Wow... really 140+ comments of pure idiots? I mean look at the trailer by "JorgeConstanza11"
Does that look like anything whatsover offical? I'm sure THQ sends out mail hailing its "FPS" shooter red faction guerilla in press releases... considering its a third person shooter..
Not only that the trailer looks like a 30 minute hackjob - it's not to hard to splice together previously release video and a splash screen.
I hope THQ goes after whoever duped Jeff. Maybe the site should actually make sure what they post before they slander a name.
Plus.. just went look at Red Faction's site... a demo comes out on Friday for pre orders - why the hell would they try to promote the game through sites when word of mouth is gonna either start slamming or praising them this weekend?
Red Faction: Guerrilla
Game » consists of 22 releases. Released Jun 02, 2009
- Xbox 360
- PlayStation 3
- PC
- Xbox 360 Games Store
- + 4 more
- PlayStation Network (PS3)
- PlayStation 4
- Xbox One
- Nintendo Switch
After the death of his brother at the hands of a corrupt Earth government, Alec Mason has no choice but to join the Red Faction terrorist cell and fight to free Mars from Earth oppression.
"Write About This Game We're Promoting And We'll Let You Play It Early"
Just wanted to call attention to an update to this story that we've appeneded to the original post:
I think it was a dare or something. Some guy who had the beta decided to make a lame video and make fun of some smaller websites... Its a practical joke. NOT FUNNY!!
Lol. So it really wasn't them doing it. Yet this article went up without double checking, or at least contacting them for comment first, smearing THQ's name over it to boost the site's indy character. Not good. Should have contacted them asking about it, without negative comments. Then they might have admitted it was them. Or told you no, we don't know who's doing this. And you'd write your article accordingly. I suppose it's possible they were doing this and pulled it because of your article, but from their comment it sounds to me it wasn't them, or someone working for them, but they leave the potential open by simply saying they didn't "authorise it" as they're still investigating the companies they have hired.
"You're essentially being an internet tough guy by bitching about shitty marketers, then do exactly their bidding by posting their video. Way to go, bro, you're part of the problem!"
"That's a fair point, and I did kind of wrestle with the thought of running the video vs. not running the video, but the video was so fucking stupid that it needed to be seen."
Editorial discretion, I guess. But you look like a hypocrite by going into such histrionics, and then end up copping out at the end...taking the high road would have been much more tactful. You learned all about tactful writing at GameSpot, right? right?
"Have your heard of irony? I would've thought reading this site for a few minutes would realise you need a sense of humour here.You're essentially being an internet tough guy by bitching about shitty marketers, then do exactly their bidding by posting their video. Way to go, bro, you're part of the problem!"
" @Jeff:This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by THQ / Volition Inc. Gotta love it. "
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment