Sega forced to admit wrongdoing in Alien: Colonial Marines advertising
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
So basically, Sega release a piece of crap but indirectly lied about what it would look like by not saying the advertisement was not representative of the actual game content?
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I was happy with everything in this article until I got to this line: "In 2007, the organization banned a Burnout ad for being overly offensive and promoting antisocial driving behavior."
It's....a video game. It's not trying to promote any real-life behavior. To think that it is tells me that you (EDIT: by "you" I am referring to the ASA, not Ars) don't understand the medium. Video game advertisements are not like car advertisements; the only thing they advertise is the experience of the game in question.
While I'm glad they got someone to fess up over the ACM debacle, that last bit leaves a really sour taste in my mouth.
It's....a video game. It's not trying to promote any real-life behavior. To think that it is tells me that you (EDIT: by "you" I am referring to the ASA, not Ars) don't understand the medium. Video game advertisements are not like car advertisements; the only thing they advertise is the experience of the game in question.
While I'm glad they got someone to fess up over the ACM debacle, that last bit leaves a really sour taste in my mouth.
Upvote
9
(23
/
-14)
From what I've read the footage looked better because it came from an early version set up on a very high end PC. The developers were told not to worry about performance as the game assets could be optimized later for release. So higher res textures, higher poly models and better lighting appears in the demo.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I have to say that I have never been more disappointed in a video game purchase, especially when the demo at PAX Prime two summers ago was pretty sharp looking. Man, what a waste of a license and what poor product. Extraordinarily disappointed in Gearbox for that pile of trash (that I'd been looking forward to from when it was first announced 6 years ago or so.)
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
And 'Alien' fans continue their long suffering with only a few glimmers of happiness. 
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
LiquidSolstice":2xj6i8yg said:
The objection appears to have been that the posters (not the game itself) were not targeted so that only gamers were seeing them. For a non-gamer, there was nothing game-specific about them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/ju ... ising.news
http://www.destructoid.com/london-autho ... 3794.phtml
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Legion6789":1pnyiygu said:
That does not ring true. If you look at the animations on the aliens themselves they are much, much better than what ended up in the final product. That is not an issue of performance. That is an issue of post production touch up to the video. There is a LOT of stuff going on in that video that never ran real time on any piece of hardware, ever.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
A friend of mine, who is a huge Aliens fan and who is very generous at giving various entertainment the benefit of the doubt (he has defended both AVP movies) described some of the story portions as "are you freaking kidding me!?" That says it all to me.GiffTor":1fp4rcso said:
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The looks of the game might have been overlooked if the aliens had actually behaved like the movie xenomorphs with their stealth pack hunting tactics rather than the see-you-and-charge mindless behavior in the gameplay.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
LiquidSolstice":usb6fbgo said:
Did you see the ads in question before you got all up in arms about them? They're pretty freaking tasteless.
Upvote
6
(11
/
-5)
"...we suspect some soft post-production video work might be to blame for at least some of the difference"
Do you have the slightest bit of proof to back that assertion up? I love how some of the writers here at Ars sling around accusations without the slightest forethought.
It's much more likely the game was developed using extremely high end hardware that was also used to take trailer footage, whereas for the actual shipping game textures, and other graphical features need to be turned down to work well on the capabilities current-gen consoles actually have.
Do you have the slightest bit of proof to back that assertion up? I love how some of the writers here at Ars sling around accusations without the slightest forethought.
It's much more likely the game was developed using extremely high end hardware that was also used to take trailer footage, whereas for the actual shipping game textures, and other graphical features need to be turned down to work well on the capabilities current-gen consoles actually have.
Upvote
-15
(5
/
-20)
Um, no. That is unacceptable. Saying trailer footage uses the in-game engine is universally a good thing because it tells the viewer "this is what the game will look like when you are playing it" as opposed to a pre-rendered video that looks much better than what you play. And "represents a work in progress" primarily tells people to overlook minor issues because they will (presumably) be fixed in the final product. While features may be added or removed, what remains should never be worse.
On both counts, it still leaves the viewer with the impression the actual game will be equivalent or better and does not address the real problem - trailer looked good, game looked like crap. If anything, the "disclaimer" exacerbates the lie.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
strohminator":i1ldz910 said:
Yeah, I actually did. I'm not "all up in arms" about it, I'm just saying advertisements always need a certain context behind them to understand what they mean. Burnout fans would instantly recognize such ads, because they have context.
Put simply, if you don't understand what an ad means, ask. If an ad appears to be "tasteless" it's probably because you don't understand the context.
If you didn't know what Viagra or Cialis did, would you sit there getting all offended about how offensive and tasteless it was that they kept talking about "the moment being right" and "being able to perform"?
Upvote
-4
(12
/
-16)
LiquidSolstice":3vmaboft said:
Are you saying that because its a video game its somehow Ok to be offensive or promote bad/poor behavior?
Upvote
-6
(6
/
-12)
Didn't Activision/Treyarch get in trouble for the exact same thing with Call of Duty II: The Big Red One?
Edit: D'oh; read the whole store... except the last paragraph.
Edit: D'oh; read the whole store... except the last paragraph.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Has anybody seen the ads for Bioshock Infinite that are currently running on TV? It doesn't even use actual game footage... the entire thing is entirely pre-rendered and looks like a Pixar movie. I'm guessing they get away with it because of the tiny little text they put at the bottom that says "This does not represent actual gameplay footage" or something to that effect. Don't get me wrong, Bioshock Infinite looks great based on what I've seen when I watched my friend play it but it really "grinds my gears" when companies do this kind of stuff.
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
What's offensive for one person is entirely acceptable to another... especially when the person realizes it's a video game and not real life.SaddleUp":wsevehh0 said:
Upvote
7
(10
/
-3)
Having read the Kotaku article regarding what 'really happened', I still think we're being fed a line of bull.
Apparently Sega paid Gearbox to make the game, and when Borderland 1 was so successful, they passed the game on as to timegate to do as a subcontractor, and generally tried to write the game by committee. Gearbox had hardly written anything for the game over the 7 year period they were supposed to be writing it, so Timegate had to do most of it from scratch, and what they did wouldn't run correctly on "console hardware' available at the time. We all know Consoles haven't been as powerful as PC's for some time, but 1) Lots of console games look and run better and 2) lots of games look better and run better on the PC because the assets that are made are of better quality and then dumbed down for the consoles. If such assets existed to make the demo, as stated, then why weren't they released with the game for PCs?
As it is, the basic gist is that despite Randy saying it was in-game live footage, it wasn't, though it was done in-engine on a sup'd up machine for an engine that'd been optimized for a powerful PC and not a weak console. It wasn't playable as Randy Pictchford implied, which makes him a liar. There's no reasonable way he didn't know that it wasn't. More to the point, Timegate was told to pull out all the stops and not to worry about what was compatible or would work, which means they always knew the demo wouldn't represent the final product. Finally, the assets used to make the demo could have been used for the PC to make it better, but they didn't do that, which leads me to suspect that so little had been done that way, that only the stuff strictly necessary for that demo existed at the time and the game was never completed.
The storyline is a hodgepodge mess because it was done by committee and changed frequently. Timegate says they had to throw out lots of content because it didn't fit the story as it kept changing, and that may be true, but it seems more likely they never made it. The long development cycle was actually very short because Gearbox did nothing for the majority of that time, and then passed it off to a subcontract who was forced to rush with constantly changing goals and a different management focus.
Let's no fool ourselves. Gearbox has most of the blame for this, and most of it falls on Randy Pitchford. He deserves every bit of scorn, and more, for his lack of control, his implicatied dishonesties, and his reaction to people upset at what he and gearbox had done. Sega may be left holding the bag, and timegate may be the one Gearbox is pointing the finger at, but Gearbox was the group who were supposed to write it and dropped the ball, the ones who kept changing the story and the goals, and who didn't do enough playtesting to make sure the console version wasn't broken.
And their 4 GB patch for the PC? Yes, no improvements. The AI literally ignores everything else and attacks the player and only the player. Nothing looks better than it did at release. I don't know what the 4 GB of data was, but it certainly wasn't better textures, maps, or content. Most likely I suspect it's for the upcoming DLC, which is very small for the cost compared to say, BL2's DLC, and which is probably just locked away, eating space on people who won't be buying the game's drives.
You can't find a multiplayer or coop game of this, because the game is DEAD for the PC. No one is playing it. Gearbox should be forced to refund every dollar spent by purchasers on this heap of garbage. As it is, I'm extremely doubtful if I'll ever buy something from them again, no matter the quality.
Apparently Sega paid Gearbox to make the game, and when Borderland 1 was so successful, they passed the game on as to timegate to do as a subcontractor, and generally tried to write the game by committee. Gearbox had hardly written anything for the game over the 7 year period they were supposed to be writing it, so Timegate had to do most of it from scratch, and what they did wouldn't run correctly on "console hardware' available at the time. We all know Consoles haven't been as powerful as PC's for some time, but 1) Lots of console games look and run better and 2) lots of games look better and run better on the PC because the assets that are made are of better quality and then dumbed down for the consoles. If such assets existed to make the demo, as stated, then why weren't they released with the game for PCs?
As it is, the basic gist is that despite Randy saying it was in-game live footage, it wasn't, though it was done in-engine on a sup'd up machine for an engine that'd been optimized for a powerful PC and not a weak console. It wasn't playable as Randy Pictchford implied, which makes him a liar. There's no reasonable way he didn't know that it wasn't. More to the point, Timegate was told to pull out all the stops and not to worry about what was compatible or would work, which means they always knew the demo wouldn't represent the final product. Finally, the assets used to make the demo could have been used for the PC to make it better, but they didn't do that, which leads me to suspect that so little had been done that way, that only the stuff strictly necessary for that demo existed at the time and the game was never completed.
The storyline is a hodgepodge mess because it was done by committee and changed frequently. Timegate says they had to throw out lots of content because it didn't fit the story as it kept changing, and that may be true, but it seems more likely they never made it. The long development cycle was actually very short because Gearbox did nothing for the majority of that time, and then passed it off to a subcontract who was forced to rush with constantly changing goals and a different management focus.
Let's no fool ourselves. Gearbox has most of the blame for this, and most of it falls on Randy Pitchford. He deserves every bit of scorn, and more, for his lack of control, his implicatied dishonesties, and his reaction to people upset at what he and gearbox had done. Sega may be left holding the bag, and timegate may be the one Gearbox is pointing the finger at, but Gearbox was the group who were supposed to write it and dropped the ball, the ones who kept changing the story and the goals, and who didn't do enough playtesting to make sure the console version wasn't broken.
And their 4 GB patch for the PC? Yes, no improvements. The AI literally ignores everything else and attacks the player and only the player. Nothing looks better than it did at release. I don't know what the 4 GB of data was, but it certainly wasn't better textures, maps, or content. Most likely I suspect it's for the upcoming DLC, which is very small for the cost compared to say, BL2's DLC, and which is probably just locked away, eating space on people who won't be buying the game's drives.
You can't find a multiplayer or coop game of this, because the game is DEAD for the PC. No one is playing it. Gearbox should be forced to refund every dollar spent by purchasers on this heap of garbage. As it is, I'm extremely doubtful if I'll ever buy something from them again, no matter the quality.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
I think after the Aliens and Duke Nukem Forever debacles, it's fairly obvious that Randy Pitchford is a snake oil salesman and that anything Gearbox puts out that isn't their own original IP (such as Borderlands) is going to be pure garbage. They simply don't care about doing justice to IP that isn't their own.Vampyre":g7m75wxo said:
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
seanhsmith":16gwetep said:
What does the medium have to do with it being either offensive or promoting bad/poor behavior or not and why does if someone understands it or not have any bearing on the matter? If someone sees a Hollywood war movie with, for example, WWII Nazis sending people into the gas chambers that may be offensive to them at some level and i'm pretty sure they understand whats going on so why should the medium of film make the act depicted any less offensive to them?
Aern't you somewhat assuming that because you think this way that others are obligated to do the same and why simply because one does not find something offensive that trumps anothers right to be offended, real life or not?
Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the logic that the media somehow decides if someone can be offended or not.
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
I haven't but will check it out later.seanhsmith":l30mvq7j said:
The game itself is amazing. Elizabeth interacts with the environment even if you just stand around not doing anything. Everything looks crisp. You have to really hunt to find where they cut corners (and they did; check out the roach swarms and the slightly incongruous seams on the bronze statues) but none of that really detracts from the visual appeal of the game. Plus the story is so fantastic you're willing to forgive the game all its foibles and missteps, even what should be relatively major ones (like handymen hitting you through "solid" objects).
That said, if you tried to impress with the game running on a Xbox it probably wouldn't. The engine is actually forcing my PC to work, which is unusual for the current generation of games designed for cross-platform play.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
LiquidSolstice":1iu15suv said:
If you're in advertising and can't add appropriate context for your target audience, you've failed.
If you're only targeting your fanbase for your ads... well... that leads into the next.
If you're in marketing and placing ads in places not focused on your audience, you've failed.
If you're in marketing and place ads lacking broader context in a more general venue and you don't expect potential confusion and/or related backlash... you're stupid. If you do it and expect the backlash and have a strategy for dealing with and leveraging it, you're brilliant. Funny how that works.
Quite a lot could have been done with the burnout ads to make them more properly contextualized, given where they were being placed. I just can't work up a lot of sympathy over the ad being banned, given the content and placement. It doesn't mean I think a ban was the appropriate response, I just don't feel overly sympathetic given the levels of fail going on
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Honestly, I didn't think Duke Nukem Forever was that bad. It wasn't incredible, but I played through the entire campaign and enjoyed most of it. A few levels were bad, sure. Cliched content, absolutely. But honestly, I encountered very few bugs and I was able to look past some of the sexist jokes and occasional poorly-textured backdrops enough to enjoy the Duke character and IP for what it is.seanhsmith":8zqugibu said:
Aliens actually seems to be a *much* worse product. I didn't buy it, but some coworkers did and watching them play it, it's clear that they didn't care. Obvious, easily-fixable problems all over the place. Bugs are common.
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Aren't you doing the same?SaddleUp":b4nrhacx said:
EDIT: My original point was that what you may find offensive somebody else might find funny. I'm so tired of people constantly being worried about "offending" somebody. Heaven forbid!
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
The ten minute load times in between deaths was enough for me. I couldn't even continue to play it after the second level because of this.StilesCrisis":27ypiodq said:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The game plays great on my *ten* year old PC (HT P4 3.6ghz with a radeon HD 4000 card) with all the eye candy turned on to max. That alone should tell you something.
As much as I love anything to do with the Aliens franchise, I played this game for about 15 minutes before turning it off. The number of WTF? bugs and poor plot killed it for me.
As much as I love anything to do with the Aliens franchise, I played this game for about 15 minutes before turning it off. The number of WTF? bugs and poor plot killed it for me.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
OK, I'll totally give you that. The load times were aaaaaaaawful. (Although I think it was closer to 30-45 seconds than 10 minutes.) You kind of needed an iPad to switch off to to handle the loading screens.seanhsmith":ees8hvfu said:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I learned from Final Fantasy commercials in the PSX era to never assume anything from video game advertisements. I guess that still applies today.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
seanhsmith":2nmvzuu1 said:
No not actually, not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the logic that the media somehow decides if someone can be offended or not because that was what the poster was saying that its a game and not real life and that if people understood the medium they somehow would not be offended yet was seemingly implying that because he thought that way everyone should.
So what does the medium have to do with deciding if someone can be offended or not?
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Cut Gearbox some slack. Somebody told them that Aliens involved massive bugs that make you retch and pull your hair out, and they delivered exactly that.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Rydeck07":27hkwexm said:
I remember ZX Spectrum game adverts that implied the graphics in the game were live action realistic. That was when the rules came in to enforce the message that the graphics aren't representative.
This has been the rule in the UK for at least 30 years and its only in the last 6 or 7 years that cut scenes etc. tend to use the game engine and game adverts likewise use the actual graphics. Unless the ad people were all based outside the UK or were all under about 13 years of age there is no excuse.
On the whole the ASA do a good job. They tend to be balanced and aren't ruled by tabloid opinion makers.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
A:CM and DNF both were massive operational fuckups. In DNF's case, all they did was get the game to a (vaguely) releasable state. DNF was always going to be garbage, and it's hard to find them responsible for a game they didn't design/develop. The fans' expectations for a fifteen year old game was far, far too high, no matter what 3DR promised.seanhsmith":1ibs9n5r said:
Hopefully they're a little more choosy about the titles they take on (or task to another) in the future.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
DNF was great as a Duke game. It seems people thought Duke was supposed to be the next Halo or COD or something. I actually played the originals right before DNF and thought it was excellent.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Manic Miner":1rwrab98 said:
Agreed - and because of that I just wish they weren't so toothless. The usual sanction is "don't run that ad again", arriving at a point where it's already history. It's as if the police when catching a burglar had only the power to forbid him to burgle that specific house.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
And by forbid, you mean asking the burglar to stop robbing that particular house, if he could be so kind.ThomBat":2ali93ss said:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
- Status