Bethesda Softworks is coming under fire this week for an ad in Washington, D.C.'s Metro Station as well as other public transportation locations for the latest installment in its Fallout game series, released today. The advertisement features an image of a damaged Washington Monument and tattered American flags.
AdFreak notes that the ads are protected under the First Amendment, and are merely depictions of a video game from a studio that is obviously trying to be provacative. And Bethesda's executive producer Todd Howard tells the Washington Post:
"And so, just the immediate visual of the Capitol and the Washington Monument and things like that, they tell a story immediately. The imagery is really evocative, these American icons, these big, epic structures kind of destroyed. It has the feeling of, what would you do? How did it get that way and what would you do in that world?"
What the Fallout 3 ad campaign seems to have ignored or dismissed in its campaign, however, is that Washington, D.C. was the target of a terrorist attack recently enough that the visual may not be viewed as a simple ad by many of the D.C. area's commuters. While the violence of first-person shooter games is occasionally debated, the decision to move the game's new version to D.C., turning the nation's capital into a post-apocalyptic wasteland may not garner the "cool game" reaction that Bethesda was planning.
Comments
Over the line? No. If you think so you'll just have to deal with it. Free speech is great isn't it?
While we are at it lets destroy all books that reference that time early in our history when the french burnt down the white house (back then called the Presidents house). Grow some cajones.
People are stupid.
Troybob, what an emptathetic response! When you consider that there are probably many in the DC metro area, including rescue workers, who may be suffering from post-traumatic stress issues after the 9/11 attacks, I'm sure the "suck it up" response for a video game ad is completely appropriate. We aren't talking about something that happened 200 years ago; we are talking about an even that occurred in recent history that people actually remember experiencing. I think that there are times when pointing to an amendment rather than considering the polite thing to do is wrong.
Empathy is one thing, surrendering Constitutional Rights in the name of "the polite thing to do" is absolutely bizarre. This may not be in the best of taste, but I am not responsible for anyone elses taste, and I need only cater to it if I wish to. Politeness is a choice, rights are non-negotiable.
whoever wrote this article is an idot and clearly understands nothing about video game culture or the people that play them because no one who is into really into video games cares who the game offends as long as its fun which is clearly shown by the amount of people who purchased GTA 4. Which on a scale of violence and political incorrectness is on such a different level then this game to even be debating if bethesada's game is over the line is just down right stupid. This game is a hypothetical what if situation not a representation of real life shown very clearly by the opening movie of the game unlike other violent games which have much stronger ties to real life situations. If you want to talk about post traumatic stress as being the reason it should be banned or critized then look no further as GTA 4 has that as well. What about all of the familys all across america that have lost loved ones to gun violence or the brave officers of the law that have been shot at and wounded or worse their families that lost a mother or father. Don't get me wrong I think GTA 4 is a great game and im not attacking it merely showing you that this game is the least of your concerns for any type of over the line situation. So next time before you go writing articles attacking games you never have played and probably never will why don't you pull you head out of the dirt and do a little more extensive research on how bad it really is in comparision to other games out on the market and write an article worth reading.
Someone, I'm not talking about the game. I'm talking about the huge ads for the game that were up in Washington, DC Metro locations. The game is a voluntary purchase; you can choose not to buy it or play it. But when the ads are in your face in public locations, you don't have a choice about viewing them or not. I'm asking whether the ad campaign is over the top, not the game.
The Canadians, at the time, British subjects burnt the White House. Not French.
yeah cause the ad campaign has nothing to wiht the game itself or anything like that they should advertise for things not in the game like fluffy bunnies and happy things totally unrelated to the game that would certainly spark interests in the subject and get people to look into the game or buy it
Post new comment