Poll: So have you sent EA the email yet?

[FernandoV]

And I don't see how staging a mock protest at the expense of a group (religious or not) couldn't be seen as offensive to that group. It puts them in a poor light, when really it wasn't anything to do with them in the slightest.

What group are we talking about, here? Because christianity as a whole is a pretty large group to stuff into one single bunch of people. To pretend that that kind of protest would never happen is to wrap yourself in convenient lies and ignore every other protest started by some dumbass christians in the bible belt for whatever stupid reason. Does christianity get blamed for those people's ignorance? No. Are protests like that one unexistent or completely exaggerated? No. Are you in the right in being offended if a marketing campaign wants to attract attention to itself my making itself the target of false controversy through the actions of people hired to impersonate idiots? NO.

Just for the record, i don't exactly agree with the marketing campaign for Dante's Inferno. But what gets on my tits is people throwing the term "offended" around like they haven't gotten out of their comfy fucking houses their entire life. Damn, people's feelings are sure sensitive in this day and age. Oh no, the NANNY ASSOCIATION got all teary-eyed, whatever are we going to fucking do. It's obviously clear that video game designers wanted to shoot out a big fuck-you to all the nannies out there because they're bad people and they hate nannies. Therefore, video games are bad! One logical fallacy after another! And we're caving in to this shit because we don't want to hurt anyone's feewings.

Diversity is key. If people want to berate Dante's Inferno for being childish and idiotic, then let them berate Dante's Inferno, NOT videogames. By choosing to follow the same "sensible" trend with every title, we risk comfirming everyone's instinct of lobbing video games all into one big group and judging them all at the same time.

Oh, and yeah, the WBC. With all the attention this community offers them i thought they'd be common knowledge around here. Pretty much religious nutjobs who do all the damage they can without actually touching someone. Yes, the ones who protested Heath Ledger.

Are you trying to tell him what he can and cannot be offended by? If he finds EA exploiting a group for economic gain offensive then he has the right to.

 

[GiantRaven]

Is EA's marketing hurting the industry? Is there a chart with number of gamers heading towards 0 with EA's marketing over time? I bet you'd hear that everything was hurting the industry if you asked enough people, everyone certainly has a bone to pick with every company making games, like they'd do much better.

The hurting doesn't come from the people already playing videogames, who can see how ridiculous these advertising campaigns are at portraying videogaming. The hurting comes from the people who see these advertising campaigns and take them at face value as to what the videogame industry is all about.

Sure, the guys from extra credits have a passion for gaming, I don't know what they do, if they just do extra credits or actually have industry experience.. it's alright to watch at times, but this particular episode is far too preechy, you could even say it hurts the industry.

Interesting. Would you care to back that up with actual reasoning?

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

No. I don't really think games are art, so I think EA can advertise however they want. Plus none of these adverts are shown in the UK, so I have even less of a beef with 'em.

Don't know why I have this viewpoint yet come back to Extra Credits every week...

Terrible advertising is terrible advertising, but I guess if you don't see it, it won't matter to you.

Why don't you think video games are art though?

OT: I have not sent an e-mail yet, I just found out about these add campaigns

 

[Yureina]

Nope. I can't be arsed to do that.

 

[Neverhoodian]

If you really have a problem with a company's policies (particularly a large one like EA), you have to hit them where it really hurts: the wallet. Boycott them. If you just send an indignant email and continue to buy their products, they won't care. If companies lose revenue because of their actions, you can be damn sure they'll change their policies before long. Of course you might miss out a bit by not being able to enjoy said products, but if you want change to truly happen you must be willing to make sacrifices to see it through.

 

[DanDeFool]

I see what you're saying, but you're missing the point. The point isn't whether or not the ads are helping EA make money. The point is that, whether this helps their sales or not, they're being stupid.

Ok first and foremost the whole point of marketing is to increase sales - you don't increase sales by appealing to demographics that aren't interested in your product, if anything that just turns the demographic you want to appeal to off your product. EA are not "being stupid" by putting out the advertisements they are, gamers are stupid for caring to much about their acceptance in society, and lack of understand of basic business techniques.

I didn't mean that the point of marketing is not to increase sales, I meant that the point of the EC episode was not about sales. The point of the EC episode is that by putting out these kinds of ads that EA is insulting their customers and unnecessarily degrading the medium. While getting lots of free exposure from the press is certainly marketing 101, I'd wager that taking your customers down a notch with your ads isn't.

If EA's marketers were smart, maybe they'd find a way to boost sales without taking the low road of creating easy sensationalism by focusing on the most controversial aspect of their products.

Spoiler: The rest of my overlong argument with D_987, spoilered because it takes up too much space.

But if you're a non-gamer, like--oh, I don't know--my boss, you might say "Oh, Johnson is buying Dante's Inferno, the game where you kill babies. I wonder what other kinds of fucked-up shit that guy is into? I hope I can find an excuse to downsize him before he goes on an office shooting rampage."

These are, of course, misconceptions about video games, the kinds of people who play them, and why they enjoy them, but it doesn't matter in this context because my boss has no reason to try to look past the bullshit. All he knows is what he hears on the news (God help me if he watches Fox News; then he probably thinks I'm a closet rapist as well), what he sees when he walks past the EB Games in the mall, and what he sees in television, magazine, and internet advertisements.

So you're claiming that if someone buys a video-game, that the mainstream press hardly touched, and nobody bar gamers put special emphasis on, that person will be locked within society? That's ridiculous and just untrue. People aren't judged as you're implying from the games they buy in that kind of manner period. Obviously you're over-exaggerating but to a near absurd degree. If you live in America, for example, the odds are very high you know someone who plays games - whatever age you are - I don't recall the exact percentage but the vast majority of people own some form of gaming system. Your argument that games could be put in a negative light due to these advertisements is incredibly naive, besides, advertisements such as these are shown in and around shows based for their demographic.

I admit, I was being hysterical here. My assertion that my boss would try to downsize me if he saw me buying Dante's Inferno was hyperbole, and for that I apologize.

My main point is that if ALL you know about a game is that it involves acts of depraved violence, you're not going to look too highly on the person who buys it.

You're right that it's foolish to focus too much on other people's opinions, and more people play games and know people who play games than ever before, but just because someone portraying a demographic that I happen to be a part of in a bad light probably isn't going to have negative consequences for me personally doesn't mean I have to be okay with it.

It's like when a radical feminist says that "all men are pigs." I know that anyone with a good head on their shoulders knows that's an obtuse generalization, but that doesn't mean I'm in the wrong if I don't just sit back and let myself be called a pig.

Or, if they were planning on marketing this game to young men ages 13 to 17 in the first place, why did they design it so that their target demographic can't legally buy the game for themselves? Either way, EA is clearly doing it wrong.

Correct, though one poor example of advertising doesn't warrant this ridiculous over-reaction brought on by Extra Credits.

In a way it's overreacting, and in a way it isn't.

I don't need to tell you that legislation regarding the sale of M-rated games to minors is a hot topic right now. Part of EC's thesis this time around is that EA is hurting itself by doing this, and they are. How? By giving ammunition to the people who want to put games like Dead Space 2 and Dante's Inferno behind the counters at your local retailers and out of sight. Those types can now point directly to the "Your mom hates Dead Space 2" ad and say, "Publishers are marketing M-rated games to minors, just like we told you."

Legal battles have been decided over less substantial evidence than this. This COULD be a big, big mistake on EA's part.

Or it might not turn out that way. I don't know for sure, but it's definitely not helping the gaming industry's case in this regard.

And besides, whether it's an overreaction to say that this kind of stuff is bad for games as a whole doesn't mean that EC is wrong for singling out crap advertising and saying why they don't approve.

When I saw the "Your mom hates this" ads for Dead Space 2, I felt genuinely mortified. I thought, "So EA thinks that A) I still care what my mom thinks about my hobbies, and B) I'm GLAD that she hates what I do with my spare time." How am I supposed to be anything but insulted when I hear that?

Now you're changing the situation; it's turned from what other people think of games to what you think of their advertisements and that's completely different. If the advert offended you that much then don't buy the game.

Yeah, I changed the situation because there's more than one aspect to what's wrong with the DS2 ad. Not only does it portray gamers in a bad light, it also offends gamers directly.

Yes, I have the option not to buy the game if the ad offends me. It's sad that it comes to that, since I'd much rather judge the game on its own merits.

Yes, EA does get a lot of press for doing advertising this way. They get a lot of BAD press. You know that saying "There's no such thing as bad press?" Bullshit! When I hear that you're insulting me to my face and telling everyone that I like it and am going to ask for more, and you're a multinational corporation, you look like an asshole, I look like a *****, and I can't say otherwise because you have so much more clout than I do.

People think that marketing departments at international corporations have a pretty good idea about what their customers want, and how to present their product to their target demographic. If EA's marketing department is doing it right, then apparently we're all a bunch of near-psychotic teenage boys who have wet dreams about committing acts of violence, having reckless sex, and flipping off our parents.

These two paragraphs are so far removed from reality I'm not sure how to respond to them. There's no such thing as bad press - as has been proven time and again, regardless of your opinion on the matter. As for EA's demographic...you're pretty much asking them to lie about the true nature of the game [Dead Space, Dante's Inferno aren't exactly intellectually stimulating products] so you can feel good about your purchase.

So I guess Nixon's approval ratings skyrocketed when he was implicated in the Watergate scandal. And I guess people are making a conscious effort to buy more of their gas from BP-supplied gas stations after that whole oil spill thing.

"There's no such thing as bad press." is just like any other aphorism. It may be true, but not in the same sense that saying "All humans have to breathe oxygen to live." is true.

I shouldn't have said that it was "Bullshit", as in, "completely wrong all the time", but you implying that it's always true is just as wrong.

And I'm not asking EA to lie about the nature of their game. I want to see them market it in a way that appeals to mature audiences. Getting a bunch of middle-aged women in a room and getting them to call Dead Space 2 horrible is not how you get that done.

For example, I have nothing wrong with the TV spot for Bulletstorm. It shows action sequences from the game, it's set to exciting music, it tells you the release date. It's basic, it works. Yes, maybe I'll still feel guilty for wanting to buy a game that's focus is an excess of over-the-top graphic violence, but the ads won't have done anything to amplify that feeling. Just because I'm indulging in a guilty pleasure doesn't mean you have to call me out on it, especially if you expect me to shell out $50 for the privilege.

In short, nobody ever sold hard liquor to anyone by calling them a drunk, even if they were a drunk. Why should game advertising be any different?

For contrast, let's take a look at some game advertising that doesn't make gamers look like a bunch of spastic little shitheads.

Spoiler

<youtube=whUcHSDnQKk>

Good thing they didn't advertise Halo 3 like this! It probably wouldn't have sold very well at all! You remember, the real ad had Master Chief shoving his assault rifle up a brute's ass and pulling the trigger, and using a plasma grenade to blow up a covenant orphanage. That was a lot better.

That's possibly the worst example you could have used; for one it's an advert aimed at a wider market than any other game you've mentioned in this post - Microsoft know people in the aforementioned demographics will buy the game, so they attempt to appeal to those that might not have heard of it before; hence the adverts lack of relevance to the actual product. You try that with another game, say Bulletstorm, who spoofed it, and run that as your main TV advertising campaign you wouldn't gain half the sales.

I watched that Bulletstorm ad you were referring to. That's some funny shit.

The Halo 3 ads made me feel like the conflict in that game had real gravitas. Like it was important.

Neither of them made me feel embarrassed. Neither of them made me feel like a jerk. Both of them made me want to buy their respective games.

My point there is really just that it's entirely possible to make game advertising that doesn't take the piss out of the target demographic. That tries to raise your interest in a mature way without resorting to crass sensationalism.

Also note my above comment about the generic Bulletstorm spot, the one you might see on TV. Nothing wrong with that.

If you're saying that it's generally a bad idea to refer to a game's content obliquely in order to raise interest where you might not otherwise get any... I still don't see your point. Why is that a bad example of the right way to do game advertising? Even if I didn't know what Halo 3 was, I'd probably still be interested in finding out more about it after seeing that ad.

Compare that to what it looks like above. Next time, D_987, make sure you don't accidentally butcher other people's posts when you reply to them.

I did no such thing, I simply quoted the section of the post I was specifically referring to, I refuse to quote every section of someones post simply because it forms an unwieldy and overly elaborate mess [like the post I'm quoting for example]. Furthermore there's some pretty clear flame-bait in your response I've removed - don't let it continue.

I'll spell it out for you, since you obviously didn't bother to look. This is what you quoted:

Ditto. That whole "Your mom's gonna hate Dead Space 2" thing was just juvenile and stupid.

And EC's point isn't that games necessarily SHOULD be more, but that they CAN be more, and that EA's reinforcing the message that games AREN'T anything besides insipid and gratuitous

If with this kind of crap, not to mention embarrassing all their customers.

Last I checked, it wasn't good practice to leave sentences incomplete, and "If with this kind of crap..." isn't a grammatically correct way to begin a sentence. My actual post did not look like that. That's what I meant when I said you butchered my post.

I apologize for the flame bait. EA's recent advertising decisions make me mad, and you telling me that this kind of advertising is okay and that I'm wrong for disapproving doesn't make me less mad, whether you're right or wrong.

That said, I shouldn't have let my anger get the best of my mouth. I think I've sorted out some of the main ideas present in my original post and presented them in a way that's more articulate and less flame-ey this time. I'll remember this situation, and will make sure to not such a fuckwad in the future. My words, not yours.

 

[Legion IV]

Geeze extra credits is starting to bug me. They sound soo pretencious, i stand by how gaming is my passion but these days are making me feel bad about saying it. Every espisode seems to have mass effect praise and this whole episode seemed to be a gaint attack on EA. Its pointless it really is.

I guess the only thing that really bugs me is how he acts like hes speaking for all of us. "We'll all rally beside you till the very end if we have to" I wont, am sure many wont either.

Games matter thats true but honestly what hes doing isint helping the fact, theres always the developers with heart and the ones without. Ark Systems, Blizzard, Capcom, Ark Systems again (love these guys) They make games with heart regardgless of major sales, as long as they make there money back and enough of a profit to stay alive and keep there employees happy lol.

If they stop making great games OH NO its not like we have a thousinds of games that'll last a life time, if they continue to mke great games Awsome! am just tired of this pedestal extra credits is on.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

Well to offset all those who think it's pointless I'll just mention yes, yes I did.

 

[Zaik]

I don't care if EA wants to shoot itself in the foot with it's own money. I don't go hunting with them.

I didn't buy any of the games mentioned in the movie. Not because of their retarded marketing campaign for them, but because none of them interested me in the slightest bit. I can find out if they interest me without hearing anything EA has to say about it. Don't ask a used car salesman for his expert, unbiased opinion on his own used vehicles and expect an honest answer. Don't assume he'll tell you more about a car than Carfax does either.

Businesses making bad decisions because they don't even know how to relate to their own customers is nothing new. The best way to show them what is wrong is to let them fall flat on their face, not send them a strongly worded letter.

EA is no different than an extremely embarrassing significant other that doesn't "get it". You can tell people you don't approve of how they act, but as long as you're still dating them, you do approve of it whether you like it or not. Occasionally just a threat is enough to straighten them out...for a while. Rarely does it fix everything.

Also that metaphor would have worked way better if I could have used spousal abuse instead of embarassing behavior, but the white knights would have mobilized an army to derail the post.

 

[Jark212]

Nope, I have not e-mailed them. I'm sure most of the EA PR staff have already seen it and forwarded it to their bosses...

But I really do hope that they give the video some serious thought, because that episode was outstanding...

 

[LordIce]

I'm sorry, but if EA's marketing isn't downright degrading, I don't know what is.

Need anyone say more? seriously it's just as bad as gossip girl's threesome episode advertising. And even if "some games are just games" it does the medium no good to let people just trivialize it. If we want the right to have what we want in our games...then we cant let people take that right away from us by trivializing them. And yes i will be sending EA a letter and i am boycotting them...Which as many have said is a much better way.

 

[MercurySteam]

bolded, answers, ME2 wasnt an rpg, the onbly thing it had going was dialouge, which dosent change the fact I have to play a repetative tps for 10 minutes to talk for 1.
Cant wait till ME3, then RPG = game with 2 different cutscenes, becuase if ME2 is anything to go by thats all it takes.

Well shit, I didn't think anyone still dicked around with ME2's status as an RPG. Cause I hate repeating myself, read this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.203865-RPGs-defined?page=1] and move on.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

I've made a significant contribution to this thread, so I get quoted!

So will I, for I made a point as well!

And I! Don't leave me out!

Terribly unfunny snip jokes aside, your opinions on the current situation that is before us as a culture is astoundingly asinine and ignorant of the bigger picture before us. Before you go running your fingers across the keyboard for some flaming or dismissing my post as just another uninformed internet troll, please, hear me out. You may just be overlooking some facts or just plain don't care, but I encourage you to read on as the argument presented is a good look at where we stand now as a culture in modern day society.

First off, I'd like to point out that all the comparisons to film, television, radio and other forms of media that are prevelent today are terrible comparisons. Do you know why no one bats an eye when movies like "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or "The Expendables"? Are you certain you realise why music like Eminem and Slayer can be placed on shelves? If you haven't already figured it out, it's because these mediums have already been questioned, critisized and championed to be proven more beneficial than detremental to our society. Movies, for a very long time, were seen as something that would destroy the very moral fabric that was civilized society. Many, many people had to show the virtues of cinematorophy and step around very controversial topics to win over the hearts and minds of the general public to be taken seriously before they could move onto deeper subject matter that obtained its view as true art. Music sees this crysis every generation or so in what tends to be much smaller squabbles, but I'm sure you remember the beginning of rap music and how hottly it was contested. People had to fight for their albums to be shelved and thankfully they won, because now we have another genre with artists able to make sounds we've never dreamt of before now. Heck, even literature has had its brush with this sort of level of controversy with periods such as science fiction and fantasy becoming mainstream all the way back to when the printing press was invented. Scholars actually didn't want it to be invented because it would give the common man printed books to educate themselves with, thus deminishing the importance of their medium! We'd all be no better than slobbish peasents if the working man had not risen up and demanded the rights and respect for the printing press to share knowledge and entertain everyone and not just those of the scholarly type.

Video games are now at that crux. There is a lot of preasure on us, as gamers, to defend our medium from the likes of government officials, parent groups and anyone outside the "hardcore gamer clique" in general who deem our medium as one that is inferior and should be heavily controlled, or even eliminated. Are you aware that there is talk within California to put steep regulations on what sort of games can be sold to whom? Are you aware that Australia already has these sorts of steep regulations on what sorts of content games can have in general? Games becoming an extinct medium (or at the very least a very sequestered one) is a harsh reality that could possibly come to fruition with the way things are going. Simply put, EA is not helping this and neither are you with your apathetic views on where our medium stands. I'm not saying it'll disappear immediately, but if we sit here and do nothing it only makes it easier for these anti-video game groups to control how our medium evolves instead of resting that power squarely within our grasp, where it belongs.

Then again, tons of people play video games now-a-days, right? Wy worry when people have such a familiarity with video games. Yeah, that sounds great when you realise that 95% of Generation-Y plays games (that would be anyone born from 1985 to about 2000) but doesn't sound great when you realise that Generation-X and the Baby Boomers dwarf their numbers significantly. It also doesn't help that the two later generations are under the 50% marker for gamers and that the majority of those gamers are the ones who play things like Farmville, Brain Age and the like -- something insignificant to dull my mind in tedium for a few minutes on my lunch break! I can almost garentee that the millions of people that play Farmville daily wouldn't even classify it as a video game because it doesn't involve something blowing up or a $600 consol or sitting in your basement for hours on end. The sad truth is that the majority of people still believe the average gamer to be a manchild living in a basement (which most likely belongs to his parents [because girls still don't play games]) and playing these games in a completely obsessive and addictive manner to which the rest of their life suffers because of it. Again, EA is not helping this image go away with the advertisements that are put on television and the internet. Things are not going in our favour.

To say that our purchases do not affect how people perceive us is another falsehood I hope you stop clinging onto. To take the job example that was given earlier, there are a few things that video gaming could certainly effect. First off, there's a reason why employers like to know what hobbies and interests you have. It shows if you're a well-rounded, adjusted individual. Putting video games on a resume would certainly not work in your favour, unless the job was working at Gamestop or a hobby store that sells Warhammer or something along those lines. If anything, it shows you're immature, irresponcible and not dependable. Sadly, these are the stigmata that video games carry with those that don't understand them. Another great thing to bring up is that if you're an open gamer and do happen to get that job, you'll probably be more likely to not get promoted in a traditional business setting than the All-American quarter back in university. Why? Because becoming semi-talented at throwing a football around takes years of training, hardwork and dedication (assets very much welcome in a corperate setting for middle-management) instead of wasting that time relishing in perverted acts of blowing some dude up fifty million times (again, that stigmata). Again, why? Because the majority of the corperate ladder is controlled by those people born in Generation-X and the Baby Boomers right now, who are also the majority of the ones that are campaigning against gaming or just don't understand it to begin with so they trust their peers (I.E. not Generation-Y/the gamer generation) to explain it to them, whether if its extremely negative and biased or not.

The extremely public stunts that EA has been orchastrating are not going to change this perception for the better anytime soon, which is bad, because EA carries a lot of clout with its name. It's an industry leader. You want to see what's up in gaming, you basically have three choices: EA, Activision and Nintendo. Thankfully, Nintendo is a class act and strives to be this way in everything they do. Even people who don't like video games that much genuinely enjoy Nintendo products because they have great marketing and are fun for any age. Unfortunately, everyone else just aren't public enough to ever get any mention to people that just don't give two hoots about the inner workings of our culture and so we're stuck with EA and Activision to represent adult gaming. Then Ea starts to muck things up and when one of your big names starts to put the culture as a whole in a bad light, you tend to want to make them stop it as soon as humanly possible.

Now, I would like to make one thing clear about my argument which will lead into the next point. I'm not displeased with what EA is trying to do with their marketing, I am simply displeased that they've chosen to make it extremely sleezy instead of classy. They focus on the lowest common denominator, which is not great when you have activists and government groups breathing down your neck about how you're impacting society. Honestly, I was really looking forward to what EA was going to do with the "Sin to Win" project they had going because I love Dante's Inferno (the poem) and was genuinely intrigued in how they would present each deadly sin. What we got was a pandering to what we, as gamers, should be striving to break as a stereotype. Tits and ass galore and a prize for being able to exploit your most degenerate behaviour on camera. Now doesn't that just put us in the greatest light to outsiders of our culture? Heck, it even pissed off a lot of people within gaming culture to think that this is what EA thinks of us. So what could EA have done differently? Here's a quick thought on how to change the promotion to be a positive light on gaming culture as well as keeping to the theme of what was going on:

The booth girls set up, as intended, to be sought after by our mostly male demographic, stemming from the frat boys who just love to show off and play gore filled slash 'um ups as well as our core nerdy audience who probably fit at least one trait of the gamer stereotype. However, instead of forcing these booth girls to be subjected to whatever whim these guys can get on camera, how about we get them to try to impress the girls with any sort of amazing, non-gaming talent they have. Like pick-up lines, or magic tricks, or, y'know, whatever they can come up with on the spot to impress them. Impress the girl and you get their phone number (not their real number, of course, because that would be silly to give out). Collect the most phone numbers and you win a night on the town with two of the booth girls in a V.I.P. club!

Now, this does seem like pretty much the same thing as the contest EA had decided to run, but there are a few key differences...

#1. It's classy instead of sleezy. Anyone can understand that guys pick-up girls, even those that don't play games. However, it's based upon talent rather than debauchery and can easily be seen as impressive, sauve and smooth rather than being a sexually frustrated, chauvanistic pig. +1 PR for gamers and EA!

#2. Your booth girls aren't getting man-handled all day by guys they don't even know and probably don't even like being around. Rather, they're being treated like godesses for their 10+ hour shifts with (hopefully) talented individuals attempting to garner their attention for more than five seconds. They're being paid to be entertained with a wide veriaty of talents all in the hopes of them pretending to be interested in them and slipping the guy (or girl) their number. Heck, if this was the job description, I'm sure EA could get a much wider selection of gorgeous girls (+1 PR for EA for getting top notch booth girls) for a much lower wage because of the acctual effort involved in the job (+1 PR for EA for having a great job people will want to come back and do and +1 to EA Sales for being able to charge less because of how attractive the job is in perks alone).

#3. It teaches gamers a skill that might come in handy in the real world! I know, I know, breath taking, but still true. We all know gamers, in general, aren't the strongest socializers. This little game certainly would be a great confidence booster for a lot of guys out there and if nothing else, a really fun and care-free way to get guys to realise rejection isn't the worst thing in the world. Besides, what girl can resist giving her number to a guy that's just trying his darndest to impress and striking out every time? +1 to gamers for learning a relevent skill.

#4. It saves EA time and money in organisation for the event. Because the girls are the judges and you only really need to count up who got the most phone numbers, you can have whomever was supposed to judge the raunchiest pictures at EA to do something useful with their time and/or not have to hire a group of people just to judge said contest. Either way, EA isn't spending time/money on silly things and can instead use those resources for better things like, say, making their game better! +1 to everyone playing that particular game.

To me, this seems like it would have gone so much better than what they had planned. It still has shock value, as how many game companies ask you to go around a pick up girls?, it gives the contest a little more class because you aren't trying to look as raunchy as possible and it sends a message that gamers are fun people and can go out and do something spontaneous like this and still have time to play the games they love. Overall, it seems like this idea, that took me a whole twenty minutes to think up and type out, would have been much more well recieved than what EA had opted for.

Lastly, I want to touch on the negativity surrounding the choice to send EA something in regards to a letter or e-mail to express displeasure about how they've been conducting themselves. There seems to be an air of "it won't matter" concerning our voices on this issue -- that Ea will continue to do what they do no matter how many people complain. In fact, the concensus seems to be that you couldn't get one thousand gamers to write in about this even if your tried. Aside from the obvious point that this simply reinforces the apathy and undependability stated earlier in my argument, it also shows our complacancy to let our medium stagnate and near-sightedness about how companies view us. Simply put, we make EA what it is. If we asked them to change, they will certainly change. However, it's the asking part that seems to confound gamers as a whole. You don't need to stop purchasing EA products, you don't need to swear at them for five paragraphs to show your displeasure. Even something as simple as...

"Dear EA Customer Service,

Your recent advertisements for your larger titles has caught my eye recently. Unfortunately, this has not had the impact you intended it to have as it made me think twice about purchasing your titles. The way you depict our maturity, habits and understanding of the world is insulting and I do not wish to be associated with those stereotypes. While I have enjoyed your products in the past, if this imagery is to continue in further ad campaigns you conduct, I will be forced to stop purchasing your products. Please, do not make me and gamers like me choose between the games we love and our self-image.

Sincerely,
(your full name here)"

...speaks volumes to a customer service representative. People often think that one voice isn't enough to change the minds of a huge company like EA, but I know for a fact that's not true. As an example, I work at a grocery store. If a product is mentioned as not being stocked by our store by even one customer, we take serious consideration as to if we should start to stock that product. Two or three customers mention it and it's garenteed to be on the shelf within the week. We serve about ten thousand customers within a week's time, so though we are not as large a market as EA's, even if you scale those numbers up, that's only about two to three thousand people out of the millions that buy specific EA titles that need to speak up for EA to change the way they think about advertising their games. Guys annd girls, three thousand people is a handful if we really put our minds to it. We can change EA and they will change if we ask, but only if we do ask and ask in earnest.

I hope you take into consideration what I've put here today and hopefully I've changed your viewpoint at least a little, if not to feel compelled to do something about what EA is doing to our medium. Yes, we need hack and slash games as much as artistic ones, but now is not the time to be reveling in how deep the bullethole goes into the torso. Now is the time to show what games are truly made of; how they can evoke such deep and raw emotion from oneself, tell compelling narratives and teach us through interactivity what we could never learn from the momorization of a movie or book. Most importantly, we need to stand-up and mature as a culture before we can rest on our laurals of knowing our medium is to have a secure future in the minds of generations to come.

I thank you for taking the time to read this. =)

 

[Polaris19]

Everything in your post.

You sir, deserve a a gigantic cookie. I really have nothing to add because tyou just covered every last base.

 

[Continuity]

Eh, no. You are putting words into my mouth. That's not even remotely close to what I was saying.

I suggest you re-read what you wrote, and perhaps look up the definition of the word "remote" whilst you're at it, all I did was draw the logical conclusion from your post, and perhaps you could get someone to explain to you how "don't do ANYTHING" can be construed as "to not try and communicate with then in anyway whatsoever".

So what else should we do? Send them an e-mail saying "Don't do this again." and a wag of the finger? In your wildest dreams you couldn't hope to get 1000 gamers to write a letter, and that sort of figure wouldn't even be noticed by EA.

Once again, you're not coming up with a solution you're just shutting down the only avenue of communication that we do have though pure pessimism. Besides, it only takes one email in the right hands to make a point.. not that were talking about just an email of course, the whole point is to deliver EC's open letter to them.
OK so EA certainly isn't going to change stripes overnight because of one open letter, but at least it may give some of the people there pause for thought.

I imagine those at EA who care will get to see this open letter anyway, email or not. the Escapist may not be entirely mainstream but its not off the radar either.

 

[LunaSocks]

*Standing alone in an open field, the wind blowing past his face, is a bunny. Clapping, cheering and whooping in honor of HellsingerAngel* I agree fullheartedly, but I need to point out a few things....

Heck, even literature has had its brush with this sort of level of controversy with periods such as science fiction and fantasy becoming mainstream all the way back to when the printing press was invented.

Let us not forget the book burnings, either. If memory serves I read that those were to kill off ideas that were deemed "unacceptable" or "corrupt". But let us move on to the next part...

Games becoming an extinct medium (or at the very least a very sequestered one) is a harsh reality that could possibly come to fruition with the way things are going.

First of all, I am fully aware of the Californian attempts at gunning down games, and how Australia repeatedly bans games (GTA IV, and didn't Postal 2 get banned over there as well?), although I do not believe that the medium is becoming extinct. In fact, gaming was probably one of the worst effected divisions in corporate business when the economy hit the fan. It's not that gaming is dying off, it's just that we here about lay-offs all the time because they're great news fodder. I recently inquired to James Portnow (from Extra Credits itself, for those that somehow don't know) about the 'Dying Industry', where I asked about all of the lay-offs we hear about in the gaming industry. He responded by saying that sometimes, people are hired for a specific project, and then are fired. Sometimes, this means the complete team that worked on the game, meaning that there was a large amount of lay-offs. Which headline sounds more interesting? Gaming company lays off large amounts of its workers shows signs of dying industry, or Gaming company let go workers that were hired for just that specific project? I say the first one. Now onto another issue about one sentence later...

Simply put, EA is not helping this and neither are you with your apathetic views on where our medium stands.

Offense has been taken, good sir. Just because my views were apathetic at the time, does not mean they will always be that way. They merely seemed that based who I was commenting on. Oh look! A sentence!

His view on the 'Sin to Win' Campaign.

I do fully believe that this was a very nice overhaul to the downright offensive campaign that was the 'Sin to Win' Campaign. It turned something that was gross, juvenile, and pig-headed into something that was classy, smart, and somewhat sophisticated. But this is not exactly sinning, more so picking up chicks, so they most likely would've had to do a complete overhaul of the contest, or just scrap it altogether. EA can't do that sort of thing, because a controversial contest pretty much equals free advertising. Hell, I'm almost entirely certain Dante's Inferno (the game, not the poem Angel mentioned) was just a big experiment by EA to find out just how much free controversy advertising they could possibly get out of a game. Just speculation on my part, but it's still a great point.

Now, I do believe I have belittled Angel's post well enough for now. If need arises, I shall critique the rest of it, and possibly another of Angel's posts.

P.S. Excellently made post, Angel. Nice amount of work put into it, almost a full story chapter.

 

[Harlemura]

No. I don't really think games are art, so I think EA can advertise however they want. Plus none of these adverts are shown in the UK, so I have even less of a beef with 'em.

Don't know why I have this viewpoint yet come back to Extra Credits every week...

Terrible advertising is terrible advertising, but I guess if you don't see it, it won't matter to you.

Why don't you think video games are art though?

Trying not to derail the thread too much, I'm one of those closed minded people that thinks the art label only applies to paintings, sculptures, stuff like that.
The game thing particularly bugs me because I'm worried too many developers are going to start to convey some big, deep message through them. That's great an' all, but if we start sacrificing the fun, I think we're missing the point of games.

Sorry, this was a terrible attempt at not derailing the thread.

 

[MrPanda_94]

Firstly no email from me.

I haven't previously seen their advertising campaigns what with being in the UK and I'm grateful for EC pointing them out. I can't say I'm too impressed and agree that it gives the gaming community bad press. Did they really need to give more ammunition to those who try to make us out like randy children with nothing better to do?

Of course not. But at the end of the day I think we've just got to accept that there is a portion of truth in the stereotype. I've played CoD enough to know the majority of people on it are childish and offensive (but no I'm not saying all of them are I have come across a few civil human beings on there). EA are appealing to an existing audience, not trying to break new grounds and appeal to the masses. Leave the family friendly gaming to Kinect and the Wii etc

I don't particularly like the way they've gone about the advertising but I'm not going to try and take the moral high ground and say they should sacrifice truck loads of money which can be used to pay those who worked hard on the games and also be spent and bringing us more of the classics.

A good episode of EC because it makes some valid points but personally I'm just going to leave it at that. EA will only continue to advertise in this way if this level of publicity is induced by it anyway.


PS. I'm sorry if that seems contradictory or makes no sense but I'm not the most eloquent of wordsmiths. There is a point in there somewhere I hope =)

 

[Lesd3vil]

I understand where the guys on EC are coming from here. It's not a matter of 'degrading the gamers'. In the case of the faux-protests, that is insulting to people of the christian faith; it's taking a belief system that is an important part of a lot of people's lives and making a mockery of it. How do you guys feel when someone laughs at the fact you're a gamer? Puts you down because of the music you listen to, the fact that you might read books, even the clothes you wear? Now think how you'd feel if you knew someone was pretending to be a part of that demographic, pretending to protest against something to sell it to people who probably strongly dislike, or even hate your demographic.

It's true that games can be just mindless fun, and films can also be just mindless fun, but there is a considerably larger media backlash against games than there is against films. Look at all the various gorenography movies that have been released... The media hardly notices them. A game, on the other hand? Instant fuel to the fire; 'This will cause children to be violent, rapists, etc etc'. Fact is, if a game's 18+ or M rated, CHILDREN SHOULDN'T BE F*****G PLAYING IT! Aiming your advertising for a Mature rated game to an underage demographic is like exploitation, hypocrisy and stupidity all rolled into one minute of advertisement... Content ratings exist for a reason, people, and this is half of the problem; people don't view games in the same way as movies because it's easier for minors to get hold of mature games, and it's easier for minors to get hold of mature rated games because people don't see them as seriously as movies!

It's not that it 'hurts gamers'. It's that it hurts non-gamers' perception of gamers. As long as the industry keeps cavorting around like a sociopathic adolescent boy, people are always going to view the format as immature and harmful. You know, and I know, that a stable, well-balanced person isn't going to take a knife and start trying to dismember people because they play a game; if they do, it's not the game that's caused it, but the fact that they're mentally unbalanced in the first place!

Games CAN be art... Look at recent games like Alan Wake. It tells an engaging, emotionally charged story in a way that's interactive. Go further back, the underrated gem Okami on the PS2... A beautiful retelling of japanese legends. Metal Gear Solid 3 (the peak of the series in my opinion), from the musical score to the underlying story being told, up to the ending sequence, was an incredibly well-constructed piece of artistry; think about all the soldiers you might have chosen to kill, but instead put to sleep with the tranquiliser, or evaded completely. Now, think about what that says about you as a person. There are plenty more, even if they are the exception rather than the rule...

People who say games can't be art simply don't want games to be art.

It's true that Extra Credits can be over-the-top and preachy with their videos, but they raise a good point... The mainstream view of the industry is never going to be allowed to mature if it doesn't try it's best to present a mature view of itself >>