Violent Videogames Blamed for Negative Brand Reception, Too



+ Add a Comment


I wouldn't mind seeing a ford in black ops nuketown map, or timberland boots on my soldier running down the hill. I would actually enjoy seeing brands in games, like in GTA, we all know burger shot is suppose to be burger king, or mcdonalds, but that's not gonna stop me from going to burger king, or mcdonalds. So maybe it has a different affect on women, or maybe I'm just ignorant, but if the brand is used properly, I don't see any harm. If fallout 3 used the real brand for their soda, will that make coke look bad, I don't think so. after spending a whole day in a abandoned super market, seeing all the empty nuke cola bottles, I get a bit thirsty for one myself. So I say, advertisers, welcome, as long as you are paying for that spot, the developers should see more green, and we should see game prices drop down.


Holly Golightly

When I play a violent videogame... I would play the ones in which you stab the enemies. To me, guns do not seem very realistic. They are hard to get... At least here in New York City... I do not know. But, with that said, I hate in-game advertising, and when they do, they are selling out. So I am highly likely to hate that brand very much so.

As a woman, who plays a lot of video games on my computer, I do not think in-game advertising is very realistic, and does not reach out in any positive way at all what so ever. However, I like games that take place in realistic settings. Like hacking computers in an office, or driving your car at speeds the police department can not catch up to. Things like that.

I run Ad-Blockers on my browsers, sure would be nice if the ad-blockers can work in videogames. This study holds a lot of merit indeed. It definitely is not bogus. As a female gamer, I can relate to this. Still, I would prefer all of my games to have no advertising at all. Is it do hard to ask for? Advertisers are a bunch of thugs that like to ruin people's quality of life. To hell with them!



"To me, guns do not seem very realistic. They are hard to get... At least here in New York City..."

Are you sure it hard to get, because if you try you can find one, let me see, try uptown or maybe one of the boroughs around you. Better yet get on the 1 train and take it to the last stop, their you will see a guy in a rain coat, don't ask me why, and walk up to him and tell him "It's too cold today, I need some heat" He'll take care of you. XD JK


Holly Golightly

Well, it is hard to get legally then. I do not think it is nice to stereotype the "outer" 4 boros as gun blazing ghettos. I do not think it is that easy... And I think I am right on this one. Plus, there are always undercover cops that fool buyers and sellers. So there is some crack down...

The way videogames convey access to guns is false. Like for example, Silent Hill 3, you can find a shotgun in a train which the gun is inside of a semi open christmas present. That is not very realistic. Or how Left 4 Dead magically has a table full of guns located in a hospital. Even Resident Evil 5 was a bit unrealistic... A magnum inside a hut in Africa?

Chances in me finding a table with guns and grenade launchers are very less likely. However, it is much easier to find a knife. So videogames with knives are better violent games than ones with rocket launchers.




I would disagree here.

As a place becomes more unstable and conflict arises (i.e. a zombie apocalypse) people who have access to weapons or know how to get access to weapons and people who will sell weapons tend to gather and stockpile them (I know the first place I'd head is the local army reserve armory; which contains everything you have mentioned as hard to find). And some of these people die or disappear due to instability/conflict leaving you with weapons caches scatter out all over the place as well as random weapons that were left behind in random places (such as on a subway train) when a situation arises that calls for them to abandon the weapon in order to protect their own life (or someone else's).

Stuff like this becomes even more common when in hot spots in contested zones, which in a game, is exactly where you would be.

Yeah I think games sometimes over do it a bit, but it would be far more werid that, assuming zombies are overrunning New York City, all you can find are knives for a weapon. It's pretty hard to walk anywhere now without seeing somebody (normally police) who are carrying a gun and there isn't even a single zombie around.




" I do not think it is nice to stereotype the "outer" 4 boros as gun blazing ghettos."

I was just joking, but the stereotype does exist. And it's not realistic to find guns in a hospital, the same way zombies don't exist. And in a way it's better if games aren't realistic because then most people will lose sight of whats real and whats a game.



Way too subjective.

What was being advertised?

How was it being advertised?

Was the target audience (women) gamers to begin with?


I highly doubt that if you advertised Razer products inside a video game to a target audience of mostly male TF2 players inside the game that they would react negatively to that brand.

This entire test seems bogus and probably not done properly.



I dont think so. It reads just like any other psych test of this type ive ever seen. its legit.




I wish I could hear more about the experiment, but the one thing that is sticking out to me so far is how exactly it appeared in the games?


Take a violent game involving McRonald's:

Was you gunning down countless Donald McRonald zombies as they tried to kill you?

Or was it you teaming up with Donald McRonald in an effort to stop a horde of zombies from killing you both?

In the first version it give you a negative impression of McRonald's (as they are trying to kill you).

In the second version it gives you a positive impression of McRonald's (as they are trying to help you).

It can even be more subtle than this.

[I'll insert the rest after i figure out why the hell this part triggered the spam filter]



Well I had a nice example of how a much more passive advertising campaign could be spun positively or negatively in a violent game, but the spam filter doesn't seem to care for it (regardless of how I reword it).


Makes me wonder why we have this spam filter seeing as the spam still get's through on a daily basis without the spammers altering their message other than a new tinylink every once and awhile while the filter will stop a legitimate post for god knows why since it won't tell you what exactly what in your post constitutes as spam.



try not making the post too long, check grammer, and dont use any brand names

works for me most of the time


Edit: this post triggered the capcha

really bad captcha



How about UT-Austin offers their assistant profs a class in how to actually conduct a study? Unless it's being misrepresented by the article you linked, it's a complete crock. 

" One group played through a violet game with avaters brandishing guns and shooting it up in rooms covered in blood. The other group weaved their way through the same avatars, only they were weaponless and the rooms were soaked in water."

No mention that stimuli are signifcantly lower for the second group, so they actually have time to look around and notice brand placement? Or about the fact that statistically women play fewer video games than men, so their recognition of those brands while "shooting it up in roms covered in blood" would be even lower? How about some research design skills here, people?



do these people have nothing better to do?



their researchers, that's ALL they do usually.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.