UK Ad Agency: Mass Effect 3 Advertising "Not Misleading"

[burningdragoon]

I didn't know Advertising Standards Agency was a subsidiary of EA /lamejoke

Seriously though, if you needed a company to explain this to you, then... well... *sigh*

(at which point we'll either start the whole process over, or cry tears of space-joy and agree to just all be friends again. Here's hoping for the latter, right?).

Hahahaha, no. Sadly.

 

[anthony87]

Why couldn't they just have adapted the Mass Effect 2 way of doing the ending?

They had the bloody formula, all they had to do was scale it up!

 

[Emiscary]

Despite all of the endings playing more or less the same cutscene, they actually do IMPLY vastly different outcomes for the rest of the universe.

Keyword: IMPLY.

I didn't pay full price on day 1 for implications. Nor for speculations. Nor any other horseshit buzzword that serves to defend a non-ending that puts all the questions on the audience.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Someone probably didn't take the time to explain or show to the ASA that the rage and "misleading advertising" is due to three games worth of choices and decisions, not wholly contained in ME3.

Sure, the argument still stands on ME3 alone (anyone with a brain could see and understand that), but when a Shepard who is a heartless, soul-devouring asshole over three games gets the same ending as a Shepard who could be confused who the second coming of Jesus for three games, then choice didn't matter.

That and the times that Casey and other members of the studio blatantly lied (Like specifically saying there would be no "A, B, C endings") constitutes false advertising.

 

[JediMB]

It seems to me that they're more concerned with the marketing statements being technically true than if they were misleading or not. Because counting "Liara steps out of the Normandy" and "Kaidan steps out of the Normandy" as two different endings is definitely misleading.

 

[IndianaJonny]

According to the ASA, a total of three "complainants" brought forward official complaints about the advertising.

Pretty widely OT, but does anyone else think "plaintiff" sounds better than "complainants"? That's probably the most clumsy-sounding word I've come across today.

 

[RaikuFA]

Someone probably didn't take the time to explain or show to the ASA that the rage and "misleading advertising" is due to three games worth of choices and decisions, not wholly contained in ME3.

Sure, the argument still stands on ME3 alone (anyone with a brain could see and understand that), but when a Shepard who is a heartless, soul-devouring asshole over three games gets the same ending as a Shepard who could be confused who the second coming of Jesus for three games, then choice didn't matter.

That and the times that Casey and other members of the studio blatantly lied (Like specifically saying there would be no "A, B, C endings") constitutes false advertising.

But I was told that wasn't the case as to why you guys are upset...

 

[Plinglebob]

That and the times that Casey and other members of the studio blatantly lied (Like specifically saying there would be no "A, B, C endings") constitutes false advertising.

If the ASA ruled that a developer saying something would be in a game then isn't as "False Advertising", you would be saying bye bye to over 1/2 of the game previews websites/magazines get and Peter Molyneux wouldn't be allowed within 100 feet of any sort of recording device.

Pretty widely OT, but does anyone else think "plaintiff" sounds better than "complainants"? That's probably the most clumsy-sounding word I've come across today.

Plaintiff suggests a formal trial where as the ASA is more like "You write in because you think something is false advertising, they look and make a decision".

 

[ARCTIC_EAGLE]

meh, Bioware lost me as a customer, unless this Extended Cut is amazing they won't be seeing any more of my money.

 

[Something Amyss]

Were the advertisements the same in the UK?

I'd say "Well, that settles that" but I know someone is going to bring up "Hey, but some other random chick said that it had 'legal merit'" and will probably call the ASA a bunch of "corporate apologists".

Well, the BBB HAS said it constituted false advertising, so....

So as long as you can still make choices it doesn't matter that they have any point?
Democracy in a nutshell.

Even when it's claimed they will have any point. Now THAT'S democracy in action!

 

[Snotnarok]

I can't believe that people are still whining about the ending.
Go read the story about the guy writing about how nice america is and how he got shot by a random person while he was hitchhiking. What kind of control did he have over that.

And the ending really wasn't that bad, it wasn't great but come on. Let's compare it to this

 

[Paragon Fury]

Someone probably didn't take the time to explain or show to the ASA that the rage and "misleading advertising" is due to three games worth of choices and decisions, not wholly contained in ME3.

Sure, the argument still stands on ME3 alone (anyone with a brain could see and understand that), but when a Shepard who is a heartless, soul-devouring asshole over three games gets the same ending as a Shepard who could be confused who the second coming of Jesus for three games, then choice didn't matter.

That and the times that Casey and other members of the studio blatantly lied (Like specifically saying there would be no "A, B, C endings") constitutes false advertising.

But I was told that wasn't the case as to why you guys are upset...

We're upset for a lot of reasons.

Not least of which is how how much a of betrayal and how thematically and logically disgusting the endings are.

But you tend to stick things that are less opinionated and feeling-based when talking to organizations like the BBB and ASA.

 

[RaikuFA]

Someone probably didn't take the time to explain or show to the ASA that the rage and "misleading advertising" is due to three games worth of choices and decisions, not wholly contained in ME3.

Sure, the argument still stands on ME3 alone (anyone with a brain could see and understand that), but when a Shepard who is a heartless, soul-devouring asshole over three games gets the same ending as a Shepard who could be confused who the second coming of Jesus for three games, then choice didn't matter.

That and the times that Casey and other members of the studio blatantly lied (Like specifically saying there would be no "A, B, C endings") constitutes false advertising.

But I was told that wasn't the case as to why you guys are upset...

We're upset for a lot of reasons.

Not least of which is how how much a of betrayal and how thematically and logically disgusting the endings are.

But you tend to stick things that are less opinionated and feeling-based when talking to organizations like the BBB and ASA.

Is that truly it? Cause I've been told so many things and each one is wrong to another person.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Pretty widely OT, but does anyone else think "plaintiff" sounds better than "complainants"? That's probably the most clumsy-sounding word I've come across today.

Plaintiff suggests a formal trial where as the ASA is more like "You write in because you think something is false advertising, they look and make a decision".

Ah, many thanks Plinglebob. You learn something new every day.

 

[Blade_125]

All of this is useless. I will no longer be buying a Bioware (or EA for that matter) game without reading a lot of reviews, and even then I likely won't pay full price. I
ll probably wait a year to get the game and all DLC for $30.

This is the cost to Bioware and EA. I don't care if they feel the game lived up to their expectations or if they think it is what they promised. The ending was terrible and took away the whole point of the game. Choices in the game made a difference at the end.

Judging by the internet storm over this I am not alone. If you want to make money don't piss off your customers.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

I don't want to go all conspiracy and say they were bought off by EA but what else am I supposed to think when an advertising standards agency comes to the conclusion that a few different colours equal thematically different endings.

 

[Icehearted]

It was not misleading in the most technical sense. If I were to urinate in a cup and pass it off as flavored water, at one point it was indeed water, and may still contain water (with added flavor), but is it really what it's advertised to be? The implication is subjective and open to individual interpretation, and the law favors the swindler (for lack of better phrasing).

I see where this will go. It's like how games are advertised as 720p but are really some odd lower resolution that they just upscale.

This is a really old trick a lot of people have been using to sell things for years. Lemon laws were written in America due to this kind of thing happening with automobiles.

@Snotnarok
yeah, but see no. The story and it's conclusion, as well as the player's impact on those were a selling point, those were features that were advertised. What you're pointing to is more about the cap at the end of a game that didn't feature such advertising (I assume since that looks like the end screen for a lot of 90s Capcom games).