Chilean PS3 Ad Shows Gamer Giving Blood to Nazi Officer

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
VanityGirl said:
Spitfire175 said:
Did anyone over there bother to find out what kind of a man Erwin Rommel was?
A soldier, not a nazi. He cannot be called a nazi, as he was, at no point, a member of the nazi party. He had a clean recors as far as generals so. He was noted for treating POWs well, opposing old man Adolf both militaristcally and ideologically- HE WASN'T A DAMN NAZI!

Anyway, not sony nor the people complaining probably thought of that. I suppose the marketing department had a rather clever idea, which was screwed up by an overenthusiastic art director. Putting a swastika just anywhere is going to cause a stir.
In all honesty, how many people would look at that advertisement and say, "Hey, that's Erwin Rommel, what a swell guy."
I took a glance at it, which is what many people do to advertisements, and if no one told me that was Erwin Rommel, I would have never known. In that picture, it does look like a gamer giving blood to a regular Nazi. That's why it's controversial.

To any mom or dad looking at the advert, they'll think that Sony's a bunch of loons. Parents might not buy it just because of that advertisement.

Off topic: I know he was never a Nazi. He was not even tried for war crimes because everyone knew he was a standup guy. He actually opposed Hitler. :)
Another reason he wasn't at Nuremberg was because he was dead for almost a year by then.

Another general theme is that completely unrealistic treatment of severe injuries. A blood transfusion won't neutralize a cyanide pill(or a point blank shot to the head with a K98, depending on which theory believe) Neither will a heart transplant undo burn damage. Skin grafts might make more sense but that's harder to portray without making both the donator and the recipient look like they were on the receiving end of a Necron Gauss Rifle.
Well I love how people go "Rommel was a decent man" Yes... one who fought on the side of hitler. If he was such a great guy, why didn't he surrender, sell all the nazi secrets to the americans and british in exchange for freedom AND to be put under protection, and aid killing that mass murdering fuck head hitler?
"tried to assasinate" now means "working for"?
"Invading Iraq" means "Helping the Nazi Cause"
 

AnarchistAbe

The Original RageQuit Rebel
Sep 10, 2009
389
0
0
Nimbus said:
They're off their meds again, huh? I knew it couldn't last.
Nope, I think they might have hired Tom Cruise...And he doesn't believe in meds....Because he knows things, and we are all glib.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
VanityGirl said:
Spitfire175 said:
Did anyone over there bother to find out what kind of a man Erwin Rommel was?
A soldier, not a nazi. He cannot be called a nazi, as he was, at no point, a member of the nazi party. He had a clean recors as far as generals so. He was noted for treating POWs well, opposing old man Adolf both militaristcally and ideologically- HE WASN'T A DAMN NAZI!

Anyway, not sony nor the people complaining probably thought of that. I suppose the marketing department had a rather clever idea, which was screwed up by an overenthusiastic art director. Putting a swastika just anywhere is going to cause a stir.
In all honesty, how many people would look at that advertisement and say, "Hey, that's Erwin Rommel, what a swell guy."
I took a glance at it, which is what many people do to advertisements, and if no one told me that was Erwin Rommel, I would have never known. In that picture, it does look like a gamer giving blood to a regular Nazi. That's why it's controversial.

To any mom or dad looking at the advert, they'll think that Sony's a bunch of loons. Parents might not buy it just because of that advertisement.

Off topic: I know he was never a Nazi. He was not even tried for war crimes because everyone knew he was a standup guy. He actually opposed Hitler. :)
Another reason he wasn't at Nuremberg was because he was dead for almost a year by then.

Another general theme is that completely unrealistic treatment of severe injuries. A blood transfusion won't neutralize a cyanide pill(or a point blank shot to the head with a K98, depending on which theory believe) Neither will a heart transplant undo burn damage. Skin grafts might make more sense but that's harder to portray without making both the donator and the recipient look like they were on the receiving end of a Necron Gauss Rifle.
Well I love how people go "Rommel was a decent man" Yes... one who fought on the side of hitler. If he was such a great guy, why didn't he surrender, sell all the nazi secrets to the americans and british in exchange for freedom AND to be put under protection, and aid killing that mass murdering fuck head hitler?
"tried to assasinate" now means "working for"?
"Invading Iraq" means "Helping the Nazi Cause"
I must admit that i honestly have no idea what you are on about.
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
VanityGirl said:
Spitfire175 said:
Did anyone over there bother to find out what kind of a man Erwin Rommel was?
A soldier, not a nazi. He cannot be called a nazi, as he was, at no point, a member of the nazi party. He had a clean recors as far as generals so. He was noted for treating POWs well, opposing old man Adolf both militaristcally and ideologically- HE WASN'T A DAMN NAZI!

Anyway, not sony nor the people complaining probably thought of that. I suppose the marketing department had a rather clever idea, which was screwed up by an overenthusiastic art director. Putting a swastika just anywhere is going to cause a stir.
In all honesty, how many people would look at that advertisement and say, "Hey, that's Erwin Rommel, what a swell guy."
I took a glance at it, which is what many people do to advertisements, and if no one told me that was Erwin Rommel, I would have never known. In that picture, it does look like a gamer giving blood to a regular Nazi. That's why it's controversial.

To any mom or dad looking at the advert, they'll think that Sony's a bunch of loons. Parents might not buy it just because of that advertisement.

Off topic: I know he was never a Nazi. He was not even tried for war crimes because everyone knew he was a standup guy. He actually opposed Hitler. :)
Another reason he wasn't at Nuremberg was because he was dead for almost a year by then.

Another general theme is that completely unrealistic treatment of severe injuries. A blood transfusion won't neutralize a cyanide pill(or a point blank shot to the head with a K98, depending on which theory believe) Neither will a heart transplant undo burn damage. Skin grafts might make more sense but that's harder to portray without making both the donator and the recipient look like they were on the receiving end of a Necron Gauss Rifle.
Well I love how people go "Rommel was a decent man" Yes... one who fought on the side of hitler. If he was such a great guy, why didn't he surrender, sell all the nazi secrets to the americans and british in exchange for freedom AND to be put under protection, and aid killing that mass murdering fuck head hitler?
"tried to assasinate" now means "working for"?
"Invading Iraq" means "Helping the Nazi Cause"
I must admit that i honestly have no idea what you are on about.
Basically Rommel lead the invasion of Iraq, then Co-Lead the invasion of Caucasia. Every soldiers death from every attack he lead is on his hands. And one failed attempt at doing good does not make up for such things.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, I'd like to point out that people in the US tend to think that the rest of the world is enlightened as we are, especially because they tell us so when we imply otherwise. This is not the case.

Racism in the US is not a big deal, heck it's pretty much dead except for people making noise for a bit of contreversy, and a few freaks with pillowcases over their heads that spend most of their time hiding their affiliation. This is however far from true in reality.

Let's be honest, every one of those ads I was looking at that could be considered racist do not seem to be aimed at the US. In a racist country, I could very much see those ads going over pretty well, they are simply offensive to OUR point of view, and what we like to try and project onto others.

The US also fired a massive propaganda campaign against the Nazis, the remnants of which remain today. We do not generally see the rest of the world's opinion on those matters, and tend to forget that Hitler was an international man of the year. He was NOT universally hated or feared, indeed people in many of the nations he "conquered" locked into goosestep to support him which was the scary thing about him. People just deny this because he lost, and the guys who beat him currently dominate the world.

What's more people tend to rapidly forget that there is a lot of fuel behind the entire "holocaust denier" movement based on the simple fact that those of us leading the anti-nazi charge lied through our teeth. The human skin lampshades being the most classic example.

None of this means Hitler was RIGHT, or that we were WRONG but I'm simply pointing out how others may view it when things were less extreme for their nations.

Also consider that things like anti-semiticism and anti-gypsy attitudes are still very popular especially though Europe. These things that form the big "reason" why we needed to stop Hitler are less of an issue there. Consider a lot of european nations and such genuinely hate Isreal and our policies (as the dominant world power) towards it, especially seeing as they would like to pretty much sell them out in exchange for good will/better trade (mostly for oil) with the various muslim groups in the region.

Most notable in displaying the differant attitudes, is how Madonna recently went up on stage with some touring Roma musicians, and spoke out against the hatred of Gypsies, which got her absolutly blasted by the fans in attendance. A point that the rest of the world does NOT hold to the same ideals of tolerance, racial equality, etc... that we do.

I'm the closest thing to a real "bigot" America produces. I hate Muslims culture because ever since I was a kid we've been having problems with them. Murders, terrorism, kidnappings, etc... 9/11 just being a "last straw" kind of thing. Through a lot of the rest of the world, well... hatred is still frequently institutionalized and without reason anymore as it self perpetuates. Sort of like how during the Serbo-Croation thing both sides claimed that killing the other faction was a defining element of their culture... that's how long it had been going on. :p

So basically, we look at the Nazis from the perspective of being evil incarnate, but does the rest of the world see it that way when they aren't talking to us? Especially when looking at nations discontent with American leadership, there is doubtlessly a trend to pump up anyone who fought us, and try and paint the past in a somewhat differant light. If your one of those guys who jeered Madonna, or hates Jews and would love to see Isreal go down, then really 2 of the big reasons why the Nazis are bad don't apply to you at least.

I'm guessing what is offensive to us, is playing to sentiments otherwise. Cultures that still see blacks as jibbering monkey people, gypsies and jews as things to be exterminated, etc... there is far more of it out there than we want to admit.

-

Besides in Japan's defense if you look at that picture it seems like it's intended to be fairly horrific. Look carefully at the faces of the Nurses and such. Truthfully I'm not 100% sure that we're interpeting it correctly to begin with (though we probably are).

-

At any rate, such are my thoughts, I'm sure many people are going to disagree with me, especially on my criticisms of the rest of the world. Not sure how much I'm going to respond, but this is how I think.

Sony probably figures that if they play up to racism/xenophobia in other nations they will get more sales than if they simply promote American ideals. The campaign is not directed here so it won't be that negative (even if we crticize it), especially if they manage to launch a powerful ad campaign that burns into our brains and makes us forget what they are doing elsewhere.
 

IAmWright777

New member
Sep 25, 2009
137
0
0
pilouuuu said:
I'm from Chile and I must say that I'm... annoyed... surprised? I can't express my exact feelings. But neither can Sony. What is this supposed to mean?

Was Sony Chile responsible for those terrible ads or did American or Japanese thought we chileans are so crazy? Whoever made those ads should be fired. Now I completely ruled out any possibility to buy a PS3 myself (yes, that's the effect you've got with that ads, Sony) and keep myself a proud Chilean PC player.

Please, people, don't get the feeling we chileans are the target group to those terrible unrespectful ads.
Don't worry, Sony has a tendency to put out a weird advertising campaign no matter what the country. I can't really see that many people being the target group.
 

GreyJedi

New member
Sep 22, 2009
30
0
0
Megacherv said:
No! It's about you being in the game. Think about it, your blood or heart being transferred into a person from the past, that could, ooh say, be featured in a FUCKING GAME! Besides, this is just Sony in that region, not all of Sony.
I think he's right.

But seriously, a nazi? Jeanne d'Arc I understand (even if the advert in itself is creepy as hell), but a nazi? Even if we follow Megacherv's train of thought, that's still kind of like saying "yeah, I like playing a nazi", right...?
 

IAmWright777

New member
Sep 25, 2009
137
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
VanityGirl said:
Spitfire175 said:
Did anyone over there bother to find out what kind of a man Erwin Rommel was?
A soldier, not a nazi. He cannot be called a nazi, as he was, at no point, a member of the nazi party. He had a clean recors as far as generals so. He was noted for treating POWs well, opposing old man Adolf both militaristcally and ideologically- HE WASN'T A DAMN NAZI!

Anyway, not sony nor the people complaining probably thought of that. I suppose the marketing department had a rather clever idea, which was screwed up by an overenthusiastic art director. Putting a swastika just anywhere is going to cause a stir.
In all honesty, how many people would look at that advertisement and say, "Hey, that's Erwin Rommel, what a swell guy."
I took a glance at it, which is what many people do to advertisements, and if no one told me that was Erwin Rommel, I would have never known. In that picture, it does look like a gamer giving blood to a regular Nazi. That's why it's controversial.

To any mom or dad looking at the advert, they'll think that Sony's a bunch of loons. Parents might not buy it just because of that advertisement.

Off topic: I know he was never a Nazi. He was not even tried for war crimes because everyone knew he was a standup guy. He actually opposed Hitler. :)
Another reason he wasn't at Nuremberg was because he was dead for almost a year by then.

Another general theme is that completely unrealistic treatment of severe injuries. A blood transfusion won't neutralize a cyanide pill(or a point blank shot to the head with a K98, depending on which theory believe) Neither will a heart transplant undo burn damage. Skin grafts might make more sense but that's harder to portray without making both the donator and the recipient look like they were on the receiving end of a Necron Gauss Rifle.
Well I love how people go "Rommel was a decent man" Yes... one who fought on the side of hitler. If he was such a great guy, why didn't he surrender, sell all the nazi secrets to the americans and british in exchange for freedom AND to be put under protection, and aid killing that mass murdering fuck head hitler?
"tried to assasinate" now means "working for"?
"Invading Iraq" means "Helping the Nazi Cause"
I must admit that i honestly have no idea what you are on about.
Basically Rommel lead the invasion of Iraq, then Co-Lead the invasion of Caucasia. Every soldiers death from every attack he lead is on his hands. And one failed attempt at doing good does not make up for such things.
You are aware that every time a person leads an army into battle all the soldiers deaths are on his hands, right? Though I understand your point. Though, here is one question.... did all Germans view Hitler as evil at that time? It's more of a psychological thing here, because yes Rommel may have been a general in the army under Hitler, but if he wasn't a member of the Nazi party, then he wasn't a Nazi. Also, who betrays their country?
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
IAmWright777 said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
VanityGirl said:
Spitfire175 said:
Did anyone over there bother to find out what kind of a man Erwin Rommel was?
A soldier, not a nazi. He cannot be called a nazi, as he was, at no point, a member of the nazi party. He had a clean recors as far as generals so. He was noted for treating POWs well, opposing old man Adolf both militaristcally and ideologically- HE WASN'T A DAMN NAZI!

Anyway, not sony nor the people complaining probably thought of that. I suppose the marketing department had a rather clever idea, which was screwed up by an overenthusiastic art director. Putting a swastika just anywhere is going to cause a stir.
In all honesty, how many people would look at that advertisement and say, "Hey, that's Erwin Rommel, what a swell guy."
I took a glance at it, which is what many people do to advertisements, and if no one told me that was Erwin Rommel, I would have never known. In that picture, it does look like a gamer giving blood to a regular Nazi. That's why it's controversial.

To any mom or dad looking at the advert, they'll think that Sony's a bunch of loons. Parents might not buy it just because of that advertisement.

Off topic: I know he was never a Nazi. He was not even tried for war crimes because everyone knew he was a standup guy. He actually opposed Hitler. :)
Another reason he wasn't at Nuremberg was because he was dead for almost a year by then.

Another general theme is that completely unrealistic treatment of severe injuries. A blood transfusion won't neutralize a cyanide pill(or a point blank shot to the head with a K98, depending on which theory believe) Neither will a heart transplant undo burn damage. Skin grafts might make more sense but that's harder to portray without making both the donator and the recipient look like they were on the receiving end of a Necron Gauss Rifle.
Well I love how people go "Rommel was a decent man" Yes... one who fought on the side of hitler. If he was such a great guy, why didn't he surrender, sell all the nazi secrets to the americans and british in exchange for freedom AND to be put under protection, and aid killing that mass murdering fuck head hitler?
"tried to assasinate" now means "working for"?
"Invading Iraq" means "Helping the Nazi Cause"
I must admit that i honestly have no idea what you are on about.
Basically Rommel lead the invasion of Iraq, then Co-Lead the invasion of Caucasia. Every soldiers death from every attack he lead is on his hands. And one failed attempt at doing good does not make up for such things.
You are aware that every time a person leads an army into battle all the soldiers deaths are on his hands, right? Though I understand your point. Though, here is one question.... did all Germans view Hitler as evil at that time? It's more of a psychological thing here, because yes Rommel may have been a general in the army under Hitler, but if he wasn't a member of the Nazi party, then he wasn't a Nazi. Also, who betrays their country?
Great. So that means if a Nazi officer in world war 2 told me to murder 3 unarmed jews, and I did so, it was okay as long as I myself was not a nazi. Good to know that murder is justified as long as you are not part of the actual murdering group that orders you to do so.
 

Gileseypops

New member
Sep 16, 2009
77
0
0
Well there are a lot of Playstation games over the years devoted to killing nazis.....maybe they feel guilty. ;) xx
 

IAmWright777

New member
Sep 25, 2009
137
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
IAmWright777 said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Asehujiko said:
VanityGirl said:
Spitfire175 said:
Did anyone over there bother to find out what kind of a man Erwin Rommel was?
A soldier, not a nazi. He cannot be called a nazi, as he was, at no point, a member of the nazi party. He had a clean recors as far as generals so. He was noted for treating POWs well, opposing old man Adolf both militaristcally and ideologically- HE WASN'T A DAMN NAZI!

Anyway, not sony nor the people complaining probably thought of that. I suppose the marketing department had a rather clever idea, which was screwed up by an overenthusiastic art director. Putting a swastika just anywhere is going to cause a stir.
In all honesty, how many people would look at that advertisement and say, "Hey, that's Erwin Rommel, what a swell guy."
I took a glance at it, which is what many people do to advertisements, and if no one told me that was Erwin Rommel, I would have never known. In that picture, it does look like a gamer giving blood to a regular Nazi. That's why it's controversial.

To any mom or dad looking at the advert, they'll think that Sony's a bunch of loons. Parents might not buy it just because of that advertisement.

Off topic: I know he was never a Nazi. He was not even tried for war crimes because everyone knew he was a standup guy. He actually opposed Hitler. :)
Another reason he wasn't at Nuremberg was because he was dead for almost a year by then.

Another general theme is that completely unrealistic treatment of severe injuries. A blood transfusion won't neutralize a cyanide pill(or a point blank shot to the head with a K98, depending on which theory believe) Neither will a heart transplant undo burn damage. Skin grafts might make more sense but that's harder to portray without making both the donator and the recipient look like they were on the receiving end of a Necron Gauss Rifle.
Well I love how people go "Rommel was a decent man" Yes... one who fought on the side of hitler. If he was such a great guy, why didn't he surrender, sell all the nazi secrets to the americans and british in exchange for freedom AND to be put under protection, and aid killing that mass murdering fuck head hitler?
"tried to assasinate" now means "working for"?
"Invading Iraq" means "Helping the Nazi Cause"
I must admit that i honestly have no idea what you are on about.
Basically Rommel lead the invasion of Iraq, then Co-Lead the invasion of Caucasia. Every soldiers death from every attack he lead is on his hands. And one failed attempt at doing good does not make up for such things.
You are aware that every time a person leads an army into battle all the soldiers deaths are on his hands, right? Though I understand your point. Though, here is one question.... did all Germans view Hitler as evil at that time? It's more of a psychological thing here, because yes Rommel may have been a general in the army under Hitler, but if he wasn't a member of the Nazi party, then he wasn't a Nazi. Also, who betrays their country?
Great. So that means if a Nazi officer in world war 2 told me to murder 3 unarmed jews, and I did so, it was okay as long as I myself was not a nazi. Good to know that murder is justified as long as you are not part of the actual murdering group that orders you to do so.
Yep, it sure is. Ok sarcasm aside, no the only time murder is justified is in self-defence situations. I never said "oh yeah he wasn't a Nazi, so it's ok that he killed allied troops". I was simply stating that you can't assume somebody is a terrible person because they were in the other army.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
I get the idea the ads mean you are immersed in the game, but putting a game character there would have worked better. As they are, I just had to guess basing on knowing they were about gaming. They won't make you think gaming, so they fail at being advertisements for game console.


Also, I wouldn't have been able to tell who that officer was.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Let's put aside, for a moment, who the historical figures are. Maybe it's Joan of Arc and Rommel, maybe it isn't.

My question is...how do these ads help sell PS3s? That is, after all, the purpose of advertising. Not just to raise your awareness, but to help persuade you to buy the product. And I just don't get the message in either ad. They're very well done, and clearly have some message behind them, but if you have to work that hard at figuring out an ad's purpose, is it a good ad?

This is what consistently baffles me about videogame advertising, and not just Sony's, either. I'm down with clever and artsy, but it seems like more often than not, videogame ads (for hardware, particularly) go for incomprehensible.
 

EgoDeusEst

New member
May 9, 2008
197
0
0
Wait. Didn't Joan d'Arc also lead in several battles? She also believed she was doing God a favor.
Why is that not controversial?

Ah, Joan d'Arc - showing the world that women can be warhungry deluded maniacs as well.
 

73loup

New member
Jul 1, 2009
16
0
0
Therumancer said:
Racism in the US is not a big deal, heck it's pretty much dead except for people making noise for a bit of contreversy, and a few freaks with pillowcases over their heads that spend most of their time hiding their affiliation. This is however far from true in reality.

Let's be honest, every one of those ads I was looking at that could be considered racist do not seem to be aimed at the US. In a racist country, I could very much see those ads going over pretty well, they are simply offensive to OUR point of view, and what we like to try and project onto others.
I disagree with this statement, the US is extremely everything-ist, not in that the majority of people are racist, sexist, etc. but that anything that can be viewed as one of these things are and therefore we have to prance about so as not to offend everyone. And race is the primary component of this: I look at the "white" playstation add and see something that is really inventive and artistic, someone can equally look at it and see a black person being submissive to a white person... racist, someone else could look at it and see a man being submissive to a woman... sexist. Why can't we just see an advertisement that showcases a new color of system?!

I would be curious to know what would happen if the woman was washed in purple not white and the man was washed in green, would people see it as alien-ist or purple-ist?

all of the isms are still dramatically an issue because people still see them as isms. Yes some people truly see another group as inferior and that, to me, is not right. But just because you CAN interpret something as "...ist" doesn't mean that was the intent which does not make the creator wrong for being more enlightened than the viewer.
 

CastIronWin

New member
Sep 15, 2009
77
0
0
maybe rommels giving blood to the gamer so he can go on killing nazis in one of the many WW2 games... just a thought.
 

Captain Pancake

New member
May 20, 2009
3,453
0
0
Megacherv said:
No! It's about you being in the game. Think about it, your blood or heart being transferred into a person from the past, that could, ooh say, be featured in a FUCKING GAME! Besides, this is just Sony in that region, not all of Sony.
that actually makes perfect sense. Kudos to you, my man, there is now no need for any inflamm-

oh. there's three pages of it already.