Developer Apologizes for Accidentally Threatening Kittens
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It was worded in poor taste, and they should get all the punishment they deserve.
"All the punishment they deserve" in this case equates to, "Irritated fans posting irritated messages on the greenlight page, followed by them being forced to say a quick, 'Whoops, my bad, sorry guys'."
Sometimes a gaffe is just a gaffe. You don't get indignant about "The PC Police", you don't demand blood in retribution. The offending party apologizes like an adult, and you move on with your life. Luckily, it looks like THATS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. So were all good.
"All the punishment they deserve" in this case equates to, "Irritated fans posting irritated messages on the greenlight page, followed by them being forced to say a quick, 'Whoops, my bad, sorry guys'."
Sometimes a gaffe is just a gaffe. You don't get indignant about "The PC Police", you don't demand blood in retribution. The offending party apologizes like an adult, and you move on with your life. Luckily, it looks like THATS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. So were all good.
I think all the angry and offended people, be they upset about imaginary kittens, a feminist on Kickstarter or the endings of a certain SF series, must apologise for making the Net a more irritating and exasperating place.
Curses, beat me to it.bkd69 said:Younglings.
Back in my day, we KNEW how to threaten animals to raise sales.
EDIT: stoopid flickr image sharing/escapist block codes
There's nothing wrong with this sort of marketing, as long as it isn't serious.
Are you outraged at the outrage internet? Why give me $5,000 and I will personally travel to somewhere that legally allows it and eat an entire cat.
We'll show those meddling animal lovers whose boss one forkful at a time.
We'll show those meddling animal lovers whose boss one forkful at a time.
itsthesheppy said:
These.lukey94 said:
xkcd: CAT PROXIMITY
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cat_proximity.png
'Threatening' cats and kittens on the internet is the equivalent to defaming Mohammed in front of ultra conservative muslims in Pakistan.
[HEADING=2]Riots in the streets. Deaths on film at 11. [/HEADING]
Nope. If they threatened human children I'd react the same way. There is a difference -- Child's Play says "The more money you give us, the more we can help the children relieve their pain." If they said "If you don't help us, then children will be in pain!", then that would be bad.Somethingfake said:
The funny thing is that assuming they're talking about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), they hardly rescue any animals, so that's not where the donation would be going. The HSUS is mostly a lobbying and legal organization.
Here's the difference: threatening harm, like on that National Lampoon magazine cover, is a joke, and is designed to make you laugh. If the joke worked, it will make you want to read more of the comedy contained within the product being sold. This was a marketing stunt to tug at the heartstrings of cat lovers. There's no relationship between the pitch and the product; it's simply an attempt at emotional manipulation. There is a difference, and it didn't work.Res Plus said:
That's exactly what the joke you're complaining about is doing. Yet for some reason you completely miss the humour and attack it as if it's serious when it's patently not. Why?UNHchabo said:
Not really, the poor developers are still getting bombarded with hate and calls for people to be fired directly in response to the joke.Xanadu84 said:
Read the rest of my post, especially "There's no relationship between the pitch and the product". This is not a comedy game, so this "joke" has no bearing on the content of the game.GoaThief said:
To put it another way: what if they said they would donate the $5000 to a charity no matter what, but if they weren't Greenlit, the money would go to the Westboro Baptist Church? Yeah, this is a more extreme example, but in both cases the publisher would be attempting to get people to Greenlight the project based on something other than the merits of the game itself. That's emotional manipulation.Res Plus said:
+1.jon_sf said:
It's this sort of humor that makes me smile a bit and feel some warmth in my cold, dead heart.
I dont know, maybe its Valve using the community to know what games (these cheaper and more mediocre kind of games) should and shouldnt be on Steam. I dont know honestly but there isnt anything wrong with having a publisher in this situationMcoffey said:
Well, it's not clear from the trailer that there's any humor whatsoever in this game; I don't think a game can get away with this unless it's as blatantly comedic as Deathspank or Bulletstorm.GoaThief said:
There's also the matter of delivery. If I punch my friend lightheartedly, compared with coldcocking some guy who was walking down the street, those may be the same mechanical action, but the context and delivery are radically different.
Ignoring your poor analogy, your new objection now boils down to the humour not being slapstick/too dry. You don't have to enjoy it but the "outrage" is silly.UNHchabo said:
I also like how you shift the focus to one solitary trailer in an attempt to justify your initial claims despite them being refuted in the article itself. Integrity, don't you just love it?
No, the problem is that the humor wasn't stated anywhere. The first time I saw any indication that the game might have any humor in it is in reaction to the backlash, with the statement "Understand that there is some dark humor in the game and they wanted to play off of that." Previous to that, there was the trailer, and the text on the Greenlight page, neither of which contain any mention of humor.GoaThief said:
There's no outrage on my part; I'm simply saying that this was a dumb decision, and that they should have thought it through more thoroughly before trying to play off of emotional reaction to get press for the project.