After Six Days in Fallujah and now after these guys caved, I've told myself that if there is another game that hits the same controversial button with the media, and they produce it, I'll buy it just to support that company.
EA Intervention
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
"The Struggle Against Whatever" = Banning All Violent Video Games in America. That's quite the "whatever".Sober Thal said:
There's a sizable portion of gamers who feel insecure about the subject of art and games. As in, they feel like their more visceral and sometimes guilty pleasures are in some way slighted or diminished whenever the question of artistic merit and gaming gets raised regardless of whether or not highbrow and lowbrow entertainment can coexist in the same medium peacefully (if anybody else in the thread is wondering: they can). It pretty much boils a case of "If you don't like what I like, you're wrong and I hate you forever."IvoryTowerGamer said:
Which, frankly, is not a new phenomenon and not at all limited to gamers or even the internet.
Do have to point out that particular dishonor should actually go to Valve, who did online activation, registering to a specific account and no reselling a good three years before Bioshock did. The name of this DRM? Steam.
You dont think that prolonged negative campaigning that EA is currently using wont have an adverse affect? You'd be surprised what can happen if enough people complain.Blitzwing said:
And you'd be surprised as to what misconceptions people have about bad press. Heck, the most samey and unimaginative games ever to exist have gotten blasted several times over for pandering to the easiest audiences, you think people care? Hell no! So long as the game can work decently enough and fulfills that one thing you're after, they couldn't care less and sales are affected sooner by the *quantity* rather than the *quality* of the press.008Zulu said:
Not to say that if multiple gaming press stations simultaneously cried foul, then the publishers and developers still wouldn't notice. But if you think that there is that one *special* reviewer who can make all the difference...you are dead wrong. I particularly got a foul taste in my mouth when MovieBob recently harped on how his and the EC and ZP reviews 'don't let them get away with mediocrity' - NEWSFLASH! You are not that important! All they do is provide criticism that may or may not be ignored. And maybe...just maybe, if you're extremely lucky, they'll actually contribute to a general outcry of multiple critics and reviewers that will finally pierce the ivory towers of the publishers (them moreso than the developers).
What EA was trying to do essentially seems to me that they were trying to have their cake and eat it too. As one poster pointed out, they have the Taliban named there long enough for the first wave of gamers to go "Fuck yeah!" but then swiftly back off when the Army comes calling, knowing that most gamers will not check the follow-up stories to the original Taliban announcement while still appearing 'reasonable' to those that opposed this move of theirs. Now...dishonest this might be in a big way and to critical appearances, this strategy is failing hard, though who knows...perhaps they have different consumer numbers that actually make them think something else. I know that what they do (as the 2nd largest publisher) ultimately affects the entire community and yes, I would truly TRULY love it if I woke up one day to see them reverting back to their original statement as read at the end of this week's EC.
I just think that this will never, EVER happen. And if it does, you can be pretty sure that critics and reviewers, no matter how incisive or worth listening to, will not be the ones to galvanize its beginning. Only the publishers and developers themselves can start that (again, publishers moreso), but frankly...the world of money is a very stale place where shining ideas are *always* given a 2nd place to the same, boring, repetitive approaches, that guarantee more money being made.
In this case EA marketing seems content to stick to pandering games not as art but as teenage chattel. Wether it is actually working for them is, I suppose, up to debate and yes - personally I would like to see them change this strategy. But the fact is that it's easier to buy out another studio and then fire the talent only so that you can claim the IPs that come with it, for example. Far easier than it is to actually bother trying to create something new or from scratch, like actually funding the training of a new studio with fresh talent for example. A shame, since EA is probably one of the few that could actually afford to take that risk - but as always, the bigger the business company is, the less likely it is to take risk for the fear that its $$$ will plummet.
And as of right now, marketing games as for hormonal teenagers is the 'tried and true' method. Wether the times have genuinely changed enough for it to not work anymore, however, only time can tell. Not us, who bang away at our keyboards in order to delude ourselves into thinking that words can actually change things. They rarely do and when delivered across the internet you can be certain that the chances drop down to a 1 in a million. But if you feel like you need to comfort your ego by thinking, that words typed or spoken across the internet actually matter that much or that a massive press barrage will in fact change the ways in which money is being made in this industry...go right ahead. Delusion is, after all, humanity's most favourite pastime I suppose.
Exactly what I was going to point out.Delusibeta said:
Also, in 2004 (when HL2 was released), there was still a relatively low uptake of broadband internet. Using Steam over dial-up was not a good experience (and indeed it can be an annoying experience on occasion even now).
Heh, maybe you're right.Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:
Quite ironic, too, considering that's what they usually blame the "games are art" crowd of doing.
"They invited people to commit "acts of lust" with (their?) booth babes, which meant they either wanted crowds of men to sexually harass the models, or they were offering the models as whores"
Seriously? I'm gonna have to call BS on this. The sin to win contest was stupid and worded in a way that was horribly unfortunate but if you read the flyer close enough you could tell that they were just trying to work the word lust into the contest, and that they just wanted photos.
Exaggerations like this make gaming sites like the Escapist look sensationalist and elitist and not much better than fox with their Bulletstorm/rape connections.
Bad form dude
Seriously? I'm gonna have to call BS on this. The sin to win contest was stupid and worded in a way that was horribly unfortunate but if you read the flyer close enough you could tell that they were just trying to work the word lust into the contest, and that they just wanted photos.
Exaggerations like this make gaming sites like the Escapist look sensationalist and elitist and not much better than fox with their Bulletstorm/rape connections.
Bad form dude
The point is games as a medium would be seeing a severe limitation on its artistic rights, something that had occurred in other forms of entertainment but has since been removed. If the law can limit game's freedom of speech, it's certainly not going to stop there. What would be next, violent themes? That's not just excessive gore, that's every game with a combat mechanic in it. Before long, game devs won't even be making any games with questionable material and all we'll have is a bunch of Little Big Planets. Game development will be set back 30 years and the legal system will never realize that all people had to do to 'protect the children' is DO SOME PARENTING, not outlawing the creation of adults-only material. I mean holy crap, we're in the 21st century. I thought black-listing material was behind us already.Mimsofthedawg said:
I side with Shamus. Whoring doesn't necessarily mean intercourse, particularly in the context of this quote. Any providing of sexual services is by definition whoring. Even phone sex operators are whores. If they're paid to be sexually harrassed by a poorly-washed throng of teens (f'ing nasty), what else would you call it?The Hungry Samurai said: