If a violent game is okay, then so is using a violent ad to promote it
An ad for video game Dead Island Riptide was banned by the ad watchdog. James Whitehead of online entertainment publisher IGN argues that it was the wrong call.
A fortnight ago, it emerged that the Ad Standards Board had banned a television commercial for the video game Dead Island: Riptide, due to its depiction of violence – specifically suicide.
In its ruling, the ASB stated “Advertising or Marketing Communications shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.”
This particular game involves players travelling to a remote island to fight and destroy hordes of reanimated corpses. Players use household items, gardening tools and even propane tanks to rid their surroundings of the undead.
Decapitation, dismemberment and other gruesome acts are a core part of the game. The more spectacular the kill, the better. It’s for these blood-soaked reasons the game received Australia’s newly implemented R18+ rating, the most restrictive available. Due to the nature of the content, the ad was aired on a subscription television channel aligned with programs appropriate for its audience.
The message was clear – this is not a product for children.
It’s worth noting that most gamers aren’t children, either. The average age of a gamer in Australia is 33 years old. They’ve been playing video games for 12 years. They have grown-up jobs. They have mortgages. They have their own children. It is for the average gamer that the R18+ category was introduced in the first place. An adults-only rating for adult gamers.
There are many violent products or services advertised on TV. UFC bouts show real, living men punching each other in the face.
All this doesn’t take away from the fact that what happens in the advertisement is confronting. Real life suicide is, of course, a matter of grave concern. But no one is trying to glorify the act or use the pain and suffering endured by those left behind to sell a product, like Citroen and more recently, Hyundai.
The key distinction here is that the characters in this game aren’t real. The protagonists can’t be mistaken for a family member, they’re not people you may bump into on the street. They’re a collection of polygons and texture maps knitted together to depict something ugly.
The situation itself is truly a flight of fancy. This advertising is not going to bring about flashbacks of a real-life trip to Fiji where the island just happened to be filled with ravenous human-shaped monsters. Even when running for their lives, the ASB would appreciate it if people “adhere to Prevailing Community Standards on health and safety.”
What kind of violence is “justifiable in the context of the product”? In a game where players find themselves pursued by predatory, demented, flesh devouring creatures, isn’t it possible this last act of freewill may be their only option? That stacking piles of flammable tanks and lighting a match may be the only way to protect their loved ones?
Games are designed by their very nature to be fantastical. If we are going to allow this type of content to be sold in our country, which was what the introduction of the R18+ category means, then there need to be allowances to advertise the product.
Yes, this advertisement is intense and impactful. It’s a depiction of desperation and defiance, but it’s also based on an entirely fantastical game, where desperation drives the gameplay, and players’ lives are on the line. Like it or not, it seems entirely justifiable in relation to the context of the product being sold.
- James Whitehead is GM of IGN Entertainment Australia. IGN helped launch the game with a preview event in Sydney
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
For those interested, a wrap of the event used to launch the game: http://au.ign.com/videos/2013/.....event-wrap
User ID not verified.
“If we are going to allow this type of content to be sold in our country, which was what the introduction of the R18+ category means, then there need to be allowances to advertise the product.”
You seem to be missing the point that advertising is seen by members of the public whether they want to view it or not. People can make the choice not to play violent video games, but they can’t make the choice not to view certain TV commercials when watching television. That’s why we have regulations and watchdogs in place to protect viewers who don’t wish to see such material in the first place.
Advertisers of violent videos games are, and should be, subjected to the same regulations that advertisers of gory horror movies, pornography, and other R rated material are.
User ID not verified.
No problems with this game being legal and R18+.
However, I’ve seen this ad in the middle of the day on Foxtel while watching Sons of Anarchy, and I actually found it quite disturbing. Surely the ad should only be seen during R18+ plus programs (SoA is MA15+), with a warning before saying the games rating, i.e. similar to movie trailers.
Can someone tell me if that happens already and if not, why not?
And this is not Itchy and Scratchy sort of violence, where there is a clear distinction between reality and fantasy. Half the characters look more real than those on Jersey Shore.
User ID not verified.
Sorry, you’re watching Sons of Anarchy, and you’re complaining about the level of violence in this ad?
User ID not verified.
@steve
Buddy, there are no R18+ TV timeslots. R18+ TV does not exist in Australia. R18 shows (True Blood, Spartacus) are either edited down to MA15+ or given a straight MA15 rating.
If they can’t air it during SoA then when can they air it?
User ID not verified.
Encyclic – silly comment, can you compare the violence of the Godfather to say the Human Centipede? Some people just don’t like horror/gore, count me as one.
Paul – thanks for the comment. I understand the predicament, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. SoA and this game are miles apart. There at least should be a warning that the game is rated R18+. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it a free for all.
User ID not verified.
Steve, one has a scene where a guy having a massage has his eye shot out. The other is the Human Centipede.
So you’re saying that according to you, some unpleasantness (murder) is ok, but not others (horror/gore – where most of the horror is implied, rather than actual)?
“What’s that? Yeah shoot everyone you want, just wear a smiling mask whilst you do it, wouldn’t want anyone to be perturbed, would we?”
User ID not verified.
Encyclic, mate what I am saying is I know when I watch an MA15 movie, the type of violence that entails. It is very different from R18 violence.
I am ok with watching MA15 violence yes, not a fan of gore that occurs in R18. Thus I don’t watch it, and I don’t want to see ads about R18 plus stuff without warning. It’s really not that hard. If you feel so strongly about advertising this game during an MA15 program, stick a warning on the ad before you are there. I know watching SoA I’ll be subjected to ads for other MA15 programs/movies/games. That’s fine.
User ID not verified.
Does anyone else find it kind of worrying that the head of a major games publication (whose company held a paid promotional event for the game) is now defending the game’s advertisements? It kinda doesn’t sit well with me.
Back on topic though, while I guess the violence is justified in the context of that advert, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the TVC to be shown during MA15+ time slots.
User ID not verified.
I find it worrying that with all the filth on TV these days (that often find their story lines from tragic real life events), that he had to justify a few seconds of an ad for a computer game.
User ID not verified.
@Guy Seeing we carried the ad and helped promote the game’s launch, wouldn’t it be remiss of us to NOT defend the advertising?
User ID not verified.
I absolutely LOVE this game, chaps.
User ID not verified.
I think the fact that suicide was specifically mentioned is a key factor here.
For instance, when a member of the public has suicided, the fact of the suicide is reported, but the method is generally withheld. I believe this is due to studies showing that people in an extremely depressed/suicidal state may be influenced to act via a method that is presented whilst in that vulnerable frame of mind.
Similar to those “If you or someone you know may be depressed, please call BeyondBlue or Lifeline” prompts in articles dealing with the subject matter.
P.S. There is no ‘minimum trauma level’ for those resources. If you feel concerned enough to consider calling, please call.
User ID not verified.