1. You can't change the direction of any company solely with games, movies, or shocking news reports. The company will only change direction if it notices a drop in profits or problems in some particular department.

And how about a game that tackles killing truely evil people/organisations, instead of a perfectly legitimate company which killed nobody but just happens to make a shitload of money?

Posted at 10:36AM on Jun 7th 2006 by Greg2k 0 stars

2. Exactly #1. Theyll make games and sensational remarks like this til the cows come home, but never once directly touch on the problem with religious missions, corporate fraud or genocide.

but lets mkae a thousand more games about destroying communism. right.

Posted at 10:48AM on Jun 7th 2006 by Cullen -1 stars

3. While these are valiant aims and goals to be sure, these sorts of tactics leave a bad taste in my mouth. When I finished reading the piece I wasn't even sure of what was going on, it seemed pretty fishy, but I'd be worried that my ass would sued into oblivion for portraying a major corporation like that.

I advocate social responsibility from both corporations and citizens as well, but this smacks of red paint on fur and Greenpeace boats causing accidents at sea. In some cases civil disobedience are necessary to deal with a truely unjust system or law. It should not, however, be applied top every problem that someone has with any corporation. It should be reserved as a tactic for dealing with truely severe issues (ie. Vietnam or an end to Racism). By applying these sorts of tactics to every little problem you devalue the truely important issues that can be resolved no other way. I'm sure right now there are a lot of people that hear about this and think..."Wow, what a great tactic...." The question is that next time we want to abolish something on the level of slavery and people look the other way because it's just another protest/march/ad campaign because we've overrused the impact of civil disobedience they won't even make the connection.

Posted at 10:50AM on Jun 7th 2006 by Prof-KOS 5 stars

4. Can we get a game where we maybe slap some sense into the fat fucks who eat this shit anyway? :)

Although, if the presentation was a hoax, those in charge did a damn good job of getting past security, and fooling the entire audience. Cudos to them.

~HotShotX

Posted at 10:56AM on Jun 7th 2006 by HotShotX 2 stars

5. I can think of a good serious game that might be interesting, though it wouldn't go far enough for these folks.

Imagine a sim where you're trying to build your own fast-food franchise. You get to set up the menu items, creating them yourself based on a wide array of choices within the game. And there are consequences to each choice - maybe you get more customers by putting in fatty foods, but you have to deal with more protestors/random property damage and regular lawsuits from idiots who ate too much. You could create an entirely healthy eating establishment, but you have to really struggle to get it widely established. And that's not even getting into options for advertisement, specialty foods (ciabatta bread!), placement, and so on.

Get a developer on the phone, because I'm about five in-game options from creating Fast Food Tycoon.

Posted at 11:30AM on Jun 7th 2006 by 32_Footsteps 12 stars

6. RT Mark is behind this. Email them and get a reply. You'll see in the header info that their mail traffic is coming from rtmark.com.

Posted at 1:09PM on Jun 7th 2006 by bandersnatch 0 stars

7. Yeah Greg2k, because McDonalds' only fault has been that they make a lot of money.

Posted at 2:04PM on Jun 7th 2006 by Pickypants 1 star

8. "Yeah Greg2k, because McDonalds' only fault has been that they make a lot of money."

can you name another? yeah.. i didn't think so.

*waiting for people to begin makiing shit up about McDonald's to justify their dislike of the restaurant*

Posted at 3:11PM on Jun 7th 2006 by Rare Hare 1 star

9. well, they lied about the amount of transfat in their foods and they lied about their being beef in their french fries. the latter may not seem like such a big deal to some, but ask a follower of the hindu faith...

Posted at 3:40PM on Jun 7th 2006 by mr 0 stars

10. "Although, if the presentation was a hoax, those in charge did a damn good job of getting past security, and fooling the entire audience. Cudos to them."

Actually, it doesn't sound that hard. Imagine your the host of a small games conference and a company like McDonalds says they want to send a speaker. You aren't likely to decline.

And not to mention, from reports of people in the know this was probably the Yes Men. They're the group that convinced several business confereneces they belonged to the WTO and made presentations representing them. You should check out the documentary (The Yes Men), it's pretty funny what they got away with.

http://www.theyesmen.org/movie/

They call it Identity Correction: "Honest people impersonate big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them."

http://www.theyesmen.org/

Fun stuff. I took a class taught by one of the group.

Posted at 4:04PM on Jun 7th 2006 by Probot 6 stars

11. "well, they lied about the amount of transfat in their foods and they lied about their being beef in their french fries. the latter may not seem like such a big deal to some, but ask a follower of the hindu faith..."

sources? yeah..

i have no idea about the transfat issue but i imagine it's as big of a lie as the one about the fries. not only is there NOT BEEF IN MCDONALD'S FRENCH FRIES.. THIS A HOAX, PEOPLE.. but they actually produce burgers made of goat meat for countries such as india, where the dominate religion is against eating beef.

don't believe me? look it up. instead of a big mac, india has the "Maharaja Mac", made with goat meat.

to my knowledge, McDonald's has always been incredibly truthful about the fat content in their food. they just don't advertise it on the wrapper like Subway does..

Posted at 6:37PM on Jun 7th 2006 by Rare Hare 1 star

12. #11,

No hoax, they fried their fries in beef fat. Lawuit happened in 2001. Settled out of court for $10 million. (Note: They probably would have won, but didn't need the bad publicity.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/05/national/main511109.shtml

#3

"While these are valiant aims and goals to be sure, these sorts of tactics leave a bad taste in my mouth. When I finished reading the piece I wasn't even sure of what was going on, it seemed pretty fishy, but I'd be worried that my ass would sued into oblivion for portraying a major corporation like that."

According to the Yes Men, no lawyer has been able to point to any law they're breaking. Corporations have no more power than any one else; they just have a lot of money. And McD knows lawsuits, even when they win, aren't their friend. (See: McLibel case). Plus, the guys behind this have RT Mark as their own corporate sheild, so that helps.

As for what actually happened, I can only guess. But usually, the Yes Men set up a fake website, then get invites to events. They speak and cause a sensation, getting headlines about topics no one would have mentioned otherwise, and then fade away. Despite what the post says, I doubt this is related to any actual game.

"I advocate social responsibility from both corporations and citizens as well, but this smacks of red paint on fur and Greenpeace boats causing accidents at sea."

Who exactly was hurt by this? McD got some bad press, but that was the point. The goal was to bring attention issues about how McD is affecting the world.

"In some cases civil disobedience are necessary to deal with a truely unjust system or law. It should not, however, be applied top every problem that someone has with any corporation. It should be reserved as a tactic for dealing with truely severe issues (ie. Vietnam or an end to Racism)."

You shouldn't ever be reserved about something you feel strongly about. You have every right to get mad at any little thing that bothers you. Limiting your passion to "truely severe issues" is like only voting in Presidential elections. You forget how much the little things add.

"The question is that next time we want to abolish something on the level of slavery and people look the other way because it's just another protest/march/ad campaign because we've overrused the impact of civil disobedience they won't even make the connection."

That's the great thing about this. It isn't just another protest/march/ad campaign. This is a new creative outlet for voicing dissension to major corportion's apathy. It's cool if you don't agree. (I actually don't in this case.) But there's no reason to stop people from voicing their opinions in creative ways. Despite how unimportant this issue is to you, there are people that care about it.

On top of all that, this would have been a really good oppurtunity to bring up the Serious Games Event and discuss some of those issues, but sadly, Joystiq dropped the ball on that.

Posted at 9:53PM on Jun 7th 2006 by Probot 6 stars