I would say the level of "outrage" has been fair over the marketing gaffes that you cite. Neither sparked a mass boycott/decrying of the game, they simply sparked a lot of people with the means to do so to stand on their soapbox and say "Knock it off." The good news is that in both cases, the corporate overloads HEARD the dissatisfaction and acted pretty swiftly to make amends. While they arguably should have known better in the first place, I was impressed by the speed of their responses. So too sensitive? I wouldn't say that. So far, the worst it ever seems to get in the gaming world is "online petition of rage" which means less than nothing. Crying "That's offensive" when offended is just calling it like you see it.

I agree with Daniel. The 'Sin to Win' event involved you snapping pictures with women who weren't necessarily willing participants. At best it's grossly chauvinistic and at worst a law suit waiting to happen. Of the two incidents you cite, this one is the more serious to me as it involves the abuse of actual people in a real-life setting. The 'F.A.G.S.' ad is offensive, but mostly just in poor taste. No one was encouraged directly to go out and grab someone. Still, it's an unfunny joke that goes too far. In this day and age, humor should be inclusive of everyone as opposed to excluding, mocking, and therefore alienating a group of people. Then again, I'm not funny so take my advice with a grain of salt. Great article as always, Alex.

Part of me is glad that people are taking the time to complain about ads they find offensive, but on the other hand, I sometimes think that energy could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe this isn't the case for everyone, but I'm far more outraged by certain acts being committed by our government, cops tasering/harassing someone unjustly, and someone setting a homeless person on fire. Okay, so I know that these have nothing to do with video games, but when things like that are going on, I don't really get that outraged about issues such as the Call of Duty video. I find them somewhat offensive and am glad that some people are letting their voices be heard, but at the same time, it's not worth focusing on when there are so many more good things happening in the game industry.

I think part of the reason that we are starting to see more and more of these "questionable" advertising campaigns is because video games are being pushed more in mainstream media than ever before. Because they are more visible for a larger portion of time, publishers are having to try and be more creative and well, failing a lot of the time.

[quote]Don't freak out about every little scrape and bruise, or game marketing will be completely boring and dry. Instead, learn to relax a little bit. That way, when the really offensive thing comes along, we won't be the gamers who cried wolf.[/quote] Alex, I honestly have a problem with this statement. How people react to various issues is a very personal thing, and telling people to relax is only going to incite them more. Also, many people thought that the examples you cited above were 'really offensive.' I have no problem that you see these issues differently. However, when you tell people to relax, you're both insinuating that these people are overreacting, and you're essentially saying that their reaction is not as valid is yours. This is not a good way to foster intelligent discourse on the subject. It immediately establishes an adversarial relationship between you and the people you are referring to.

@Jay - You seemed to have read my article completely different then how I wrote it. I never once said that the examples I cited weren't offensive to me, or to anyone. I even mocked people who weren't concerned with them at all. [quote]Were you horrified by the recent Modern Warfare 2 debacle, in which a promotional video ended with the title of a fake organization whose name spelled out "F.A.G.S"? No? Well then you probably don't have any gay friends or family members. [/quote] That is me, telling the people that write this kind of thing off as nothing, to just step back and shut up about it. If you don't have a personal connection to it, then don't run around saying that people who are offended are stupid. The entire point of the article was me struggling with being offended, but not wanting to get out of control with my outrage. Did you not draw that conclusion from the entire 2 opening paragraphs? I though I was being pretty blatant in saying that people need to draw their own lines. Don't freak out about everything, only the things that really offend you. Hell, I even said essentially the same thing. It was a sentence before what you quoted. Perhaps you missed it. [quote]Either way, all I'm asking is that people learn to draw a line. Don't freak out about every little scrape and bruise,[/quote] That was the entire point. Right there. It even said ALL I'M ASKING right in front of it. Perhaps you had trouble reading in between the lines? This wasn't in ANY WAY an article saying people should stop whining. The examples I cited were 2 that really offended me, and I cited them with the express purpose of showing my struggles with the entire subject. I used my parenting struggles as an easy metaphor for people to understand my stance on the topic I presented. It's hard for me to draw the line when my kid might get hurt, and it's hard for me to draw the line of when I should be outraged by the game marketing blunders. I guess I'll beat the point over the head better next time. Perhaps you just skimmed the article and picked up on a point to argue? NAAAAAAH. Nobody would just go LOOKING for something to argue. That'd be stupid.

@Alex - I did read your article. I'm sorry that you felt the need to resort to thinly veiled insults questioning my intelligence rather than have a rational discussion. I do find some small irony in the fact that you felt the need to resort to capitalizing letters in your response to provide emphasis, but you refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that what you wrote earlier was perhaps not clear in some way, and that might have been what prompted my response. I still feel that you're missing the whole point of my response. Whenever there is something controversial in the media, people are going to react strongly to it. There is, undoubtedly, someone who is going to be offended over just about everything. The simple fact is, if someone is making noise, they probably are indeed offended. I don't know what your background is, but it seems like you've never had to endure any kind of customer service or public relations training. The number one thing they always tell you never to say to someone who is already upset is "calm down" or "relax." When you start making comments like these you are marginalizing the emotional responses of others. You're implying that they should not be reacting the way that they do. Furthermore, when you say "all I'm asking is that people learn to draw a line" you're also implying that we are unable to control ourselves already. You're telling all of us that we're somehow unable to stop ourselves from blowing up over things we don't actually find offensive. Honestly, I find this insinuation offensive.

This wasn't my take away at all. I got that Alex was encouraging everyone to draw a line of what is acceptable and unacceptable specifically in video game ads (though I think the point applies beyond just advertising). If everyone had established boundaries from the get go people would be less likely to 'freak out' and more likely to form constructive criticism of why the message was offensive in the first place when it counts. While I do disagree that the Dante's Inferno stunt was just a 'bruise', Alex is trying to make the point that well established boundaries amongst gamers can lead to interesting, engaging marketing efforts with a far lesser chance for offense or exclusion.

@Travis - I believe it's unrealistic to believe that society will ever stick to the same line. You can't quantify or control emotional responses. Even by setting the goal of making people less likely to "freak out" we're also presupposing that "freaking out" is not acceptable. I think this is a slippery slope when we start trying to control how other people react. Even if you don't like people "freaking out" they still have a right to do it. Many successful marketing campaigns have pushed societal boundaries. Just think how unacceptable an "Obsession" ad from the 1990's (with scantily clad people writhing around) would have been 50 years earlier. As marketing continually tries to stay fresh and new, you're always going to have campaigns that step over someone's line. The sensibilities of individuals are far too fluid and marketing is far too dynamic for there to ever be a hope of never offending anyone.

I totally understood what you were saying Alex. Your parental examples especially helped as I find myself asking the opposite question in regards to my step-son: Am I being too hard on him? I think this is an important time for gaming, as the media is started to take a larger and larger presence with more ambitious stories, it has opportunities to depict more realistic characters and scenarios, and that ultimately builds up to being able to tell Richer story lines. It's natural for it to have this kind of identity crisis, but the people who dismiss it as "Just a game" are not doing it any favors. We need to have these discussions, and we need to have arguments. As annoying and as pointless as they may seem, an industry that is far more capable will emerge. Jay, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. On one hand you're right, you're never going to please everyone, but that doesn't mean you can use that as an excuse to just go do anything you want as far as marketing goes. And besides, isn't the entire point of marketing to 'control how people react'?

@Jay - [quote]Don't freak out about every little scrape and bruise, or game marketing will be completely boring and dry.[/quote] My point is that I want more of these unique and edgy marketing campaigns, but offensive things need to be squashed. It's up to people to decide what is too offensive to them and take those stands. Travis is obviously more offended by the demeaning of women, and I am more offended by the use of words like "fags". Those are our seperate lines.

@Jon and @Alex - The point I am trying to make is in reference to what Alex just quoted above. [quote]Don't freak out about every little scrape and bruise, or game marketing will be completely boring and dry.[/quote] It is useless to implore people to not freak out for two reasons: 1) Since people view each situation differently, there are some people who are going to freak out over just about everything. 2) When you tell people who are already excited to "calm down" or "relax" this tends to have the opposite affect than what you intended. It's not as if gamers are sitting at home saying "Oh, I'm going to freak out over that even though I really don't care." When people react strongly, there is often a reason for it. When you tell a group of people "Don't freak out about every little scrape and bruise," that statement carries with it the implication that people are overreacting, or that you don't think that their inherently emotional responses are warranted or valid.

@Jay - You really love arguing semantics don't you? I realize that some people are going to "freak out" about everything. I'm saying that if you have your own line, and you raise your voice when that line is crossed, then it will help limit the dog pile effect. If you don't care about gay rights, then just leave the whole MW2 thing alone. Gamers love to push back when someone raises a fuss. They don't think it's offensive, so they start yelling at the people who do. It quickly devolves into a mob of idiots that get nothing done. And you can stop bringing up this telling people to relax makes them more angry thing. Maybe that's what you were told in your office buildings, but the internet isn't full of business men. In my experiences, telling people to relax has had the exact opposite effect as you say. I've had people curse in my face for things that weren't my fault at all. I've found that every single time, if I play the victim, (which I am) and tell people to relax and not swear at me, they instantly shut up. They all of a sudden feel like giant asses, and back down. Do you want to run around in circles some more? You aren't arguing anything with any substance. Everything you argue, doesn't negate my thoughts, its just a slight variation of how you think things will happen. The best example of an internet troll? Arguing for arguing sakes.

@Jay I'm not saying that society should have a universal sticking line, but it's not going to far to say that you can easily tell where a group's collective opinion falls. The F.A.G.S. instance is a great example. These campaigns don't just 'come together'- they're created, tested, and vetted through several levels before seeing the light of day- I've seen the process. F.A.G.S. was a calculated risk to drum up press and let the target demographic in on a joke. If those opposed to the term 'fags' freak out it's no sweat to EA- they've still hit their target demo. However, if savvy gamers form a concise argument against offensive speech like this, the corporate powers that be will have to take notice. Alex' argument is that everyone should define their own 'line' and stick to it without starting the traditional flame war over every edgy ad. I'm not trying to propose that we all have some mandated position on every issue as gamers, nor am I trying to "quantify and control emotional responses". I'm not with the borg. I just agree with Alex that understanding what constitutes offensive for myself and striving to express that in a rational fashion rather than losing it all over the IGN boards is a smart philosophy. I'm well aware of the history of advertising, but hate speech isn't something I consider innovative. Sex in advertising has been around since the dawn of recorded history (hence, the oldest profession), and advancing the amount of boob I see in a commercial is in no way equivalent to encouraging people to harass and possibly grope an unwilling party. I can't see where you can draw that parallel. Also, I know it's difficult, but yes-- we should try to be inclusive whenever possible. You said: [quote]The sensibilities of individuals are far too fluid and marketing is far too dynamic for there to ever be a hope of never offending anyone. [/quote] I hate this kind of argument. The idea that just because something won't be easy and will take a fair amount of effort and tact doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. The preferences and sensibilities of gamers are so diverse that no one will ever make a universally pleasing game. While that last statement may be true, I don't consider it an effective reason for developers to stop trying. Just because it's probably impossible to have the perfect government, develope the perfect game, or be the perfect husband doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The above quote is indicative of a defeatist approach.

I'm sorry that you think that examining the psychological and sociological aspects of your post qualifies as arguing. You completely ignore what I say, imply that I am stupid, state that my comments lack substance, and insinuate I am trolling. You implore people not to freak out and claim that this is a problem that gamers have as a group, but you insult me for not agreeing with you? Doesn't this seem a tad bit hypocritical? No, sir, I am not arguing for argument's sake. You however, are attacking me for no good reason. The first actual counter you provide to my point is that what I'm saying is not true because you can diffuse people by acting like a victim? I'm trying to discuss the psychological aspects of complex human interactions and you react by giving me the written equivalent of sticking your tongue out and saying "Nya nya, you're wrong!" I guess it was my fault for thinking we could have an adult conversation. I didn't realize that your only response to someone challenging your ideas would be to personally attack them. You made a large mistake if you thought that I was trying to negate any of your thoughts. I actually respected you, and I thought that you may be interested in exploring your post from a different angle. Don't worry, I'm not going to keep responding to someone who would rather lash out at me than have a intelligent conversation. You obviously feel threatened for some reason when I try to question you, so I'll stop. You win. Are you happy now?

I think its sad that such minor details caused such a huge argument. Even if I didn't agree with every single detail in Alex's article, I quickly understood the main point, which is that people should sometimes take a step back and examine if they're overreacting to an issue. I couldn't agree more, because I regularly witness people who do nothing but complain, and regularly argue because they want to feel better about themselves by riling someone up.

@Travis - I completely agree that the grenade spam campaign was reprehensible and should never have been done. I fully support never using hate speech in marketing. This is a line I will join you in standing on. You're right, it's not innovative. The history of product branding in the United States has had it's fair share of racial pejoratives used on labels, especially early canned goods. What it boils down to for me is that this whole issue is the fault of the marketing people for creating it and the game publishers for allowing it. It's certainly not the fault of people who express dissatisfaction over it. We should be advocating change in marketing if this is the kind of thing they keep putting out. I was never actually disagreeing with the spirit of Alex's message. I was just stating that from a psychological perspective, telling an angry person to "calm down" is of questionable usefulness. I would personally love for people to be more socially responsible. I just don't think that asking them to calm down is an effective way to accomplish that. Realistically, you're never going to stop people from freaking out or arguing on message boards. My suggestion would be to ignore the noise and for those of us who are capable to continue to bring the fight to the truly responsible parties: the marketing reps and the game publishers.

[quote]It's not as if gamers are sitting at home saying "Oh, I'm going to freak out over that even though I really don't care." When people react strongly, there is often a reason for it. When you tell a group of people "Don't freak out about every little scrape and bruise," that statement carries with it the implication that people are overreacting, or that you don't think that their inherently emotional responses are warranted or valid.[/quote] The things that many people over-react about, like the GTA example I gave above, are in fact over-reactions. It's ridiculous to boycott a game because your kid may re-enact violence in real life that he sees on a video game when it says PLAIN AS DAY that it is not meant for these kids and here are the reasons why and yet you walk up to the counter and purchase it for him without wondering why you have to buy the game for him. The problem, and the reason why parents and organizations over-react in these situations, is ignorance. Plain and simple mis-education, not on the topics that are in fact offensive (and should not be played by kids), but on gaming and the ratings which were put on boxes for this specific reason. There are people who over-react. And the problem is that they don't see that they are over-reacting. We all agree that your kid should not be exposed to hookers and drugs and offensive language and evil hellspawn babies. We all agree that they are serious topics that should not (and usually aren't) taken lightly. No one who is around kids and sees how impressionable there minds are will ever think that they should be exposed to these situations and that's why you have to have an I.D or a parent saying that it is ok for you to play those games. There are barriers in place - If you're that concerned for your child's safety, educate yourself before you go and get a lawyer and sue Rockstar. In short - There are some people who's emotional reactions are invalid or are not warranted - because they're ignorant and have not taken the time to educate themselves. Now, before you start, there are times when a kid gets away with buying a mature-rated game. but is that EA or Rockstar's fault? Hell no, It's Gamestop's, or Best Buy's, or whatever store did not educate their employees well enough to know that it's something you just don't do. Let's even take Alex's example of the infamous MW2 organization (which, frankly, I'm sink of discussing, but I digress). People who are going to be offended by this are offended because they are educated enough to know the term. These are people who have had to live with that terminology and its negative effects for a very long time and have every right to be offended. But, and sorry to play the devil's advocate Alex, it's a slang term that has had a number of uses since it's induction. Although all of them have been offensive, only recently (within the 20th century) did it come to mean a derogatory term for homosexuals. We can even go further and look at the N-word. Blacks use it now as if its a greeting for other blacks - would they have said the same thing when slavery was abundant? hell no! and before slavery, the N-word wasn't even referred to with black people. The word, by definition, means: [i]Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.[/i] Notice that it says of ANY RACE OR ORIGIN. But ever since slavery the definition has been altered to affect, exclusively, black people. The most recent South Park episode (which I hate to use as a discussion piece) brought up this exact same thing with the term "fag". So a line can't really be drawn when it comes to people's emotions. But these people who are educated and who are offended by these topics, if you've noticed jay, usually don't make a big to-do about it because they are educated enough to know that these things won't change any time soon (at least until current definitions and slang and cultures change) and they've learned to pick their battles. These are the people who won't buy games because of the content but will never sign a petition or a boycott stating that they will. This was Alex's point in it's entirety. You don't over-react to the little things. Instead you educate yourself and learn to fight when its necessary. You draw your own line based on not only your personal beliefs but on educated ideas as well. Wow, that was long, I apologize. It probably didn't make much sense either but I'm hoping it did.

@Jay I think we're on the same wavelength now. I think maybe you mistook Alex' "calm down". I think he was going for more of a "try to make sense" argument. Taking offense is one thing, but freaking out is counter productive. And I know that it's not realistic that video games will ever be considered anything but glorified 'toys' in the minds of society at large. I know we'll probably always have more playground style dialogue online regarding games than anything else. But this website is all about trying to foster a more adult, controlled conversation about gaming to change that. It might not work, but I think we can agree it's worth a shot.

@Mark - Great response. One thing: [quote]But these people who are educated and who are offended by these topics, if you've noticed jay, usually don't make a big to-do about it because they are educated enough to know that these things won't change any time soon (at least until current definitions and slang and cultures change) and they've learned to pick their battles. These are the people who won't buy games because of the content but will never sign a petition or a boycott stating that they will.[/quote] I guess in my mind, this makes it even more futile to implore people on the internet to not overreact. The people who know better are not going to, and the people who don't know better are not going to listen to someone asking them to calm down.

@jay You can not educate the masses without diving into the fray and attempting to do it yourself. It doesn't meant that everyone will but there are some who do it quite well. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, these guys were educators more than they were protesters. They educated the world by showing the ignorant people that they were, in fact, ignorant. There were tons of people who stood with them in the shadows supporting them without ever opening their mouths for one reason or another. You have to remember that ignorance is bliss. Picking the battle that both champions your cause and educates people is the best battle of all. Those outraged mothers out for justice? Those homosexual gamers just looking to "prove a point"? they are not educated, and they do in fact over-react for that reason alone.

@Mark - Great point. However, I think there is an almost exponential difference in the factor of efficacy between educating people and leading by example than simply telling people how to act.

@Jay - Woah woah woah. How did I ever attack you personally? You left a comment, arguing a tiny portion of my article. Your argument for that tiny portion seemed to completely negate the entire rest of my article. So I implied that you hadn't read it all, and that you were just looking to argue. That's not a personal attack. You are the one that assumed I was saying you weren't intelligent enough. Then you continued to run around in circles with me over a point that was ultimately meaningless to my overall article. So I implied you were trolling and just liked to argue. Still not a personal attack. You are the one that assumed I was sticking my tongue out at you. My point of saying that I've found telling people to relax is effective, wasn't a "HAH! You're wrong!" thing. It was a "Can we stop talking about that one single word as I haven't found that your argument is the case at all and it's a pretty pointless argument." type of thing. At that point, I could argue that you mocked me for "playing the victim" without even knowing me, but I won't do that. And now, you come out and say I'm attacking you and not making any points (essentially negating everything I've said, which is your way of saying you are too dumb to make a valid argument.) and you're going to give up. Who's playing the victim now? You have climbed up on your throne and begun to act like I'm some moron who can't hold an argument with you. So I won't. I'm done Jay. You can go and act superior with the swarm of people who have begun arguing against you. I don't really feel like getting looked down on anymore, so I'll just play the victim like you seem to think is the only thing I can do. You're right Jay. You're a college educated office worker with a vastly superior intellect to me. I'm just a community college dropout that delivers newspapers. Obviously my opinions and arguments can never hold a candle to you, so I'll just play the victim. Pleeeeeease pleeease oh superior one. Don't bully me any more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK7J0jYKpiY I find that watching this video while in the middle of a heated argument/debate can give you a fresh view on the issue. And the beat goes on yeah! P.S. Great article!

@Eric - That video was AMAZING. Thanks for changing the entire direction of these comments.

@Alex- I find if you're in the midst of an argument you should just start talking like the Macho Man. This will throw the other person way off their game. "Space is the place Mean Gene, time distortion!" But seriously, good article. The kind of discussion that lots of articles on here start is the reason I love Bitmob so much. Glad I could help calm everyone down a bit and make some people laugh.:D

Sweet Allah the Merciful!!! I think the comment thread has surpassed the word count of the actual post!!!!