So, the Red Cross have got a bit upset (not for the first time I think - I believe they’ve made this protest before in years gone by) that they don’t like their symbol being associated with violent games, one can assume foremost on their minds here are those games where you run about shooting other people in the face, before patching yourself up with medical equipment bearing the Red Cross ‘brand’. And to some degree they have a point - the Red Cross does great work, and almost none of it involves strategically placing medical kits around the secret bases of international terrorists so that brave but also rabidly homicidal heroes can plug their various bullet holes earned during their adventures. Associating their organisational symbol with such wanton acts of violence probably doesn’t sit that well with them.
However, it does need some perspective. The red cross image has for decades been a symbol of emergency medical assistance, whether that assistance is administered by the Red Cross themselves or not. It’s natural that people associate with that symbol, and to some degree that puts it in the public domain in my opinion. However, the lawyers are involved now,so who knows what can happen. When it comes down to it though, I just think pursuing this is complete a waste of resources that could have been utilised much better for the real work that the Red Cross is out there to do. I mean, what damage does having a Red Cross symbol in a few games really do? It’s not as if they’re a for-profit company where customers will go to another supplier if they think the brand has lost value. What, are people going to turn down the Red Cross and defect to Medecins Sans Frontiers because there was a medipack in Soldier of Fortune? Are their supporters going to donate less because of that? I don’t think so. I respect the Red Cross a great deal, but this is not a fight they should be picking, I’m sure many in their organisation could utilise the funds being used on it for better effect.