wasn't it because of swastikas? I think they are banned from any fiction which is not historical. I do not know exact legislation tough.
second what Cleido said
and
You see red symbol as a universal sign for health BECAUSE of Red Cross. Their hard work for decades made the symbol what is today. They believe using it everywhere in games diminish what this symbol stands for. I agree.
I do not think they have problem with red cross being featured on ambulances in war settings for example aka where it is appropriate.

red cross/crescent don't make sense. by their logic, we wouldn't have war crimes in film, tv, novels... how many oscar films are all about these? and once you concede the principle, then we won't have any kind of 'objectionable' content in media for fear of offending someone. this is the road to PC tyranny

If the money donated to Red Cross is going to be used to lobby for pro censorship stances now i won't be able to support it further with coin, sorry.

To answer their question, no, their 'mandate' shouldn't fucking be extended to the virtual victims (wtf?, really?) of games or whatever and frankly even so much as entertaining the notion is offensive.

It's PETA and the Tanooki suit all over again. Gaming is an easy target because our journalists can't get enough of bad news. Kotaku have for years been playing on the idiot gamers image and this kind of coverage just plays into that. If this was the music or movie industry it wouldn't even make the news, that's my point. The better websites and journalists haven't covered this story at all which is the right thing to do. What will be the next organisation needing some free advertisment that will demonise gaming?

Actually, I think that had more to do with the Swastikas and "cartoonizing" of Nazis.

The better websites and journalists don't peddle themselves, or their integrity, for hits ;)

Take your pick. I'm sure that "advocating a stance against video games" has its own chapter in any decent advertising text book now.

It's a shame that Red Cross saw fit to waste time and money putting togheter a convention to pursue political agendas that shouldn't even be on their radar.

I think you're giving the Red Cross way too much credit. With the Nike and Shell signs, they have a minimum of design that is not so simple to reproduce. With the red cross it's five squares conjoined to make a basic 'plus' or "cross" symbol. My reasoning for it being a universal sign for health was not that it's so common, it's that it's so easy to logically create. It's a 'plus' (as I see it) 'adding' a greater amount of 'red', the color of blood and an obvious sign of health.

There is no logic for a red cross diminishing their symbol in a videogame anymore than it would on an ambulance. The connotations for both are the same and obvious, that there is a positive sign of health recovery. Promoting their basic principles you could say. Also, there's no risk of confusing a red cross's connotations in a videogame with what may be a global organization as it takes place in a fictional world.

The only reason they could take issue with it is if they reasoned that the game was somehow falsely implying that the Red Cross is endorsing the game, which is just ridiculous given the ease of symbolism and the fact that the sign is so common. It's one thing to see an in game billboard, but when you're seeing a floating red plus or a red plus on a health kit, you're not thinking "gee, I really feel like donating some money or blood now" or "I can't believe the Red Cross would endorse this shameful product!!!"

While I agree that the notion of what they're arguing is ridiculous, it's news in itself that what is an international aid organization, which should (and is recognized as having) be comprised of sensible and thoroughly well-meaning people would have interest in creating such a law and interfering with an entire medium in such fashion. Not to mention the power that an organization with such obvious influence would have over a political body. In many ways, since they are considering lobbying law makers about this perceived issue, it would be irresponsible not to inform a potential audience about it so that they may educate themselves and influence, through populist means, the law makers and even the policy makers of the Red Cross not to follow through with such senselessness.

Let's not forget that Red Cross takes donations from the public at large and that this could be a misuse of funds, or at least change one's support for an otherwise humanitarian organization into a passive endorsement of some ridiculous ideology.

This thread is stupid.

It's not like they are the first to make note of this.

Red Cross makes a dumb statement towards the game industry. Game industry journalists talk about it. OH MY GOD RIOT IN THE STREETS.

I give RC too much credit?

Cross meaning health. The red cross... it is because of them. it is because RC used red cross to bring aid where it was needed. People saw this symbol and knew they can get help, they knew they should not attack it as they might be needing their help someday too.
I don't think we all give them enough credit for what this organization does, did and will do.
Your association of cross with health is because of them, not because it is simple to create or you associate it with plus aka add life. That's modern only association because games used RC symbol.

And they are right. the more i think about it i agree. their symbol. being used on medpacks, on aid stations? in games which promote violence, murder?
They have all the right to not want it there

Solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine

I don't mean to say that the Red Cross is not deserving of credit as an organization, apologies if it came off as such. I simply meant in the context of their ownership of the symbol.

To be pedantic, by healing warriors on a battlefield are they not being complicit to wars and violence?

But in any matter, you've made the concession that certain videogames promote violence (and murder) and I don't really wish to pursue the societal implications of that (at least in this thread -- as valid as they may be).

I think we can only agree to disagree. In an alternate universe without their organization, I see the red cross (plus) being just as viable as a health symbol.

Edit: Just to add to my point, my problem with the Red Cross is not they they choose to have a symbol which they make trademark claims [fallacious, not a trademark, I should've known better] , it's the fact that they chose such a generic and easily reproducible symbol in the first place (or at least that they would lay claim to it). It's not like complex symbols didn't exist prior to their inception. To fix the situation, I only propose that they add a bit of stylization to the cross or (what they've been doing) place the name of their organization within their symbol. [Stylization may or may not work. They would need to alter the symbol greatly so that they could make another generalized mark (but less easily created), or simply allow the mark freedom from the Red Cross namesake. I did not give this situation enough credit for it's complexity initially. But I still believe my logic is sound and should have been used during the Geneva Convention.]

by minimizing the suffering as best they can? no. it existed before and nobody associated it with health. you do the association because of them. nothing else. There is a reason why it is simple, easily identifiable... VISIBLE FROM FAR AND UNDERSTOOD WITH A SINGLE GLANCE.
and why there is no foreign language, why it is not stylized.

I am not going to tell you why. Go figure it out yourself.

We're reducing the suffering in games as well. Disagree. [Edit]You just made my case. If it existed before, then the symbol was already too generic to lay a trademark claim on. [2nd Edit] I'm somewhat wrong about this. It's not a trademark, I should've recognized that. But that the mark was used before does add significance to my argument that the symbol is too generic.

I already argued the logic of it. If you can't agree, then just leave it at that. What you're saying doesn't make much sense. If it's visible from afar and easily understood, then how is that the Red Cross is the only one that can lay claim to it? There had to have been a time when the Red Cross association wasn't so well known or international and it was still understood as a health symbol then.

Also, if you add "Red Cross" [the words are used and associated with the mark, whether it's in the speaker's native language or not... but I should be fair and say that there should be no small differences that distinguish the idea of the Geneva Convention's limitation. I still argue it shouldn't be limited to the Red Cross... but blocking a trademarked use of the red cross on white is understandable... though I'd argue assigning it solely to the Red Cross (which has abused it's place as an organization) is wrong.] to the trademark [not a trademark], you're not making it any more hard to understand, the basic symbol is still associated with the purpose. If you stylize it, you're adding more subtle marks to it to make it distinguishable as a trademark, from afar the symbol is still cognizably the same. Just like you can tell a coat of arms without knowing which faction it necessarily represents. [It still is like a coat of arms (it's not 'actually' a coat of arms, that's not my argument) in that it's symbolism is easily generally recognizable, even with some slight stylization]

Even if the Red Cross was associated with them, the symbol is widespread and universal enough that to make legal claim to it is absurd [It's not absurd, only unfair and disagreeable. They should have used the same discretion as would have been used in trademark law, or they should simply have not given the Red Cross primacy over it]. It's like Russia demanding payment because their flag was placed in a game [this analogy is weaker since it was a gathering of nations who assigned the protection of the symbol. It's still an unfair limitation to place upon a work of fiction, though]. They can be as offended as they want, it's the restriction of a basic symbol to only their organization that's the problem.