Dead Island PR come up with most appalling idea in history of gaming PR

Fiaryn

A man in a speedo isn't sexist or exploitative for the same reason calling a white person a cracker isn't racist. Power dynamics render the latter situation toothless, white people have the luxury of not giving a fuck.

BrocksMullet

I actually hope this is a cynical marketing ploy, and not...uhh, something they just thought was cool.

gjaustin

vsove wrote: »

Fiaryn wrote: »

gjaustin wrote: »

Fiaryn wrote: »

gjaustin wrote: »

Fiaryn wrote: »

Tube wrote: »

I'm tempted to say that discussion of their game is no longer welcome here. I'm not happy with the precedent that would set but at what point do we draw the line at what we're willing to tacitly endorse and promote?

Go for it man. Between this and the fun little sexist revelations in the games code shortly after release, it's hard to derive any positive interpretations of this development studio anymore.

I mean what the fuck

How does one developer using a terrible debug name for a skill make an entire studio sexist? I completely fail to see it!


This bust on the other hand, it completely unacceptable.

It doesn't, but it suggests more than a little about the culture of their offices that he thought he could get away with it in the first place.

I suppose that explanation makes sense. It requires more assumption on motivations and beliefs than I'm comfortable with though.

Or, rather more than I would have been comfortable with had this bust not been approved by someone.

Right. That's the point. The feminist whore bit, in itself, suggested unsavory things about the culture of the studio but there was still some room to give them benefit of the doubt.

Now we have this and I think we can safely call it a fucking pattern.

Even with the 'feminist whore' bit, if they were doing any kind of proper game development, there were more people who saw it (other programmers doing code reviews, for example). Which raises the disturbing possibility of either A) all those people were cool with it or someone complained and was shut down by someone above them.

Neither of which make me feel great.

Considering the debug version they ended up releasing on Steam, I'd actually give them the benefit of the doubt on that too. (That they were doing proper game development )

Also, I think I read that it was only present in the debug version and had been properly removed from final release. It may very well have been some phantom code that was still hanging around an outdated branch.

rockrnger

Fiaryn wrote: »

A man in a speedo isn't sexist or exploitative for the same reason calling a white person a cracker isn't racist. Power dynamics render the latter situation toothless, white people have the luxury of not giving a fuck.

If this was a man, beat the hell up, with a speedo covering on the tip of his penis that would be complety horrible too. There just wouldn't be anyone arguing the other way.

reVerse

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Fawst

Tube wrote: »

Fawst wrote: »

I have an honest question: can you use bodies in the game as bait to get zombies away from you? Specifically, is a female torso an in-game item that can be used? If so, at least there's some context here. Otherwise...

yeah dismembered female bodies being an item which you can use would be better

wait what

I never said it would be better and I used the gender-neutral "bodies." (EDIT: and I specifically asked about female bodies, but the point still stands) If you could use the corpses of slain NPC's as items in the game it would absolutely provide a bit of an answer as to the "why?!" question. As it stands, this is just ill-advised and tasteless.

I think some of the reaction is a bit over-inflated. There are gore-hounds out there that would want this, never once thinking "this is degrading toward women, how DARE they?" I have a feeling that at least a portion of this reaction is because of the heightened awareness of women in the gaming industry lately. Not saying it's the only reason or that there wouldn't be a similar reaction were that not the case, but there it is.

Tube

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Yeah it turns out companies don't do stuff like that because it would be absurd. New Coke was not a conspiracy.

TheSonicRetard

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Then that's pretty tasteless as well.

gjaustin

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

It's certainly possible.

Though, somehow, I think that's even worse. It means they know what they're doing is wrong, but are doing it anyway!

Elvenshae

So, I can see what they were trying to do. They wanted something like this:



... or this:

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m162/Elvenshae/Venus_de_Milo_Louvre_Ma399_n4_zpsed02b0b1.jpg

[Image linked, not in-lined, because while the Venus de Milo is classic art, it may still NSFW; +breasts, -arms.]

... done up for zombie game. Then, reading the article, it turns out that they actually say that this was their goal.

Unfortunately for them, their execution of the idea is pretty fucking hideous.

TheSonicRetard

Tube wrote: »

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Yeah it turns out companies don't do stuff like that because it would be absurd. New Coke was not a conspiracy.

At the same time, there have been numerous examples of manufactured drama to drum up conversation. A bunch of the weirder crap Michael Jackson would do in public, for example, he'd admit he did "for razzle dazzle" and "to give them something to talk about."

The difference being those sorts of examples usually come from individuals, not entire companies.

darleysam

Fiaryn wrote: »

A man in a speedo isn't sexist or exploitative for the same reason calling a white person a cracker isn't racist. Power dynamics render the latter situation toothless, white people have the luxury of not giving a fuck.

Also, good luck convincing the same people who greenlit this to go with a man in a speedo instead. And that's before we even get into the "chiseled dudes in speedos are not analogous to skinny women in bikinis" issue. This whole thing is so far beyond defensible.

Sterica

You know you have just boarded the rocket train out of Good Taste when Tube is so disgusted that he has to make a thread saying what terrible misogynists the people behind this are.

Grimthwacker

"Includes content that may cause offence" - well, at least they're honest about it. Classy stuff all around, guys. Not really surprising considering this is the same bunch that came up with the great material in the third Call of Juarez game.

Wasn't Dead Island eventually written off as "okay, but incredibly flawed"? This kind of stunt doesn't exactly make the new one's going to be very quality either.

Henroid

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Tube wrote: »

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Yeah it turns out companies don't do stuff like that because it would be absurd. New Coke was not a conspiracy.

At the same time, there have been numerous examples of manufactured drama to drum up conversation. A bunch of the weirder crap Michael Jackson would do in public, for example, he'd admit he did "for razzle dazzle" and "to give them something to talk about."

The difference being those sorts of examples usually come from individuals, not entire companies.

A guy who allegedly did inappropriate / sexual things with little boys is not the best of examples, dude.

BrocksMullet

gjaustin wrote: »

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

It's certainly possible.

Though, somehow, I think that's even worse. It means they know what they're doing is wrong, but are doing it anyway!

It'd be ugly, sure, but it'd be preferable to the industry thinking this kind of thing was just goofy ole' fun.

Delzhand

Ironically, outside the context of promotional material for a video game, a bloody Venus de Milo would be a fantastic piece of art as a commentary on sexism and violence towards women in media.

reVerse

I'm not saying it would be somehow better, I'm just saying that I can see, with crystal clear clarity, an image in my mind: a marketing department peon slowly lifts his head, his eyes shining with pride, and he says, his voice shaking with unmitigated joy, "Guys, I just had the most brilliant idea of my entire life".

Tube

Rorus Raz wrote: »

You know you have just boarded the rocket train out of Good Taste when Tube is so disgusted that he has to make a thread saying what terrible misogynists the people behind this are.

what are you implying sir

TheSonicRetard

Which game was it that had a marketing gimmick where they slaughtered a goat and had people touch its entrails? Was that dante's inferno? The same game that sent real checks out with review copies?

To me, this is just another example of how terrible video game marketing is.

Tube

agoaj wrote: »

A statue of two trucks running into each other would be a much more evocative of Dead Island.

Or a shitty, beat-up old chevy attached to an inexplicably fancy trailer.

Henroid

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Which game was it that had a marketing gimmick where they slaughtered a goat and had people touch its entrails? Was that dante's inferno? The same game that sent real checks out with review copies?

To me, this is just another example of how terrible video game marketing is.

That was one of the God of War games, and it was somewhere in Europe. Forget where. That was fucking crazy-town too though. The existence of that doesn't make this any less inappropriate and vice versa.

TheSonicRetard

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Tube wrote: »

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Yeah it turns out companies don't do stuff like that because it would be absurd. New Coke was not a conspiracy.

At the same time, there have been numerous examples of manufactured drama to drum up conversation. A bunch of the weirder crap Michael Jackson would do in public, for example, he'd admit he did "for razzle dazzle" and "to give them something to talk about."

The difference being those sorts of examples usually come from individuals, not entire companies.

A guy who allegedly did inappropriate / sexual things with little boys is not the best of examples, dude.

I'd say that makes it an even better example. Clearly there is nothing too extreme to consider.

For a more grounded example, the infamous nip-slip at the superbowl.

agoaj

Maybe this is actually a pivotal character, Torsy the Torso. Maybe we will come to know her hopes and dreams, be touched by her struggle against adversity and be brought to laughter by her sassy one liners.

Sterica

Tube wrote: »

Rorus Raz wrote: »

You know you have just boarded the rocket train out of Good Taste when Tube is so disgusted that he has to make a thread saying what terrible misogynists the people behind this are.

what are you implying sir

You probably aren't preordering Dead Island Riptide?

Fawst

agoaj wrote: »

Maybe this is actually a pivotal character, Torsy the Torso. Maybe we will come to know her hopes and dreams, be touched by her struggle against adversity and be brought to laughter by her sassy one liners.

Here's someone that "gets it."

Henroid

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Tube wrote: »

reVerse wrote: »

So, what if this all a ploy? Someone decided that producing little statues to go with the collector's edition, while the thing to do, is a bit too expensive, so they just produced one offensive statue, later redact it and offer their apologies, and ship a statue-free, priced-the-same-as-before collector's edition? Controversy creates free marketing, later redaction creates goody points, statueless collector's box generates extra revenue due to not having to make the statues.

Yeah it turns out companies don't do stuff like that because it would be absurd. New Coke was not a conspiracy.

At the same time, there have been numerous examples of manufactured drama to drum up conversation. A bunch of the weirder crap Michael Jackson would do in public, for example, he'd admit he did "for razzle dazzle" and "to give them something to talk about."

The difference being those sorts of examples usually come from individuals, not entire companies.

A guy who allegedly did inappropriate / sexual things with little boys is not the best of examples, dude.

I'd say that makes it an even better example. Clearly there is nothing too extreme to consider.

For a more grounded example, the infamous nip-slip at the superbowl.

Right, that Janet Jackson wanted publicity? And what happened in that instance exactly? A DJ on the radio somehow became the target of inappropriateness in media rather than her.

Ninja Snarl P

Fiaryn wrote: »

A man in a speedo isn't sexist or exploitative for the same reason calling a white person a cracker isn't racist. Power dynamics render the latter situation toothless, white people have the luxury of not giving a fuck.

Pardon me while I roll me eyes, because this:

rockrnger wrote: »

If this was a man, beat the hell up, with a speedo covering on the tip of his penis that would be complety horrible too. There just wouldn't be anyone arguing the other way.

...would definitely be just as horrible in terms of being exploitative. And for the record, calling a white person a cracker is racist; the boards prohibit racist terms, but you'll get a free pass on that because it applies to "only" white people. And if it's okay to say something racist about one color of people but not the others, that's racism.

Regardless, this is pretty obviously a sexually exploitative piece of trouble right here, regardless of which gender it would've been in. Not great for a company which was caught red-handed with decidely inappropriate phrasings in the coding of their last game.

Tube

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

I'd say that makes it an even better example. Clearly there is nothing too extreme to consider.

You sir, are an idiot.

SmokeStacks

Anita Sarkeesian and the entire videogame feminism movement is gonna have a fucking field day with this. It would be nice if we could go six months without giving those people ammunition.

What kind of person actually wants a gory, freakishly big titted zombie torso sitting on their shelf? Did the people behind the design think it would be edgy or something?

darleysam

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Which game was it that had a marketing gimmick where they slaughtered a goat and had people touch its entrails? Was that dante's inferno? The same game that sent real checks out with review copies?

To me, this is just another example of how terrible video game marketing is.

I think that was a God of War party.

edit: Oh fine, Henroid beat me. I am the slow.

TheSonicRetard

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Which game was it that had a marketing gimmick where they slaughtered a goat and had people touch its entrails? Was that dante's inferno? The same game that sent real checks out with review copies?

To me, this is just another example of how terrible video game marketing is.

That was one of the God of War games, and it was somewhere in Europe. Forget where. That was fucking crazy-town too though. The existence of that doesn't make this any less inappropriate and vice versa.

Why are you extrapolating from my examples any level of acceptance of these sorts of gimmicks? I'm adding to the conversation with examples of how disgusting the marketing for this industry is. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the marketing isn't accurately reflecting the mindset of consumers, so why do they keep trying to push the boundry?

Tube

Ninja Snarl P wrote: »

...would definitely be just as horrible in terms of being exploitative. And for the record, calling a white person a cracker is racist; the boards prohibit racist terms, but you'll get a free pass on that because it applies to "only" white people. And if it's okay to say something racist about one color of people but not the others, that's racism.

As the prevailing expert on what is and is not allowed on this forum, anyone using the word "cracker" in a hateful way would be booted off the boards in exactly the same way as any other word. While we do have an explicit ban on one particular word, that was very much Not My Call.

Dehumanized

yeah, this is the point where I stop considering buying this game (or, for that matter, considering buying the first Dead Island which I never got around to picking up).

Henroid

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Which game was it that had a marketing gimmick where they slaughtered a goat and had people touch its entrails? Was that dante's inferno? The same game that sent real checks out with review copies?

To me, this is just another example of how terrible video game marketing is.

That was one of the God of War games, and it was somewhere in Europe. Forget where. That was fucking crazy-town too though. The existence of that doesn't make this any less inappropriate and vice versa.

Why are you extrapolating from my examples any level of acceptance of these sorts of gimmicks? I'm adding to the conversation with examples of how disgusting the marketing for this industry is. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the marketing isn't accurately reflecting the mindset of consumers, so why do they keep trying to push the boundry?

I dunno why, but marketing guys don't operate on their own without approval from the people they represent. That's the path to lawsuit town. So any suggestion that "Oh, just the marketing is to blame" is incorrect. The developers / publisher gave the OK stamp on this. Whether or not it was meant to get this reaction is missing the point. The fact is, they did it, and it's disturbing.

vsove

SmokeStacks wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian and the entire videogame feminism movement is gonna have a fucking field day with this. It would be nice if we could go six months without giving those people ammunition.

What kind of person actually wants a gory, freakishly big titted zombie torso sitting on their shelf? Did the people behind the design think it would be edgy or something?

'These people' include a lot of people on these forums.

And no one's giving anyone 'ammunition'. If this were a random outlier and nothing misogynstic or sexist happened in the industry at all you might have a point, but uhh, that's really not the case. This is merely the worst example of something that's pretty endemic across gaming as a whole.

TheSonicRetard

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Which game was it that had a marketing gimmick where they slaughtered a goat and had people touch its entrails? Was that dante's inferno? The same game that sent real checks out with review copies?

To me, this is just another example of how terrible video game marketing is.

That was one of the God of War games, and it was somewhere in Europe. Forget where. That was fucking crazy-town too though. The existence of that doesn't make this any less inappropriate and vice versa.

Why are you extrapolating from my examples any level of acceptance of these sorts of gimmicks? I'm adding to the conversation with examples of how disgusting the marketing for this industry is. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the marketing isn't accurately reflecting the mindset of consumers, so why do they keep trying to push the boundry?

I dunno why, but marketing guys don't operate on their own without approval from the people they represent. That's the path to lawsuit town. So any suggestion that "Oh, just the marketing is to blame" is incorrect. The developers / publisher gave the OK stamp on this. Whether or not it was meant to get this reaction is missing the point. The fact is, they did it, and it's disturbing.

Developers usually have little to no say in marketing matters.

darleysam

SmokeStacks wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian and the entire videogame feminism movement is gonna have a fucking field day with this. It would be nice if we could go six months without giving those people ammunition.

What kind of person actually wants a gory, freakishly big titted zombie torso sitting on their shelf? Did the people behind the design think it would be edgy or something?

What exactly is wrong with 'those people' expressing their distaste of misogyny and sexism in the games industry?

Sterica

SmokeStacks wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian and the entire videogame feminism movement is gonna have a fucking field day with this. It would be nice if we could go six months without giving those people ammunition

You realize that it's kinda their goal to not have ammunition, right?

Henroid

SmokeStacks wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian and the entire videogame feminism movement is gonna have a fucking field day with this. It would be nice if we could go six months without giving those people ammunition.

What kind of person actually wants a gory, freakishly big titted zombie torso sitting on their shelf? Did the people behind the design think it would be edgy or something?

This is about to get fucking ugly in this thread, isn't it?