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"."
Bloody right an' all. For ages I've been cursing ad's for not showing what the game actually looks like. Even the use of in-game cutscenes is misleading to the uninitiated as they might believe that all the game was that pretty. What's to stop me producing a game that's text-only and then including a 20-minute MPEG cutscene halfway through it which was made by some major CGI studio? The cutscenes are NOT representative of the game as a whole and therefore should not be allowed to be used in a 30-second advert.
I actually noticed the initial adverts for Call of Duty 2 and had this exact concern. I don't buy games any more (nothing worth buying, nothing decent enough to play them on, no way I'm paying that amount just for a game) but it was obvious to me that there was no way the game could be anything like the adverts showed, even though they looked like they *could* be to the average parent/new gamer.
I'm glad this has been upheld and hopefully this will make companies spend more time making the entire game look and play better rather than just spending the money on pre-rendered cutscenes.
So wait... When McDonalds shoots photos of their giant delicious burgers, they don't just grab the next big mac off the line and snap a shot? They grill a prime patty to perfection with delicately sliced tomatos and onions and put it together like it was "staged" or something!? BOO!
Is it deceptive? (Yes, by your own admission.)
Is deceptive advertising illegal? (Usually yes.)
Therefore, the ads should have been pulled, as they were being illegally deceptive. That it's "common practice" does not excuse the fact. If it were common practice to murder your enemies, should that then be legal?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I think this makes the offence so much worse. Since it's plausable that what you see on the screen is what you'll get, then you're far more likely to believe what you see is what you'll get. They can give incrimental improvements in smoothness and texture then when you plunk your money down, you'll find out it isn't what you had thought it would be.
Put another way, If I told you I saw batman today, you'd know it was some kind of joke. But if I told you I saw the president, it's plausible, especially if you live in the DC area like I do. Saying I saw the president wouldn't be a joke. It would be a lie.
TW
It is true that experienced gamers can, and usually do, see through these pre-rendered ads as a bunch of BS, but then again, the experienced gamers already learned about that game online or through their magazine subscriptions to EGM or PSM or other gaming M's. These television ads are targeted at Joe-Couch-Potato, or more obviously, Joe-Couch-Potato Jr. And since the majority of people who would need TV ads to learn about games are usually the ones who are gullible and don't even understand what pre-rendered is, it is important for TV ads to not be misleading. And passing pre-rendered movies off as implied gameplay footage definately falls into the category of misleading.
If video games are created by teams of designers and artists, how are they not art??? www.skylarscaling.com