No 'Call of Duty' without 'Rules of War'

[0ni0n]

Evan Spencer, 13, had to read all four treaties of the Geneva Conventions before his dad would let him play "Call of Duty: World at War." Dad hopes the exercise helped his son appreciate a bit more about the realities of war.

By Kristin Kalning
Games editor
msnbc.com
updated 9:06 a.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 27, 2009

Evan Spencer wanted to play “Call of Duty: World at War.” So he asked his dad.

Hugh Spencer wasn’t initially thrilled about the idea of his son playing the World War II-based game. “I’ve never really enjoyed first-person shooter games,” he confesses. “They’re just not my favorite aesthetic.”

But the elder Spencer agreed to his son’s request, on one condition: Evan would have to read all four treaties from the Geneva Conventions first. And then, agree to play by those rules.

This story was posted on BoingBoing earlier this week, and it’s been picked up by the game blogs. Most commenters applaud Spencer’s novel approach. But some get downright juvenile and nasty, criticizing dad, questioning whether you can even play “Call of Duty” and abide by the Geneva Conventions — and writing mean things about his son. You know — typical Internet venom. Aimed at a 13-year-old kid.

Spencer the elder is taken aback by all the flaming. He certainly doesn’t expect his son to consult the written rules while he’s playing (he might get fragged, after all). But dad wanted his son to “be aware that there are things called rules of war.”

Spencer and his wife, Helen, have two sons: Evan and Simon, 15. Both like to game, although Simon is more of a “Final Fantasy” type. The boys have “just about every console out there,” says dad, but the games in their Toronto home are mostly E-rated, with very few teen or mature-rated titles. The “Call of Duty” conversation was the first time that “the rubber had hit the road,” says Spencer.

World War II isn’t just pixels on a screen for dad, who works as interpretive designer for museums and other public exhibitions. His uncle was a U.S. Marine in the Pacific Theater during World War II. And his grandfather fought in both world wars. Many people, he says, have been in subsequent wars, and “people are in war, right now. And it’s not a game. It’s really not a game.”

Full excerpt here

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Evan Spencer, 13, had to read all four treaties of the Geneva Conventions before his dad would let him play "Call of Duty: World at War." Dad hopes the exercise helped his son appreciate a bit more about the realities of war.

By Kristin Kalning
Games editor
msnbc.com
updated 9:06 a.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 27, 2009

Evan Spencer wanted to play “Call of Duty: World at War.” So he asked his dad.

Hugh Spencer wasn’t initially thrilled about the idea of his son playing the World War II-based game. “I’ve never really enjoyed first-person shooter games,” he confesses. “They’re just not my favorite aesthetic.”

But the elder Spencer agreed to his son’s request, on one condition: Evan would have to read all four treaties from the Geneva Conventions first. And then, agree to play by those rules.

This story was posted on BoingBoing earlier this week, and it’s been picked up by the game blogs. Most commenters applaud Spencer’s novel approach. But some get downright juvenile and nasty, criticizing dad, questioning whether you can even play “Call of Duty” and abide by the Geneva Conventions — and writing mean things about his son. You know — typical Internet venom. Aimed at a 13-year-old kid.

Spencer the elder is taken aback by all the flaming. He certainly doesn’t expect his son to consult the written rules while he’s playing (he might get fragged, after all). But dad wanted his son to “be aware that there are things called rules of war.”

Spencer and his wife, Helen, have two sons: Evan and Simon, 15. Both like to game, although Simon is more of a “Final Fantasy” type. The boys have “just about every console out there,” says dad, but the games in their Toronto home are mostly E-rated, with very few teen or mature-rated titles. The “Call of Duty” conversation was the first time that “the rubber had hit the road,” says Spencer.

World War II isn’t just pixels on a screen for dad, who works as interpretive designer for museums and other public exhibitions. His uncle was a U.S. Marine in the Pacific Theater during World War II. And his grandfather fought in both world wars. Many people, he says, have been in subsequent wars, and “people are in war, right now. And it’s not a game. It’s really not a game.”

Full excerpt here

I think that's a really cool approach to teaching kids, instead of outright abstaining or just not giving a shit.

The kid obviously isn't going to play by the rules of the Geneva Convention and the dad doesn't seem to expect him to but it's going to make him think about that when he plays and will stick with him for life.

Very clever on pops part.

[Cephius]

Responsible parents like these should get commended more. Kids who shoot up schools don't have parents like these.

Responsible parents > the influence of any game

[MrW]

I agree. Even if he doesn't abide by the rules. Who would want to. No scope everyone in my opinion. At least he gets a little background before he plays.

[Suited Aces]

I don't even think you could break the Geneva conventions while playing CoD if you wanted to. As far as I remember its about prisoners of war and allowing care for wounded soldiers.

I guess you can't make the kill shot when they got last stand active.

[Kuya]

Now that is good parenting.

[OzzofAsura]

I'm not sure what he wanted his son to take away from reading the four treaties of the Geneva Convention. It seems pretty impractical in the context of Call of Duty. You run around and shoot people... That's all. You don't get the option to torture the opposing force or pillage the village or anything. If I see any benefit, it would be that the dad is involved with his kid, as far as his gaming goes. I guess that itself is cool.

[HAcoreRD]

Is the Swiss a playable faction in COD: World at War?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'm not sure what he wanted his son to take away from reading the four treaties of the Geneva Convention. It seems pretty impractical in the context of Call of Duty. You run around and shoot people... That's all. You don't get the option to torture the opposing force or pillage the village or anything. If I see any benefit, it would be that the dad is involved with his kid, as far as his gaming goes. I guess that itself is cool.

The idea that war in itself is more complex than picking what gun you like and respawning 5 seconds after you die maybe? I'd wager quite a bit that even adults that play CoD don't have an apt enough concept of the realities and atrocities of war much less the complexities and positions that would cause a conflict.

Something this kid may not take away in history class because it was too boring is now with him for life because he can associate it with something he enjoys. Pretty clever and effective imo.

[OzzofAsura]

The idea that war in itself is more complex than picking what gun you like and respawning 5 seconds after you die maybe? I'd wager quite a bit that even adults that play CoD don't have an apt enough concept of the realities and atrocities of war much less the complexities and positions that would cause a conflict.

Something this kid may not take away in history class because it was too boring is now with him for life because he can associate it with something he enjoys. Pretty clever and effective imo.

That's the obvious part. What I have the problem with, is that CoD is only aesthetically related to war. That is really not how wars go. He could have just as well said "Read <insert classic novel here> then you can play". If anything associating war with CoD would be making it seem more glamorous, when it obviously is not.

Like I said, it is not a bad approach as far as involvement. But how much do you think this kid actually took away from those readings?

[MrW]

More than he did from not reading them at all.

[Day]

I never read that shit, so he knows more about them than me.

Obviously COD isn't real war, I'm not sure wtf you're even saying.

[Athas]

An interesting approach.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

That's the obvious part. What I have the problem with, is that CoD is only aesthetically related to war. That is really not how wars go. He could have just as well said "Read <insert classic novel here> then you can play". If anything associating war with CoD would be making it seem more glamorous, when it obviously is not.

Like I said, it is not a bad approach as far as involvement. But how much do you think this kid actually took away from those readings?

In my life I'd say experiences I learned the most from were either associated with something really bad or really enjoyable.

When I was 10 years old I called a neighbor I played with all the time that was my age and who was black the N word. My dad beat the hell out of me and made me write a 5 page essay on each topic of the Civil War, Slavery, and the Civil Rights movement.

I learned a pretty valuable lesson through that experience that has effected my outlook on life forever regarding race and civil rights, even though I ignorantly repeated a word I heard some older kids saying at the park without any malice at my neighbor.

Now granted this is the exact opposite of what happened here, but I think it was a more effective way of teaching me a lesson instead of saying "You're grounded for a month, go apologize and don't do that again."

This kid having to earn his right to play a war simulator by reading the Geneva Convention is on the same level imo, and he'll remember it well when watching a war movie, playing a war game, and maybe someday himself becoming a soldier.

And I'm gonna have to disagree about the "only aesthetically related to war" part seeing as the single player mode does has a story to follow that talks about a historically significant point in time that entirely based on war. Even missions from CoD go into tactical portions or rescue missions.

[OzzofAsura]

Without going into a long debate...

-I thought it was a decent idea.
-I question the effectiveness.

What I meant by "aesthetic" is that it looks like war, but does not play out like war. Obviously being a video game, it is exaggerated in many areas and trying to make a correlation to actual happenings could be just as bad as it might be good.

I'm just not quick to over-praise this guy. Like I said, his intentions were good.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Without going into a long debate...

-I thought it was a decent idea.
-I question the effectiveness.

What I meant by "aesthetic" is that it looks like war, but does not play out like war. Obviously being a video game, it is exaggerated in many areas and trying to make a correlation to actual happenings could be just as bad as it might be good.

I'm just not quick to over-praise this guy. Like I said, his intentions were good.

I'd suck his dick.

Does that mean I win?

[OzzofAsura]

I'd suck his dick.

Does that mean I win?

You win something. Not sure if you want it or not...

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You win something. Not sure if you want it or not...

Boy I hope it's one of those pearl necklaces I keep hearing about.

[OzzofAsura]

Boy I hope it's one of those pearl necklaces I keep hearing about.

rofl! If you wish upon a star...

Back on topic!

[Devolver]

13 year old playing a "M" rated game? and the parent hasn't been hauled off to federal prison yet?

Thats the real story here