HellsingerAngel said:
your opinions on the current situation that is before us as a culture is astoundingly asinine and ignorant of the bigger picture before us.
First and foremost this post is far to long for the subject matter, you make only a handful of points in it, and the rest is padding so I'd advise you not to insult those you're trying to discuss the issue with in the first paragraph of your post. I've deleted most of your post that just repeats points or isn't relevant.
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.
Incorrect. There has been wide-spread controversy around half of the examples mentioned in this paragraph, more so than the "controversy" that surrounds video-games because it was heavily picked on by the mass media. The controversy around games exists more due to the games media than the mainstream media because games are very rarely looked at in as much detail as the cases of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or "Eminem" have been in the past. Or indeed, recently [http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/08/06/eminem-love-the-way-you-lie-video/]. To argue that comparisons aren't warranted is just ignorant of society in general, the same complaints are made about every form of media [as you go on to say later on] the difference being games are in the mainstream press less often than these other media forms were.
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.
Now you're just over-reacting; first and foremost EA's marketing department are depicting their games, Dante's Inferno and Dead Space 2, as violent, bloody kill-fests. You know why?
Because that's exactly what they are. Let's not pretend otherwise here and try and claim they should lie to market the game [in fact a lot of people tend to complain when a games trailer isn't actually representative of the game either so they can't win]. Instead of complaining that marketing departments should cover up the true nature of 90% of current games, which are simply kill-fests [and let's not deny that, the biggest series in the industry CoD, can be distilled into you running through areas murdering people - though those two are particularly violent in that manner] you
should be campaigning for better games, not better advertisement - if the games weren't all based around murdering people [and I'm sure 90% of the people complaining about EA's marketing bought Dead Space 2] in as horrific ways as possible the advertisements wouldn't be entirely based around gore, or at least there would be a better ratio of gore to non-gore advertisements [for example Nintendos's advertisements, which nobody has actually mentioned].
As for all this hysteria over "games could be banned"; like I said, you're heavily over-reacting. Not only has California's plea been turned down a number of times [and would never pass] but the situations in Germany and Australia will improve in time as power passes to those interested or at least not-opposed to games. It's not an issue of changing the face of the medium to appease a few, but to simply wait.
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.
Now you sound as laughable as Extra Credits [and those that think Extra Credits is somehow an innovative amazing look at the industry instead of repeating dry points that have been made a thousand times.../rant], if you truly beleive that then fair enough, though I hope you've got some kindof survey or evidence to support this - especially when, as you stated, 63% of Americans play games [http://kotaku.com/#!332910/npd-gaming-is-a-stress-reliever] - furthermore your dismissive air of social games and Facebook games just goes to show you have a limited view on the industry - Facebook games have massively improved the industry; appealing to a wider audience, creating new jobs / companies and allowing indie developers to create more innovative games; and [on-topic] can be a great gateway into other forms of gaming, franchises such as Assassins Creed and Dragon Age have Facebook games for a reason...
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.
I'm just going to point out that this "sterotype" is true - what exactly does playing games show to any employee in terms of skills built or well-rounded nature? Games are purely entertainment with little to no skills used that are relevant in the work place [unless you run a guild or something to that extreme, and people have gained jobs from putting such skills on their CV before]; it'd be like someone putting "watches films" on their CV being taken seriously. Moronic? Yes, but that's the point you're trying to argue.
You make some good points regarding a single advertisement campaign, though I feel as though you're compressing EA, and Activision's entire company into these two products; EA does as much good as anyone in bringing gaming into the mainstream with its sports games; being from England the only gaming advertisements I see on TV are Nintendo products and FIFA advertisements, so maybe my view isn't as jaded as yours, but I still don't see the issue here. That "Sin to Win" marketing campaign was sleezy yes, but you have to look as the reasons behind that nature; the demographic they're aiming for and the games content, as more determining factors in the matter.
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.
Would it have given them as much controversial publicity? Which was what the Dante's Inferno adverting campaign was clearly based upon [even it's slogan was "Go to hell" for crying out loud]. No it wouldn't - and thus it would have been less successful from a marketing standpoint.
Simply put, we make EA what it is. If we asked them to change, they will certainly change.
You think the failing franchises Dante's Inferno and Dead Space "make EA"? EA gains the vast majority of money from its sports games and casual games - they don't care about the "hardcore" medium because we don't "make EA what it is". Don't delude yourself.
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.
That's not how the games industry works...at all...you state below you understand how it works so I won't bother going into detail but needless to say your comparisons are poor.
Needless to say your introduction is pretty hypocritical; your viewpoint is the one that is "astoundingly asinine and ignorant of the bigger picture before us." You also change your examples and viewpoint within the post several times, actually contradicting yourself later on, but I won't even go into that because this post is far to long as it is.
