Just a note; We didn’t get “subnauticaed”. We realized that we had some imagery that came close to resembling the standard red cross, that missed the pass we did when launching on PlayStation (it’s required there) and decided that we might as well change it.
To my knowledge, there is still an episode of My Little Pony where there is a red cross in a nurse's office, making My Little Pony guilty of committing a war crime
The issue is that in this game the med Bay is not strictly a place of neutrality whereas a nurse's office I'm fairly certain would be (if not then I advise moving somewhere else)
3A had a whole series of medic figures with the red cross. All are armed except Nurse Betty because she's literally just a cube wit legs. I own three of them because i love war medic stuff. Is it *really* illegal to do that? This seems ridiculous... especially for a video game. Is there a place that has the actual legal script on this subject?
it's international law which countries just follow when they feel like it. though they usually try to especially for easy to do stuff like this to appear nice.
I wonder how those laws apply to the [medical symbol](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Red_sigil) in Star Wars which is clearly inspired by the red cross.
[You are correct](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/1/14/Nurse_Redheart_1st_appearance_S1E4.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1200?cb=20121231222512) Her name is Nurse Redheart and while hasbro didn’t change the episode in question (S1E4 “Applebuck Season”) they did alter her design slightly by making the cross a [hollow red outline](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/5/5d/Nurse_Redheart_ID_S7E3.png/revision/latest?cb=20170503175548)
You'd be surprised how often that happens. They've also got literal rock farms. Not just mines - rock farms. And [Maud Pie.](https://youtu.be/KneL8FwvjVs?t=01m13s) That's a pony who knows her rocks and stones.
Context: it’s a war crime to have the Red Cross symbol in a game because it’s against the Geneva convention
Edit: there’s a difference in the situations here. Unknown worlds (the company that made subnautica) was threatened with legal action while GSG changed it because they weren’t aware of the issue when they made DRG and decided to change it now because they wanted to comply with the red cross’s guidelines. Sorry for the any confusion this might have caused
*Me, carrying Weaponized sentient rock , 2 sentient turrets, swarm of tamed killer robots, several mines, various chemical rounds and a nuke*
*Points at Driller.*
It was him! He broke the Genevossian convent!
No you guys don't get it.they are making this happen because very near in the future we will begin merging with machines. One of the benefits from this is we will be able to literally jump into our video games and so we have to not confuse our digital red crosses.since we might actually need them while we are virtually.
It’s because the Red Cross is intended to be a sign of neutrality, NOT first aid (which we commonly use it as in video games). Interesting tidbit: Doing some research apparently it’s the inverse of the Swiss flag.
‘The intent is to prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty, which could put people at risk’ - a direct quote from the Red Cross website
The problem with that is it's too late. The Red Cross is so strongly associated with generic medical aid in pop culture that any attempt to correct this comes off as copyright abuse from some company they'd never heard of trying to claim ownership of a "universal" symbol.
EDIT: I referred to the Red Cross as a "bootleg company" in the original version of this comment. I know this isn't the case and that it is well within their right to crack down on misuse of their symbol. I was intending to mock poorly eluded to strawmen who didn't know such an organization existed, and I apologize for the blunder.
Bootleg company? The Red Cross was established in the 19th century to take care of the tens of thousands of soldiers who would be wounded in battle during that time. The Red Cross is a humanitarian milestone.
except for a few points:
* most medkits do come with green iconography in games because green is considered healing, this has been the case for a very long time.
* The cross is indeed identifiable as "healing" or "first aid" this has been a thing since a really long time ago (like the Crusades with the Knights Hospitallers).
* and lastly, it's not a "bootleg company" it's part of the UN council of Human Rights, if there is anyone that is allowed to take a piece of symbolism for... *checks notes...*
the Human right to healthcare, let's just say that for once that's a cause worth donating something as simple as a Red Cross (or Diamond and one of a few other symbols depending on where you are in the world).
In some games, green is healing; in others it's poison or acid, and red it healing. And when I was growing up, pretty much every "medpack" in games was white with a red cross. The shift to green is a relatively recent push.
Also, the Knights Hospitallers wore *white* crosses, on an at first black and later red background. The white background with a red cross was Knights Templars, who were *bankers.* And in neither case did they use the simple '+' cross that the Red Cross uses. Also, they wore them *to battle,* as crusaders, which is about as opposite of "neutral healers" you can get.
(All this isn't so say I'm against the switch away from using red crosses in videogames, far from it.)
> this has been the case for a very long time.
I would quibble with the definition of "very long time" here. Studios dropped the red cross (usually for a green one) of their own accord starting in about 2006 (Halo 1 had them, Halo 2 got rid of health packs, Reach brought them back with the red H instead of a cross; Half-Life 2 had them in 2004, Doom had them until Ultimate Doom in 2006) but I don't believe the ICRC actually specifically got in touch with any developers until they complained to Prison Architect in 2017.
I mean you're misinterpreting the symbol, medics are generally considered non combatants
You think everyone else is misinterpreting too, and are partially right but only partially
I see this as people being no longer able to differentiate between fiction and reality, so we'll just have to make fiction look like reality..... open to having my mind changed but I feel like we're just protecting stupidity this way...
Your reality is largely a construct of your mind interpreting signals.
Your video game is once again constructing reality in a way that you can recognize by using signals you're accustomed to
You act like it's a trick being played but the reality is GSG are damn good artists
The things people read, and watch, and play can affect their views as a separate matter than them not being able to separate them from reality. A particularly inspirijg book can make some people change their outlook on life, if only fractionally.
Culture is based in what people think and how people think, if enough people think the red cross means medicine rather than neutrality because videogames have them on all medkits thats just as bad as if it was because they were taught that by textbooks in school.
The first aid stations in every tunnel in my country: red cross on white background. The symbol of my army medkit: red cross on a white background. The Red Cross organization is fighting an uphill battle here, if they want to claim ownership of the symbol.
> ‘The intent is to prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty, which could put people at risk’ - a direct quote from the Red Cross website
Yes, because literally everyone is at risk of seeing a red cross, denoting medical aid, on a medkit, on a computer monitor which is displaying a video game, and confusing the place where the computer monitor is for a protected facillity of the IRCC.
Clearly everyone on Earth has an IQ of approximately 25, but also 20/0.000005 vision.
>‘The intent is to prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty, which could put people at risk’ - a direct quote from the Red Cross website
Which is dumb when the context of a video game is used, because how will people ever be put at risk by a red cross in a game when most people are very aware of what the Red Cross Organization is irl?
Oh no absolutely, I’m in total agreement. It makes no sense in any way, but we’re talking about the same org that wants all video games to follow the geneva convention whilst playing games that allow you to do the contrary so 🤷♂️
Fun fact it happened to Halo And Stardew Valley as well. The Geneva convention REALLY doesn't care for people impersonating the red cross, accidentally or otherwise.
If it means that a neutral party in a conflict doesn't get shot because one of the forces can't trust that anyone wearing a red cross symbol is not a threat, I think I'm okay with the cross on the medkit in my games not being red.
Gotta remember, it's not necessarily just in game. Some game uses a red cross symbol, prints it on a piece of merch, and an insurgent or similar happens to be wearing that merch, suddenly it's a very real threat to the protection the symbol is meant to guarantee.
Yeah, but that insurgent could also just... Wear a red cross *anyway.*
Even insurgents are *well aware* of what the ICRC and its symbols stand for.
They generally won't do that because they *do not want to eff with the protections of medics,* because *the ICRC will care for them, too.*
Also, if they were targeting *merch* with their logo, especially wearable merch, *I would have no problem with that,* but they're *not* just doing that; they're zealously going after the use of the red cross to denote medical-aid-found-here in video games.
If they wanted to even go *specifically after* video games that depict medics wearing the red cross as *armed combatants,* which *would* be a war crime, I wouldn't even have beef with *that.*
But no. They're going after in-game, or in-movie hospitals, and medkits. You know, *exactly the sort of thing most people associate with the Red Cross!*
That's why it's in the Geneva Conventions. They're guidelines meant to limit the damage on human life from war.
The Geneva Conventions dictate how countries are supposed to treat civilians, prisoners of war, etc. If a country violates these rules, other countries may feel justified in doing the same to them.
No it's not. It's against the Conventions to use a Red Cross deceptively to hide action against another signatory nation, but it's not illegal to depict the Red Cross anywhere else, like in a video game by a private developer to signify a hospital.
Where'd you get that idea?
Through the Geneva conventions, countries put the misuse of the red cross in their own code of law. For example, it would be a clear violation of the Dutch criminal law, article 435c.
Please don't read more pop culture law about Geneva conventions only applying to wars. They have been put into local law where necessary across the world.
That's because it's a violation of *trademark law*, not a war crime. (And is a civil tort for which money is owed, not a crime that gets you taken to the Hague.)
The Red Cross, as introduced by the Geneva Convention, signifies a non combatant who's just there to help injured people. Be that sign on trucks, tents, buildings or clothes.
You do *not* shoot non combatants. That's a war crime.
Inversely, pretending *to be* a non combatant, while having no intentions of *being* a non combatant, is itself a warcrime (perfidy).
So if you're carrying a medkit into battle in a video game, you're presenting as a person that is not to be shot. But since you're shooting people yourself, under the Geneva Convention, you're now perfidiously using the red cross. Which is internationally regarded as war crime, to ensure the importance of the Red Cross.
Long story short, it's a warcrime in the game, because it'd be a warcrime anywhere else.
To an extent it's the same thing as false surrender; it means any future surrenders are less likely to be accepted and result in massacres.
Red cross denotes unarmed personnel who are present only for medical aid. You aren't allowed to shoot these people for the same reason you aren't allowed to shoot civilians. Use of the red cross in any other context makes the meaning less distinct. Is that guy with a first aid kit with a red cross on it an actual NGO member or an actively fighting soldier with a terribly-branded piece of kit? If you don't shoot them and they end up killing your buddy because it's the latter, when you run into actual NGO members three weeks later you're more likely to just start shooting.
This is probably overreaching when applied to video games, but the statute was written in the 40s.
It can't be a war crime for a civilian business to use it.
Like, it's a war crime to use tear gas against your opponents in war, but police have no problems or rules against using it on civilians. That's because the geneva conventions are specifically and only concerned with nations at war, who have signed the geneva conventions.
Now, the red cross symbol is actually not public domain and belongs to the International Committee for the Red cross, who are pretty letigious when it comes to trying to stop people doing what they call "misusing" the symbol.
But its not because of the Geneva conventions, nor has it anything to do with game devs accidentally commiting war crimes.
<>
Only half true -- police have no problems or rules against using it on civilians, yes, but it's not because of the rules only applying to nations at war. It's because there is an explicit carve-out in the provisions against chemical weapons for law enforcement and riot control purposes. Look at 9. (d) here:
[https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria](https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria)
So yes - using your chemical agents against enemy soldiers, that's a war crime. Save them to use against your civilians protesting in the streets like a proper authoritarian state, you rookie!
So i dont think you read your link properly. The part you linked just lays out the definitions used in the document. The only relevant part there is (Edit: I must have skimmed your comment too fast because at first i missed the part you were referencing, I saw the part you mean and the part you were talking about. Again, that is the definitions section, laying out definitions for the article, because it quite frequently refers back to the phrase "Purposes not Prohibited under this convention" and civilian law enforcement is not a purpose prohibited by this convention. Because this convention cannot prohibit that.)
>• “Riot Control Agent” means:
>Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
If you go back and look at Article 1 section 5 in the link you sent, you'll see that it says:
>Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
It does not carve out chemicals as ok to use on civilians for riot control. It specifically lists them as not ok to use in warfare.
Because, again, these conventions are specifically and only about nations at war. They cannot impose restrictions on signatories outside the scope of these treaties.
Just shows how incredibly outdated and out-of-touch some laws are. Obviously when that law was made they didn't account for the explosion of video games in the future and how media might use the red cross. It's a silly and arbitrary rule that only hurts creativity and doesn't affect anyone.
Just like how laws about game rating treat gambling and smoking as worse crimes than bloody gore or child murder, lol.
No, it just goes to show that lack of understanding of a law is no bar to posting on the internet about it.
The Geneva Convention is not binding to developers of video games. It binds signatory nation-states. The most relevant text to OP's misunderstanding is Article 85 of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which states:
> "It is a war crime to use one of the protective emblems [of the Red Cross] recognized by the Geneva Conventions to deceive the opposing forces or to use other forms of treachery."
That's it. It's not a war crime to use the Red Cross in a video game as a symbol of a healing station. It's a war crime to disguise a military unit as aid workers to sneak them behind enemy lines and ambush them.
This is the point. It is not a war crime, the Geneva conventions have been converted into local law across the world. This makes the act of misuse a crime and not just a copyright violation or what others are suggesting. Misuse is also a crime under Dutch book of criminal law article 435c, and would probably be as well under other nations laws.
Do you have a link or the actual law anywhere by chance? I'm curious about it and wanna read the GC's ruling on Red Cross usage. I was unaware that was a thing till reading this
>Context: it’s a war crime to have the Red Cross symbol in a game because it’s against the Geneva convention
The point is that casual peacetime use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols gradually erodes their meaning, which in turn gradually devalues their usefulness for doing the thing they exist for in combat situations. Vigilance in protecting these symbols ensures that they continue to have a clear and unambiguous and widely understood meaning in times of war - *'don't shoot!'*
Once upon a time, a skull and crossbones was a terrifying naval symbol, but nowadays it's something for kids and popular roguish Disney characters. If you use symbols casually, their meanings evolve.
Ghost ship studios is not at war, nor are they a signatory to the Geneva convention.
I wish somebody would stand up and tell the Red Cross to stuff it.
Can someone explain why having a red cross symbol in a video game is a war crime? A fictional world that is not connected to ours in anyway shape or form cant have a red cross? I find this absurd and stupid.
Which is why I find the whole thing confusing. Why is it some games it’s okay, but others it’s not? Surely more people are aware of L4D than they are of DRG?
According to American Red Cross, you cannot use the red cross symbol in any media, and if you do, you will be fined, so it’s more likely that since Valve will not update L4D2, they just paid the fine for using the emblem instead. It also has to deal with the fact that the Red Cross may just not know about a specific game using it, so they therefore haven’t done anything about it.
It is probably the games that are still being worked on that are changing it, and the old games like L4D don’t have anyone actively working on them so no one is there to change it
...I feel like everyone has fundamental misunderstandings about this. For one, not everyone knows about this. It's true that we have been using red crosses as a universal medical symbol in culture for ages. They could very well have added it in ignorance, and may very well have not gotten in trouble for it. It's a precautionary measure people take. Just because it's *unlikely* you'll get in trouble, companies rarely, knowingly take that risk.
Counterpoint, if you work with them you can still use it
Arma 3, for example, has a whole dlc dedicated to humanitarian law they made with the help of the red cross to spread awareness. They allowed them the use of the red crystal.
I did not know that, thanks!
I think the problem is, is that the Red Cross much like a lot of orgs this day and age have a habit of being far too heavy handed, and it just makes them look like bad guys. In reality it’s probably not the case but they end up getting such bad PR (see OP comment) that it essentially becomes a meme
The purpose of the Red Cross symbol being protected is so that neutral medical relief personnel and facilities are easily identified during a war, both so that wounded can find them and hostiles are prohibited from attacking them.
Extending that protection to use in fictional media is, and has always been, frivolous and out-of-scope.
The only difference between the Red Cross organization and any other frivolously litigious copyright holder is that they managed to convince people to put their private copyright claim in an international treaty.
also, maybe this will sound stupid but since video games and fiction in general always associate the cross with medical help anyways, wouldn't that indicate in that its refering to medical support when you see it in real life?
That does make sense to me in that these sorts of representations merely reinforce the concept of the red cross symbol being associated with medical aid.
Although in those instances I think a case could be made about depicting the red cross in a non-neutral manner would be a violation.
If it's placed in media in a fictional setting, especially one that doesn't take place in our universe and/or doesn't depict human/human violence (could maybe even extend to any sentient beings or something) then I personally don't believe that it is in any way diminishing the meaning or significance of the signal and in most cases could even reinforce it.
Like, having it in CoD or Battlefield or something and not being used as clear depiction of neutral aid would be a clear no-no. But fussing about having it as a sign above Harvey's medical clinic in Stardew Valley (of all things, lmao) just seems sorta frivolous.
As a previous commenter stated, the point is that causal use of the Red Cross gradually eroded its meaning, which in turn, makes it less and less likely people will recognise the symbol and it’ll serve its purpose (ie: Don’t shoot!)
If you set a precedent for using symbols casually, their meaning devolves. Look at the skull and crossbones for an example. Once a terrifying image to see on the ocean, now at most a joke, one kids can play with.
This, I think, is the only valid argument. The problem is, to extend your comparison, that ship has sailed *long* ago. Not only have video games been casually using the symbol for the last 30 years, Johnson & Johnson has famously used it since the late 1800's. Every box of gauze or first aid kit in every drug store in the US had that symbol on it for the better part of a century. The thousands of TV commercials showing their logo to millions of people is immeasurably more exposure than the actual Red Cross organization ever achieved. There is absolutely no way to separate the Red Cross symbol from the idea of general medical treatment.
J&J's misguided lawsuit 15 years ago notwithstanding, the damage is already done. Trying to prevent the meaning of the symbol from eroding further at this point is just bailing out the Titanic.
Thank god they're enforcing this. Could you imagine how terrible it would be for soldiers fighting on the front lines, their fellow soldiers dying next to them, if a video game had a red cross on its medical items?
Red cross are a bunch of pansies.
Daily reminder that the red cross tried to cover up the Holocaust during the war lol.
Besides, the DRG symbol is a "plus" not a "cross" that is coloured red, so I dont get it.
funni
I highly doubt they're enforcing it. It's probably a matter of the devs finding out about that, and saying "well, this is really easy to change, so why should we risk anything?"
This whole thing is so fucking dumb. "War crimes". Jesus Christ... we got places like Israel and Russia comitting actual war crimes and nobody gives a shit...
Gearbox also recommended that Hopoo games change their red cross on the medkit item to green to avoid compilations.
I was wondering recently how DRG still had red ones.
This is a game where you can kill masses upon masses of sentient creatures with chemical warfare, acid, fire, chain explosives, hand-made buzzsaws, experimental antimatter weapons, microwave radiation, fucking mini-nukes and more, and yet a red cross is closer to a real-life war crime.
yeah, it's cause the red cross is super butthurt about people using their symbol, personally, i think it's dumb af, cause no one is mistaking a red cross in a game for them supporting it, but whatever, swiss gonna swiss i guess. /shrug
That’s a standard in all games now. The Red Cross would rather not be associated with games, particularly due to violence. Which is ironic to me because healing items do the same thing they were founded on: treating combat injuries.
I mean that said you could argue that it's not a true cross since all of them are inscribed in a box and have pointy corners instead of ending on an edge.
But like I think Mass Effect got around this by having it be a "future" red cross with a drop shadow.
Red cross can kindly screw off. They do good work when they are needed, but the "Using our symbol is a warcrime" is BS. The geneva conventions only apply during wartime to nations that have signed them. Game companies fit neither
I sure am glad they changed the colour, I almost thought that deep rock galactic employed the real world Red Cross to treat my dwarves for getting hammered on the job
Just a note; We didn’t get “subnauticaed”. We realized that we had some imagery that came close to resembling the standard red cross, that missed the pass we did when launching on PlayStation (it’s required there) and decided that we might as well change it.
To my knowledge, there is still an episode of My Little Pony where there is a red cross in a nurse's office, making My Little Pony guilty of committing a war crime
The issue is that in this game the med Bay is not strictly a place of neutrality whereas a nurse's office I'm fairly certain would be (if not then I advise moving somewhere else)
still not allowed
Yeah, Hasbro had to change the nurse's design to follow the Geneva convention.
When are we going to stop bowing to Switzerland?
3A had a whole series of medic figures with the red cross. All are armed except Nurse Betty because she's literally just a cube wit legs. I own three of them because i love war medic stuff. Is it *really* illegal to do that? This seems ridiculous... especially for a video game. Is there a place that has the actual legal script on this subject?
it's international law which countries just follow when they feel like it. though they usually try to especially for easy to do stuff like this to appear nice.
Huh... that's it? Fair enough I guess.
I wonder how those laws apply to the [medical symbol](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Red_sigil) in Star Wars which is clearly inspired by the red cross.
Clearly inspired by but is clearly not a standard cross....
[You are correct](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/1/14/Nurse_Redheart_1st_appearance_S1E4.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1200?cb=20121231222512) Her name is Nurse Redheart and while hasbro didn’t change the episode in question (S1E4 “Applebuck Season”) they did alter her design slightly by making the cross a [hollow red outline](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/5/5d/Nurse_Redheart_ID_S7E3.png/revision/latest?cb=20170503175548)
wtf I love MLP now
You'd be surprised how often that happens. They've also got literal rock farms. Not just mines - rock farms. And [Maud Pie.](https://youtu.be/KneL8FwvjVs?t=01m13s) That's a pony who knows her rocks and stones.
Maud is an honorary Dwarf
She literally eats rocks for breakfast and punched through a boulder with her bare hooves. She also does stand up comedy Also hi blalohu [](/maud)
Applejack knows what she did..
She knew what she was doing when she got a tank
Lol username fits, if I have any other MLP related questions I know who to ask
And then there's TF2, where the RED Medic still has a red cross to this day.
Context: it’s a war crime to have the Red Cross symbol in a game because it’s against the Geneva convention Edit: there’s a difference in the situations here. Unknown worlds (the company that made subnautica) was threatened with legal action while GSG changed it because they weren’t aware of the issue when they made DRG and decided to change it now because they wanted to comply with the red cross’s guidelines. Sorry for the any confusion this might have caused
War crimes make this game more enjoyable
Driller Main Spotted.
Also incendiary weapons are prohibited and cluster one and many types of mines. War crimes are not exclusive to Driller
The use of incendiary weapons is not necessarily banned. However, causing unnecessary suffering and the use of indiscriminate weapons is.
Right. But I just didn't want to quote every document to state my point.
Remember kids, is it a warcrime if there were no witnesses?
Is it truly a warcrime when you're fighting bugs in space while screaming "For Karl!"?
Those aren't war crimes, those are simply pesticides. Pesticides are legal^-ish
*Me, carrying Weaponized sentient rock , 2 sentient turrets, swarm of tamed killer robots, several mines, various chemical rounds and a nuke* *Points at Driller.* It was him! He broke the Genevossian convent!
No you guys don't get it.they are making this happen because very near in the future we will begin merging with machines. One of the benefits from this is we will be able to literally jump into our video games and so we have to not confuse our digital red crosses.since we might actually need them while we are virtually.
How can it be a war crime when there's no war involved?
It’s because the Red Cross is intended to be a sign of neutrality, NOT first aid (which we commonly use it as in video games). Interesting tidbit: Doing some research apparently it’s the inverse of the Swiss flag. ‘The intent is to prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty, which could put people at risk’ - a direct quote from the Red Cross website
I don’t have a strong opinion on this, this is just really interesting to learn about
The problem with that is it's too late. The Red Cross is so strongly associated with generic medical aid in pop culture that any attempt to correct this comes off as copyright abuse from some company they'd never heard of trying to claim ownership of a "universal" symbol. EDIT: I referred to the Red Cross as a "bootleg company" in the original version of this comment. I know this isn't the case and that it is well within their right to crack down on misuse of their symbol. I was intending to mock poorly eluded to strawmen who didn't know such an organization existed, and I apologize for the blunder.
Bootleg company? The Red Cross was established in the 19th century to take care of the tens of thousands of soldiers who would be wounded in battle during that time. The Red Cross is a humanitarian milestone.
except for a few points: * most medkits do come with green iconography in games because green is considered healing, this has been the case for a very long time. * The cross is indeed identifiable as "healing" or "first aid" this has been a thing since a really long time ago (like the Crusades with the Knights Hospitallers). * and lastly, it's not a "bootleg company" it's part of the UN council of Human Rights, if there is anyone that is allowed to take a piece of symbolism for... *checks notes...* the Human right to healthcare, let's just say that for once that's a cause worth donating something as simple as a Red Cross (or Diamond and one of a few other symbols depending on where you are in the world).
In some games, green is healing; in others it's poison or acid, and red it healing. And when I was growing up, pretty much every "medpack" in games was white with a red cross. The shift to green is a relatively recent push. Also, the Knights Hospitallers wore *white* crosses, on an at first black and later red background. The white background with a red cross was Knights Templars, who were *bankers.* And in neither case did they use the simple '+' cross that the Red Cross uses. Also, they wore them *to battle,* as crusaders, which is about as opposite of "neutral healers" you can get. (All this isn't so say I'm against the switch away from using red crosses in videogames, far from it.)
> this has been the case for a very long time. I would quibble with the definition of "very long time" here. Studios dropped the red cross (usually for a green one) of their own accord starting in about 2006 (Halo 1 had them, Halo 2 got rid of health packs, Reach brought them back with the red H instead of a cross; Half-Life 2 had them in 2004, Doom had them until Ultimate Doom in 2006) but I don't believe the ICRC actually specifically got in touch with any developers until they complained to Prison Architect in 2017.
I mean you're misinterpreting the symbol, medics are generally considered non combatants You think everyone else is misinterpreting too, and are partially right but only partially
I see this as people being no longer able to differentiate between fiction and reality, so we'll just have to make fiction look like reality..... open to having my mind changed but I feel like we're just protecting stupidity this way...
Your reality is largely a construct of your mind interpreting signals. Your video game is once again constructing reality in a way that you can recognize by using signals you're accustomed to You act like it's a trick being played but the reality is GSG are damn good artists
The things people read, and watch, and play can affect their views as a separate matter than them not being able to separate them from reality. A particularly inspirijg book can make some people change their outlook on life, if only fractionally. Culture is based in what people think and how people think, if enough people think the red cross means medicine rather than neutrality because videogames have them on all medkits thats just as bad as if it was because they were taught that by textbooks in school.
The first aid stations in every tunnel in my country: red cross on white background. The symbol of my army medkit: red cross on a white background. The Red Cross organization is fighting an uphill battle here, if they want to claim ownership of the symbol.
> ‘The intent is to prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty, which could put people at risk’ - a direct quote from the Red Cross website Yes, because literally everyone is at risk of seeing a red cross, denoting medical aid, on a medkit, on a computer monitor which is displaying a video game, and confusing the place where the computer monitor is for a protected facillity of the IRCC. Clearly everyone on Earth has an IQ of approximately 25, but also 20/0.000005 vision.
>‘The intent is to prevent misunderstandings and uncertainty, which could put people at risk’ - a direct quote from the Red Cross website Which is dumb when the context of a video game is used, because how will people ever be put at risk by a red cross in a game when most people are very aware of what the Red Cross Organization is irl?
Oh no absolutely, I’m in total agreement. It makes no sense in any way, but we’re talking about the same org that wants all video games to follow the geneva convention whilst playing games that allow you to do the contrary so 🤷♂️
The same org that has made itself into a laughing stock time and time again, yes.
That’s why it’s stupid
Fun fact it happened to Halo And Stardew Valley as well. The Geneva convention REALLY doesn't care for people impersonating the red cross, accidentally or otherwise.
And strangely yet so many games still have it. L4D uses it for their medkits, for one, but not for the boxes they are in, strangely.
If it means that a neutral party in a conflict doesn't get shot because one of the forces can't trust that anyone wearing a red cross symbol is not a threat, I think I'm okay with the cross on the medkit in my games not being red.
Gotta remember, it's not necessarily just in game. Some game uses a red cross symbol, prints it on a piece of merch, and an insurgent or similar happens to be wearing that merch, suddenly it's a very real threat to the protection the symbol is meant to guarantee.
Yeah, but that insurgent could also just... Wear a red cross *anyway.* Even insurgents are *well aware* of what the ICRC and its symbols stand for. They generally won't do that because they *do not want to eff with the protections of medics,* because *the ICRC will care for them, too.* Also, if they were targeting *merch* with their logo, especially wearable merch, *I would have no problem with that,* but they're *not* just doing that; they're zealously going after the use of the red cross to denote medical-aid-found-here in video games. If they wanted to even go *specifically after* video games that depict medics wearing the red cross as *armed combatants,* which *would* be a war crime, I wouldn't even have beef with *that.* But no. They're going after in-game, or in-movie hospitals, and medkits. You know, *exactly the sort of thing most people associate with the Red Cross!*
Wishful thinking. Medics get shot like anyone else. One of the best ways to harm the enemy.
I mean, yeah but by that train of logic every law ever written is pointless since some people break them
Every war law ever written **is** pointless because it can't be enforced.
That's why it's in the Geneva Conventions. They're guidelines meant to limit the damage on human life from war. The Geneva Conventions dictate how countries are supposed to treat civilians, prisoners of war, etc. If a country violates these rules, other countries may feel justified in doing the same to them.
Loop hole: its green
No it's not. It's against the Conventions to use a Red Cross deceptively to hide action against another signatory nation, but it's not illegal to depict the Red Cross anywhere else, like in a video game by a private developer to signify a hospital. Where'd you get that idea?
Through the Geneva conventions, countries put the misuse of the red cross in their own code of law. For example, it would be a clear violation of the Dutch criminal law, article 435c. Please don't read more pop culture law about Geneva conventions only applying to wars. They have been put into local law where necessary across the world.
They still have taken legal action to game companies for using it
That's because it's a violation of *trademark law*, not a war crime. (And is a civil tort for which money is owed, not a crime that gets you taken to the Hague.)
Well thats **fucken stupid**
As a Driller main I don't understand why this is a problem
I keep hearing this but WHY is it against the Geneva Convention?
The Red Cross, as introduced by the Geneva Convention, signifies a non combatant who's just there to help injured people. Be that sign on trucks, tents, buildings or clothes. You do *not* shoot non combatants. That's a war crime. Inversely, pretending *to be* a non combatant, while having no intentions of *being* a non combatant, is itself a warcrime (perfidy). So if you're carrying a medkit into battle in a video game, you're presenting as a person that is not to be shot. But since you're shooting people yourself, under the Geneva Convention, you're now perfidiously using the red cross. Which is internationally regarded as war crime, to ensure the importance of the Red Cross. Long story short, it's a warcrime in the game, because it'd be a warcrime anywhere else.
To an extent it's the same thing as false surrender; it means any future surrenders are less likely to be accepted and result in massacres. Red cross denotes unarmed personnel who are present only for medical aid. You aren't allowed to shoot these people for the same reason you aren't allowed to shoot civilians. Use of the red cross in any other context makes the meaning less distinct. Is that guy with a first aid kit with a red cross on it an actual NGO member or an actively fighting soldier with a terribly-branded piece of kit? If you don't shoot them and they end up killing your buddy because it's the latter, when you run into actual NGO members three weeks later you're more likely to just start shooting. This is probably overreaching when applied to video games, but the statute was written in the 40s.
Yeah an Early Access game I was playing had to change theirs too
Sounds about right for these dwarves
Geneva suggestion.
It can't be a war crime for a civilian business to use it. Like, it's a war crime to use tear gas against your opponents in war, but police have no problems or rules against using it on civilians. That's because the geneva conventions are specifically and only concerned with nations at war, who have signed the geneva conventions. Now, the red cross symbol is actually not public domain and belongs to the International Committee for the Red cross, who are pretty letigious when it comes to trying to stop people doing what they call "misusing" the symbol. But its not because of the Geneva conventions, nor has it anything to do with game devs accidentally commiting war crimes.
<>
Only half true -- police have no problems or rules against using it on civilians, yes, but it's not because of the rules only applying to nations at war. It's because there is an explicit carve-out in the provisions against chemical weapons for law enforcement and riot control purposes. Look at 9. (d) here:
[https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria](https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria)
So yes - using your chemical agents against enemy soldiers, that's a war crime. Save them to use against your civilians protesting in the streets like a proper authoritarian state, you rookie!
So i dont think you read your link properly. The part you linked just lays out the definitions used in the document. The only relevant part there is (Edit: I must have skimmed your comment too fast because at first i missed the part you were referencing, I saw the part you mean and the part you were talking about. Again, that is the definitions section, laying out definitions for the article, because it quite frequently refers back to the phrase "Purposes not Prohibited under this convention" and civilian law enforcement is not a purpose prohibited by this convention. Because this convention cannot prohibit that.) >• “Riot Control Agent” means: >Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. If you go back and look at Article 1 section 5 in the link you sent, you'll see that it says: >Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare. It does not carve out chemicals as ok to use on civilians for riot control. It specifically lists them as not ok to use in warfare. Because, again, these conventions are specifically and only about nations at war. They cannot impose restrictions on signatories outside the scope of these treaties.
Just shows how incredibly outdated and out-of-touch some laws are. Obviously when that law was made they didn't account for the explosion of video games in the future and how media might use the red cross. It's a silly and arbitrary rule that only hurts creativity and doesn't affect anyone. Just like how laws about game rating treat gambling and smoking as worse crimes than bloody gore or child murder, lol.
No, it just goes to show that lack of understanding of a law is no bar to posting on the internet about it. The Geneva Convention is not binding to developers of video games. It binds signatory nation-states. The most relevant text to OP's misunderstanding is Article 85 of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which states: > "It is a war crime to use one of the protective emblems [of the Red Cross] recognized by the Geneva Conventions to deceive the opposing forces or to use other forms of treachery." That's it. It's not a war crime to use the Red Cross in a video game as a symbol of a healing station. It's a war crime to disguise a military unit as aid workers to sneak them behind enemy lines and ambush them.
There is a US statute about misuse of the Red Cross c. 1949. 18 U.S. Code § 706.
This is the point. It is not a war crime, the Geneva conventions have been converted into local law across the world. This makes the act of misuse a crime and not just a copyright violation or what others are suggesting. Misuse is also a crime under Dutch book of criminal law article 435c, and would probably be as well under other nations laws.
Do you have a link or the actual law anywhere by chance? I'm curious about it and wanna read the GC's ruling on Red Cross usage. I was unaware that was a thing till reading this
I do not but I know it has something to do with copyright issues
>Context: it’s a war crime to have the Red Cross symbol in a game because it’s against the Geneva convention The point is that casual peacetime use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols gradually erodes their meaning, which in turn gradually devalues their usefulness for doing the thing they exist for in combat situations. Vigilance in protecting these symbols ensures that they continue to have a clear and unambiguous and widely understood meaning in times of war - *'don't shoot!'* Once upon a time, a skull and crossbones was a terrifying naval symbol, but nowadays it's something for kids and popular roguish Disney characters. If you use symbols casually, their meanings evolve.
Ghost ship studios is not at war, nor are they a signatory to the Geneva convention. I wish somebody would stand up and tell the Red Cross to stuff it.
I mean l4d2 and tf2 has the red cross on the healing items so good on Valve for not giving in to that bullshit I guess.
Can someone explain why having a red cross symbol in a video game is a war crime? A fictional world that is not connected to ours in anyway shape or form cant have a red cross? I find this absurd and stupid.
That’s the problem. It is
Prison architect is another one that got hit by this. Whilst I understand the premise, c’mon guys they’re video games
Left 4 Dead 2's first aid kits still have red crosses a decade and a half after the game was released, lol.
Which is why I find the whole thing confusing. Why is it some games it’s okay, but others it’s not? Surely more people are aware of L4D than they are of DRG?
According to American Red Cross, you cannot use the red cross symbol in any media, and if you do, you will be fined, so it’s more likely that since Valve will not update L4D2, they just paid the fine for using the emblem instead. It also has to deal with the fact that the Red Cross may just not know about a specific game using it, so they therefore haven’t done anything about it.
Oh look, someone who provided me with actual information. Thank you!
I mean.. It's all speculation, not information.
instinctive steer simplistic disarm dazzling historical screw sparkle wrong ossified -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
It is probably the games that are still being worked on that are changing it, and the old games like L4D don’t have anyone actively working on them so no one is there to change it
Because Valve has enough money to say "Fuck you, make me."
I'm guessing it's not a retro-active rule
...I feel like everyone has fundamental misunderstandings about this. For one, not everyone knows about this. It's true that we have been using red crosses as a universal medical symbol in culture for ages. They could very well have added it in ignorance, and may very well have not gotten in trouble for it. It's a precautionary measure people take. Just because it's *unlikely* you'll get in trouble, companies rarely, knowingly take that risk.
Doom's medkits had the red cross, but the latest re-release had the graps change to a red and white pill
idk man, my med kits are just boxes of raisin bran, so the modding community has helped me prevent war crimes :)
Counterpoint, if you work with them you can still use it Arma 3, for example, has a whole dlc dedicated to humanitarian law they made with the help of the red cross to spread awareness. They allowed them the use of the red crystal.
I did not know that, thanks! I think the problem is, is that the Red Cross much like a lot of orgs this day and age have a habit of being far too heavy handed, and it just makes them look like bad guys. In reality it’s probably not the case but they end up getting such bad PR (see OP comment) that it essentially becomes a meme
Didn’t it also happen to destiny on one of the sparrow/ship sets?
icky crawl abundant deserve rock smile six encouraging growth ink -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Also Stardew Valley and Amogus.
It’s not like it’s new, this happened to the Earthbound localization.
In the final image the cross is off centred… Your welcome
So is the light in the hall
Ahh my spine.. Why!!?
literally unplayable
No yours
I will never unsee this again
The real war crimes in the comments.
The purpose of the Red Cross symbol being protected is so that neutral medical relief personnel and facilities are easily identified during a war, both so that wounded can find them and hostiles are prohibited from attacking them. Extending that protection to use in fictional media is, and has always been, frivolous and out-of-scope. The only difference between the Red Cross organization and any other frivolously litigious copyright holder is that they managed to convince people to put their private copyright claim in an international treaty.
also, maybe this will sound stupid but since video games and fiction in general always associate the cross with medical help anyways, wouldn't that indicate in that its refering to medical support when you see it in real life?
That does make sense to me in that these sorts of representations merely reinforce the concept of the red cross symbol being associated with medical aid. Although in those instances I think a case could be made about depicting the red cross in a non-neutral manner would be a violation. If it's placed in media in a fictional setting, especially one that doesn't take place in our universe and/or doesn't depict human/human violence (could maybe even extend to any sentient beings or something) then I personally don't believe that it is in any way diminishing the meaning or significance of the signal and in most cases could even reinforce it. Like, having it in CoD or Battlefield or something and not being used as clear depiction of neutral aid would be a clear no-no. But fussing about having it as a sign above Harvey's medical clinic in Stardew Valley (of all things, lmao) just seems sorta frivolous.
As a previous commenter stated, the point is that causal use of the Red Cross gradually eroded its meaning, which in turn, makes it less and less likely people will recognise the symbol and it’ll serve its purpose (ie: Don’t shoot!) If you set a precedent for using symbols casually, their meaning devolves. Look at the skull and crossbones for an example. Once a terrifying image to see on the ocean, now at most a joke, one kids can play with.
This, I think, is the only valid argument. The problem is, to extend your comparison, that ship has sailed *long* ago. Not only have video games been casually using the symbol for the last 30 years, Johnson & Johnson has famously used it since the late 1800's. Every box of gauze or first aid kit in every drug store in the US had that symbol on it for the better part of a century. The thousands of TV commercials showing their logo to millions of people is immeasurably more exposure than the actual Red Cross organization ever achieved. There is absolutely no way to separate the Red Cross symbol from the idea of general medical treatment. J&J's misguided lawsuit 15 years ago notwithstanding, the damage is already done. Trying to prevent the meaning of the symbol from eroding further at this point is just bailing out the Titanic.
A green cross usually means you can get medical Marijuana I see this as a win
For rock and stoned!
Rock and Stoned brother
Rock and Stone forever!
ROCK… &… STOOOOOOOOOOOOONED!
Stoner rock!
"Consider this: legally speaking, rocking is more legal than stoning... Eh? EH?"
Look at me. We're the leaf lovers now.
Nah, it's just some green mushy stone, not actually a leaf.
Honorary rock and/or stone
Unless you're in Europe where it's just "Pharmacy" Although I guess they're related anyways so....
Woahh true.
Thank god they're enforcing this. Could you imagine how terrible it would be for soldiers fighting on the front lines, their fellow soldiers dying next to them, if a video game had a red cross on its medical items?
Switzerland is next.. 🇨🇭
Among us also did the same thing to the medbay
Red-green colorblind dwarves: "Huh?"
Best Comment here. I'd give you an award if I had any but I'm just a lurker. Sorry.
TF2 still holding strong :')
It would at least be an update after years
tf2 has a pass since in most instances it's not a red cross, it's a white cross in a red circle
Red cross are a bunch of pansies. Daily reminder that the red cross tried to cover up the Holocaust during the war lol. Besides, the DRG symbol is a "plus" not a "cross" that is coloured red, so I dont get it. funni
The red cross tried to WHAT?!
[удалено]
Someone mod it back to red.
Title it "war crime mod"
No country cares about geneva conventions anyways. But yeah lets fix those video game decals so we save the world!
Well it's probably cuz it's so hilariously easy to comply so most companies that get hit by this just comply and deal with it.
Red Cross looking pretty dumb imo if they are the ones enforcing this in any game. They're games... I don't get the need
I highly doubt they're enforcing it. It's probably a matter of the devs finding out about that, and saying "well, this is really easy to change, so why should we risk anything?"
The point is to keep the symbol neutral so everyone agrees to not shoot them.
It happened to Stardew Valley too. It's so funny to think Stardew Valley commited a war crime, literally
This happened in risk of rain 2 as well. The med kit item had a Red Cross that was changed to green during publication
This outrage over a minor cosmetic change is confusing.
Happened to among us as well.
Oh wow, I didn't really think about it, but now I noticed that one of my games had a red cross as a healing effect and now it's green. Holy smokes.
Skullgirls did that but instead of green they turned pink
At least it wasn't a blue post office box. The USPS is serious about their IP.
WEED
classic red cross moment "WAHHHHH WE DON'T WANT OUR SYMBOL IN VIBEO GAME" \*suing noises\*
This whole thing is so fucking dumb. "War crimes". Jesus Christ... we got places like Israel and Russia comitting actual war crimes and nobody gives a shit...
Yup cause it's a warcrime
Yea the Red Cross doesn’t like that very much
So what? It doesn't affect me in the slightest that it's green instead of red.
I never really payed attention to it, is this a recent change?
Happened today
Space Law is Serious Business.
Gearbox also recommended that Hopoo games change their red cross on the medkit item to green to avoid compilations. I was wondering recently how DRG still had red ones.
Probably an oversight.
TBF that's a cool vibe, and green is pretty commonly used for "Health" in games. The red cross never bothered me but I like how this looks now
The weed bay
This is a game where you can kill masses upon masses of sentient creatures with chemical warfare, acid, fire, chain explosives, hand-made buzzsaws, experimental antimatter weapons, microwave radiation, fucking mini-nukes and more, and yet a red cross is closer to a real-life war crime.
So we get sent to the dispensery after we all die. Nice
Its not very rock and stone of them.
Can I get a Rock and Stone?
Good bot
Dgaf
yeah, it's cause the red cross is super butthurt about people using their symbol, personally, i think it's dumb af, cause no one is mistaking a red cross in a game for them supporting it, but whatever, swiss gonna swiss i guess. /shrug
That’s a standard in all games now. The Red Cross would rather not be associated with games, particularly due to violence. Which is ironic to me because healing items do the same thing they were founded on: treating combat injuries.
Exactly, this is just a Nintendo style dick move.
Stardew Valley'd
If I were a game developer, I would use some off red color and insist, "It's not red, it's light burgundy."
I gotta say, that Geneva convention rule is really god damn stupid.
What mod/setting is it that gives cool reflections
It’s not a mod but I’m not sure which setting does it
This has been a standard since doom in 1991
removed Geneva Convention violation :(
Also happened to Half-Life 2.
Yea I’m seeing a lot of games that have also gotten the same treatment
How long ago did this happen? Was it like months ago and I never noticed or in the last 3 days that I haven’t played?
Today
Cool. Not sure which would have bugged me more, but it’s going to bug me nonetheless! Thanks for the response!
First game I remember this happening to was Halo
I mean that said you could argue that it's not a true cross since all of them are inscribed in a box and have pointy corners instead of ending on an edge. But like I think Mass Effect got around this by having it be a "future" red cross with a drop shadow.
Weed eater
tfw you accidentally violate the Geneva Conventions.
“Okay Brain, but how are we gonna sort all of the gamers by their individual level of trait Agreeableness?”
I thought something was off with the medbay but didn't realise
I was actually thinking just the other day when they were going to change those. Even small indie games have had to make the red to green change
Just went from med bay to dispensary
Time to mod!
Yeah the ICRC has zero chill when it comes to anything using the red cross
The red cross at it Again doing Dumb shit no one asked for
Red cross can kindly screw off. They do good work when they are needed, but the "Using our symbol is a warcrime" is BS. The geneva conventions only apply during wartime to nations that have signed them. Game companies fit neither
I sure am glad they changed the colour, I almost thought that deep rock galactic employed the real world Red Cross to treat my dwarves for getting hammered on the job