Activision ordered to pull 'misleading' COD2 ads

[scooby_dooby]

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints from three television viewers that adverts depicting scenes from Activision title Call of Duty 2 and its current generation console counterpart CoD2: Big Red One were misleading, and declared that they must not be shown again in their present forms.

The adjudication, published today, is likely to send shockwaves through the industry as it focuses on the question of whether pre-rendered footage is an acceptable representation of a computer game - in its defence, Activision didn't argue that it was, but rather that using pre-rendered footage was "common practice".

In this case, the ASA received three complaints - two concerning Call of Duty 2 (PC, Xbox 360) and one concerning Big Red One (PS2, Xbox, Cube), both of which argued that the graphics used in the advert were superior to that of the game itself, and that viewers were being misled on those grounds.
Advertisement

The ASA's investigation revealed that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) understood the adverts to be made of scenes taken from the games themselves, although apparently no checks were made because it wasn't until afterward, when contacting Activision about the complaints, that it was informed by the publisher that the computer-generated scenes had been produced solely for the ads. "They said they therefore immediately made the ads unacceptable for broadcast as they did not consider that this was common practice in such ads."

"The ASA noted that the ads did not include any indication that the images shown did not reflect the quality of graphics of the games. While the scenes used communicated the themes of the game, they were not accurate representations of the graphics in the games themselves. We considered that this was misleading.

"The ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising) and 5.2.2 (Implications). They must not be shown again in their present forms," the adjudication concluded.

Activision, for its part, argued that using pre-rendered footage was "common practice" and that "they had not been told that it was not acceptable to use material created specially for an ad in this way" and had acted "in good faith".

With that defence regarded as insufficient by the ASA, the adjudication is likely to raise concerns for other publishers who uniformly use rendered footage to publicise computer games - in print as well as during television adverts - at the prospect of similar complaints being dealt with in much the same way.

Activision UK could not comment on the ASA adjudication at the time of publication.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63009

Nice, about time. Sick of using CG to advertise a game, it's gotten out of hand.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

They have a point, those adverts show action simular to the stuff in Kill Zone E3 trailer.

 

[AlNom]

Friend: Hey that looks awesome!
Me: Too bad it's fake.
Friend: That's stupid.

*sigh*...

I think it is more because of the first person view for a first person game that makes the situation a lot "worse" than other ads with CGI.

 

[blakjedi]

They have a point, those adverts show action simular to the stuff in Kill Zone E3 trailer.

Is this train EVER late?

 

[scificube]

I bet CG usage in games is unaffected as long as the CG used in the ad is still part of the content in the game the ad is promoting.

The CG then would be representative of visuals one could see while playing...err...watching the game.

I'd love for developers to use only use real time footage of the game engine but I don't see how anyone could make them do it. I'm not even sure it's right to do that...to force them not to use CG in ads. I'm a little hypocritical here because I'm a little less concerned about them being forced to show what the game looks like while you're playing. That'd be a restriction/requirement that sounds great for the consumer but still it is forcing a developer to do something a certain way which I'm not too keen on.

 

[Danalys]

they should just use disclaimers. game adverts use cg scenes from the game all the time. imagine advertizing FFVII back in the day and not using the CG cutscenes in the advertizement. if you think the real time rendered parts of the game are going to look like the advert then you deserve to be tricked really.

 

[Mariner]

Here in the UK, some of the adverts for games (including the CoD2 advert) don't contain any actual footage of gameplay at all. The CoD2 advert had first-person CG footage which I'm sure many viewers thought was actual gameplay - most dishonest and I'm pleased they have had their wrists slapped. The obvious implication was that the footage was of gameplay even though it was obvious to anyone with a bit of knowledge that it wasn't.

 

[London Geezer]

they should just use disclaimers. game adverts use cg scenes from the game all the time. imagine advertizing FFVII back in the day and not using the CG cutscenes in the advertizement. if you think the real time rendered parts of the game are going to look like the advert then you deserve to be tricked really.

Well, not to play devil's advocate, but FF7 was 10 years ago. Back then, whoever thought they would be playing a game that looked like FMV deserved to be shot.

Today, in 2006, the line between FMV and realtime is blurred more and more, so depending on how advanced the FMV is, i can see how some people can mistake realtime for FMV and vice versa.
Obviously FF12 FMV is just way "up there", and anyone thinkjng they'll be playing a game that looks like those FMV videos needs to lose their eyes.

 

[Danalys]

well i think the most important lesson is not to buy a game based only on the advert.

 

[London Geezer]

well i think the most important lesson is not to buy anything based only on the advert.

Corrected.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Is this train EVER late?

I know that game in constantly brought up, but thats the first thing that poped into my head when i saw the action in the trailer.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Here in the UK, some of the adverts for games (including the CoD2 advert) don't contain any actual footage of gameplay at all. The CoD2 advert had first-person CG footage which I'm sure many viewers thought was actual gameplay - most dishonest and I'm pleased they have had their wrists slapped. The obvious implication was that the footage was of gameplay even though it was obvious to anyone with a bit of knowledge that it wasn't.

I remember the Harry Potter advert over here. it was all CGI, but unlike all the others it actully said on the screen " Not Actual Gameplay "

More should follow that example

 

[expletive]

Here in the UK, some of the adverts for games (including the CoD2 advert) don't contain any actual footage of gameplay at all. The CoD2 advert had first-person CG footage which I'm sure many viewers thought was actual gameplay - most dishonest and I'm pleased they have had their wrists slapped. The obvious implication was that the footage was of gameplay even though it was obvious to anyone with a bit of knowledge that it wasn't.

Agreed, and i think youve hit the nail on the problem with these ads compared to things like FF. The difference, imo, is that the FMV for COD2 is designed in such a way to look like someone is playing an FPS.

Other ads that show FMV were clearly cutscenes/in-game movies to most becuase they didnt mimic what the gameplay might look like. However people are now VERY familiar with the FPS genre (especially the WW2 variety) and this ad misleads them into thinking the ad was gameplay based on the camera angle. The only thing missing would have been a phony rendered HUD

 

[Danalys]

good point about the harry potter advert. i think it's especially important when advertising products that children would want. it's acceptable for them to be tricked and annoying for parents to have to correct their expectations.

oh and nice correction london-boy. altho my dad bought some woodpecker cider back in the day as a sort of thank you to them for having a funny advert.

 

[London Geezer]

I might be just very cynical, but everytime i see an advert, i think whatever they say is a lie. Can't help it. Be it shampoo, cars, "cheap" mobile phone contracts, anything.

 

[c0_re]

Thank god, down with lame prerendered crap it should be considered false advertising and criminal.

 

[drpepper]

Thank god, down with lame prerendered crap it should be considered false advertising and criminal.

If it's in the game it's not false advertising. And even if it isn't it's still not false advertising.

Advertising is hard, for 30 seconds you have to convince the consumer that this product is must buy. And if they have to use flashy CGI to convey that message than it's fair game.

I really don't see how this is "misleading". Buyer beware is all I have to say. If I buy an Audi should I expect it to climb a ski slope with a 37 degree inclination? No, but that's why they have the disclaimer at the bottom of the advert. Activision should just be forced to include a disclaimer, not outright ban their commercial.

 

[Clashman]

I would be fine with the prerendering as long as they included a bold disclaimer at the top which said "Not In-Game Footage". That would make it pretty clear to everyone who could read what they were or were not showing.

 

[deviantchild]

If it's in the game it's not false advertising. And even if it isn't it's still not false advertising.

Advertising is hard, for 30 seconds you have to convince the consumer that this product is must buy. And if they have to use flashy CGI to convey that message than it's fair game.

I really don't see how this is "misleading". Buyer beware is all I have to say. If I buy an Audi should I expect it to climb a ski slope with a 37 degree inclination? No, but that's why they have the disclaimer at the bottom of the advert. Activision should just be forced to include a disclaimer, not outright ban their commercial.

Ok.
I haven't followed development of CoD2 and I really don't watch TV, but sometime recently I happen to have caught a quick glimpse of this ad on screen and I immediately thought "Fuck! that looks really advanced. What platform does the ad relate to? I might have to consider getting one."
The only reason I didn't check it out further is because I had WWII PC gaming overkill during recent years.
I was misled.
I didn't know any different from that until I saw this thread.
That's enough for it to need withdrawing, imo, regardless of the letter-of-the-law and it's scumbag bedfellows.

 

[drpepper]

Well, I've seen those commercials here in canada and I think it be a little naive to be mislead from those commercials. I mean they were obviously pre-rendered CGI. I guess if this was Killzone we wouldn't have this problem would we.