned. It is not my intention in any way to create any harm other than the bringing to light the damage this game has done to me, as well as the terrible things it has committed as a result of its moral misdoings.
My point is: this game committed a farce to convict the player of ridiculous things. Because of this I saw it as an opportunity to play their own game against them for the sole purpose of making them see how they have harmed the player, and of the terrible things I think THEY have done in the proccess.