[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games.

- BBC News

Two Swiss human rights organizations have slammed a series of war-related strategy and FPS games for permitting violence against civilians, including torture and massacres. They added that those who “violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners.” I think Pol Pot and Stalin may beg to differ, but political semantics aside, the point of computer games is to simulate reality in an entertaining format.

In real war, atrocities are carried out by belligerents upon civilians and soldiery alike, with little regard for the rule of law or the Geneva Conventions. Punishment, if it comes at all, is forced on the losers by the victors, whose own troops are, in victory, largely absolved of any responsibility for crimes committed in the line of duty. In my view, the inclusion of civilian targets in war games forces a moral decision on the player to choose between indiscriminate total war and a restrained, humanitarian approach. This decision is the player’s to make—psychos may want to gun babies down, but most of us abhor the idea and go to great lengths to protect civilians in games that feature them. Games with intriguing “moral arcs” such as BioShock and Half-Life dish out later punishments for ruthlessness (though they may reward it early on) and provide both replay value and allow players to experience guilt and become morally conflicted about their actions.

Typically, outside observers unaccustomed to computer games and their mores feel at liberty to comment on their content, in the same way that Southern baptists slam Harry Potter books for encouraging Satanism without taking the time to read, or even research their plotlines and characters. Preposterous arguments for Mao-style censorship are somehow granted legitimacy by being preceded with the idiot’s coverall disclaimer, “Speaking as a mother/priest/Presbyterian/humanitarian aid worker.” I’m with Trey Parker and Matt Stone—either it’s all acceptable, or none of it is. There are no, and can be no half-measures or compromises when it comes to freedom of speech.

Far be it from me to deny peoples’ opinions, but I also retain sufficient critical faculties (and a fundamental human right) to dismiss viewpoints which are founded on a lack of understanding and a vested interest in garnering publicity and provoking a “reaction.” I similarly disregard computer games as computer games, and while they have influenced my behavior in the past by making me a social recluse in my teenage years, they’ve never induced me to shoot coworkers or commuters in the face with an AK-47, no matter how tired or cranky I am. Researchers, even those invested in their findings, have failed to come up with a link between entertainment and violence—while the connection between religious and political education and violence is well documented, yet censorship has thus far failed to extend into our churches, mosques or sitting rooms. Compared to these vast institutions, the gaming industry is very, very small potatoes.

I applaud the work of humanitarian agencies, and would have no qualms about sending them to deal with any of the current hideous genocides and systemic oppressions going on around the world. But for opinions on the merits of computer gaming, I’ll ask computer gamers, not Amnesty International.