Fallout 3 ads criticized by Washington D.C. Metro rider

by Griffin McElroy { Oct 25th 2008 at 2:30PM }

In a recent letter to the editor published in the Washington Post, D.C. resident and frequent Metrorail rider Joseph Anzalone criticizes ads for Bethesda's upcoming post-apocalyptic blockbuster, Fallout 3, which are plastered all over the city's various forms of public transportation. The ads in question depict a number of Washington D.C.'s more recognizable landmarks, which look "ravaged, as if hit by missles." Anzalone suggests that such imagery only serves as "a daily reminder that Washington is a prime target for an attack."

We certainly understand Anzalone's point, though we disagree with the justification behind his request to remove the ads -- he claims they aren't protected by the First Amendment as they "do not present a true viewpoint or political message." The commercial speech doctrine clearly states that advertisements which don't contain false or misleading messages are completely protected under the First Amendment.

Legality aside -- what do you, dear readers, think about the situation? Are the ads insensitive? Should they be removed?

[Via GamePolitics]

Tags: ads, bethesda, fallout-3, metro, washington-dc, washington-post

Related From Joystiq

New details emerge from 'The Pitt,' Fallout 3's 2nd DLC
271 days ago
GameFly expanding to Seattle, Washington [update]
293 days ago
Fallout 3's Washington D.C. Metro ads
400 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Will @ Oct 25th 2008 2:33PM

Oh bah. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it, Anzalone.

dhart @ Oct 25th 2008 2:37PM

word. dude is ridiculous.

C. T. @ Oct 25th 2008 2:57PM

Where's the outcry over the Independence Day movie posters and DVD cover? Now that's terrifying.

http://www.amazon.com/Independence-Day-Blu-ray-Bill-Pullman/dp/B000WQWPKA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1224960948&sr=8-2

Jerk Face @ Oct 25th 2008 3:04PM

It's simple, C.T.:

Those ads were out before 9/11. You know, the day something really, truly horrible happened that unfortunately made a lot of Americans lose their god damned minds.

tooPrime @ Oct 25th 2008 3:28PM

Thank you Joystiq for not writing a completely bias write up. The Kotaku one was crap. Although I may not necessarily agree, this dude sort of has a point. Whether it's in your legal limits to have such advertising is it tasteless to do so? Probably. Just like GTA ads in Chicago were sort of dumb, you know promoting a crime game in a city ravaged by crime? Also I hate the predictability of blog commenters. If these were Christian conservative ads saying video games sucked, none of you would be defending their first amendment rights.

Baretta @ Oct 25th 2008 3:30PM

@ C.T.
Jesus, that came out in 96? I feel so old...

TFoK (Naked Peach Defense Force) @ Oct 25th 2008 4:05PM

You know, I got mugged once on the way to my car here in NY.

I'm gonna petition to have any ad with guns and knives taken down immediately. They remind me just how scawy real life is.

Haggard @ Oct 25th 2008 6:09PM

@tooPrime

Suggesting that someone is not protected by the first amendment and suggesting that their viewpoint is retarded aren't the same thing.

(01) @ Oct 25th 2008 6:23PM

I recently moved back to the District, and was pretty surprised when I saw the ads. It's been 7 years since 9/11, but to people that were living in either DC and NY images like these DO remind us of what has and can occur in our cities. I certainly don't think the ads should be taken down, but to say people that live here should "get over it"ignores the fact that many people died in those attacks and more lost people they loved.

BigD145 @ Oct 25th 2008 6:30PM

GROW SOME BALLS.

94 taurus owner @ Oct 25th 2008 8:45PM

Well the dude does have a point about the Metro being a terrorist target(me also being an occasional Metro rider often has the concerns)and really I wouldn't like video game wallpapers plastered all over one of Americas landmark subways(mainly because it looks trashy enough with the lack of upkeep).

cball @ Oct 25th 2008 10:35PM

I grew up in DC and yeah, that was stuff we thought about all the time. I see where he's coming from. I can't disagree with the guy, but he should learn his laws if he's gonna try to use the amendments against an ad campaign. Back in the 70's and 80's it was "THE BOMB" we were worried about.

t_m @ Oct 26th 2008 5:02AM

Jeez... commenters on here are as blinkered as those on political sites.

Nothing is more important than getting my game! And anyone who makes an statements that could even be construed as remotely critical of anything related to games deserves to be crucified publicly.

I know gaming gets a bad wrap in the press at times, but geez.. its not the most important thing in the world. What is everyone, 12?

(kudos to joystiq for, for once, not making a flaimbait post on the matter...)

Saria the Cat @ Oct 26th 2008 9:35AM

@( 01 ): I too understand why people would be offended by those ads but that just makes me wonder, how do movies like Cloverfield advertise? And, should people complain about movies and books and shows being produced that feature large American cities (D.C., LA, etc.) being bombed or destroyed? Wouldn't that be censorship gone haywire?

The fact that Fallout is playing on this intense underlying fear in most Americans is what makes it potent not only as a atmospheric game, but as a media form that causes players to literally address and experience these fears, for better or worse. As for me, I think it's both terrifying and awesome to play out a personal fear.

aggrazel @ Oct 26th 2008 10:11AM

Anyone who runs to the "First Amendment doesn't apply to stuff I don't like" garbage needs to be censored.

adeel @ Oct 25th 2008 2:36PM

I think politicians should stick to doing what they do best, use tax payers money to go holiday somewhere far away where they cant voice their useless opinions. Leave games and games comentary to the gamers please.

Will @ Oct 25th 2008 2:39PM

He isn't a politician.

Dirk Dorkelson @ Oct 25th 2008 2:41PM

Or, you know, we could just elect politicians that reflect our viewpoints, and work to get such people elected. Funny thing, democracy.

As far as I can tell, no politicians have gotten involved at this point. It's just a guy writing a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, something people do all the time and something well within his rights.

anthonyjh @ Oct 25th 2008 10:42PM

Hi Dirk. Thanks for killing the funny.

justshovejayohbe @ Oct 25th 2008 8:00PM

You're an idiot Dirk: the D.C. doesn't have voting representation in congress, and their prez electoral votes don't amount to a hill of beans.

Dirk Dorkelson @ Oct 26th 2008 4:54PM

Yeah, but Congress and the president don't have any say over what ads go on the DC metro, do they?

Dirk Dorkelson @ Oct 25th 2008 2:39PM

Eh, I can kind of understand the complaints, but at the same time, video game ads -- ads in general, really -- never have been known to be the most sensitive and tasteful.

Saria the Cat @ Oct 26th 2008 9:29AM

I protest almost every women's beauty ad I see for reminding me that I too can succumb to anorexia at any moment and become a wraith like those models.

Chin-Poh @ Oct 25th 2008 2:40PM

I don't think there's anything on this planet that doesn't offend at least one person. Let them cry more.

Markez @ Oct 25th 2008 2:44PM

I'm evidence, and I'm still crying like a girl. Apologies and thanks for the gentlemanly response last time around.

Signed,

Douchebag

PS - On topic, the actual article in question would be better if it showed the ads in question in the main pic.

Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Oct 25th 2008 2:49PM

Markez, his letter mentions an ad of a heavily armored enemy soldier in the foreground. Thus, the picture shown is of the ad mentioned.

Markez @ Oct 25th 2008 2:54PM

My bad, thought the controversy was moreso over the depiction of landmarks "ravaged, as if hit by missles."

Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Oct 25th 2008 3:03PM

The controversy is over the full campaign and him being a prat. The landmark ones could be called into question but then he wins about the heavily armored guy and anyone with a brain reading and knowing what he's talking about goes "wait, THAT'S offensive? Does this mean Osama Bin Laden images can start showing up looking like Vader? God I hope so.... that's be awesome."

ifalldownstairs @ Oct 25th 2008 7:14PM

yeah i didn't really understand why the add in the picture would offend anyone. here are better examples:

http://news.softpedia.com/images/extra/GAMES/large/Fallout3Adsscr_001-large.jpg

http://news.softpedia.com/images/extra/GAMES/large/Fallout3Adsscr_003-large.jpg

Falcon6 @ Oct 25th 2008 2:43PM

"If we live in fear, they win."
Paraphrased, but I do believe that is a message we learned to accept from the attacks.
So, I'm not going to be afraid because of a game that depicts post-apocalyptic Washington has images that are...well, post-apocalyptic.

Are we going to ban the watching of Independence Day because the White House blew up? No.

I feel sorry for the people who actually end up afraid of something like this...

Mr Khan @ Oct 25th 2008 3:52PM

You win. If you really wanted to make al-Qaeda mad, you'd make 9/11 into America Day, something like 4th of July, only more obnoxious

The best counter to terrorism (as opposed to the military operation of counterterrorism) is to strengthen that aspect of your culture that the terrorists find most offensive anyway (without being insensitive, per se, i wouldn't encourage anti-Muslim bias, but just our general consumerist lifestyle that largely provokes their scorn)

lorddshadow @ Oct 25th 2008 6:53PM

great point me.khan. psychological warfare. serving smart people for centuries!

Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Oct 25th 2008 7:29PM

Except, Mr. Kahn, 9/11 was more about American involvement in wars and siding with moscow in Afghanistan and well as estalbishing a military foothold within the Arab world.

*looks at Iraq*
Hey, you have a point. We DID continue the behaviors that gets the world all pissed off at us! YAY!

Typh00n @ Oct 25th 2008 2:49PM

QQ more, please. It's an ad, for goodness sakes. Hopefully the "media" doesn't pick up on this, and then we get a 12 part expose of video games like with Mass Effect, and GTA and the like...

offday @ Oct 25th 2008 2:50PM

Bottom line: People love to complain. It could have pink teddy bears and rainbows, and people would still find it offensive.

Anticrawl @ Oct 25th 2008 3:38PM

That would be worse because parents would complain the ad was trying to make their kid gay.....

I kid you not, same thing happened with the Spongebob Squarepants show, nick had to pull it off air for a while and there was a great deal of coverage and even "experts" describing why the show was trying to push it's homosexuality on children... what a load of shit. People can bitch about anything.

Mr Khan @ Oct 25th 2008 3:53PM

nick pulled the whole show off the air, or just certain episodes?

I couldn't imagine them caving when its basically their #1 breadwinner

Misfit Toy @ Oct 25th 2008 3:56PM

I take offense to pink teddy bears and rainbows. Let me explain why.

I see your rainbows as a discrimination against all teddy bears. And the fact that you have a pink one portrays the teddy bear as being ashamed of it's beautiful brown self and therefore must conform to an ever desensitizing and discriminating society...drowning out in the shallow waters of mediocrity.

Please NEVER advertise about your demeaning teddy bears as this will only add to the chaos that enshrouds an already corrupt and unstable populous.

Thank you.

BigD145 @ Oct 25th 2008 9:49PM

Pink teddy bears and rainbows are the second coming. The second coming of TEH GAY. Oh noes!!

Saria the Cat @ Oct 26th 2008 9:46AM

Misfit Toy wins.

offday @ Oct 26th 2008 10:03AM

@Mr Khan

Nick always caves when it comes to people complaining about their shows. Why do you think all the good Nick shows (Ren and Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life, etc.) are no longer on the air?

Paradigm Pirate @ Oct 25th 2008 2:51PM

Just a typical example of "I don't care, as long as it isn't at MY doorstep" for me.

Slayer @ Oct 25th 2008 2:52PM

Who cares what he thinks. I sure as hell don't. I say leave the ads up. I'm sick and tired of bullshit like this. It's a fucking ad, it's not going to harm anyone.

Jayslacks @ Oct 25th 2008 2:53PM

I see them all the time when I hit the Metro. The look amazing. If anything, we need MORE of them.

Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Oct 25th 2008 2:53PM

Ah yes, I remember my trip to Washington nicely. On the subway, there were liquor ads galou and tabacco ads. Ads of an action movie with two berettas aimed at the viewer. Calvin Klein undie ads with pouty nearly nake men hammocking up, and my personal favorite, the low angle Victoria's Secret ad of new satin panties which, using the rule of thirds, placed the very visible camel toe in a focus point.

And yet someone is going to get offended over a work of fiction. Just goes to show you, people are dumb. The fallout ads are among the tamest I've seen in a subway system. But, it's a video game.

Hashbrown Hunter @ Oct 25th 2008 4:09PM

Well look on the bright side: at least they care enough to ban ads for a videogame. At least people are starting to look at videogames as something more than just something you play on a box at home or on a toy while on the go. If videogames will ever reach a point where the medium is considered as art, it will be prone to attacks. At least there's progress, maybe not the best kind, but it's something.

Brazell @ Oct 25th 2008 2:54PM

I can understand why somebody may be sensitive to it, but taken as any other advertisement for a bit of art, it shouldn't be a problem. Did the History Channel's "Life After Humans" adverts produce the same response? Those showed crumbing buildings, etc. Probably not. We shouldn't take down advertisements simply because they are well done and have a vivid imagination.