Red Cross is wading into the debate on video game violence in a very particular way. It’s not asking for the violence to be less realistic. Rather, it wants the consequences of ruthless violence in war games to be more realistic. Wait, that’s not right either. The Red Cross wants the consequences of ruthless violence in war games to be the same as it wishes the consequences for real world war crimes actually were. Daily Tech explains:

Red Cross wants video game developers to add punishments for war crimes in their titles as war games continue to become more and more realistic.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) wants realistic war games to imitate the real thing by employing virtual consequences for war crimes like torture during interrogation, attacks on medical units, and deliberate attacks on civilians.

"It is very difficult to make the difference between real footage and the footage you can get from video games, so we are arguing that we have to get even closer to reality, and we also have to include the rules of the law on conflict," said François Sénéchaud, head of the ICRC's Division for the Integration and Promotion of the Law.

Would that mean that if the player has a random Yemeni family killed by drones, he or she will be sent a Nobel Peace Prize in the mail? Or perhaps the player would face the possibility of sanctions from the United Nations until Russia vetoes them.

Read more here at Slashdot as well.

(Hat tips to NP Complete and Felix Finch)

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.