Guys... Watch this.



EA marketing team... What the FUCK where you smoking when you decided this was a good idea?

Okay, I want to talk primarily about three things.


Okay... First of all. The demographic that you're aiming at are young adolescent who are still under the control of their moms, or are immature enough to feel like they must rebel against them. The advertisement's tongue-in-cheek method may score some brownie points with these impressionable young'uns, but will turn off everyone else. Remember that the average age of a gamer is 30... by then, one'd Hopefully not still feel they need their mom's approval, or rather disapproval, to buy and play this game. The other thing is that the target audience of this ad usually have their parents buy the game... And I highly doubt their parents will like this ad... Even hardcore gamer dads will feel indifferent, assuming that they're smart enough to realize that Gore Graphics is completely irrelevant to a good game.

Speaking of good games... Gameplay footage in the real commercial is shown briefly in the end. The focus of most game adverts is Peripheral, meaning that they're trying to get the audience to buy something by influencing them with the attributes of the ad. For example, having tons of exciting footage and have a very excited announcer talk about tons of random facts about the game is effecting in persuading you to buy the game. The other route, called the Central route, uses compelling arguments to tell the audience why the product is good. So, why on Earth are you trying to make a compelling argument that Moms are going to Hate the game? Only people who pay attention to the ad will be persuaded. And the people who pay attention would at least realize how awful of a joke this ad is. You've lost the interest of the gamers, and you've disgusted the people who actually paid attention.

Either that, or the whole team thinks that their target audience is stupid enough to argue that something their Moms hate will be fun for them, purely based on its graphic nature... i.e., they think we only care about the graphics and nothing else. And this.. really.. rots the core of the game industry.

.. will continue with point 2 and 3 later
Point 2: http://www.staredit.net/281121/
Point 3: pending

EDIT: Recent video from someone that I fully respect and have linked to several times in this thread. He finds these commercials just as wrong as I do. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2794-An-Open-Letter-to-EA-Marketing

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Feb 25 2011, 6:58 am by UnholyUrine.

Yeah this is not at all what you call "research" by any professional standard.

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Feb 14 2011, 8:15 am by Tuxedo-Templar.

Meh. It's Dead Space. People thought the first one was awesome, so they'll get the second one regardless of what the commercial is. I doubt any mom's are going to go research commercials for the game before they think about buying it. If someone says, "Mom, can I get this game?", the mother will probably just give them a yes/no answer.

I thought it was funny and I have been living away from home for four years. It was a joke commericial and it made a joke that I thought was funny. Since I bought the game without seeing this ad I can't really comment on its efficacy though. I guess you could try and conduct an experiment or something. "Did watching the ad make you buy the game? Y/N."

This game was awesome and I have now bought DS1 to play that through. It's type of 'jump scares' aren't nearly as bland as Doom's which I thought was a major plus for the horror segment, the music and sound effects worked really well, also. I wrote a review on it.

My mother watched me play Resident Evil 4 a few years back. She thought it was alright.

Then again, my mother is awesome.

The whole point of advertising is to raise awareness of a product in any way possible. The very fact that there is now a thread about an advert on a totally unrelated gaming forum speaks volumes over the effect of this advert.



I think you completely missed the point.

1. The advert made Dead Space 2 look pretty appealing and cool actually. Lots of gory/puking shit and explosions. I'm sold.
2. This advert is a big 'fuck you' to society and anti-game activists and goes very far to show just how little the game developers actually care about the concern of an individual.
3. Havn't played the game, so I can't comment.

@Cardinal

Can't say for your refute for no. 1, cause that's subjective... for me, that's just boring old gore... It never will be able to scare me like Fear did with their Grizzly Bear segment.

2. Disagree. While it could be a big 'fuck you', it only helps to fuel the argument. There isn't anything intellectual about this advertisement.. no compelling or insightful arguments can be made to say that gaming does NOT affect people in ways that politicians and anti-game activists think they do.
If it shows that the game developers are ignorant about it, then they have a reason why things must be done to it...
so what you said just elaborated on what tends to fuel the people arguing for the other side.

3. I've played dead space 1, but not 2.. so while I can't comment too much, i'm sure I can infer some

It's atmosphere is great. Incapacitation the enemies is a very well made game mechanic, and overall, it Is scary and cool... for the first bit. But it gets repetitive.. and you can basically guess where the aliens will pop up from.. which defeats the horror purpose.. and the game becomes just a big gore fest..

---

I guess I should say this too.
It'd be nice if you make actually Talk About the Purpose of the OP, rather than just nitpick others' post. The 3 points I made were just what I was going to talk about, and I haven't even talked about no. 2 or no. 3...

Oh and, I totally agree.. they succeeded in the basic purpose of the ad.. which is to get people to know about the game... it's true... the purpose of this post is to critique the ad not on how it functioned, but the concepts behind it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 12 2011, 10:54 pm by UnholyUrine.

@Unholy:

The underlying point is that there is absolutely no scientific or medical proof that violent computer games cause kids to be violent. Which likens the whole politician/anti-gaming activist group to a bunch of hippies arguing that tree's have feelings. I guess my first post was a bit nitpicking - but I see a recurring theme to most of your topics: game developer has done some great injustice, or in this case "EA marketing team... What the FUCK where you smoking when you decided this was a good idea?". So, I guess I am simply disagreeing.

Wrong..
I've only been doing that at Blizzard Activision

This is somewhat different. But EA is one of those game companies that are simply looking for easy money and are not interested in pushing the gaming industry in the right direction.

No matter what, the ad is still distasteful. I mean if Blood and Gore is enough to excite you to buy the game, cardinal, that says a lot about how little you know, or at least how ignorant you are, about the design and concepts behind truly fantastic games.

Hint: it's never about graphics.

(I do want you to prove me wrong.)

Something I'll support regardless of who is making it. EA did a ballsy move here, although the whole appealing to teens comes off a little immature (they probably more attracted 10 year olds to it than anything assuming we're looking at the commercial at face value), all the while the footage behind the commercial shows off just how awesome the game is, a subconcious appeal to older audiences.

What is this right direction? And name me one game company that is pushing the industry in that direction.


So what if the ad is distasteful. It's supposed to be. It's about perspective. You find this ad distasteful - are you a mom? People play computer games to escape. Take a look at the advert in the OP again, the footage of the game play looks genuinely pretty good. The shaders, the lighting, the graphics, the physics, the explosions, the variety of weapons all seem to look damn good. Edit: And yes, I much prefer a game with guts and intestines being ripped out of people by ballistic weapons, than cuddly fields of animals all living happy lives.

And, while, yes - graphics don't make a game good, we are in the year 2011 and hardware is pretty bitchin' right now - at least until ARM processors start hitting the shelves, in which case shits gonna get a lot better looking. It's pretty much standard procedure for new releases to strive to have the best graphics. Imagine if they released TES:V using the Morrowind graphics engine - even if it had the absolutely best plot line, dialogues, voice acting, quests, weapons, combat and spell systems... It would be hated, because it would look like shit. I mean 'hated' here, in the sense that it wouldn't sell as many copies - which is what ALL software publishing comes down to. You can put all that 'the customer is always right' and 'right direction' garbage in your pipe and smoke it. It's simple economics and NOT gameplay mechanics which governs the software on the shelves these days.

Go play minecraft. See, again, all about perspective.

I'm still waiting. Why are droves of angry peasants not protesting and holding picket-signs outside of local game retailers. Why are we not seeing radical new legislation and stricter imposement of identification at point of sale for computer games? Could it be that your second point holds absolutely no merit? (wherein you state that this advert gives 'truckloads of ammunition' to anti-games activists and 'opportunistic politicians')... I think a much likelier scenario is that these 'anti-games activists' and 'opportunistic politicians' are an underdog category - and their voice will never matter or have an impact to affect the economics of the game industry.

It's not the 70s any more - where Clockwork Orange (the film) was banned outright in the United Kingdom and largely edited in the United States. On the contrary, this film which was so 'disgusting' and 'hated' in it's day has now been awarded with numerous BAFTA awards, American Film Institute (AFI) awards, Directors Guild (of America) awards and Golden Globes.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that the portrayal of brutality, violence and outright disgusting scenes is becoming acceptable. We are living in a free-world. If certain handfuls of people don't like it, they can just ignore it - because they live in a world where other people do like it - and it's this mutuality of freedom that renders both parties vulnerable.

And while neither of us have actually played this game - we can pretty much render point 3 to be invalid.

Finally, someone else who understands.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Feb 13 2011, 11:36 pm by Cardinal.

It looks like an easy go at viral marketing. Easy to mock or parody, easy to talk about. Hey here's the deal. You talked about it. So as far as I can tell, their advertising strategy is working.

Pretty much, Kame.

I thought this one flippin hillarious lol

Also bought the game so they won, didn't see the ad though lol. Just supporting the horror game industry yup

@naming one company who's going the right direction
Valve.
can't think of any others who has been consistently doing good things. key word being consistent.

Cardinal, the examples you're making are off the scale. They wouldn't happen even if the commercial was really, REALLY distasteful.
Man, that's EXACTLY the problem I'm getting at.
SHOULD simple economics and not gameplay mechanics govern the software?
SHOULD people always be just hyped by all the commercials, all the blood and gore, and all the pretty graphics, and settle for ill-conceived gameplay design, mechanics, and community support?
I'm just not going to accept that.

I know you feel strongly against me, cardinal.. probly cause I called you a freaking bird But I don't get it. You're asking me why I constantly "hate" on the gaming industry, then why do you constantly side with them? Are they REALLY that damn great?
Take a step back and as yourself some questions... It may not be that simple for you because you haven't felt the same feeling of anger and defeat from the release of SC2. No chat channels, no clan support, no LAN, no good custom map system, facebook integration... the list goes on. Heck, just yesterday, Mapnight ended up on SC1, and Payne, EvilEntropy, and I all agreed that SC1 is still superior.

You see, the things that are important are not being cared about anymore. Graphics don't make a game, and you know it with the Minecraft example. So I really don't understand why any of you'd get so excited over some dumb, gory commercial..
(wait, when u said minecraft, you meant that it's a GOOD game that has shitty graphics right? Or is it that you actually dislike that game... lols?)

The humor in this add is tasteless, tongue-in-cheek dreadful. It is shit that you and your guys laugh about only when you're in a bar half-ass drunk.
Buying a game just for its gore is just being immature. I'd pick Little Big Planet over this gory mess any day. Why? Because I'm sure as fuck it has better gameplay than Dead Space 2.

Okay okay.. EZTerix's example is better. Medium Disapprove

And remember, I agree that the ad did its job perfectly. Heck I'm still selling it as I'm typing this. I just don't like the way it was done.

---

And you can stop being so rude, cause I'm getting quite crossed with you now.

With so much uncertainty in the economy why now, why should any company take on lengthy, risky products? Its probably full of all the gimmicks that casuals like because the company needs/wants the money.

To reiterate:

1. Minecraft is shit, I hope to never have the misfortune of playing it.
2. Economics and not game mechanics - you need to accept this.
3. Feelings of anger and defeat? At a computer game letting me down? No thanks.
4. Starcraft 2 is awesome. SC1 wasn't perfect on the day it was released.
5. Valve have just been re-releasing their old classics. Counterstrike 1.3 was their Starcraft 1. If their games were governed by good mechanics instead of good business/economics, they would have the balls to innovate.

Innovation is risky, and will probably cause job loss.

Just playing devils advocate here.

But there are a lot of things that are being ignored that has nothing to do with innovation, or spending resources to research something new.

I know picking on SC2 is an unpopular thing to do, but it is also the most referable example.
Saying that SC2 can be excused just because it may get better over time, and noting that SC1 wasn't as good as it were when it was just released, is a very backwards way of thinking. It's like saying that Calculus students can be expected to not know how to do algebra just because it was taught a few years ago. Moreover, the things that were left out on SC2 were very important.

There is no innovation here. It is learning through its own History, which the developers have obviously neglected. This is the biggest reason why I currently feel such resentment to Blizzard. I don't understand why they can ignore something they've done so well before.

---

Anyway, getting back on topic. I'm going to discuss why I think this commercial fuels anti-gaming.
But first, please view this video: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2414-Facing-Controversy

This video touched upon some reasons as to why games are such easy targets. Video Games as a whole is a growing media, and many people still don't understand it. Controversies are easily blamed on the developers, and publishers are simply avoiding the fact, shielding themselves by saying that "it's just a game".

This "Mom hates this" campaign purposefully rides on this wave of negativity. It is a gimmick that, to quote from the video, "EA isn't above doing". It undermines the growth of the media by portraying it's target audience to be no more than the common stereotype of a gamer - an anti-social, basement-dwelling, confused teenager that's still under the rule of his/her parents but immaturely rebels against them. If we want the game industry to evolve and be more accepted, we cannot continue to hide under the impression that games are just toys for little kids.

Another problem with these commercials is that they provide a easy way for people to judge games. I mean, this is pretty much a given. With these commercials, politicians and media folks who're looking for a easy-target will now not even need to do any research on the game to influence others that this game is bad. It also provides a great way to say that games have no artistic merit. Which brings to another important topic: Games under the law of Free Speech

Again, watch this video - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech

With the support of the video above, I'm going to point a finger and say this. Cardinal, it is very naive to believe that games will never fall under legal restrictions.

Why do you think Starcraft 2 is under so much restrictions? All the censorship filters? Zero political/sexual issues in the campaign? Why does it need to restrict itself just to be rated T for Teens? Does it really affect the game's market? One can easy overlook this, and say that it doesn't matter. But in hindsight, why are the people behind Blizzard/Activision sacrificing so much just to get a T for Teen rating? It's not just to protect themselves from lawsuits, it is also to protect themselves in case new laws and restrictions come into play as they continue to release the 2nd and 3rd installment of the Starcraft Trilogy.

Getting back to the commercials, the issue here is that this campaign is in complete conflict with the most currently controversial subject in the gaming industry, the ESRB ratings.
If you're familiar with Jack Thompson, the "evangelist" who has been in numerous talk shows and tried to prove that gaming is bad for kids, you'd notice that his primary goal wasn't to cause doom to all games. His goal was to enforce stricter laws in accordance to the ESRB ratings - that mature games can only be sold to mature audiences.
Out of all the controversies, the ESRB is the one in the grayest zone of all. Why have this rating if it isn't enforced? Why are mature games being sold to children who may not be able to choose the correct media. Why are ratings enforced for movies and TV programs, but not games? These are hard questions to answer... and this commercial campaign totally fucks this up the ass.

Dead Space 2 is a Mature title, yet the commercial infers that its target audience are players who are evidently not mature enough to decide for themselves, and still be influenced by their mothers. Most of us have already grown out of this stage, and are probably thinking how humorous these commercials are, or overrated these things are.
But really, take a step back and think about the arguments that can arise. Minors are considered not mature enough to make "correct choices" (for the lack of a better phrase), i.e. they are legally protected from the "choice" of alcohol, the "choice" of watching mature/sexual television and movies, and the "choice" of electing the wrong president/premier.
So, is it really that far off to argue that Minors should also be protected from the "choice" of playing Mature games that may scar them for life?

Look guys. I can see how you can say they're just being ballsy and defying people... But being loud and proud about isn't going to make us look any better. These commercials are distasteful and are as bad of a gimmick as constantly releasing Madden with little variations.

If we want to have better games, we need to see the industry evolve and be accepted. Risks have to taken in order to open the way for future developers to create even more immersive, more exciting, and hopefully more controversial games for us to enjoy.

(case in point, any games that's driven purely by "simple economics" will act to deter/slow the growth of the industry as an acceptable media. It will ultimately, if not already, be cause of repetitive, uncreative game releases that are no different from its predecessors)

---

Kinda off-topic, but I wanted to end this on a good note.
the reason why Valve is going the right direction:



Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Feb 15 2011, 9:11 pm by UnholyUrine.

I haven't really read anything in this thread except the first post and couple of replies, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.

I think the ad itself is actually pretty effective. It's something that hasn't been done before.

The major criticism I make about their methodology, is that they only showed the most violent aspects, out of context from the rest of the game. I think a lot of their reactions about "this is a game?" is probably relating to the fact that it just appears like a mindless bunch of violence for no purpose. But there is a purpose - there's a storyline behind it, lots of much slower exploration scenes interspersed with this action, not the least of which is that this is a survival horror game so the violent bits try to provoke strong emotions in the player. It's like if you take Independence Day and just chop all the violent bits out and put them randomly together and show someone who has never seen an action movie before and say "this is a really good action movie!" - you'll get confused responses because they can't make sense of what they're seeing or why someone else would find it entertaining.

As far as the ad's impact on society - yeah, seems like good fodder for the anti-gaming crowd.