Call Of Duty Ghosts Just Can’t Stand Those Awful Women

Call Of Duty’s online world has something of a reputation. A reputation for being a cesspit of revolting idiocy, bile and cruelty, rather spoiling it for those who just want some multiplayer shootyfun. So it is to this that Activision have targeted their latest trailer for Ghosts Onslaught. To the idiots, I mean.

Call Of Duty is, in Activision’s mind, what men do when they can finally escape the horrors of hideous wives or children. A game for men only. MEN. Not those awful nags! Just the lads! Cor eh guys, don’t the missus just go on and on and stop you from enjoying shouting obscenities into your microphone because of something about raising the kids or whatever she’s whinging about now?! Because it’s apparently 1994, and we’re all reading Loaded.

My explanation: an advertising executive time travelled from a more pathetic age. “Hey guys,” he said, to the room full of other men. “What if we show massively traumatised women while men enjoy a sit down and a game of COD?” The others all sit up in interest, slicking back their slicked back hair. “Go on, go on,” says their 27 year old boss, coughing slightly on the cigarette he’s trying to smoke. “You’ve got our synergistic attention.”

“Okay,” continues the inspired one, “and you see…” He pauses, looks around the room at the open-mouthed rapture of his colleagues, and breathes in the moment. “Well ‘COD’ – that sounds a bit like ‘KID’. We could say…” He stops again, as everyone leans forward. “We could say, ‘CODNAPPED’!”

There’s silence for a moment. And then just the throng of applause. One man weeps with joy, and is immediately shot in the head. The rest lift our genius onto their shoulders, and carry him from the room, cheering and explaining to each other about their potential for consuming alcohol and that time they saw a boob.

And scene.

It’s rather pitiful really, isn’t it? Which is a bit of a shame, because blimey, the game bits look pretty decent. Call Of Duty: Ghost’s single player was utterly dreadful, but look at those massive alien things! That’s part of Extinction Episode 1: Nightfall. That bit looked pretty interesting. Just showing the game, I imagine they’d have appealed to not only the fuckwits they’re apparently targeting with the rest of the ad, but also, you know, other people. I’m pretty sure other people have some money too.


  1. Tom De Roeck says:

    Cue horrible comments complaining about WHY JOHN ALWAYS POSTS LIKE THESE



    • Tom De Roeck says:


    • Tom De Roeck says:


    • Tom De Roeck says:


    • Tom De Roeck says:


      • pepperfez says:


        • toxic avenger says:

          everybody now!

    • Tom De Roeck says:


      • Snids says:

        Yesssssssss! yeeesssssss! Goooooood!
        Bring us those sweet, sweet male tears!

        • Amun says:

          True fact: male tears are much better than female tears. You know, because men are much better than women at everything and all.

          • 00000 says:

            That’s true. In ancient Greece, crying was an incredibly masculine thing for a protagonist to do.
            Historically, male tears follow epic events, and the act is to be interpreted as sublime and incredibly heroic.

            Facts, deal with them.

          • wiper says:


            Although, that fact did trouble Classical commentators – ancient Greek discussions abounded whether Achilles’ tears were appropriate, or a sign of weakness; whether one could be strong and show emotion. It was a cause of some serious debate in the centuries BCE.

            *looks down*

            Gosh, but this comments thread got frightening fast.

          • 00000 says:

            ^ But all the commentators agree that the Iliad wouldn’t have sold as well with a female lead.

      • Saii says:

        Fantastic, particularly as the various sad-sacks who actually post this stuff are still posting it below!

        • dE says:

          Here’s the root of the issue and why it escalates: you don’t solve problems by shouting and/or broad sweeping attacks. That only attracts the people that enjoy Drama and want to further spice up the action by trolling. Progress is made one step at a time, through tedious persistence, by directly addressing the person you disagree with.

          • Bull0 says:

            Pfft, too much effort. Far easier to stigmatize people for cheap laughs, and as a bonus you get to pretend you’re fighting the good fight too.

          • frightlever says:

            That’d be my main gripe with John’s articles. He fights stupidity with ignorance. RPS isn’t about objective journalism, but it’s tiresome when an intelligent man goes out of his way to dumb down to make a cheap point.

            Anyway, anyone see that recent episode of “The Crazy Ones” when Sidney (Sarah Michelle Gellar) becomes addicted to a multiplayer man-shooter? Still not sure if they got it right or not. Probably not, but it did make me smile.

          • dE says:

            Personally, I think his writing about the issues has improved a lot. I haven’t seen one of those broad sweeping attacks on everyone in quite a while and the articles no longer insult the readers. They’re reporting on issues within the industry, with a bit of snark – sure, but that’s the style of RPS and has been for a long time.
            I also believe that many are still judging these articles by the early examples of it, not the current ones.

          • Bull0 says:

            It’s less what John says and more the attitude it breeds, really. Just look at the comments. Somebody thought it’d be hilarious to lampoon the boorish knuckledraggers we so despise by spamming up the comments with typical stuff they might say, complete with capslock and amusing mispelling. People queued up to congratulate him for his ingenuity. Is this how we make progress? I think not.

          • TheWhomp says:

            I assume you didn’t read the last line where John calls people who liked the ad fuckwits?

          • The Random One says:

            “Progress is made one step at a time, through tedious persistence, by directly addressing the person you disagree with.”

            Not really. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and sexism is a giant enemy boss cat that requires the combined efforts of many skinning techniques. I wouldn’t dream of saying John’s posts are somehow essential, but they are not without purpose. For instance:

            1. There is still a lingering societal pressure for men to be dominant, and mockery of men who fight against that. By mocking sexism, John makes of those men the butt of his joke, diminishing their perceived power. It’s not like they’ll run crying to the street and forfeit their sexist ways but it adds weight to the idea that that mindset is not desirable and will get you shunned, even if ever so slightly.

            2. Ignorance begets ignorance, and by broadly attacking John causes sexists to also broadly attack. This forces everyone to show their cards, and their hands are weaker, full of cognitive dissonance and ad hominems. Every time you see a post saying “I didn’t think sexism was a big deal, but the responses to this article have convinced me it really is” that’s a success.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Your failure is in the assumption that just because you might disagree with him that makes you inherently sexist.
            The argument that a lot of people have against this article is that it’s simply plucking at straws, trying to find an argument that just isn’t there.
            We are seeing a lot of this on RPS and some of the arguments are wafer thin, some are valid. What a lot of people are seeing however is that RPS just seems to be swinging a hammer at anything they can when relating to these sorts of social issues. A lot of the issues they come up with are just overblown or unfounded and to me this is one of them.

            It actually weakens the argument overall, when people feel like they’ve had the same argument again and again over trivial nonsense like this it makes them less likely to take notice when an important situation is brought to light.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            “Progress is made one step at a time, through tedious persistence, by directly addressing the person you disagree with.”
            Or,y’know, killing them… Just saying…

          • dE says:

            Except that killing someone you disagree with, does not solve problems. Never has and will lead to a perpetual spiral of violence due to revenge and hatred. For reference: See human history. It’s entirely irrelevant here anyways, since no one can kill you on the internet. Not even metaphorically with arguments.

            And about the skinned cat… no. I disagree entirely. You can not clobber trolls into submission by being angry with them. You’re giving them precisely what they want. The only purpose it serves is to vent anger.
            By being nasty to the nasties, you’re also solidifying barriers and drawing lines in the sand, when you really want to dismantle barriers and remove the lines. Yes it’s hard. Yes it’s tedious, yes they’re nasty. This is where the persistence comes into play.

            About the 1)
            You can’t will peer pressure into existence. Certainly not by being angry. Bystanders to a discussion are more likely to take the side of the person that appears calm and reasonable.

            About the 2)
            Now consider the flipside, the amount of people that have been driven away from the issue, because of the stomping approach. Most people stay away when they see a huge mess. Especially when the arguments are already crafted in a way to suggest a black/white dichotomy. For every “so this is how it is, because I saw the flames” there’s “So I’m either friend or foe? Fuck that, I’m out of here”.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Pfft. Get your reality out of my plan.

            I *know* we can’t really kill them, and I *know* that shouting at them doesn’t work, and I *know* the only real way is to engage them in conversations etc etc. But it’s just *so* *much* *effort*, for a group of people who really aren’t worth it. I mean, most of them are just so mind blowingly stupid that they’re never going to make any meaningful contribution to society. I just can’t be arsed being polite to them and pretending I care if they live to see another day.

          • TheWhomp says:

            Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, so I’m being nicer than my original reply.

            If you can’t be arsed to be polite to people because they’ll never contribute to society etc etc, then maybe that’s a personal failing. The vast majority of people will have no measurable impact on society, and that’s in no way a reflection of their worth.

          • HealthyCarp says:

            Phew, good to see some Voices of Reason amid all the shouting. No need to get hysterical about this, right? If we got all emotional and called chauvinists mean names, what would that accomplish except making us Just As Bad?

            I should know: as a rational, intelligent man myself I’ve shown dozens of misogynists the flaw in their judgment using polite and reasoned discourse. Now they too visit message boards to spread the Good Word (Logos, of course!) You really do catch more flies bigots with honeyed rhetoric than with bile and vinegar!

    • J Arcane says:

      Dear Tom De Roeck,

      If this site had an upvote system I would so give you all of them.

      Thank you,
      Guy who cringes at internet comment streams.

    • Bull0 says:

      Yeah this is really clever, well done

    • Tom De Roeck says:

      And the most important one:

      My brothers mothers sister in laws gardener makes 10 bucks an hour doing gardening work. its insane!

      • Keymonk says:

        Not to forget ‘I know a woman who is okay with it, so it is completely acceptable to everyone!’

        • Tom De Roeck says:

          Ill add it to the list.

        • TheWhomp says:

          Honestly, at least this one makes more sense than “As a male unaffected by this issue, I am *far* more outraged than any of the ‘victims’!”

    • dE says:

      Are you quite done with your summoning ritual? You’ve used up all the snarky passive aggressive paste for this month. This stuff is expensive.

    • Iscannon says:

      I’m normally one to bitch at John, but not this time! That was a terrible advert. Yes, they know who they’re marketing to, but if anything that makes it worse. Slimy lizard bastards.

      • Hahaha says:

        That has to be one of the more amusing things about this, your kids will be having john talk to them in school next.

      • dethtoll says:

        Definitely agree on this one. While the article itself is typical of Walker’s style of Kotaku-esque clickbaity outrage porn that I have no patience for (there’s a proper way to do social justice in the gaming community and Walker’s method isn’t it) the video itself is beyond discomforting. I’m tired of the games industry marketing all its shit to the people who used to beat up guys like me in high school.

      • waltC says:

        The ad wasn’t meant to be some kind of “serious commentary”….;) It was satirical and comical, making fun of the people playing the game that way as much as anything else!

        Does no one here have even a teeny-tiny sense of humor? An appreciation for satire? I found the ad to be very funny, myself.

        • CookPassBabtridge says:

          Clearly it seems to be falling foul of Poe’s Law, in that if it is indeed satire, it is indistinguishable from that which is being satirised.

          In other words, its not very good satire then.

          • waltC says:

            Actually, the very best satire is never immediately obvious…I think “slapstick” is likely what you’re talking about here…;)

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            It doesn’t have to be immediately obvious, but it would need to be apparent at some point. Otherwise it’s just a thin excuse to make more of whatever is ostensibly being satirised.

            I’d say that ideally it should become apparent a little while after its target audience has started to whoop and holler approvingly.

        • smokiespliff says:

          i think i agree. i’ve surprised myself really, as i hate the typical COD player as much as anyone, and i always applaud John’s efforts in similar articles… but i just found this ad amusing and couldn’t help but smile at the awful eejits.

          i thought it was quite clever in a way…. lets hope it doesn’t happen again…

    • DrollRemark says:

      It didn’t work though. I don’t think people bother to see if their comment has already been made when THE RAGE has taken them.

    • kael13 says:

      I don’t know man, John really does make a good point this time. That ad is awful.

    • Snids says:

      Great work.
      To Quote the great Mr Loaf:
      You took the words right out of my mouth…

    • SuicideKing says:


      • Scumbag says:

        Well, yeah. If I don’t shoot at least 50 I cant unlock flashbangs.

    • dorn says:

      This time it’s actually sexist. That’s why John’s articles are so damaging though. He’s foaming at the mouth about sexy women too often. Now nobody will take him seriously when it counts.

    • WHS says:

      this is beautiful, I wish someone would delete all the comments that aren’t tom de roeck’s

  2. Mondaik says:

    More clickbait, nice.

    • Big Murray says:

      Out of curiosity, what is the correct way for a website to acknowledge this WITHOUT it being “clickbait”?

      • Fenix says:

        Talking about it, without actually linking to it. Owait that would be searchbait

      • Litany says:

        You’re not supposed to talk about it. Nobody is supposed to ever talk about equality for women, racial minorities, or gay people and then hopefully it won’t happen. This is what Mondaik means to say.

        John Walker literally ruining everything all the time via clickbait.

        • TheWhomp says:

          It might also have something to do with the substance of the article. Since 80% of the article is dripping with sarcasm. I’d imagine a good way to try and foster empathy, understanding or anything else useful would be to cut that out, and not assume that everyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot.

          Maybe people are expecting something more meaningful than what’s provided here? Maybe some analysis, some theorising? Basically anything other than “Gosh I’m funny” and then calling people fuckwits?

          • Hahaha says:

            John told someone who brought him stats that he had glossed over in an article to “fuck off” I don’t think he can

          • TheWhomp says:

            That honestly wouldn’t surprising, but I suppose you don’t have a link?

          • GSGregory says:

            Considering what I have seen on the different articles in the past. Assuming everyone who disagrees is an idiot is pretty accurate. The responses to this article are mild in comparison to what they have been before.

          • TheWhomp says:

            Well there you go, maybe there should be a version of The Silence about John actually responding to something.

            I don’t think I’ve seen a piece by John without this kind of thing though. If the Internet really did kill his ability to communicate, he should probably think about how driving wedges between yourself and others (before they’ve even had a chance to disagree/take you on board) is the absolute worst way to achieve something positive.

          • SkittleDiddler says:

            That’s not the first time he’s told someone to Fuck Off. I’d provide a link, but it’s early in the a.m. and I’m tired.

          • GSGregory says:

            There used to be a ton and still are quite a few. and meh. I would agree with you but considering the arguments I have seen saying x isn’t racist I find it hard not to view all of them as idiots myself.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            That’s because quite a lot of the idiots who get up in arms about these articles deserve to be told to “fuck off”.

          • AngelTear says:

            I think, besides the fact that arguing the same thing over and over again makes you exhausted and prone to aggressive snarky remarks rather than constructive arguments (I recall a tweet by Cara Ellison to this effect, while she also thanked those who do have the patience to keep explaining everything from the start all over again), John’s attitude is also justified insofar as it really is a rather simple thing to understand.

            What I mean is, it’s hard for me too to explain what sexism is and what it is about and why it is mostly unconscious and not “an agenda” over and over again to people without sounding paternalistic, because, in its basic form, it’s a fairly simple and self-evident concept to grasp for anyone who is actually willing to listen, and I never signed up to be the primary school teacher of some internet people who are going to thank me for my effort at “educating them” (paternalistic choice of words, I know, and yet I feel it is the correct one) with a mountain of insults.

            There’s a lot to be discussed once you get into the thick of feminism, a lot of interesting stuff going on, but the level of RPS’s examples are so basic and broad and simple that if you’re not getting it you’re either grossly uneducated or you’re not seeing it on purpose.

          • Ich Will says:

            Hahaha, he didn’t bring “stats” he said in black and white that women were less productive than men. The article was about the pay gap between men and women and the person john told to fuck off wrote an obnoxious hashtag and then “People are paid according to their productivity”. Not one letter more, that was the full quote. This person did not bring stats, he brought his sexist opinion. This was a person who genuinely believes that women are inferior to men and I think telling him to fuck off was a perfectly appropriate response.

          • TheWhomp says:

            Perhaps then, if someone can’t handle the strain that comes with being a champion of social progress – they shouldn’t do it?

            It’s perfectly human to get frustrated, but some people decide to take a break when it’ll start affecting them. If I was at my job and a customer was being ridiculous/rude and I lost my temper, no matter how justified I may be – I’d be up shit creek if they complained.

            If you’re pushing for social progress, your ‘job’ is far more important. So why not treat it as such?

            I assumed he was talking about the stats that are mentioned/shown in that thread there, but on closer inspection they don’t line up. So I suppose they’re talking about ignoring everyone else there with stats, to tell one person to fuck off.

            I’d also like to say that the person didn’t demonstrate their beliefs about women, since more factors effect productivity than someone’s nebulous ‘worth’.

          • John Walker says:

            I can answer people’s questions about the Borderlands post – I was exhausted, and I was phenomenally miserable, having been receiving endless torrents of vile abusive insults for weeks, from organised groups of nasty little arseholes. I honestly cannot remember what I got wrong in the post, but when it became apparent that I was wrong, I decided the easiest thing to do in that instant was just delete the whole thing.

            The people attacking in the comments weren’t helpfully pointing out a mistake – they were being cunts. I wanted the situation to go away, and since the post was inaccurate, I wiped it. My site. Job done.

            Soon after this I took a week off because I was so wiped from the intensity of the hate coming my way.

            In a different week I’d have amended the article and explained my mistakes. Either is fine – we don’t owe anything anyone, it’s our site, and so long as we’re endeavouring to tell the truth, we’re good.

            And to be clear, I reserve the right to tell sexist dirtbags to fuck off on my personal twitter feed.

          • WrenBoy says:

            I can answer people’s questions about the Borderlands post… The people attacking in the comments weren’t helpfully pointing out a mistake – they were being c**ts.

            I think that is a dreadful thing to say. Some of the commenters surely were just pointing out the mistake and youve just called every one of them a c**t.

            In a different week I’d have amended the article and explained my mistakes. Either is fine – we don’t owe anything anyone, it’s our site, and so long as we’re endeavouring to tell the truth, we’re good.

            Either isnt fine though. Part of endeavouring to tell the truth is admitting to your mistakes. That is why you admit that on a different week you would have corrected the article. Its not the first time you refused to correct an obviously incorrect article either.

            It is your site and you do have the right to run it however you like but you damage your reputation when you do a silly thing in the heat of the moment, refuse to acknowledge the mistake once time has passed and even now, months later you still call anyone who corrected you a c**t.

          • mouton says:

            “Some of the commenters surely were just pointing out the mistake and youve just called every one of them a c**t.

            He called that people who attacked him. If someone was just pointing out the mistake, they were not attacking him, were they.

          • WrenBoy says:

            Either that or he is one of the many people who is capable of misjudging tone on the internet.

            He said, “The people attacking in the comments weren’t helpfully pointing out a mistake”. I said that surely some of them were. Its not complicated.

    • John Walker says:

      Would you care to share your understanding of what “clickbait” is?

      • P7uen says:

        You should post all articles on the front page in full-length, remove ads to ensure integrity, and tell us how to make a keyboard shortcut to RPS so that we don’t have to use the mouse in our browsers. You bastard.

      • The Godzilla Hunter says:

        “Clicks” are illusive, shadowy aliens bent on taking over the Earth. They masquerade as humans, and can be very hard to find.

        There is only one proven way to find them: certain articles on topics like sexism are able to bring them out into the open (thus, these articles are known as “clickbait”). Then their IPs are traced and secret-agent-teams are dispatched.

        So on behalf of Mondaik, myself, and all humans and lizardfolk on this planet, I thank you for your clickbait.

      • TheWhomp says:

        “Link bait, also known as clickbait, is any content or feature, within a website, designed specifically to gain attention or encourage others to link to the website.” <- I'd imagine it was something like this.

        You could make the case that the article's title, and the little you can see of it beyond the cut kiiiind of misrepresent what the ad actually contains. Or that the article is taking a ridiculous viewpoint and running with it full-pelt.

        Of course the biggest problem there is the intent, and I suppose it's entirely possible that the author believes that the ad only kidnapping *men* from common situations (work, work function, party, watching-tv-with-partner, shopping) is a horrendous slight against all woman-kind. I also suppose that most people don't really believe that, and are then looking for a different reason.

        • Rikard Peterson says:

          Wouldn’t the best “clickbait” be a really good article? I know that’s the only time I share articles on FB or things like that. And if that is true, shouldn’t we want “clickbait”?

      • Amun says:

        It’s not clickbait in the evil sense of the word if the author posts it in good faith…

        While I agree that any discussion of social justice these days just devolves into shit-flinging insanity, I can’t believe that our dear author would post anything just to farm hits to the website.

      • clickb8 says:

        It’s pretty easy to spot, don’t have to be a “Where’s Waldo” champion either.
        Allow me to demonstrate: link to

        • Amun says:

          Hey at least it’s not as bad as shitaku. We can always leave if it gets that bad.

          • mouton says:

            Or just click on those hundreds of other articles that are not about wimminz

        • mouton says:

          Uh, that’s because it provokes a heated exchange? Are you suggesting that any post about social justice stuff is clickbait and thus we should not talk about social justice stuff?

      • TheWhomp says:

        It would be cool though, if we could banish the notion that a website going for clicks is automatically a bad thing. That’s like saying corporations caring about money is a bad thing. It’s not – it’s what allows them to continue.

        If a website has ads on the page, then of course it wants you go visit it. Even the inclusion of comment sections works towards that (even though rps wouldn’t be the same without pun threads). It’s the same reason websites have slideshows instead of galleries, and none of it should be a surprise to someone who isn’t new to the internet.

        Not to say that websites shouldn’t strive to provide something *more* than clickbait.

        • Mondaik says:

          Feel free to visit Kotaku if you want to see the effects of reckless hunting for more pageviews. Just listen to this title of an hard hitting gaming journalism article:
          Pin-Up Models vs. Poultry Battle on Twitter in Japan
          RPS haven’t sunken to the same low levels as Kotaku YET, but due to recent developments I don’t think it will be long until they have.

      • Mondaik says:

        When pseudo-feminists like you drum up drama to gain more site visits, in most cases making a huge outcry over practically nothing. Please stop trying to latch onto the feminist cause, you’re neither a woman nor do you write or know anything about real issues that women face. I’m honestly quite offended by the idea that the struggles I’ve had as a lesbian woman is turned into more liberal daily mail articles by gross male gaming journos.

        • AngelTear says:

          Your point being, that if you’re not a woman you can’t be a feminist? (Despite the fact that feminism tries to liberate anyone, of any gender, of constraining stereotypes and abuse?) And that if you’re a woman, you’re automatically a feminist, instead? So, the two main genders cannot possibly understand each other, ever, am I correct?

          I’m pretty misanthropic, and even I don’t think that humanity is doomed to be *that* bad.

          • joa says:

            Because feminism is from the female perspective — from a female way of thinking. Males who claim to understand this and be “male feminists” are beyond creepy.

            You don’t need to be a misanthrope to realise that males and females are essentially opposites — so no matter how hard each side tries to understand the other, there’s always going to be a tension, as demonstrated by the fact that these disagreements have been going on for centuries and continue to this day.

          • Morangie says:

            Don’t worry, that was clearly a troll post, most likely by an American who has seen UK people mention the Daily Mail without understanding what it is. No one being serious could ever put “liberal” and “Dail Mail” together.

            Joa: I feel bad for you, I honestly do. Aside from your own misconception of feminism, referring to the centuries of oppression women have suffered as “disagreements”?

          • AngelTear says:

            I don’t agree with pretty much anything you just said.
            (But Morangie beat me to it, damn =P)

            1) Feminism is not necessarily from the female perspective. Feminism is, at its very core, a couple of simple thoughts: a) historically in our culture and our tradition, men have been priviliged because they are men and women have been oppressed because they are women (this is broadly speaking, bringing the one exception in history won’t make it any less true) and b) Recognising that male and female both deserve to be treated equally, that the male and female perspective are both equally valid. (How much male and female are actually the same is a matter of debate, but you can recognize difference and still be granted the same rights and opportunities). I’m sure you’re familiar with all these concepts if you replace man with white and woman with black.
            2) I’m sure you can think of a person who, despite being white, acknowledges that black people have been generally oppressed by white societies and strives to erase all the remnants of racism, both conscious and unconscious, that still litter our society. The same is true if you replace, again, man with white and woman with black: it doesn’t take much, just a little bit of empathy and some (self)scrutiny. Unless you truly think that all we do is strictly an expression of narrow-minded self-interest, you can recognise when something is unjust even if it gives you advantages and decide not to exploit it, or even fight for the rights of the group you could easily oppress. (Again, how much you can actually understand of the opposite gender is a matter of debate, but I think it’s fairly uncontroversial to say that understanding at this very basic level is very much possible.
            3) The impression that feminism puts the female before the male (aside from some forms of very radical feminisms that I wouldn’t even call feminism) is an impression that comes from the fact that feminism has a lot of work to do to balance the current state of things. It has to actively and consciously favour the female perspective not because it is inherently superior, but because society at large constantly (and often unconsciously) considers teh female perspective irrelevant. (Again, whether there really is a female and a male perspective, and whether they’re inaccessible to the other gender, is a matter of debate. I recall a pretty important feminist using Derrida, a male philosopher, as a prime example of female writing, for instance.)

          • kwyjibo says:

            I disagree that men can’t be feminists.

            I can’t disagree that this post is massively missing the point, if there is any point at all, generates heat without the light, and is generally a waste of everything.

          • joa says:

            AngelTear: of course it’s all very well to talk about equal respect for the male and female perspectives. But when these perspectives conflict the differences are often impossible to resolve – because there is no right or wrong answer! What seems obviously right or wrong to a woman might seem the complete opposite to a man.

            I think bringing racism into the debate is a bit of red herring – because the issue of sexism is fundamentally different from other issues of inequality. This is because men and women will see things as equal and unequal in different ways, and the inequalities are also very tied up in sexual relations – very personal issues. Racism is far simpler because whites and blacks, for example, are not opposites. If you swap the races, then white people would have exactly the same problem with racism as black people. There are no opposing perspectives here.

            And again, I must disagree with your assertion that the female perspective is considered irrelevant. I see people in my daily life asking women’s opinions on things all the time. Could you provide a concrete example?

          • AngelTear says:

            Who said anything about resolving differences? Differences are often a good thing, and can be exalted and celebrated too. (I actually believe people can be very flexible and can understand each other despite differences of pretty much any kind) I talked about *respecting* them, precisely because it’s often hard to judge which answer is right or wrong, or if there is a right or wrong even. Our culture takes what is “male” as the norm and what is female as the different. Who said it shouldn’t be the other way around? Who said there should be a “norm” at all?

            I don’t quite understand your second point. I used racism as a sort of parallel, but I don’t really see all the difference that you are trying to indicate that would make my parallelism flawed.
            “This is because men and women will see things as equal and unequal in different ways, and the inequalities are also very tied up in sexual relations – very personal issues. ” <— this is a bit vague for me to really answer. Also, what do sexual relations have to do with, say, equality of wage, equality of treatment, being considered equal on an intellectual level?
            What makes you say that male and female are opposite more than black people and white people are? And what makes you say that men would be ok with being treated the way women are treated? I'm pretty sure I am the one who is not understanding your point.

            The fact that some of your friends may ask a female friend what kind of shoes does well with their clothes doesn't really mean anything. The gender gap exists, is well documented and in certain cases it’s huge.
            I’ll make a couple of simple, data-less examples you may be familiar with:
            1) How many game designers do you know? Some famous ones include Hideo Kojima, Ken Levine, Tim Schafer, Ragnar Tornquist. How many of them are male and how many of them are female? Frankly I can only name Christine Love and Zoe Quinn (In the same vein, Rhianna Pratchett is fairly famous not just because she’s a good game writer, but also because she’s one of the very few women in the industry, unfortunately)
            2) How many games journalists do you know? How many of them are women, compared to the total?
            3) How many musicians do you know? (Vocalists don’t count, that’s way too easy, because the female voice is different; it matters if there are women in positions where they are the exact equivalent of men) How many of them are women?
            Now, do you think that women are somehow genetically averse to videogames or music, so that they shy away from these fields? Can you see that the female perspective in all these fields is significantly underrepresented?

          • Fredward says:

            @Joa you’re making a really common mistake here. YOU are unable to identify with feminism and so you extrapolate your view to everyone who bears the most salient similarity to you. Namely maleness. You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist, there are only to prerequisites. 1) Have the ability to notice inequality and 2) care about that disparity. That’s it.

            There are some obvious examples of differences between men and women but they don’t preclude the one from understanding the other. Or in this case asking for equality. Also those differences might not be as inherent as you like to think. One of the primary characteristics of the human brain is its malleability. So the question becomes “are these differences something we’re born with or is it something we’re molded into from a tender age?” For instance if you have a boy you give him legos and go “ATTABOY!” when he punches another kid. His brain literally changes to accomadte these things. That or it’s just plain ol’ effective Skinner-conditioning. Same with girls they get dolls and are taught to play nice with others. So when we grow up is it any surprise that we show these characteristics? Born this way or made this way, that is the question.

            But yeah anyway saying men can’t be feminists because penis is silly and myopic.

          • Snailgoop says:

            A feminist man is just someone who understands that men and women should be treated with equivalent regard. Maybe he has empathy for his wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, sister, etc. and doesn’t like to see them treated unfairly and with disregard to their person, their being, because he loves them and values them. Women are feminists because we don’t like being treated like dirt, like we are less than human. We want to be included in all the things life has to offer. Women who hate men and want to be superior to them, who want women to have more rights and men less, or think men are stupid are just as bad as misogynists. They don’t represent feminism well; they trash it. They certainly don’t speak for me. A feminist man is just a man who loves women and sadly, it’s amazing how much grief feminist men get from all sides. But I hope they know that some of us really appreciate them for their strength and understanding of women’s issues.

        • mouton says:

          Please stop trying to latch onto the feminist cause, you’re neither a woman nor do you write or know anything about real issues that women face

          I am white and I am against non-white people being enslaved. Shocking, I know!

        • Snailgoop says:

          @Mondaik: I don’t agree with you. As a female gamer who has played many hours of CoD, I am quite thankful he called them out on their sexism with this article. The trailer was a real bummer and it’s nice to see men stand up for us women, especially given that he endures such a sh*tstorm for it. I like it and I admire his tenacity. I wish there were more like him.

          This article gives me a little hope, when the trailer itself kinda tore me up. It made me want to turn my back on CoD altogether, now and in the future, which is a shame because I love playing it.

    • Muzman says:

      Damn right. Everything else they post on here is some sort of outsider art specially designed to make people avoid it.

    • Strabo says:

      Clickbait = anything disagreeing with the mainstream opinion. Which is “men rule, women drool”. So anything not MRA-approved.

      • RaveTurned says:

        I (for one) do not recognise the above opinion as “mainstream”. In fact I’m pretty sure at least 50% of the population would take issue with it.

        • BTAxis says:

          Yeah, but they don’t count now do they?

          • RaveTurned says:

            Are they people? Then yes, yes they do.

          • Nevard says:

            I think you missed BTaxis’s point, in that society actually doesn’t care about that 50% of society’s opinion despite the fact that they actually are people

            Assuming you meant that the 50% was “women don’t believe that they suck”, otherwise you missed a whole lot more points than just that one

            The Mainstream doesn’t care whether people are “People”, only that they don’t make too much of a fuss and maintain the status quo

          • RaveTurned says:

            I’m aware that BTAxis’s post could either be read literally or as ironic social commentary (I suspect the latter was what was intended). I intended my reply to work for either eventuality.

            Either he genuinely believes what he wrote, in which case I strongly disagree, or he was pointing out the willingness of some groups of people to discard the opinions of others based on little more than discrimination, in which case I’m calling out such behaviour as idiotic by pointing out the flaw in that line of thinking.

            Looks like this wasn’t clear enough for everyone though. Never mind, I’ll try harder next time.

          • joa says:

            Or – just maybe – he’s mocking a typical feminist snarky response? To suggest that the views of women are not taken seriously is beyond ridiculous, and so is to suggest that the mainstream view is “men rule, women drool”. People who oversimplify these discussions are doing nobody any favours.

          • jrodman says:

            The simplification is indeed harmful. That the views of women are not taken seriously is *accurate*.

          • joa says:

            I agree that women’s views are often not taken seriously (simply because they are women), especially on subjects that women are perceived to not know a lot about. However there are also a great many fields in which women’s views are taken seriously and are at the forefront. So I cannot accept the assertion that in general the female viewpoint is ignored, sorry.

      • TheWhomp says:

        I think it’s always kind of funny when people deride things by throwing MRA in them. MRAs (to me) are just about as disagreeable and counterproductive as feminists.

        I guess that’s just what happens when your movement focuses on only half the population, though.

        • sistergodiva says:

          Maybe you shouldn’t use words you don’t understand.

          Feminism is about gender equality.

          • TheWhomp says:

            Maybe you shouldn’t assume that because you don’t agree with someone, they don’t know what they’re talking about? For example, I didn’t say that feminism *wasn’t* about gender equality, so I don’t know what you think you’re correcting?

            And how would you say feminists define gender equality? Or go about getting there?
            I’ve already written this on the second page, but feminism isn’t some singular entity and there are actually some pretty huge idealogical rifts in the movement. So as a whole, feminism kind of cancels itself out – there’s been plenty of good and bad done in it’s name.

            Making a huge deal out of labels (especially when they signify next to nothing) is just playing into us vs them bullshit, instead of something actually useful.

          • sistergodiva says:

            >>Maybe you shouldn’t assume that because you don’t agree with someone, they don’t know what they’re talking about? For example, I didn’t say that feminism *wasn’t* about gender equality, so I don’t know what you think you’re correcting?

            Well, since you compare feminism to MRA, saying one is pro women and the other pro men I can ascertain that you don’t really know anything about the feminist movement.

            MRA: A bounch of men angry at women because they A) are divorced and think they shouldn’t pay childsupport; or B) Think they deserve to “have” women and that women owe them something. Aka creepy nice guys.

            >>And how would you say feminists define gender equality? Or go about getting there?
            I’ve already written this on the second page, but feminism isn’t some singular entity and there are actually some pretty huge idealogical rifts in the movement. So as a whole, feminism kind of cancels itself out – there’s been plenty of good and bad done in it’s name.

            “We want everyone to have the same rights, obligations and possibilities in all areas of their life” – Fi, the Swedish feminist party.

            Saying a saying a few extremists propagating violence ruins all the good the rest of the feminist movement does is preposterous.

            >>Making a huge deal out of labels (especially when they signify next to nothing) is just playing into us vs them bullshit, instead of something actually useful.

            Not wanting to call yourself a feminist because of the name when you think men and women deserve to be equal is splitting people.

        • pepperfez says:

          See, when you come right out with “Feminists only care about women,” it means you’re either not paying attention or deliberately missing the point. Some actual feminist causes: Guaranteed paternity leave, destigmatizing “unmasculine” behavior by men (e.g., nerdy things like computer games), eliminating the shame of reporting rape (no matter your gender), making pre-marital sex a decision for the parties involved and not society…

          I mean, if you’re dedicated to “Both sides do it only I am pure!” then none of that matters, but feminism really isn’t the same as the “men’s rights” movement – it’s not even close.

          • TheWhomp says:

            I don’t really see how it isn’t, I assume you’re familiar with the different kinds of feminism? Would you say that radical feminists and the like give them a bad name? Most MRAs I’ve seen outside of youtube comments seem pretty well screwed on, and the same goes for feminists.

            I am curious though, most feminist interaction I’ve seen with men’s rights has been unhelpful at best, do you have links to anyone actually campaigning for men?

            The biggest difference between them, imo is the amount of time they’ve existed for. Feminism has had ages to draw lines and divide/organise itself neatly, whereas the MRM is a clusterfuck of people trying to do things as best they can. Maybe because of this lack of organisation, most MRAs are tarred as neckbearded, fedora-wearing misogyny and generally thought quite less off. Whereas I think if everyone got less excited about *who* was saying what, there’d probably be a lot of common ground.

            And I don’t think I’m pure, so much as in the middle. Like if I was an American who didn’t really like the Republicans *or* Democrats.

          • pepperfez says:

            I mean, I’m not sure what you want here. Just look at the history of campaigns for parental leave laws, they’re pretty popular among feminists. As to the other stuff, it’s just basic parts of the feminist agenda. Add in easy access to contraception, too. I’ve tried to withhold judgment of MRAs in general, because it sucks to have your whole movement judged by its worst members, but I’ve yet to find literally a single piece of MRA writing that isn’t based in spite and hostility to women.

            And as to being “in the middle”, that’s exactly what I find exasperating: In the US, the Republicans are off-the-charts awful and the Democrats are not very good. Being equidistant between the two is not something to be proud of.

          • Bury The Hammer says:

            I guess maybe the word “feminism” implies that it’s only for female rights, but this has been discussed ad infinitum (though a lot of the general public still doesn’t get it). I personally refer to myself as pro-sexual equality rather than specifically a feminist – because it’s a more accurately descriptive term – but it’s more semantics to avoid confusion with idiots. I don’t really differ all that much from a lot of people who self-identify as feminists.

    • Gap Gen says:

      You appeared to have clicked on it and then again to post a comment, so…

      • Premium User Badge

        Bluerps says:

        Have a little respect! He’s fighting the Good Fight against the tyranny of game journalism!

        • Makariel says:

          He walks the lonely road of the unappreciated male gamer.

          • Mondaik says:

            What the flying f*ck? Just because I don’t like sensationalist news stories doesn’t mean I’m a man, you dolt.

  3. FleeingNevada says:

    Every single time COD is in the news or the community rears its ugly, pimpled, head, I can’t help but cringe and hate myself for enjoying the multiplayer as a way of zoning out.

    • Bull0 says:

      Mm, we’re conditioning you to hate yourself for playing the wrong game, because we’ve got no perspective. Gamers!

    • Snids says:

      You don’t need to cringe. It’s been refined over many years to provide a great experience. It’s undoubtedly got some of the best in the industry working on it.

      I’ve always enjoyed the MP. Right from the original and United Offensive. Pacing is good, skill curve is manageable. Its accessible but it rewards skill. Etc etc.

  4. sventoby says:

    There’s a good chance those ad men know what they’re doing and are marketing to the people most likely to buy this game. I understand these games sell quite well.

    • Bull0 says:

      John’s right though, you’d think the pretty setpieces would make enough good footage to sell the game. This is pretty unneccessary and ill-conceived.

      • Big Murray says:

        No no no, those pretty setpieces and stuff are part of the nerdy thing called the game. We don’t want to be reminded that we’re playing a game, got to wrap it up with some good old hypermasculinity, Nuts-style.

        Remember kids, real men avoid their girlfriend to play games.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      Big Bang theory is a tremendously popular show but a lot of nerds dislike how it portrays them. Should they not complain because it is popular?

      • sventoby says:

        They can complain all they want, the company behind that show will just laugh and count their money. Same with this commercial- the people who visit this site and women in general might be put off by it, but they aren’t exactly the target demographic. Yes, female gamers do exist, but there aren’t enough of them buying this type of game to make it worth targeting them. If they were an audience worth targeting, they’d be targeted. Activision doesn’t hate money.

        • GSGregory says:

          Damn you are stupid. Do you really think there are that few female gamers? LOLS.

          • sventoby says:

            Activision seems to think so, and they have stuff like research on their side.

          • GSGregory says:

            They also thought fish that swim around was modern and innovative.

            It remains a factless male assumption that women don’t play “manly” games.

          • Bull0 says:

            Now now, I think you’ll find there are plenty of women that assume that too. You make yourself sound a bit weird when you talk about it being a “male assumption”.

          • Bishop says:

            In his defence, he didn’t actually say that.

          • FriendlyFire says:

            >Damn you are stupid.

            And insulting someone who disagrees with you makes you better how?

        • dE says:

          You are arguing market and target audience, explain something to me then please. The AAA market has reached a point were the sales of a product can barely recoup the costs. Despite massive advertisement in places, the gain in additional people is too small to sustain the model. Why then are the advertisers choosing to ignore an audience with the biggest potential for growth?
          According to you, why is that the case?

          • sventoby says:

            Idunno, they probably don’t think putting out ads targeting women would hook enough of them that don’t already play for it to be worth it. There’s enough money at stake that I’m sure they have research that backs this up. If grabbing a huge untapped market was easy it would have been done by now.

          • Bishop says:

            Was Call Of Duty really only “barely profitable”? According to you, where do you get this info?

          • Nevard says:

            Assuming that people who’ve managed to get money understand why they earned it and how best to keep it is a dangerous and fallacious thing to do, and the video game industry is full of towering examples of how untrue it is.

          • dE says:

            So, it’s either “enough women play CoD already” at which point your argument about there not being enough becomes moot or the ESA is wrong with their statistics about how 45% of the gaming populace is female. It’s irrational to ignore that large a group. Maybe it is difficult to market to females, but imagine the extreme growth potential therein.

            And here I thought I didn’t even mention CoD in that post, good thing there’s you and your word twisting 101. I’m talking about the insanity that games like Tomb Raider, despite being succesful, are seeing Square Enix struggle. Still, you don’t think it’s odd that Activision went with the “sold to retailers” trick and came up with all sorts of excuses why it sold less than previous installations?

            The same thing can be said about his argument and isn’t about the actual point, therefore it can be disregarded.

          • sventoby says:

            All I’m saying is that the people in charge of marketing probably aren’t knuckle dragging morons from a past era. There might even be women that worked on the commercial. If 45% of the gaming populace is female, maybe they figured out that far less than 45% of their customers are female. And maybe they decided it was because women don’t generally like their type of game for whatever reason. And finally, that it was most important to pander to their core, dependable audience because their game isn’t unique and there are constant challengers that try to knock them off their perch with imitations. I just find it hard to believe that the reason the commercial is aimed only at men is because of misogyny, when there is no reason that Activision wouldn’t love hawking their game to the other half if they would all buy it.

        • Sian says:

          Advertising to only one demographic for a long time turns away the rest of your potential audience, so naturally research shows they don’t buy your product, thus you don’t target them with your adverts, thus they don’t buy your product etc. pp.

          I wonder if the advertising industry or their clients will start to realise this at some point.

          • fn8rd says:

            I wonder if games that are not marketed directly to a straight white male audience (“i’m not playing whack-a-mole here! this is manly-man warrior type business, defending the motherland, protecting the innocent n’ shit!”) – lets say borderlands (colorful, playable female characters) – does that much better with an actual female audience. Or if FPS/whack-a-mole gameplay is something that is somehow inherently a male thing (think “upper body strength”)?
            Penny for your thoughts (more if somebody could link to some statistical data).

          • TheWhomp says:

            If they did realise that (which I’m sure they do), it’d probably turn into a “who wants to take a loss on this” kind of deal, since to overcome it they’d need a fair few aids targeted at their new audience before it would sink in. Maybe even a few projects in their entirety.

            Hell, for all we know, maybe there’s already a group working together to fix it, maybe things like Remember Me and Tomb Raider “tanking” (technically) are just the start, and we’re waiting for people to come around?

        • Snailgoop says:

          @Sventoby: While I see your point, I don’t believe Activision is making an intelligent advertising decision by being sexist in order to target a certain male demographic. Trying to make CoD an exclusive boys club when women are playing video games in increasing numbers seems shortsighted. But hey, if that’s the way they want it, as a female gamer, I’m out. I won’t be playing CoD anymore. There are many other good FPS games to play that won’t spit in my face as a female gamer.

      • Blackcompany says:


        As someone who has for years tried quite on purpose to evade the typical geek stereotype whilst pursuing hobbies that appeal to “geeks” like, well…us…I used to despise Big Bang Theory.

        Then a gamer friend turned me on to the show by explaining it thusly: The show does play up stereotypes. But it does so on purpose. A good natured ribbing, as opposed to a harsh, laughing, sneering mockery. Once you accept that this is quite on purpose and that the show is often self aware – and always doing what it does quite intentionally – it is actually quite hilarious, in my humble opinion.

        The difference here is that ads like this one from Activision are not good natured ribbing for “geeks.” These ads are cringe-worthy affairs, and people on the outside looking in, who lump gamers together into one big, rag-tag, quantum physics-loving bunch, will look at ads like these and, when they realize we are also gamers, disgustedly sneer, “Oh, you’re one of THOSE people, then.”

        Which is why I really wish things like this would stop. Its sad and pathetic.

        Although, what’s really funny about is this: These ads don’t appeal to gamers, for the most part. They are created to appeal to the more mainstream audience EA and Lackingvision have gathered up with their on-rails games and talked into joining the gaming fray. No less disgusting for all that though.

        • Nevard says:

          I’m not convinced it isn’t a sneering mockery, all the main characters are presented as foils to the one “Normal” person (Penny) and derided by every other character in the show. The sneering is regular and makes up the majority of the “jokes”, which wouldn’t even have a punchline if there was no implication of “look at that nerd, what a nerd”.

          • Volcanu says:

            Oh I dont know if I agree with that. It always seemed quite sympathetic and affectionate in it’s mockery. The Penny character is also the butt of many jokes as the blonde, not too bright, waitress with unrealistic aspirations to be an actress stereotype. There have also been a number of sporty-jock type charcters portrayed very unfavourbaly, usually being incredibly dense. So it’s pretty even handed in that regard. And to be honest most comedy shows or sitcoms have a charcter there to take a certain role, ratehr than be a fully fleshed out individual. Think “Friends” for example…all of the characters are just different archetypes. In the BBT the leonard character is basically the most normal and well adjusted, he’s a nice guy who happens to like geeky things.

            The “geeky” hobbies that most of the main characters enjoy aren’t really sneered at, in fact the choice of many of them suggest to me that the show’s writers probably enjoy a lot of these things too. As someone who likes a lot of “geeky” things I think you need to have a bit of a sense of humour, and some self awareness that there IS something a little bit ridiculous about being a grown up and sitting around playing D&D, or painting 40k miniatures or debating the lore of star trek/LOTR and so on. It doesnt mean this stuff isn’t awesome, all hobbies are a bit ridiculous when you think about them (like kicking a ball around a field, or watching people hitting a ball with a stick and so on). And that’s ok.

            Lighten up a little, and dont be so defensive about things you like.

            DISCLAIMER – its a mildly amusing show at best, I realise I’ve come out this sounding like a super fan here!

          • Ich Will says:

            Penny is not “normal”, if anyone is, it’s Leonard.

        • TheWhomp says:

          I’d be hesitant to describe TBB as good-natured. From the little I’ve seen a solid portion of the jokes consist entirely of someone saying that they’re playing a game, or engaging in geeky hobby X. I know they’re supposed to be jokes because the canned laughter kicks in as soon as the line finishes – instead of after a funny response or something.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Except it’s filmed in front of a live audience, so it’s not canned laughter, and they (the audience) must have found something funny.

          • TheWhomp says:

            I assumed it was canned laughter because it made no damn sense. I think a live audience who think playing a game is a joke is actually more troubling?

          • Phoibos Delphi says:

            It´s filmed in front of a studio audience that is agitated by “animators”, sometimes alcohol and flashing signs saying “Laughter” or “Applause”… they don´t even have to search for jokes, they´re told when to laugh…

          • Ich Will says:

            They also pipe in canned laughter in from under the seats of the live audience. I used to rig that on Friends and it’s universally accepted as a thing done on live sets.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Fine, but it’s still not canned laughter in the traditional sense. I’m not suggesting you should like the show, but at least dislike it for things it actually does.

    • Saii says:

      Ad men rarely know what they’re doing, that’s why this lot fell back on self-reinforcing tropes rather than put out anything with intelligence or ambition.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Yeah, it’s known that marketers create demographics then sell to them as a way of focusing their ad budgets. I doubt they’d care if it meant supporting Stalinism or child abuse.

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      Apparently you aren’t allowed to market a product to men these days though. That’s sexist. Ofc all of those adverts aimed at females where they outsmart all the stupid, buffoon like men thanks to the product in question are fine. This was nothing more than a tongue in cheek message of “play some CoD with your mates”, I really don’t see the harm in it.
      Banging on about “Traumatised” women is laughable, it seems that anything that can remotely be made into a gender/sexism piece will be on RPS at the moment.

      • Keymonk says:

        It wouldn’t be an issue if there was a lot of inclusive advertising or advertising in the other direction – but there isn’t. So it’s an issue.

        The traumatized women thing is a pretty legitimate complaint as well, given the trailer solely focuses on how great the men are going to feel and not how horrifying or traumatizing that situation would be for everyone involved beyond the guys. Obviously that wouldn’t make a good advert, but it also shows that what the women feel in this situation absolutely doesn’t matter – only the men’s comfort and entertainment matters.

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          Um, dude it’s not real. It’s a complete fantasy, I really think you are looking too much into it. Look at slapstick comedy, people getting hurt that everyone laughs at, if someone fell off a building in real life people would react seriously, doesn’t mean it needs to be taken literally if it happens on TV.
          You couldn’t make a single game, TV show or movie if you went through it and said “well this shouldn’t happen because what about this persons feelings?”. Some dude gets hit in the nuts on a TV show nobody is saying “oh that poor guy, he must be in so much pain”, no it’s just there to laugh at because it isn’t real.

          • sistergodiva says:

            So you also think sexist ads and commercials are ok because they aren’t real?

            Do you realize that something that isn’t real can affect people attitudes?

          • Moisea says:

            It’s not just “traumatised women”, it’s the whole family. But, no, I don’t really get how you can take it seriously, it’s a joke. In one stupid Coca Cola Zero advert, which was quite sexist too, the hero is flown away while the city explodes behind him, I never heard anyone complain about the fictional civilians who were killed by the bombs though.

          • sistergodiva says:

            So someone making a racist joke is totally ok in your world? And you can’t see how that contributes to racist attitudes in society?

            You don’t understand how stereotypical portrayals of men and women contribute to the power balance and expectations between the genders?

      • pepperfez says:

        If you weren’t just being deliberately silly, the “perfect wife buffoonish husband” model is a pretty common target in feminist commentary. It doesn’t come up in games as often because the industry appears stuck on their He-Man Wimmin HAterz persona.

  5. jkz says:

    Advertisers target core demographic shock horror.

    • Snids says:

      It’s how they’ve done it that’s the problem, genius.

      • jkz says:

        It’s a bit of a shitty advert. Is it really that bad though?

        • Nevard says:


          • Themadcow says:

            Nah, I sat through it thinking “Wow, this is a terrible… long… expensive advert” while also thinking “damn straight, I’d love someone to take me to a room, give me snacks and let me play as much of (insert game) as I want”. The reality is that many gamers (men and women, obviously) find themselves time limited in their main hobby because of the necessity of spending time with their family / work / whatever. So, while I thought it was a rubbish advert, I also identified with the central theme pretty strongly.

          • pepperfez says:

            @themadcow: And how great would it be if you could go play games with your significant other? Maybe if, I dunno, it weren’t made clear in every ad and comments section that girls who play games are freaks/interlopers/fakes/probably bitches anyway? I think that would be the best goddamn thing.

        • Makariel says:

          It is an astoundingly terrible ad. Previous ads for Black Ops 2 multiplayer (the “Surprise” trailer for example) also targeted their target audience. But they did it in an interesting way, without pointing a finger at “evil” spouses, bosses or children who take away precious gaming time.

        • Snailgoop says:

          @jkz: Yes, it’s bad. It’s enough to upset me, as a female gamer and one who played CoD. I was excited, happy to see the DLC but as soon as I watched that trailer, while my boyfriend laughed totally amused with it, I felt terrible and no longer want to play the game. So clearly, it’s bad.

      • Gap Gen says:

        Broken, miserable relationship? Time to block out your crippling emotional pain with videogames!

        • RedViv says:

          @Gap Gen
          It’s fascinating, isn’t it? Like they went through half of Fight Club and thought YEAH YEAH THIS IS MAH KINDA FILM and then never watched any further but still took the critical acclaim to mean that the MANLY STRUGGLE NEEDS TO BE PUNCHED part is the important one.

          • newprince says:

            Actually, that seems to be what most men got out of that film, sadly. See also: first part of Full Metal Jacket.

        • Makariel says:

          Sick of your job with a boss you loathe? Enough reason to waste away hours of your life with a multiplayer shooter instead of changing anything.

          • Hahaha says:

            “Makariel says:

            Sick of your job with a boss you loathe? Enough reason to waste away hours of your life with a multiplayer shooter instead of changing anything.”


          • Aaarrrggghhh says:

            If only it would be fantasy…

        • BobsLawnService says:

          I have been happily married for 10 years and there are still times I want to spend time away from my wife. Sometimes you need a break from the other person.

          Welcome to the world of healthy long term relationships.

          • AngelTear says:


            You hear that? That’s the sound of the point passing right by you.

            (@Bobslawnservice; somehow replies aren’t working properly in this thread)

        • Horg says:

          Adult life not all you hoped it would be? Responsibilities to others taking up so much of your valuable time? Don’t you just wish you were back in your moms basement, with a big comfy chair, fast food on tap, flanked by bros immersed in manshoots? You sound like you need to be CODNAPPED!

  6. kikito says:

    I confess I found it funny. I identified with the “fancy whatever you were forced to go to” part.

    • ThTa says:

      Likewise, it seemed to me the message was “Sick of all that “real life” and “responsibility”? We’ll let you make your escape by staging an over-the-top, violent kidnapping and letting you play callodooty for a bit.”, not “Haha, women. Right?”

      The kidnappings exclusively involving men was definitely iffy, but everything else was obviously intentionally ridiculous and pretty self-aware. It didn’t even really portray CoD as a “manly thing for manly men, roar” (the guys were all advertising-world average, and the final goal was for them to be couch potatoes for a bit), just something that involves “manly men, roar”. (Which, silly as it may be, is a pretty accurate representation.) It’s focusing on the escapism part of their games, not the community.

      Final verdict on my part: sexist, but not unusually so. It’s poor representation, but that’s on their heads. Which is to say, if they don’t feel like marketing to women to any extent (going through the minimal effort of having some of the “codnappees” be women), it’s their loss. And of course, it does say something about the state of these games and their management. Ultimately, there’s nothing wrong with this article either, looking at these kinds of things through a more critical lens is a good start when it comes to tearing down such systematic faults.

      • Keymonk says:

        I feel like a problem here is that you can say ‘sexist but not unusually so’ without skipping a beat. This is not a critique of you specifically, but the industry’s situation that makes this a possible statement.

        • ThTa says:

          Hence the “tearing down such systematic faults” part. I didn’t wish to imply I condone, accept or even tolerate any of that sexism. Though I guess that basically saying “well, that’s just the way it is right now” does amount to as much.

          It’s more that I’m desensitized to it, and am trying to make a case for the people in charge of this ad being similarly so. It’s entirely fair (and frankly, necessary) to bring these issues to attention, I’m just not particularly feeling like becoming angry about it or portraying those in charge as malicious, there’s plenty of intentional ass-backwardness to direct such things to. But I suppose that I should’ve just refrained from commenting when I realized I didn’t care all that much, rather than make excuses.

          • Grygus says:

            I agree, actually; I don’t think the ad is particularly anti-women. It’s about monumental selfishness, so while yes women are indeed trivialized, so are bosses, children, customers, and any family and friends of any gender who don’t play this game. I don’t think the ad itself is a problem; I think what the ad exposes to be the advertiser’s beliefs about their customers is the problem. This should piss off COD players, but since the COD population seems to largely consist of people who do not spend much time reflecting on things like this, no harm done.

          • Keymonk says:

            As I said, it’s not a critique of you. :) I didn’t think you meant any ill, I just thought it was interesting.

      • Grygus says:

        Yeah I feel like the commercial would be 75% more acceptable if they snatched the student driver instead of her instructor.

  7. swiftshlock says:

    Pretty much to the point. Who would rather have a social life, a family (gasp!), kids (arrrgh!) WHEN INSTEAD HE CAN PLAY THE Nth ITERATION OF GENERIC MANSHOOT XYZ, now with hyper-realistic fog simulation.

    All this while sitting in this really comfy chair, being spoon-fed pestled fastfood by hard-faced military men… a dream come true.

    • Sian says:

      To be fair, most young parents with small kids would probably welcome a break from them now and then. But that doesn’t mean fathers only, mothers get exhausted by the little buggers too.

      • Walsh says:

        I watched the ad with the sound off so to me it just looked like a bunch of dudes escaping the mundane bullshit we all have to deal with in life. And as a parent of 2 young kids, they are fun but holy fuck do I occasionally need time to veg out in front of the PC playing the latest man shooter (although not the latest COD because it looked dumb).

        John’s whining would be solved if they included a white or unidentifiably multiracial woman and/or maybe a multiracial LGBT for extra diversity. And muted it.

        • Snailgoop says:

          The reason the video offends is because it so *blatantly* sends the message to women in various ways that we don’t exist in the gaming world or more importantly, *shouldn’t* exist. Even one female gamer being CoDnapped could have at least addressed that problem.

  8. chestburster says:

    Another day, another John Walker click bait anti-sexism crusade “journalism” article.

    Good job fighting that windmill mate.

    And kudos to that trailer. Almost like a True Lies 2. Really well made.

    • John Walker says:

      Care to point out yesterday’s? And the day before’s?

      I *think* you might want to rewatch True Lies by the way. There’s a horrible surprise waiting for you at the end, which you appear to have rather forgotten.

      • Major Kong says:

        there was a nuke explosion and a horrible surprise?

      • chestburster says:

        I do remember a great strip dance sequence by a woman. That was a nice surprise.

        How dare they only show strip dance from a FEMALE? That’s sexism to the extreme!

        I demand a strip dance from Arnold himself!

      • Chris Wray says:

        Hey, hey, I like True Lies :(

        That, and the fact that Activision have no sense, is what I have taken away from this.

    • Foosnark says:

      The door is that way.

    • Laephis says:

      Another day, another shitpost I have to block.

  9. Yemala says:

    My god, how DARE they only abduct men. Some equality commission should have their balls.

    Would it convince me to buy the game? Not a chance. Would it appeal to 16 year old boys? I assume marketing men say yes. Could they make something that appealed to 16 year old girls too? Probably, but one assumes they have decided it doesn’t make fiscal sense.

    ..but it’s a pretty huge stretch to say OMG ACTIVISION HATES WOMEN JUST LOOK AT THIS AD. You appear to be arguing that, regardless of their research or whatever, every product should be marketed to all demographics equally, which just seems a bit silly.

    • Nevard says:

      They only abducted men because it’s a man’s game for manly men to play with their man-mates, in a manly manner.

      While women just sit there flapping their arms and shrieking, making no attempt to actually move or anything. They’d clearly be unsuited to this virtual battlefield sim.

    • smc8788 says:

      Maybe John should go on a crusade against confectionery companies only advertising Snickers or Yorkie bars to men. WHERE IS THE EQUALITY GIRLS LIKE CHOCOLATE TOO.

      RPS is great on the whole and it’s still my go-to site for PC gaming content, but every once in a while John posts an article like this and I could swear I was reading a column pulled out of the Daily Mail.

      • Nevard says:

        Didn’t Yorkie (quite rightly) stop writing “Not For Girls” on their chocolate three years ago?

        Anyway if I read this in the Daily Mail it’d be about how it’s casting our poor men as brainless, asocial pleasure-seeking apes (and that these violent games are corrupting our youth and attracting asylum seekers (but the article’s not racist!))

      • Litany says:

        The Daily Mail: a feminist publication.

        • smc8788 says:

          I was going more for the ‘sensationalist’ angle…

          • Litany says:

            Sensationalism implies that the writer is making a fuss over something that doesn’t really matter (which does make sense with the Daily Mail comparison, apologies for misunderstanding there). As a woman who plays loads of video games and is very, very frequently made to feel completely unwelcome by the content of games, gaming communities, and the ways that games are promoted, I do think that shit like this matters. See also GTA5 for the whole “women as joyless, fun-destroying nags” trope repeated ad nauseam. .

            Sexism in video games is not really a big deal on the scale of starving children in Africa, but it’s probably more of a big deal than *most* of the topics covered on this site. Strangely enough though, articles about whether a new stealth game will be stealthy enough or how upgradeable Steam boxes will be don’t tend to attract legions of eye-rollers telling everyone to just chill out and shut up about it. I like the articles about stealthy stealth games and steamboxes a lot and I also really like articles like this that challenge the “no girls allowed” mentality that is rife in a lot of mainstream gaming. It may not matter to you, but that doesn’t make it sensationalist to address it.

  10. DrollRemark says:

    I like the entirely unnecessary swear word. Edgy!

  11. Ooops says:

    Why am I the only one seeing the obvious sarcasm in this video? It’s hilarious! It’s absolutely over-the-top, why would anyone take this message literally?

    To compain about this video is like complaining that the Fallout series makes people think duck-and-cover is an effective protection against nuclear attacks.

    • Saii says:

      It’s just a joke! Y U no get joke! Waaaaahhhhh (cue Stewart Lee’s Top Gear skit)

    • Grey Cap says:

      I thought it was entertainingly silly. Not hilarious, but smileworthy. I mean, the guys who, in the video, are daydreaming about being kidnapped (from that fancy party, no less) just so they can play COD: they are a little bit cute and a little bit pathetic, right?

      I think the main problem with the ad is that it says: to be a true COD fan is to be a little bit pathetic. Now, if we were supposed to fantasize about our girlfriends being kidnapped, so that we could play in peace, I’d feel more of a sexist angle.

      • Smoky_the_Bear says:

        I guarantee most people when at some fancy social gathering like that where they have to act nice and kiss up to a bunch of idiots who they don’t know or don’t like are thinking “How much longer do we have to be here? I’d rather be at home playing games/watching movies”.
        I’d consider those people who want to be at those sort of social gatherings by choice far more pathetic than someone who wants to chill with his mates and play video games, what exactly is so pathetic about that?.

        • alantwelve says:

          It gives the impression you’re an emotionally stunted manchild with no social skills, since you ask.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Ok because I would rather socialise with my friends than stand around in a cocktail bar sipping drinks and talking social niceties to people I don’t really know I’m an emotionally stunted manchild?
            I would love to know what’s going on in your head to make that conclusion tbh. You pretty much did 2 + 2 and made 5, but nice try at the insult, just…..try harder next time please, it might make you look like less of a clown. Seriously, I would love an answer on how you deem anyone that doesn’t like stuffy social gatherings as being emotionally stunted and having no social skills. Read it back to yourself, you’ll realise how stupid you sound.

        • Grey Cap says:

          Well, since you’ve made yourself into the target of my comment- it would be rude of me to call you pathetic. Still, wishing to be abducted to do fun stuff still seems to me a very infantile daydream. If you are an adult (in your twenties or older, say) people might expect you to deal with boredom in some other way.

          The ad features adults, but sells a childish daydream.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            It’s complete fantasy, at what point did I say I sit around daydreaming about being abducted so I can play games all day. It’s an over the top take on that feeling we all have sometimes, “ugh, I wish I didn’t have to go and do this”.

            Most people that enjoy playing games, I’d guess at some point during the working day, will think about what they might want to load up for an hour or so after they get home, just like anyone else with a hobby, there’s nothing pathetic or sad about that. 90% of adverts are over the top, this is nothing different.

      • Jupiah says:

        Agreed. I mean the video is sexist, in that it reinforces that low-level “videogames are only for boys” mentality that permeates the entire game industry, but nothing in this trailer stands out as particularly sexist beyond the norm. The whole point of the video seems to be “tired of your boring, average life? Escape into the thrilling world of Call of Duty for a while!” Not “god women and kids are the worst, they won’t even let you play video games all day long.”

        So yeah this article does seem like kind of an overreaction.

    • GSGregory says:

      Sarcastic yes. Sadly that sarcasm screams how much moronic “manly men(high school drop outs) think like that in real life. The amount of sexual harassment in video games especially fps games is insane. I have seen cs matches pub and competitive turn into a threw of sexist and sexual insults because there is a woman in the game. Even worse when she smashes them like noobs.

    • Brinx says:

      Oh right, I forgot, that “sarcasm” makes everything okay.

      • TheWhomp says:

        Don’t forget to protest John’s sexist tirade in the article then.

        I mean, since intent or sarcasm are apparently meaningless ;)

        • Hahaha says:

          If they let go of Lewie who actually provided information cant they let go of john and his 5 years to late move in to youtube.

        • Brinx says:

          Well, let’s say “Intent isn’t magic.” I’m not saying it doesn’t matter at all, but it also isn’t a mythic device that makes everything less hurtful/discriminating/anything-ist.

  12. quijote3000 says:

    What if they tried to abduct women instead? Oh, the horror. Feminists, including John Walker, would be crying against “Violence against women” (and hey, some of the abductions seem painful, by the way)

    Seriosly, products don’t have to appeal to all demographics. Any good advertising company knows they have to appeal to their core demographic. For all we know, it was a female executive who had the idea of this ad. For a DLC trailer, it’s very well done.

    Oh, well. It’s the usual John Walker’s click-bait obsession

    • Saii says:

      No of course they wouldn’t, what an odd thing to say. And have you wondered why, precisely, it’s only men being abducted in the video? Mayhap it’s because “only” men play with guns in the minds of these cretins…

    • Bull0 says:

      Now you’ve got me thinking that this concept probably started life as “Wouldn’t it be great if somebody abducted your girlfriend/family so you were free to play COD” and then they toned it down a bit.

    • GSGregory says:

      Since you seem to think feminists are some low life good for nothings.
      link to

      • grom.5 says:

        This is magistral. Kuddo for the link.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        I don’t think that’s what he was implying. Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to tell. Might as well just go ahead and make an assumption that he holds a negative opinion of all feminists.

      • Amun says:

        “Feminists, including John Walker…”

        Does that comment imply low-lifery?

  13. soulblur says:

    I would quite like if Battlefield 4 added a Kaiju mode. On those big maps, 64 players, lots of vehicles, destructible terrain (or, sort of destructible). Or maybe 32 players, if it was going to be essentially co-op. It would be like being in a classic monster film. How fun would that be? Very.

  14. Glottis1 says:

    Majority of COD players are men and Activision created a trailer for their audiance. What is the problem?

    Trying to change COD is insane. It will never happend. There is and will be games with better communities, where everyone can play.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Because their audience is terrible too.

      • Glottis1 says:

        Exactly. That trailer is terrible, but a lot of COD players will like it.

        Just stay away from COD. It is much easier than trying to chage opinion/behavior of millions of people. Unless someone is forcing you to play COD, then i feel bad for you.

    • Wang Tang says:

      Yes. I do not have numbers for this, only anecdotal evidence, but clearly (if) this game is marketed for men, then so it is. They would not widen their audience with any other trailer. So this is a pure marketing move, and not a bad one when competing with all the other manshoots out there. You get attention from your core audience, and you even get attention from people who only hear about the game via secondary articles, like me. Granted, I haven’t played a CoD since it had numbers on it and likely won’t anymore.

      And idiots will be idiots. They will stay idiots without reinforcing their stereotypes – they have strong beliefs. I have long given up hope for them. What we can do is making sure there will be less idiots in the next generation, but this starts way earlier. When kids are old enough to play games like this, it’s too late, they either are already idiots or not.

      Back to topic, yeah, marketing on stereotypes. Like everything based on stereotypes, it works well – I don’t know if you have this in the UK, but it’s a common theme in most of the awful German comedy, and it fills stadiums. So, there.

    • GSGregory says:

      It is more about the fact that it promotes sexist behavior which in reality means gamers utter crap like suck my cock or can I see your tits over the mic or via messages.

      • Press X to Gary Busey says:

        “I see your tits over the mic”.
        Tit sonar ears.

        • GSGregory says:

          On xbox live it usually begins with how women suck at games and moves into different ways I can rape you. After that it ends with friend requests, pms text and voice usually asking for nude pictures or to use the kinect ect.

      • Stupoider says:

        I got absolutely none of that from the video, could you point out some examples?

  15. InternetBatman says:

    Marketing to weird and pathetic escapism is nothing new, nor terribly unusual in the games industry. It’s a bit odd to see it taken to this extent though.

  16. solidsquid says:

    It’s sad that they feel they have to enforce the stereotype of gamers as being antisocial losers too, it’s perfectly possible to enjoy games and still have a life outside of them

  17. Muzman says:

    This isn’t a sexism thing so much. It’s not really a sexism post either (despite what half the crowd will say).
    What it actually is is good fodder for those guys who show up half way through the sexism debate, the Mens’ Rights Acolytes, the Equal Timers, to point out that ‘ the modern man is portrayed as a pleasure seeking buffoon! What about that sexism huh?!?’
    Well here ’tis. And John doesn’t like it. Guess he’s on your team huh.

  18. hey2k4 says:

    Why “men”? The COD community is full of subhumans who buy the same game every year. WOAAAAAAAAAAAH SHOCKER but how brain dead opinionated are you to try to cram in an agenda with “f-fucking men, g-god d-damn mysoginists”? This just seems like the same old tride and true “call of duty community sucks” but with some third wave braindead feminism thrown in to STICK IT TO THOSE DANG OL DIRTY MEN.

  19. jkz says:

    It’s the job hating attitude that gets my goat.

  20. FATKEV says:

    Slightly missing the irony of this ad I feel. It’s a complete mickey take out the perceived stereotypical COD player. A bit of fun. You remember fun don’t you? We all used to have it when doing things like playing games and stuff…

    • GSGregory says:

      Except the funny part as it were is not only true but extremely excessive in actual gaming.

      • FATKEV says:

        Reads through article again in a desperate search for “the funny part”… :)

        • GSGregory says:

          I believe we are talking about the ad aka the video not the article???? As you said in your comment.

          • FATKEV says:

            So which funny moment are you referring too? I find pretty much the whole ad amusing (check out some of Steven Graham’s other work).

  21. meloncrab says:

    Oh wow, I wonder what Chuck Palahniuk, the author of Fight Club, would say about this. Manly men escaping their boring and effeminating surroundings to be a man again. Playing video games. While being served cool beverages and snacks.

    • John Walker says:

      Maybe give the film another watch? Maybe it will click this time.

      • bladedsmoke says:

        Ah, but he wasn’t talking about the excellent film! He was talking about the terrible book.

        • Amun says:

          I’d say that Chuck Palahniuk gargles cocks every morning, but that would be an insult to people who gargle cock.

    • DrScuttles says:

      Call of Duty never struck me as subversively homosexual as Fight Club, maybe I should give it another go. But then I’d have to play COD. So I won’t.

  22. Strabo says:

    You implied John Walker is an emasculated guy only living to fulfill the wishes of women. How novel. Maybe you could add some “white knighting” to you post to fill up my MRA-bingo-card completely?

  23. Saii says:

    I get the impression you don’t really understand why sexism is an issue, as such best label anyone who complains about it as under the thumb, without realising that this is only insulting to people who hate spending time with women because they’re obsessed with looking like A Man in the eyes of their equally ridiculous mates.

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      That might be true if it weren’t for the fact that the men in question were in a whole spectrum of social necessities.
      One guy is clearly out for dinner with his (all male) work colleagues, another is holding a small child etc. How you are twisting it into a feminist issue I really don’t know. The message is simple, get away from IRL duties and play some COD with your mates. Nothing more than that.

      • Ich Will says:

        Every person abducted is a man. This advert is clearly labeling all men who play COD as anti-social wannabe alphas with no social skills and no ability to enjoy polite company. How is it not sexist?

      • Smoky_the_Bear says:

        How does it show them as having no ability to function in these social situations? You are making things up. Going shopping while carrying a grumpy baby around is generally not a fun experience, a works dinner is generally not an incredibly fun experience, some social function arranged by your parents is maybe not a fun experience. In no way does it show any of these men as “alpha males who can’t function in social sitiations”.
        It’s…….pure…….fantasy. I can’t believe so many people don’t grasp this. It’s an exaggeration on that feeling of “ugh, wish I didn’t have to do this” that EVERYBODY gets from time to time. Just because people don’t enjoy 100% of their life doesn’t make them socially backwards. Stop looking for things that aren’t there.

  24. GSGregory says:

    Have you never seen the reason any women video gamers refuse to talk on mics? Considering that the hint of a female voice on the mic as a gamer calls forth such nice things like “hey bitch come suck my cock” and the fact that this trailer does more to promote that behavior as acceptable makes this all fair game.

    • X_kot says:

      This seems like the heart of the problem: the ad contributes to the onging air of male chauvinism in online games. Aggressive men enter this prickly state where they are simultaneously “just trying to have fun” belittling and harrassing others while also acting whiny and defensive when criticized for it. Those disinclined to participate must either perform the caustic behavior in return, ignore it, or stop playing.


    • Silenus says:

      Where exactly does it promote this behavior?

  25. hey2k4 says:

    I also like just how deep you look into this. The guy lives a boring life with a wife and kid, some people rescue him to play a mediocre game. The first thing you get from it isn’t a light chuckle or even a “meh it was okay” but a “WOW HOW SEXIST BIGOTTED AND MYSOGINIST IM SO OFFENDED” How hypersensitive can you get to write up an opinion piece on a measly ad? Like granted, if you made like a dumb joke article like “look, all the men in the video are over the age of 9” or “look they’re being kidnapped from a boring life to be tortured to play COD” I can understand, but nope, break out the “t-they hate women” card and maybe even accuse them of sexism! WOOH HOO! No wonder this site is a joke.

    • Saii says:

      Some might say his hypersensitivity is somewhat lower than that of the person who writes a long screed prominently featuring CAPS LOCK about how awful the OP is for even mentioning a subject he (you are a he, hey2k4, aren’t you) deems unworthy…

      • brgillespie says:

        And others would agree that Walker is indeed being stupidly hypersensitive.

        Setting aside the ad itself to speak about relationships, I am left to assume that in John Walker’s misandristic world men must be perfectly happy in their relationships at all times. Because, well, women.

        • GSGregory says:

          We live in a society that still tries to think women are sex objects meant for nothing beyond staying at home, cleaning and making food because there small brains are only good for gossiping. That is pretty much how this video portrays women.

          As to being perfectly happy. How does that matter? Seriously? Trying to figure out the connection on that one.

          • hey2k4 says:

            It’s a god damn commercial man. If a commercial was made with some dumb guy rambling to a woman on the couch about football during the game while throwing chips around and shouting GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL and then depicted him taking off to work leaving her with a crying kid throwing stuff, then depicted a team of women kidnapping her to go out for drinks with women I’m sure nobody would mind. But because a commercial depicts the opposite scenario SOMEHOW it’s sexist/mysoginistic/social justice buzzword? Not ever ad can target both sexes.

          • GSGregory says:

            This ad maintains a sexist and insulting stereotype. And your commercial comparison doesn’t change that.

          • Bull0 says:

            Yeah, the stereotype that men are idiots who’d willingly abandon their families to play COD. As a man, husband, and father, I’d find it offensive, if I could muster up enough concern to care what the Activision ad department were doing these days. But I can’t, really, so I don’t.

        • Saii says:

          Yes, no doubt you would, given that you appear to think only men feel trapped in their lives.

          • hey2k4 says:

            Again, what does it matter? It’s a commercial made to appeal to men, who are the main players of the COD games, though MEN is a compliment considering the players are below 13 but the point is, not every commercial is supposed to appeal to both men and women, just like how not every activity has to appeal to both. By this logic i can be offended victorias secret doesn’t advertise with musclebound Adonises. Women aren’t the target audience of the commercial, and that’s perfectly fine, because not every commercial has to target both sexes.

          • Saii says:

            It matters because it’s a particularly standout example of a broader pattern of media production which deliberately and hugely detrimentally socialises all of us to restrict what we involve ourselves in (oh, that’s a Man Thing, oh that’s a Girly Thing).

            Watch a slate of TV ads once in a while and note how the gender roles work. On the whole, men are dullards obsessed with sex, beer and footie, who bring home the bacon and pussy-foot around at home “because women, right?” Women themselves, if they feature, are usually in the domestic roles. Very, very rarely are they the charismatic protagonist (to whom they occasionally deign to offer a wry smile because “you’re an idiot, but I love you”) and almost all the products aimed at them are to deal with some made-up bullshit about how ugly they are.

            This is the tip of a very large iceberg, and neither John nor anyone else at RPS bothers to comment about the vast majority of that, they only do so when it’s standout bad. So what you should really be asking yourself is not why they make a rare outburst about it, but why you put up with something which helps restricts your life in countless little ways and do so in quite vicious ways for the women you love. And worse than that, defend it.

            What exactly is your reasoning behind doing so? That you think RPS should only write about stuff you’re interested in? Do you complain whenever they write about a game you’re not interested in? Did you complain about their stuff on IP law? Or is it that you don’t like challenges to a comfy worldview.

          • Ich Will says:

            “Again, what does it matter? It’s a commercial made to appeal to men”

            Exactly! It matters because someone somewhere believes that women don’t play FPS games….. Oh, that’s you. Better tell my wife then cos she’s enjoying one right now.

      • hey2k4 says:

        No, his hypersensitivity is much higher than me writing all this, which takes little effort or time, secondly it is unworthy, it’s a dumb trailer with a simple message of.

        1. Guy stuck in a daily rut with family
        2. Guy wants time to himself
        3. Spec Ops kidnap him to play a dumb game and enjoy himself

        This article makes it out as this horrid sexist company hates women or something because, god forbid a man go play a game for a break from the rut. If there was ever a time to use the phrase “looking too deep into something” or “being hypersensitive” now is the time. I mean were seriously approaching a point in “gaming journalism” where the mere act of a commercial with a guy taking a break from the daily grind somehow goes hand and hand with hating women.

        • GSGregory says:

          Except it really isn’t about that. The message is that women are nothing but nagging little bitches who won’t leave you alone and let you play cod a manly man game. Couple that with the fact that this is far from the first time a game trailer or cod has acted like this and that the actual game community is even worse towards females and it is exactly as bad as john portrays it.

          • hey2k4 says:

            No, it’s not. Again, this hypersensitivity and looking so deeply into something to find sexism is absurd. It’s a commercial about a guy, who is tired of the daily rut with a family. If you really think this trailer is about how this sexist pig male chauvinist is trying to find more ways to get rid of his nagging bitch whore wife then you have some serious problems.

          • TheWhomp says:

            Don’t forgot the part where it said old people were stuck-up bores, co-workers are incompetent assholes, children are soul-sucking money pits and family is a waste of time. Since while we’re grasping at straws here, we might as well go for the ones *really* far away.

            I think you skipped the part where you offer something to support your reasoning. The message being that “women are nothing but nagging little bitches who won’t leave you alone and let you play cod a manly man game” is a fairly strong assertion.

            Until then, I kind of feel like this is as sexist as a packet of corn flakes with a picture of a woman on the front (ie, not at all, in the slightest).

          • GSGregory says:

            Maybe try watching the video again? Since I don’t feel like I am off the mark at all.

          • hey2k4 says:

            Could not reply to you when you said

            “This ad maintains a sexist and insulting stereotype. And your commercial comparison doesn’t change that.”

            Reply button didn’t appear. That reply seems a tad snarky, almost like a “I’m right, you’re wrong” type of reply with no actual thought put in. You dismissed what I said outright and didn’t even put in a proper reply. You have not proven this commercial is sexist or displays sexism at all, all you have done is say “This commercial makes women out to be annoying objects” when I have already said that it’s just a too deep look into a commercial that revolves around a typical “activity” or “hobby” escapism style. His life is bland and boring and a daily rut, so he gets kidnapped out of it to play a game. Escapism, women actually have commercials and show moments like this, where they go out on the town to party or go to other activities to escape said daily rut. Everybody wants to escape from the daily rut once in a while, yet your point is, because he escapes from his, it’s somehow sexist. Yet you have so far not proven your point at all.

          • TheWhomp says:

            Am I also correct then, in saying that it the message of the ad is also anti-seniors/children/family/employment/boss/coworker?

            Unless you’re participating in the comments for some reason other than communication, it’s kind of up to you back your assertion up.

            Failing that, could you watch it again? I feel like you’re very much off the mark.

          • smc8788 says:

            Jesus fucking christ how can I put this simply…..there IS no subtle sub-plot or underlying theme of misogyny in a 4 minute advert for a video game targeted at teenage males. You’re looking for something which just isn’t there.

            What the advert DOES do is play off the observation that most wives and girlfriends will sometimes nag guys about playing video games, just like they will moan about their parters leaving the toilet seat up or not doing the dishes. Men will generally do the same thing about their partners leaving hair in the sink or how many pairs of shoes they own. It doesn’t apply to ALL couples, but I’m pretty sure most of us have experienced one of the above scenarios once in a while.

            So no, the advert is not a vehicle for Activision pushing their own misogynistic agenda. It’s merely an attempt at a comedy piece/social commentary based on real world observations. You’ll find similar things going on at stand-up comedy shows up and down the country, if you’re interested.

          • GSGregory says:

            You seem to miss my point. I am not trying to prove anything nor do I need to. It is my opinion. If you cannot see the stereotype they use for women, the one from the 50s. The theme for his life being a rut is that his naggy nag naggity wife won’t leave him alone. Because all women can do is nag men, scream in terror and look like they have no clue what is going on around them. It further promotes the cave man idea that guns are for men and women do everything that isn’t fun in life. That is really the overall theme of the video. Your lame wife forces you to go to all these boring things. Your nagging wife won’t leave you alone. The whole video portrays women repeatedly as only good for annoying me and stopping them from having any fun.

            You want proof? Why should I care. I am stating my opinion on the internet.

            So the video isn’t sexist. Lets do a test here. Replace nagging annoying women and put in lazy blacks. Does that make it extremely racist? Why is that suddenly so much worse?

          • Saii says:

            “there IS no subtle sub-plot or underlying theme of misogyny … What the advert DOES do is play off the observation that most wives and girlfriends will sometimes nag guys about playing video games, just like they will moan about their parters leaving the toilet seat up or not doing the dishes.”

            link to

          • TheWhomp says:

            Honestly, I feel like there’s not much overlap between this crowd and fans of stand-up comedy. Stand-up normally has some expectation that you’ll hear something you might not like.

          • Hahaha says:

            “Bosses will demand your presence”

            they also said that, why are you only foucusing on what you want to see?

          • hey2k4 says:

            “The whole video portrays women repeatedly as only good for annoying me and stopping them from having any fun.”

            And a lot of commercials with women having their escapism form depicts men as dumb and dimwitted. Again it’s a commercial, you’re looking into this way too deeply. There is no rooted sexism of mysoginiy. Just a commercial with an escapism trope.

          • GSGregory says:


            So what are you assuming that because I only focus on one part t
            hat I am ignoring or oking the others? Personally I feel insulted by how it portrays “manly men” but that isn’t nearly as rife in the gaming community as an issue. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been in the middle of a ingame sexist attack? I have seen enough of them to know how bad sexism is in videos games.


            So because there is the flip side that makes it ok? The problem here isn’t how sexist the video is but that it promotes that stereo type as how men should be and think. I think the same thing of how it portrays men however you do not see many men getting sexual harassment on video games.

          • Saii says:

            Bosses demanding your presence is part of the essential nature of work. Women being nags and dragging you to Unmanly Stuff is not part of the essential nature of being in a relationship, and indeed is an unfair caricature selling you the idea that Men shouldn’t listen to or respect those alien beings but instead seek the company of other Men with whom they have things in common. See the difference?

          • Hahaha says:

            GSGregory yep same as saii and the way they completey throw family out the window

          • TheWhomp says:

            If you’re not here to prove anything, then why bother replying? If you just wanted to throw your opinion out there, you wouldn’t still be here. So if you honestly don’t care, I don’t think I’ll get another reply.

            Are you for real? The video mentions significant others (while portraying a girlfriend, I’ll give you that). Then Bosses (old white guy), Families (old white man and woman). Then later it says family, girlfriend and ‘people at the fancy thing’. So we’re focusing solely on the portrayal of the girlfriend as someone who seeks quality time? What a shockingly outdated stereotype! They should portray a modern women, who apparently doesn’t want to spend any time with her partner!

            The “nagging annoying women” (who as best as I can tell eat some popcorn, and aren’t shown as nagging at all) don’t make this video sexist. Having a black friend be the one who made a man go to his thing wouldn’t make the video racist either.

          • Saii says:

            “Having a black friend be the one who made a man go to his thing wouldn’t make the video racist either.”

            Name me five examples in the history of advertising in which a black man has dragged his mate to an art exhibition as part of the “escaping drudgery” setup. Point being, black men aren’t, as part of the stereotypes, considered to be obsessed with dragging you to boring cultural things you don’t want to do. I wonder though, if one of the scenes had involved a black man dragging him to a chicken shop, would that have been racist you think?

            On the other hand, being “dragged to the fancy thing” by your girlfriend is pretty much one of the most common stereotypes of couples I can think of. And it’s repeated ad nauseam by morons, in spite of all available evidence (personally I quite like going to museums AND shooting stuff, fuck me right?), to emphasise that men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Then what about the guy who is dragged away from his work colleagues (male and female) because he’s at some boring works dinner?, or the guy who’s picked out of the car? (If you just saw the woman in the passenger seat, look again, he’s a driving instructor, he’s working, it’s not his “nagging girlfriend”). And the guy who’s at the posh social gathering and clearly bored out of his mind, clearly no “nagging female” there either.
            People looking for sexism in this advert are plucking at straws, it’s simply a message of “Get away from real life and play some CoD with your mates”.

            I won’t disagree that sexism in society isn’t a problem, but firing the argument at everything even when the argument is wafer thin like this doesn’t help anything.
            This ad is no more sexist than all of those ads aimed at women where they go about their day outsmarting every man they come across at work and at home because they ate a certain type of chocolate bar. Or the product in question whisks the woman away from being sat on the sofa next to her moronic, football watching boyfriend.

        • Saii says:

          Guysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguysguys. What about guys eh? Guys? Guys! Guysguysguysguys.

          “1. Woman stuck in a daily rut with family
          2. Woman wants time to herself
          3. Spec Ops kidnap her to play a dumb game and enjoy herself

          This article makes it out as this horrid sexist company hates men or something because, god forbid a woman go play a game for a break from the rut. If there was ever a time to use the phrase “looking too deep into something” or “being hypersensitive” now is the time. I mean were seriously approaching a point in “gaming journalism” where the mere act of a commercial with a woman taking a break from the daily grind somehow goes hand and hand with hating men.”


          • hey2k4 says:

            What are you trying to imply? That the roles can be reversed for the commercial? Sure, they can, but not every single commercial HAS to appeal to both.

          • Saii says:

            I’m saying you’re looking at this in a one-dimensional way. And yes, they can, but do you remember the last time they did?

          • hey2k4 says:

            What way of looking at it? Do you really believe there is some sort of hidden agenda in this about women are horrible subhuman creatures who are animals or something? It’s playing off the daily grind stuff, like women soaking in a tub of warm water and bubbles after a long day of annoying bosses, dumb husbands and whiny children, this ad is the same way, a guy sitting in a recliner playing a game after going through the grind of his wife, his kids. It’s a commercial type that’s been around for centuries but somehow, now it’s offensive or in bad taste?

          • Bull0 says:

            Thing is somehow if you reverse the roles it feels less problematic to me. Probably because of the stereotype that women do the lions’ share of the work around the home or looking after kids, and men don’t do their fair share, so women deserve to be whisked off for some private time a bit more. I’m not sure what if anything that says about anything, just thought I’d share. It probably means I feel like I don’t do enough around the house. :)

          • Saii says:

            “Do you really believe there is some sort of hidden agenda in this about women are horrible subhuman creatures who are animals or something?”

            I don’t think it’s an “agenda” at all, it’s a continuation of social norms. Humanity has spent the last several thousand years treating women like domestic slaves with no agency or intelligence (women? voting? madness!), and this crap is a lazy hangover from that which doesn’t deserve anything but ridicule. And yes it’s been around a long time – it’s never been acceptable.

            So again, why do you feel it necessary to stand in and defend it? I’m being very open about my motivations here – I dislike the propogation of inequality and crude stereotypes. What’s YOUR motivation? Have you thought to examine why you’re so upset about someone criticising an advert for a computer game?

          • Bull0 says:

            When you call people idiots it tends to make them defensive. John called the ad’s audience idiots. This is basically what we’re talking about when we say stigmatizing people doesn’t really get us anywhere.

          • GSGregory says:

            Have you seen previous sexism articles? Especially the ones with very valid points? The people disagreeing with them say things like this 99% of the time. Stop being a whitenight you fag/homo/feminist. Usually filled with cusswords. Same thing across the net. So assuming that the people who hold the opposing viewpoint are idiots when they repeatedly act like ones doesn’t strike me as something to fault him for.

          • Saii says:

            One line needed there – “John please don’t call people idiots.”

          • TheWhomp says:


            The internet’s kind of like that everywhere though, *especially* when someone has an opinion. When was the last time you looked at a song on youtube and saw discussion about the melody, or the themes? 99% of the people on the internet disagree by insulting people.

            That doesn’t make it at all fair for someone to say, start acting like everyone who doesn’t enjoy trance-hop-industrial-viking-metal to act like everyone who *doesn’t* is an idiot. In fact, it kind of makes you seem like an asshole? And that’s just music, if I was choosing to die on the hill of social progress (solely regarding women in the gaming industry) I’d be very concerned with how my message was recieved, and how I came across. Otherwise all you end up with is a personal echo-chamber with a complete inability to talk to people outside it.

          • Bull0 says:

            @GSG Yes, I’ve been watching both sides of this intently. If your understanding of what you’re seeing is “those people must actually be mentally deficient”, and you thus think it’s useful, constructive, or acceptable to call people who disagree with you idiots, you’re just as much a part of the problem as less-enlightened people are.

  26. Spacewalk says:

    Are they going to put another dude on the box again. Can’t they put like a chick in a bikini and a keg on it instead and she’s looking at you with her eyes. I don’t want the cashier to think that I’m one of those queers for buying a game full of dudes.

  27. Simon Hawthorne says:

    I’m very carefully selecting my words here to avoid being misunderstood, if anything offends you it’s probably not intended that way.

    I have no problem with most articles on RPS that focus on sexism in the games industry, I think it’s an important topic and if RPS want to write about it, they damn well should. Not that they need my permission; it’s their site.

    In this case though, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this trailer is pretty offensive to men as well. In fact it’s offensive to gamers in general.

    The message is that people – and men in particular – who want to play video games are also not interested in the lives of their partners, their children, their friends, and instead play COD to the exclusion of those activities.

    It’s perpetuating the myth that men aren’t family-oriented and would, given the opportunity, dump their child in a fucking car park and desert both the child and the mother to indulge in an activity they deem more ‘fun’.

    Beyond gender roles, it’s also perpetuating the myth that you cannot both a) enjoy video games and b) be a well rounded, productive member of society.

    • GSGregory says:

      Sadly I know people who fit that stereotype. Too many in fact.

      • Ooops says:

        So, yeah many men are fitting the stereotypes but godforbid someone finds a woman who fits a stereotype and let’s all stone him and call him sexist… But you see, you’ll always find a man/woman/scietologist/muslim/atheist/christian/Chinese/French/Gay/straight/city guy/country girl who fits the respective stereotype, just like a non-functioning clock will still give the accurate time twice a day.

      • Rikard Peterson says:

        That’s the biggest problem with things like this ad that feeds the stereotype – that some people actually believe that’s how things should be!

    • sistergodiva says:

      Oh gosh! It’s almost like gender inequality and reinforcing stereotypes is bad for both men and women. If only there was a social movement that worked against such things that you could be a part of. Oh well…

      • Laephis says:

        You’d have a point if men had a long history of being oppressed and discriminated by women. But they don’t. And so you don’t.

    • toxic avenger says:

      Round of applause! This commercial really isn’t just harmful towards the perception of women. Gender always exists in a binary, a duality. I’m not going to write an essay here because it’s too late at night and nobody wants to hear that from a first time poster.

      Alls I want to say is I have to laugh when people bring up the whole “Are games art?” conversation. The gaming community isn’t mature enough to be able to talk about gender/sex issues in games/ads, let alone one of the oldest questions known to civilized society: “What is art?” I mean, you have people here who literally cannot read what was written, writing how John said that this was literally the worst thing ever to happen. To those idiots: No, this was not huge. Not only do larger things happen that are worse, but the sexism was not really apparent at its most literal level (figuratively, that’s a different story). While it may not seem like a big deal to you, these kinds of things stack onto each other, a commercial here a joke there, to contribute to the overall public consciousness, to law, to oppression.

      Answer me, boys: Why would you not want your hobby to wash its hands of this problem?

  28. hey2k4 says:

    The article ALSO seems to imply that, a man taking a break from the daily rut is sexist because god forbid a man have any sort of fun, somebody somewhere in the world (at this moment Britain) could be offended.

    • alantwelve says:

      Maybe these men could try playing with their child, socialising with their workmates or having a fucking conversation with their wife/girlfriend?

  29. SuicideKing says:

    Well, some in the Arma 3 community (including BIS itself) seem to have the same attitude…i wonder how much this is to do with the shooting crowd consisting of a bit too many troubled kids and/or people who live alone and agitated.

    Also, target group optimization. Which is pathetic in this case, to say the least.

    • Press X to Gary Busey says:

      Clicked the link. Scrolled down. Lost IQ points. That was just depressing.

  30. brgillespie says:

    I view the ad along the lines of the age-old stereotype of a man wanting to watch a sporting event on TV and being interrupted by the woman wanting to turn the TV off and talk.

    • Press X to Gary Busey says:

      They should do a COD: ‘According to Jim’ crossover next.

  31. Sian says:

    Heh, even if I was inclined to not spend time with my significant other (who is also a gamer, lucky me) and instead wanted to play Call of Duty, of all things, in peace, I surely wouldn’t want to be codnapped to do it. I mean, controllers for a shooter? Ugh.

  32. Branthog says:

    About as “sexist” as Calgon commercials where a woman wants to escape the bullshit of her husband and children and family and work in the luxury of a warm bath in solitude.

    When all you have is a hammer, everything in the world looks like a fucking nail.

    Continue on RPS.

    • smc8788 says:

      I don’t know why, but I love this comment so much I want to make love to it

    • brgillespie says:

      Spot on.

    • Simon Hawthorne says:

      This comment is confusing because Calgon in England is used to prevent limescale build up in washing machines. Apparently there’s also a US product called Calgon for baths, but I prefer to imagine this hypothetical woman has gone completely bat crazy and is loudly singing, in a high pitch voice, in a bath with limescale tablets.

    • Thoric says:

      You mean commercials are made to sell things to specific demographics and not to make one gender despise the other?


    • markgreyam says:

      Literally this.

    • db1331 says:

      This comment is the best comment.

    • Ooops says:

      I applaud. Loudly.

    • sistergodiva says:

      So this sexist game commercial shouldn’t be covered by a game site because there are other sexist commercials?

      • X_kot says:

        “But X isn’t Y, because -X isn’t Y, either”

        The arguments change, but the tired formulae of logical fallacies remain the same.

  33. BooleanBob says:

    I have to admit I did laugh at the nut allergy bit, though.

  34. Zulthar says:

    So now it’s “sexist” to acknowledge the fact that most gamers are men? Especially in FPS games?

    I guess people see what they want to see. Especially if you want to clickbait. I just saw a bunch of gamers that were in situations they didn’t want to be in and would rather be at home and play some games. And that’s something I think pretty much every gamer can relate to.

    I watched this video to see what the big fuss was, I wouldn’t have watched it otherwise because I’m really not interested in CoD. So all this article did was add viewers to Activisions channel and made me look at RPS as an extremely whiny and ridiculously over-sensitive site.

    • GSGregory says:

      You mean the fact that all women do is nag and bitch at you? You miss that 50s stereotype? As for men being most gamers.. the actual facts would prove you wrong even if you rule out all that facebook and mobile game crap.

      • sventoby says:

        Where did you get the idea that the commercial shows that this is all that women do? And are you saying that they never do it? Because when they do, I’m sure some men would rather be playing video games. Just like they’d rather be playing a game than at some boring party. Or whatever.

        • Hahaha says:

          or working

        • noxteryn says:

          Dude, do you even symbolism? They could have at least included one single woman trying to run away from responsibilities in order to play, how hard would that be? But they didn’t. So, yeah, in regards to sex, the commercial portrays men as assholes who want to ditch their girlfriends and wives and even children in order to play a game. How can you not find this offensive?

          • sventoby says:

            Because I don’t think that’s what it displays. It’s just escapism. The reason there aren’t women being captured is because a whole lot more men are going to buy the game than women.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            Everybody wants to ditch real life responsibilities and just chill with their friends from time to time. This does not make people assholes. Both sexes do this, when they CAN they go and hang out with their friends. Being an asshole is when you do it when you should be fulfilling your responsibilities.

          • newprince says:

            They even threw in the token racial minority for good measure, also a man. So it’s clear they were at least thinking about diversity, just not diversity with gender.

      • smc8788 says:

        Stop putting words in people’s mouths. It’s getting really fucking irritating…

      • The Godzilla Hunter says:

        He may be wrong about most gamers in general being men, but I would not be surprised to find out that most people who play COD and games like COD are men.

        • GSGregory says:

          Why do you think that though? I happen to have met plenty of female fps players and I know that because of the amount of sexism most of the female fps you find will be hiding behind false male identity and stay off mic chat because if they don’t they get sexual spam off the wall.

          • Fatbubba says:

            Oh, so you know female FPS players, so the amount must be equal?

          • GSGregory says:

            Considering the fact that there are more females than males and that more of them are playing video games I highly doubt it is that far off anymore.

          • Smoky_the_Bear says:

            I hear this all the time “more women play games than men”. You’ve said thats even discounting facebook games. Still yet to see anyone that’s said this pull some hard statistics on the subject.
            The link that Amun posted would actually seem to completely counter that statement too. Especially when looking at a game like CoD.

          • Fatbubba says:

            CSGregory, it must be awesome in that fantasy world of yours, seeing as you’re so entrenched in it.

            Seriously, just take a good look around at the people around you. Ask them what they play, how much they play. Yeah, you’ll find women playing fps, but it’s still by far a man’s world.

          • jrodman says:

            I think Amun’s link supports that there are a lot of women in these games. The FPS genre, according tot he article, is 78% male. That’s skewed for sure, but it would mean 22% of the players are women. That’s more common than 1 in 5.

            I think 78% male constitutes “male dominated”, but it does NOT constitute “makes sense to only advertise to men”. What maker of goods should want to push away 22% of their established audience? Idiots.

          • Fatbubba says:

            Jrodman, I had no idea you were a marketing expert teaching us idiots the ways of marketing. Sure, let’s make all ads target 100% of the audience of the product and lets forget about targeted marketing. Let’s forget behavior concerning buying the products, awareness for products and how to quickly increase that awareness through specific audiences and campaigns.


        • Wulfram says:

          Most is surely true, but I’m a lot less confident that there isn’t at least 1 woman in 6.

      • Rastaban says:

        I’m a “girl gamer” and I’ve decided to move on from CoD, even though I was a crazy avid fan. I played a lot of CoD:Ghosts but no more. Thanks but no thanks, Activision. (I am sure they are glad to get yet another girl cootie out of their boys club so it’s probably a win-win all around),

        Since I saw that video, I stopped playing completely, even ignored the DLC I had already purchased. I wish some games weren’t so sexist but that is how it is, I guess. Thankfully there are enough FPS games out there that I can walk away from CoD and still have a lot of epic options.

  35. phlebas says:

    Stephen Graham? Goodness, what a waste.

  36. MeestaNob says:

    I can’t even tell if this article is a joke or not.

  37. int says:

    I don’t want to be black bagged and find the only game to play is a console version.

    Give me KB/M or give me death!

  38. Major Kong says:

    Funny trailer. Those poor wabbits cannot get away for playing games. Must attend partys and family instead, have lousy jobs and nut allergies. So sad

  39. Hahaha says:

    John why did you not inlcude jobs in your list and just focused on wife and family, your more insidious than that ad and making the title just about woman?

  40. Don Reba says:

    Sweet trailer, bro. Thanks for sharing.

  41. EireJohn says:

    Not a fan of the games but that’s an entertaining enough ad.

  42. Hahaha says:

    link to – why are they only appealing to gay/bi men and woman?

    • noxteryn says:

      Because it’s diet coke.

    • Ich Will says:

      So you DO think that sexism in adverts is a problem, just only when it affects you…. You’re not sexist then, just fucking selfish.

  43. Abendlaender says:

    Man, I remember a time when RPS was about VIDEOGAMES and not John PERSONAL JUSTICE WARRIOR AGENDA! Jeez John, stop pushing your AGENDA

    (did I do good?)

    • Aaarrrggghhh says:

      Not enough caps. Also a lot of exclamation marks are missing.

    • pepperfez says:

      I’m particularly fond of “PERSONAL JUSTICE WARRIOR”.

  44. jaguar skills says:

    I like to think that somewhere online there’s a blog about soft drinks where the female version of john walker is getting upset on my behalf for those diet coke ads where the women fizz up a drink to get some poor objectified labourer to take his top off. Then I hope I can read the article, shrug and say “thanks but I wasn’t really paying attention anyway. I don’t even like diet coke but if I did, rest assured that I would not be put off by you advertising to your core demographic. I fully understand that your core demographic is 18-50 year old women who are concerned about their figures and not a lot else, and there really are no hard feelings on my end. Except when that hunk took his diet coke covered top off.”

    • Kitsunin says:

      Gosh I know! And all the girls I drink diet soda with just treat me like some hunk of meat who’s good for nothing except my body! And whenever I talk about how I’m a guy and I drink diet soda people think I’m weird! And when I go to diet soda conventions everybody makes woman-raping-man-jokes with no regard to me being around!

      • Hahaha says:

        “noxteryn says:

        Because it’s diet coke.”

        LMAO yeah

      • jaguar skills says:

        So the problem is the people entrenched in that particular way of thinking and not the harmless adverts? Good to know. Could have saved John wasting his time with this article.

      • Jeremy says:

        Yeah, I don’t think this ad is really propagating rape culture, that seems like a bit of a stretch there. What it is though, is an ad targeting a core demographic, which is smart in the business world. You’re not going to target Diet Coke to kids, or nail polish to men, because those aren’t core demographics for that particular product. Even though 45% of gamers are female, that doesn’t change the fact that the core demographic for this particular game is probably something like M18 – 34. So, at the very least, we can agree that a commercial was made for a product that targeted it’s core demographic. If we can’t agree on a basic premise, then there is nowhere else for a conversation like this to go. Now, unfortunately in a conversation like this, here come the disclaimers:

        I am not saying women aren’t worth marketing to.
        I am not saying women don’t play video games.
        I am not denying that gamer culture trends towards misogyny
        I am not saying this conversation isn’t worth having

        Now that’s out of the way, I see this case as being a bit over the top. Maybe they could have put a girl in there, but I’m thinking that wouldn’t have been enough. The conversation about how we treat genders needs to happen, but there is so much BS in the discussion right now that there is simply no way to make progress. If the “wrong” kind of girl had been shown in the ad, it would have been criticized as pandering. If there was only 1 girl out of the 6 people, it wouldn’t have been enough (“45% of gamers are women, it should be 3 girls and 4 guys!”) I’m not totally sure where we could make progress in this discussion, but attempts at shaming either side is clearly not a true solution.

        Also, I feel like it needs to be said.. We can all make a lot of joke comments, with argy bargy statements and capital letters and exclamation points, and we’ll have a good laugh, look at each other smugly and say “Oh yeah, I totally got those guys.” but people like that are just a part of the problem.

    • Tams80 says:

      You know what is even worse? That Herbal Essences advert where that women not only makes a fireman go topless, but also wastes his time and expertise to fill a bath in a sexual innuendo.

      Absolutely disgusting.

  45. ankh says:

    People with nut allergies disgust me. Racists basically.

  46. AngoraFish says:

    Fantastic! Best. Trailer. Ever.

  47. WinTurkey says:

    I’m very glad John wrote this article.

    Up until quite recently it used to be the case that hating people for (not) liking pop culture made you look like an incredible ivory tower elitist. Its great that social justice came along to the video game industry and it is now socially acceptable for me to look down on people for consuming the wrong kind of entertainment products.

  48. Rao Dao Zao says:

    All of that for four maps and one weapon? Sheesh.

  49. Utsunomiya says:

    And the funny part is? The trailer’s actually pretty good!

    • Makariel says:

      No, it isn’t.

      • EireJohn says:

        I quite like it, seems to be aimed squarely at their target demographic without being at the expense of anyone else so I’m not really getting why some people appear to be annoyed by it.

        • 00000 says:

          That’s the issue. It’s not sexist because it explicitly targets boys, it explicitly targets boys because it’s sexist.

          It forces unobtainable ideals and stereotypical “male” behavior on young and impressionable adolescent boys.

          Just imagine the response from feminist if this add was targeted at girls. If only, Mr Walker was looking out for the youth by deconstructing an advertisement targeted at boys, as such, and the methods they use to instill the idea that it is their duty as men to consume this product during their leisure…

          • EireJohn says:

            …but it IS their duty, says it right there in the title of the game!

          • 00000 says:

            My mistake, I thought I was in a Battlefield thread… This explains all the cod in the article. I knew something was fishy.

    • TheWhomp says:

      Yeah, it is.

      (honestly, I think it’s pretty average – but a step above most advertisements, if only because of the effort that when in to it)

  50. Lone Gunman says:

    I thought that advert was rather good.

    Still not going to be buying another cod game though.