Video games depicting war have come under fire for flouting laws governing armed conflicts. Human rights groups played various games to see if any broke humanitarian laws that govern what is a war crime.No they didn't. According to their report
The selected games were played by young gamers under the auspice of Pro Juventute and TRIAL and the legal assessment of the critical scenes was done by three lawyers, particularly trained in the areas of IHL, IHRL and ICL. Professor Marco Sassóli from the University of Geneva, a well known expert in the area of IHL, supervised the legal analysis.which is significantly different. The panel watched video of the players game and then decided whether a breach of the various rules would have occurred in real life. They even discuss this in their report
In addition, the analysers sometimes had difficulties understanding the plot of the game and the context of the scenes. The games are very complex and the players are often given various possibilities to achieve their goals, thus making it difficult to determine which means and methods are available to the player and which rules apply. In addition, because the games are controlled to a great extent by the player, a player of a particular game may see very different types of content than another, depending on the choices he or she makes.The whole study is bizarre as it makes the assertion that
We have chosen video and computer games as the object of our analysis because, unlike literature, films and television, where the viewer has a passive role, in shooter games, the player has an active role in performing the actions. Thus, the line between the virtual and real experience becomes blurredthen concludes that in future video game developers should incorporate IHL and IHRL into their framework which would, in my opinion, blur the distinction between real and fantasy even further.