A look at how Battlefield 3 is being marketed by terrorism.
I was disappointed with the BF3 story trailer. I was expecting a more Medal of Honor type story than a Hollywood action film. Medal of Honor story felt real. From the trailer BF3's story seems a little stupid. We will see when it is released but the 10 minutes preview shown on N4G is suggesting a more hollywood influence
I was disappointed by this article. I thought he would bring up actual good points. oh well
yeh this article sucked arse! It's a Hollywood FPS....how much of a story are you really expecting? That's like expecting a Michael Bay movie to win an Oscar for best picture. I plan on jumping right into the MP anyway....and i may never play the SP! *not because it's bad or anything....just don't have the time*
....again. I don't think there is a valid point here at all. The irony here is that the author of this article is shamelessly gagging for hits with such a sensationalist headline yet accuses DICE of "blatantly profit[ing] off of war and politics".
Gold Star mom?
So...kind of cliched story = support terrorism? I don't get it. Is there a punchline?
Where in this article did it say "support terrorism"? The article is saying that they are using the tried and true "Kill Terrorist and save the World" cliche that has been used in every other Modern FPS since the beginning of the Modern FPS. Oh look there are some terrorist that are invading and they have a nuke. F-yeah...lets kill'em. Cliche...Cliche...Cliche... Effing Cliche Won't stop me from playing it, but it also doesn't mean it isn't using every cliche in the book.
"Terrorist Marketing Battlefield 3"... the poorly written title insinuates that terrorist are marketing BF3. Thus support of the game by terrorist, and supporting terrorism. The article just goes on about not liking the cliches and wants to see something new. Stating that DICE is trying to sensationalize terrorism within their game. And that their use of certain cliches within the game is some how a slap at the fight against terrorism because they are used in the game? Almost like terrorism is taboo to be used in the game. Especially with his rebuttal below about... "The war on terror deserves to be dealt with with much more sincerity than turning it into a money making video game!", which is odd seeing that his sensationalism in the article is basically doing the same thing that he is up in arms about.
No part of this article is in support of terrorism! WTF?! Stating that games should not make cheap use of anti-terrorism does not indicate pro-terrorism. It indicates a respect for the efforts of armed forces in protecting people AGAINST terrorism. The war on terror deserves to be dealt with with much more sincerity than turning it into a money making video game! Septic; the article reports the subject matter of the game, which is terrorism, a subject chosen on by the developer. It is utterly illogical to say that an article is sensationalist because it mentions that a game is based around terrorism whilst arguing that said game is not sensationalist.
@Paulh82 Actually you are incorrect. When the media (being you in this case) points out the sensational views by advertising "Terrorist Marketing Battlefield 3: The Launch Trailer" in full sight that the game is NOT marketed by terrorists, as you insinuated with your poorly written headline. But only is using current international situations that are actually relevant in today's factual headlines. Cliche is what you do with this article. You take the current themes in video games and try to demonize their style and/or validity. You claim that developers are using terrorism to sensationalize gameplay instead of what they are actually doing which is reflecting current war scenarios. Why were WWII games so popular before...? Because they had an element of true story and scope. Why do current games highlight the Terrorist aspect of wars today? Well because that is what we as a society are drawn to. We don't just label anything a simple war any more... it is a War on Drugs or War on Terrorism. We highlight what we are fighting versus who we are fighting, the global picture versus the simple mentality that it is country A versus country B. These cliche that you point out are actually relevant snips of media history brought into a single story line. Everything you say has been heard or seen before. Well what hasn't these days? But to say that using relevant terminology that terrorists like to throw down, or to use situations that have been cast about in other games as being somehow a marketing tool of terrorism? Come on... you are just reaching. Your writing style is awful and you have very few relevant points in any of your thought patterns. And why don't you learn how to stylize your website a little better before you allow the masses to see it. At the least you can learn to keep your typeset the same size and structure. Maybe that is possibly because you haven't tested your web page against different browsers? This article reeks of sensationalism for the sake of trying to get hits. And seeing that the author of the article is the submitter of this piece of drivel just makes the point more clear. I have now put your website on the blocked sites in my browser. Good luck, but this article fails.
First things first, I am not a COD fanboy. Anyone who actually reads before presuming will have read that I said the same is true of modern Warfare. And btw, "You come to our country and murder us yet we are the terrorists" is not a "relevant piece of media history"...? It's a blatant rip off of a trillion other stories before it and a very cheap handling of political subject matter. Please feel free to ask ANYONE involved in politics or political journalism what their opinion of making a game around such cliches is. it is sensationalism, and yes, the article is also sensationalism and must be so in order to reflect the nature of storytelling in FPSs. It is amazing the amount of anger that is created when one simple article gives a negative opinion of just one part of a big name game. No wonder there is such bias in online gaming journalism. The only way to not offend fans is to never say a single negative thng about anything. And what a sad state of affairs that is.
I understand you only have 3 bubbles and are trying to consolidate your verbiage but I didn't call you a COD fanboy... that was much lower in the list of people that think you have no clue what journalism or gaming really is... try putting the @gamertag in front of your rant to clarify if it is out of sequence. (posting 101) "You come to our country and murder us yet we are the terrorists" "There must be a million iterations of this line through movies and games, with a foreign enemy saying Americans are murdering them and yet calling them terrorists. We get the bloody point, entertainment universe, now give us something new!"... you yourself give the statement that it is relevant by the numerous iterations of it within the media... and then again in your post above trying to talk yourself down from the ledge. As for asking a politician what they think of making a game about... well about anything really... why would I? Why would we care what political journalists or politicians think about video games? P.s. don't think I am going to ask you as you are not a journalist. It is not anger as much as it is total amazement that you think this is a good article or that your words are relevant. THAT is what is so amazing. As for me... you are not offending a fan. It has nothing to do with your negative opinion as much as your thought once again that it is relative. We don't need your sensationalized journalism on N4G or in gaming. Go back to reviewing your Movie Posters.
worst article... EVER!
Buuuuttttt I want to kill terrorists.
both sides kill innecont people? both sides show 'terror'?? both sides are terrorists.
I like my side, and I gave 4 honorable years in service to it. You have no idea what a terrorist is.
@ sith, want to give me a good definition of what a terrorist is? 4 years? yeah blinded and believing anything you are told.
(terrorism)the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. (terrorist)a radical who employs terror as a political weapon, with no regard to civilian status; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities. Edit: chickens, you seem to be fairly civil in most of your posts on N4G. Don't ruin it by stooping to such low levels as you did in your condemnation of SITH for his service in the military.
How this nonsense article was approved? yo COD Fanboy dont cry cause BTF3 will own ur game badly.
It actually looks like your the one crying dude.
Doesn't matter, it's probably for the campaign story. Most people play it for the multiplayer
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.