Slashdot Mirror
'Misleading' COD2 Ads Pulled From UK
GamesIndustry.biz reports that Activision has been ordered not to air Call of Duty 2 ads in the U.K. that use pre-rendered imagery to sell the game. Three Television viewers apparently complained to that country's Advertising Standards Authority that the imagery constituted misleading advertising. From the article: "The adjudication is likely to send shockwaves through the industry as it focuses on the question of whether pre-rendered footage is an acceptable representation of a computer game - in its defence, Activision didn't argue that it was, but rather that using pre-rendered footage was "common practice"."
Those ads ran in the states with the words "Actual Game Footage" on the screen.
:/
Well, it was an "actual" cut-scene from the game.
It would be nice to see the end of this practice.... not only because it will make the ads more honest, but it will mean game devs might finally stop filling up disks with little video clips in lieu of playable content.
Personally, I thought the little cut-scenes in Ms. Pac-Man were too long. If I ever gotta sit through the opening scenes of GTA:SA again, I'm going to pop a gasket.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I was one of the people responsible for the UK's PCWorld having to remove their advert for a Centrino laptop that promised "the internet wherever you are"
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~matt/asa_pcworld_haha.ti
It is in our hands as knowledgable people to notice such rip-offs and report them :
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Pre-rending/simulated screens are everywhere in ads shown in the US. Take a look at the text at the bottom of the next TV/game/cell phone ad (which you will probably need a 32" tv to read). It is very rare anymore to see actual screen images.
Any non-solid in food advertising (hamburger ketchup, cereal milk) is actually glue.
Disclaimers hardly make up for deliberately misleading. And it's quite obvious that some people will beleive the game looks that good, simply because otherwise, why would the advertisers not show some of the actual playable game footage?
The Advertising Standards Authority has fairly strict guidelines that ensure that the public are not misinformed. Is this in any way a bad thing?
Photo's of food on food packaging in the UK is required to actually be acheivable by following the cooking instructions with no additional ingredients. If they say "*serving suggestion" near the picture, they can put other food alongside it or minimal sprinkling/condiments (such as cheese or worcestershire sauce) as long as it is clear from the written label what is contained in the package (or if it is mostly transparent, obviously).
AFAIK, it is illegal to cover the food in inedible chemicals or to use artifical food substitutes in order to make it look better. I am unsure if takeaway ketchup counts as an inedible chemical, but macdonalds actually puts it on the food you buy anyway, so I suppose that's okay.
Any non-solid in food advertising (hamburger ketchup, cereal milk) is actually glue.
Advertisers are much more creative than that actually. Cereal milk is often glue but there are far more diverse and creative techniques out there for food ads. Ice cream is usually a concoction derived from potato flakes (though not quite made into the same mashed potatoes tha the manufacturer intended). Bread is rarely if ever real fresh bread--it is usually shellacked with a "tasty" varnish and has the consistency of croutons (except more durable--artsy-crafty folks are probably familiar with that sort of modelling dough used to make those ornaments that look like real pastries...). Actual use of real food is pretty commonplace however it is generally room temperature and sometimes horribly altered. As a rule, anything that LOOKS good and can stand up to studio lighting and sit for extended periods is what goes. That is why most "fragile" food is totally fake.
Other industries are "extra flattering" as well...show me an automobile ad that showcases the base model during normal use--it is always the one equipped with the handsome upgraded appearance package and driven by a "professional driver on a closed course". Clothing companies use fashion models that are far from the average physique, and you are kidding yourselves if you think that every one of them is wearing a regular size right off the rack in a store--in a lot of cases the clothes are tailored to fit the specific model. I'd say that the more expensive the clothing label, the more likely clothes have been specially altered to fit the model for the ads.
The video game industry has operated this way since the beginning and I remember in the early 80s that there was a fracas about the use of "artist's renditions" in print ads. Some companies relented and pit in very fine print somewhere in the ad "artist's rendition - actual appearance may vary". One company (Parker Brothers? The publisher of the Popeye and Frogger games for home systems) took out a series of full page ads that showed the same screenshot for ALL the systems (so you'd see variances bewteen the Atari 2600, 5200, Colecovision, Commodore, Apple, etc)--implicitly boasting that they weren't ashamed of their graphics and suggesting that they made an honest effort in developing for ALL platforms while some other game makers did not.
I think the practice was somewhat dishonest but understandable back in the day, since the hardware wasn't capable of making very exciting visuals on its own, and the market was fragmented amongst more platforms with a greater range of capabilities (bigger titles that were published for many platforms would have to resort to full page ads as described above to be completely truthful in their marketing). Today, however, such practice is inexcusable--it is plain dishonesty. Video displays do not melt like ice cream under studio lights, consoles are powerful enough to render great graphics, and the differences in contemporary platforms are pretty much NEVER evident in screenshots or quick flashes of action in ads. By relying on pre-rendered footage and artist renditions modern game publishers are just playing a crooked game of bait and switch. Old habits die hard though--much harder than the justifications for those habits.