The Advertising Standards Authority has outlawed an Eidos advertising campaign for Kane & Lynch.
The body has ordered Eidos not to print or broadcast the ads again, after upholding 26 complaints and calling the promotion 'graphic' and 'shocking'.
One press ad shows a gagged woman, crying and having her head held back by one of the pair. It was printed over a double-page spread in Edge, with a second version appearing in Total Film magazine.
The ASA said: 'The portrayal of violence it contained, with particular regard to the female hostage, was graphic and too shocking to be seen in an untargeted medium.'
Another Kane & Lynch poster held a quote from the Official Xbox 360 Magazine stating, 'Grittier and nastier in tone than anything you've seen before, the violence here is visceral, brutal and very, very real'.
When does an ad go too far? Also, was it wise for Eidos to quote that part of the Official Xbox Magazine review?
Oh, that wasnt the version I saw...at least I dont think it was. And yeah, if it was someone that fit an enemy profile, it probably wouldnt have been a big deal. I am pretty against really graphic violence now, which is why The Ruins was the worst movie ever.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by walkstheplanes
CaptStu is soley responsible for the decline of the Great American Prairie Dolphin.
Are there two versions of the advertisement out there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitbabits
Another Kane & Lynch poster held a quote from the Official Xbox 360 Magazine stating, 'Grittier and nastier in tone than anything you've seen before, the violence here is visceral, brutal and very, very real'.
Kind of sad if brutal gore is the game's main selling point...
Are there two versions of the advertisement out there?
Kind of sad if brutal gore is the game's main selling point...
...the thing is, it's not gory. There are a few cut-scenes that are questionable, maybe, but I can't even recall even though I played through the game twice. The actual game-play violence is "normal", nothing more or less than what you see in Army Of Two or COD.
I think in this case negative press is a good thing. This kind of press will result in more copies sold because gamers will be more curious. Manhunt2 probably sold more copies than it would have had there not been all that controversy around it.
I think there have been a string of ads that have gone wayy too far. Strangely a FEW of them from Eidos.
I remember being offended, I guess you could call it, by the Hitman ads from a while bakc that all circled around a pretty woman who had been murdered and suggesting that it was a good and beautiful thing.
I mean, I know how people love to defend their videogame violence porn but at some point it's simply not acceptible anymore.
I think it has something to do with the fact my opinion that the game sucks, and, therefore, needs to depend on this kind of lowbrow advertising that appears to preach a message of violence in order to have any chance at success. I'm still not sure though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by handsalad
I think in this case negative press is a good thing. This kind of press will result in more copies sold because gamers will be more curious. Manhunt2 probably sold more copies than it would have had there not been all that controversy around it.
Yeah, if your game sucks you might as well do everything you can to promote it. Eidos needs the sales, not good PR or good games. I'm sure that this trend will continue and Eidos will still be respectable in five years time.
What the fuck am I saying? Eidos isn't respected now.
I think fitbabits really hits the nail on the head this time. If the ads featured a middle eastern man or even an italian looking man, not anyone would have raised any of their eyebrows.
The question we all should be asking ourselves is this:
Does banning ads for a game that's been out at least 5-6 months really help anything?
__________________
Please support http://www.gamerdad.com - the voice of reason when it comes to gaming and children
