Call of Duty ads pulled from UK TV

by James Ransom-Wiley { Feb 22nd 2006 at 1:00PM }

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently received a trio of complaints about the televised ads for Activision's Call of Duty 2 (PC, Xbox 360) and Call of Duty 2: Big Red One (GameCube, PS2, Xbox). Viewers felt duped because the ads featured pre-rendered footage that did not reflect the actual in-game graphics of either title. In fact, the pre-rendered footage was designed solely for these ads—it does not appear in the games.

The ASA discovered that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (responsible for pre-approving UK TV ads) understood that the Call of Duty ads were to use scenes taken from the games themselves. As a result, and despite the fact that Activision argued that using pre-rendered footage was "common practice" in the industry, the ASA has ordered the ads' removal, stating, "They must not be shown again in their present forms." Thankfully, these strict guidelines are not upheld at industry trade shows...

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

jc @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:11PM

"Thankfully, these strict guidelines are not upheld at industry trade shows..."

haha, nice burn James

SuicideNinja @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:11PM

These guidelines should be followed ALL of the time.

Tradeshows should be no exception. If they are not ready to show it, then they shouldn't be showing it. I understand they want gamers to remember the experience, but if the final product doesn't live up to these demos/prerendered videos, you just end up with disappointment anyway! At least they could require a disclaimer before the showing.

Prerendered video is what fuels the ridiculous hype-train, especially for Sony.

I was finally happy when I fired up the Fight Night Round 3 demo, and it said, "Actual Game Footage." I didn't believe it until I jumped into the first round...wow. We should always get that "true" experience!

Enon @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:12PM

The author makes it sound like this was a bad thing. Personally, I couldn't be happier. Those adds were fairly misleading and made the gaming experience seem more than it could ever be capable of delivering. Ground expectations in the reality of the product, not over inflated hype created by misconceptions of what new hardware could create.

Being capable of seperating these CG elements from potential gameplay isn't even an issue. It's bad marketing to promote a product without letting the populous see any real aspect of it.

I almost wish these rules were enforced everywhere, including industry trade shows. Wouldn't that be novel, selling a product based off its real world gaming worth.

Thryon @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:13PM

Oh no, publishers will have to start using "in game" footage to peddle their overpriced games....bout time. Since they can no longer show footage that may be misleading, they will have to resort to old school tricks and not show any actual game footage and just had silly actors in costumes, acting out parts of the game (old Nintendo commercials come to mind).

As a side not, how is this different than showing a movie trailer with scenes that never made it into the movie?

PS/I see no reason why they needed to use pre-rendered animation to advertise CoD2 for the Xbox 360, as the graphics are superb and fully respectable for advertisement as is (IMHO)

Chiablo @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:16PM

So does this mean that they are going to not allow any PS2 game to be advertised?

I swear the commercials for most PS2 games are 90% pre-rendered CGI and 10% in-game footage.

SickNic @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:17PM

They really should be upheld at industry trade shows, or at least limited. I wonder how many people felt duped when Sony told us the KZ2 trailer was real time...

LaughingTarget @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:19PM

While it is bad marketing, especially when Call of Duty 2 looks good enough to stand up in-engine (with on-screen indicators scrubbed out), it is hardly something that needs to be legislated. I believe those ads already have "not in-game footage" tagged on them (not 100% sure, working off memory from the ads I saw on TV).

The ASA seems to be working a double standard here. If it is acceptable to run a car ad using "professionals on a closed course" doing things the average Joe can't do due to lack of skill or lack of the closed course, then it should be acceptable to run a pre-rendered ad with the same disclaimer.

Enon @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:21PM

Chiablo - I seriously doubt the people that sit on those advisory boards are in any way partisan to a particular system. Regardless, as you said those PS2 commercials show at LEAST 10% of their titles, and that's probably enough to get airtime. The issue here is the COD2 trailer showed 0% of the title. I've always felt that was a slap in the face and undercut the point of making a commercial for your product.

I hope this effects a long term change in Activision's marketing in both the Europe and the US.

Antec @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:22PM

i agree Enon. If this is truly the next generation of videogames, then there should be no need for pre-rendered graphics to begin with.

sure they're great, but dont mislead people into thinking thats what the game will look like.

i remember this happening with the FFVII commercials. not a hint of gameplay.

Jellodyne @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:22PM

The real problem is that CoD2 looks so good -- if it wasn't close to that good, everyone would just say 'well duh of course its not in-game'

gaminghobo @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:23PM

A thanks for the tip would have been nice... ;)

Anyhoo I think this is a good thing. Back in PSOne days it was fairly obvious where the difference lay between real and not-real game footage. Now I think, for the untrained eye at least, this isn't as much the case.

I don't imagine anyone here would have a problem telling the difference but casual consumers might. Frankly, if you can make your game look as you can, there shouldn't be any need to use CG clips in adverts.

JusJus @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:25PM

One example would be the commercial for the Fantastic 4 game. Anyone else remember that one? It showed no in-game footage at all.

I can understand why developers would do this. The casual gamer or parent wouldn't know. Having a 100% CGI commercial could fool them into buying the game expecting graphics at that level. As long as they keep ringing up the sales, they'll keep on making commercials like that.

jc @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:28PM

I have to disagree, LaughingTarget. I think it is more like seeing a commercial on TV for an Acura NSX and when you go to buy it at the dealership, they tell you it was a commercial for the civic.

Except you can't return videogames once you open then (and find out it looks nothing like adertised).

The "professionals on a closed course" is still showing the same car you can buy at the dealership.

James @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:31PM

"A thanks for the tip would have been nice... ;)"

gaminghobo, apologizes, I didn't see your tip before posting this. How about a star instead?

*Adds Star*

Feel better now?

Armin @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:38PM

Hmm, reminds me of the E3 2005 Killzone video for the PS3.

Kouheikun @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:42PM

*applauds the ASA*

superzapper2000 @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:43PM

It's false description and false advertising.It should be the same laws here in the USA but it isn't .The UK has always had a higher standard of advertising guidlines.Also in the UK you can't compare your product to other name brands or take swipes at other companies like you can in the USA.The decision to cut the Commercials is a good one.

KilgoreTrout XL @ Feb 22nd 2006 2:04PM

*Agrees with #15*

I'm also reminded of the annoyance spurred by the promise on Origin's Wing Commander's back flap: "What you see is what you play." Only instead of the cool red lasers shown in the pic, you shot winpy orange and yellow spheres whose appearance was apparently inspired by the local Chuck E Cheese's ballcrawl.

Johnnytoolong @ Feb 22nd 2006 2:21PM

I understand why activision advertised it the way they did...kind of a theatrical intro if you will...
I also understand why they wouldn't want it advertised that way. It kind of implies in-game footage if they aren't real actors in the adds, (even though that was not the intention) which is in a way false advertising.

This reminds me of when I was a kid and the "Guess Who" board game came out. They advertised it with the people on the cards talking...leading kids (and adults) to believe that the faces on the cards spoke in the game. I wanted to play the game so bad, and then when I got my hands on it at a friends house, I played it for about 3 minutes and thought it was crap because they didn't talk...
.....its kinda the same idea here. Do not advertise things like this to be way cooler than they really are.

gaminghobo @ Feb 22nd 2006 2:56PM

"I can understand why developers would do this. The casual gamer or parent wouldn't know. Having a 100% CGI commercial could fool them into buying the game expecting graphics at that level. As long as they keep ringing up the sales, they'll keep on making commercials like that"

I think it's worth remembering it's the publishers that deal with this stuff, not the developers. It's not their fault if the marketing mis-represents the game.

SID SPACE @ Feb 22nd 2006 3:16PM

This reminds me of the Medal of Honor: Frontline commercials from a couple of years ago; the CG commercials were amazing, but in game was hardly above PS1 graphical depictions. However, while the CoD2 in game footage isn't exactly what the commercials depict, they come a lot closer than some others. At least on the 360 anyway.

lestrade @ Feb 22nd 2006 3:17PM

I'm glad somebody's on this. I saw the ads on television while visiting family and immediately though: this is deceptive. The games don't even look like this. My concern was confirmed when someone at work exclaimed how good he thought hte game looked (based on what he saw in the TV spot). I told him the ads didn't feature any real gameplay footage, which (understandably) disappointed him.

Enough with the pre-rendered bull! If you're going to show a game, show just that � the game!

Josh @ Feb 22nd 2006 3:33PM

Yeah, I'm pretty much saying the same thing as everyone else here, but anyway:

I'm glad someone is finally trying to do something about this "practice", but Activision is right in saying that it's a common industry practice. At the same time, however, I strongly believe that even though it is common, it is definitely not right. It's simply marketing deception to fool consumers into buying something thinking it's something else. The only reason I can see that they singled out CoD was because it was/is one of the more prominent/recent advertisements I've seen.

Really, even my dad commented on how cool the game looked, and he said the same with every other ad like this. Every time I tell him it's simply stupid CGI, though...I'm sure many other people are tricked just like this.

Oh, and it's really annoying how these types of ads get more and more common as current-gen consoles get older and older, but I guess that's only natural, as the graphics do not age well, usually...;)

nintendo fanboy and proud @ Feb 22nd 2006 4:58PM

I dont recall ever seeing nintendo do this. Just another example of how much purer they are.

ill trooper @ Feb 22nd 2006 6:21PM

I am really glad this has gone down this way. I must have had 5 different conversations over the holidays with people asking me about this game when we saw the ad together on TV -

"Whoa, that looks awesome. You have the 360, right?"

"Yes, and the game is fun, but it looks NOTHING like that. That is just some CG rendered scene."

I understand the comparisons to the PS3 and 360 prerendered showings (Killzone 3, Ghost Recon:AW) at the last E3, but this I consider different: This is television advertising for something that's available, the others have been sheepishly admitted to be 'target' videos. It's weird and it sucks that they advertise that way, and it rarely gets questioned. Every Madden ad has angles and views that you don't see when you actually play. This CoD2 ad has visuals that allude to first-person gameplay, but we won't see games like that for a decade.

Glad to see someone raise a flag on them.

80s @ Feb 22nd 2006 6:32PM

Are those scenes in the commercial even in the game at all? I remember Square advertising their Final Fantasy games much the same way. Obviously it wasn't in the actual gameplay, but they were clips from cinematic sequences in between stages.

Arachneya @ Feb 22nd 2006 8:38PM

#24. Every scene from a Final Fantasy ad has been in the game (ie. the CG in the ad was also viewable in the game).

The COD2:BRO and COD2 ads have absolutely nothing to do with the game. Though the game looked good, I can see how it would be misleading.

jason @ Feb 23rd 2006 1:03AM

On a serious note, I think that those guidelines are over-strict
but......
these guys should send Sony a memo. ;-)

Art Guy @ Feb 23rd 2006 10:04AM

Every major publisher has does this, even Nintendo, it's just how business is done. As games get better looking, look for this practice to tapper off.

That said, I much prefer ads that show 100% gameplay rather than some live-action or pre-rendered footage.

Reish Vedaur @ Feb 24th 2006 3:44PM

I trust no game that uses FMV or pre-rendered movies as its ad. It *is* misleading. It's actually a ton worse with asian games; some sites for some MMORPG's (there's hundreds of them around nowadays) don't have a SINGLE in-game SCREENSHOT, much less video.

Nick @ Mar 6th 2006 2:14PM

QUOTE:

"The ASA seems to be working a double standard here. If it is acceptable to run a car ad using "professionals on a closed course" doing things the average Joe can't do due to lack of skill or lack of the closed course, then it should be acceptable to run a pre-rendered ad with the same disclaimer."

But when you watch a car advert it's fair to assume the car driving around in that ad is the one you are going to buy...

;)