2261 réponses à ce sujet

[Kingofthebonggo]

I know I'm late to this party, but Bioware I cannot believe you're selling out like this to EA. Multiplayer has absolutely no place in this series! I know you think you've figured out a cool/clever way to implement it but I can assure you, it is not going to be amazing and will ultimately disrupt the immersion that your RPGs are traditionally some of the best at. I highly suggest you back off of this so that the trilogy is not marred by pointless MP moments. Why not just develop a parallel MP co-op game AFTER you complete the shepard story arc? No one wants to stop being shepard for 30 minutes to go partner up with 12 year olds.

In Short: PLEASE REMOVE THIS CONTENT OR FOREVER REGRET RUINING THE IMMERSION THAT THIS SERIES IS THE BEST AT IN SCI-FI VIDEO GAMING!!!!!!

[Recon Member]

^You make me sick.

[didymos1120]

Kingofthebonggo wrote...

In Short: PLEASE REMOVE THIS CONTENT OR FOREVER REGRET RUINING THE IMMERSION THAT THIS SERIES IS THE BEST AT IN SCI-FI VIDEO GAMING!!!!!!

I have no doubt that this ALLCAPS outburst will be the very thing that convinces them to ditch multiplayer and thereby waste all that money.

[alex90c]

Kingofthebonggo wrote...

I know I'm late to this party, but Bioware I cannot believe you're selling out like this to EA. Multiplayer has absolutely no place in this series! I know you think you've figured out a cool/clever way to implement it but I can assure you, it is not going to be amazing and will ultimately disrupt the immersion that your RPGs are traditionally some of the best at. I highly suggest you back off of this so that the trilogy is not marred by pointless MP moments. Why not just develop a parallel MP co-op game AFTER you complete the shepard story arc? No one wants to stop being shepard for 30 minutes to go partner up with 12 year olds.

In Short: PLEASE REMOVE THIS CONTENT OR FOREVER REGRET RUINING THE IMMERSION THAT THIS SERIES IS THE BEST AT IN SCI-FI VIDEO GAMING!!!!!!

immersion

Oh. It's that word again.

[H4RI]

HAHAHA, well I suppose it is still all good, cause i am going to play all those missions by myself. No need for other people to mess with my game!!!!!

[The Enforcer OS]

It's not multiplayer that can ruin this game, it's doing it poorly that can ruin the experience.

Oh, what's wrong with 'immersion'?

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

The multiplayer isn't even required to get the best ending , so I'm really not getting the problem here.It just seems like they wanted to add some online functionality , that at present seems to be thought out and not just thrown in there.

Things could change were local co-op might be added , if it isn't already added.I like the fact the muliplayer doesn't take away from the single player experience by being optional.

[Patius Mehaffius]

The more I hear about multiplayer, the more my fears are assuaged. Not to mention, the bits I have watched look pretty decent. Add LAN and/or splitscreen so I can play it with my friends in the same room, and it'll be loads of fun.

[The Enforcer OS]

@Lost Spartan, Almost 'thought out' I'll shut up once I know there's some form of local multiplayer, I flat out don't want MP dependent solely on EA's servers.

[RiouHotaru]

I honestly equate ME3's Multiplayer to Dead Rising 2's MP mode. Anyone remember Terror Is Reality?

It was nothing more than a series of competitive mini-games whose SOLE carry-over was the cash you earned. All of which could easily be earned in game if you invested some time, and Dead Rising 2 was VERY generous with it's time (by comparison to it's predecessor)

It's likely the same thing here. Obviously there are going to be sidequests and what-not which improve Galactic Readiness, which can be substituted for by doing the MP mode, both are still viable and and possible. Honestly, the biggest complaints people have seem entire founded not in any amount of fact but rather in comparisons to other IPs and franchises which aren't Mass Effect, and stating if it doesn't work there, it can't work here.

Anyone know the fallacy for this?

In essence:

1) They won't give any more information than they have to because it's obviously spoilers. For example, they've stated you can take the character you build in MP and use it in SP. If these soldiers wind up being a relevant plot point (or even perhaps, *gasp* are mentioned IN-GAME!) then giving any relevant information is a spoiler, which they can't give.

2) Yes, obviously someone investing time in the MP mode will likely have an easier time, but it's been stated in interviews that JUST having high Galactic Readiness won't guarantee the best ending. It'll make it easier, yes, but it's no sure thing. So obviously the work it would take someone strictly doing SP mode versus someone doing MP mode is roughly comparable. The former may require an investment of time to earn up that Galactic Readiness, but it will likely be about the same amount of time the person doing MP mode spent. After all, Bioware has ALWAYs been about providing comparable experiences. Why would this be any different?

[Zu Long]

Gatt9 wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

iakus wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

1) Given that your assumptions of inviability are fears pulled directly from your own nether regions, I see no reason Bioware should risk spoiling the game in order to give you information that, if your current behavior is anything to go on, you will only interpret as further confirmation of your paranoia.

2) Consider what might have been if Wrex had been a ballerina, and danced around the Normandy in a frilly pink tutu.

Much like the above hypothetical, your proposition is MEANINGLESS because it didn't happen. Indeed the fact  that they have never tied meaningless uber-fetch quests to anything important in the past simply makes your fears all the more groundless.

3) The only truth being dodged here is by you and the rest of the looney-tunes paranoiacs on this board who have conjured doomsday scenarios out of the aether in order to justify continuing to rail against a game based on a feature you have been told time and again it will not be necessary for you to use.

Give it up already and rejoin the land of the sane, or seek professional help.

First, I spoke to you without stooping to insults.  I'll thank you to return in kind.

At any rate:

1)  If Bioware's going to introduce a feature many fans did not ask for or even want, it's on them to convince us adding it is a good thing.  Some of us brought up a concern.  That concern has not been addressed.  You don't see a problem.  That's fine for you.  I'm not concerned about weapon balance.  Others may be.  I don't ridicule them over it.

2) Again, they've bnever tied a multiplayer feature to a single player experience before.  They keep playing up that it improves the single player experience, then mumble that it's optional.  One can do a cimplete single player game, then attatche a bunch of "ifs"  to it.  They're trying to have it both ways.  Single player, but not really single player.  Multiplayer, but not really multiplayer.

3) Yeah this is one long ad hominem so I'm not gonna bother.

Given that you clearly think nothing of implying that Bioware employees are a bunch of greedy liars bent on sadistically punishing their loyal fans, I couldn't care less if your feelings are hurt by the simple truth.

1) The concern HAS been addressed, several times. It is your refusal to acknowledge this and continuing to complain incessantly that causes me to lose any and all respect for you.

2) They are trying something new by allowing multiplayer success to translate to the single player experience. They have recognized that some people will not be interrested in that gameplay and have therefore stated REPEATEDLY that it will not be necessary to achieve the best ending. You and those like you have responded by conjuring up what if scenarios predicated on the assumption that Bioware has added multiplayer in order to punish and marginalize those who prefer a single player experience. This assumption is completely groundless, and seems to exist mostly to justify continuing to complain about existence of the multiplayer feature.

3) Point of order- only the part about being looney-tunes is an ad-hominem. Calling you paranoiacs when you are, in fact, being paranoid is totally justified. The rest is simply the only logical reasoning I can come up with for why you are still harping on this issue. Well, that or you're trolling. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You create some pretty interesting fantasies in order to defend Bioware,  but they are just fantasies.

First,  you don't need to spoil anything by answering the question of how reasonable is it to achieve the optimal ending without doing multiplayer.  This question does not require full disclosure of the design document and script.  Contrary to the excuse you put forth,  all it takes is "Just by doing all of the side quests while fullfilling their goals you can achieve the optimal ending,  nothing is randomized,  you don't have to search the corners of the galaxy for trinkets."

It is not a complicated question,  but it is one they choose not to answer.  Much like Multiplayer,  there's a reason why they choose not to answer.

Second,  shoehorning a handful of co-op missions into a single player narrative driven game doesn't improve it.  Much like shoehorning in a 10 minute short from a comedy doesn't improve a Horror movie. 

I realize it is your god given mission to defend the honor of Bioware and all,  but you really might want to take a step back and actually use a little bit of logic when looking at the subject.  Because otherwise,  much like you and everyone else insisting Multiplayer didn't exist 3 months ago,  you're going to look quite foolish when the game releases.

Because it's blindingly obvious multiplayer is designed to be an impediment to sell Online Passes,  and as such,  it will affect the single player game.  Because seriously,  the whole concept is nonsensical in a single player narrative driven game.  If you don't understand why,  then perhaps you really shouldn't be trying to discuss the subject.  I'll give you a big hint,  go study the concept of narrative flow,  and then go contemplate why co-op missions disrupt it.

1) Why would you think they would require any of that though? Also, have you actually asked a developer that exact question on Twitter? Or do you expect them to hunt through this topic looking for inane hypotheticals to shoot down?

Seriously, you say they have refused to answer it, but I've never seen anyone actually ASK "Are you planning on punishing single players by making them do insane hoop-jumping to get to the same place as multiplayer users?" on twitter or anywhere else. The better question here though, is when they inevitably tell you "No," are you going to believe them, or will you simply accuse them of 'spin' as others have?

2)Shoehorning doesn't work, but mixing different gameplay types and modes is how gameplay advances. In this case they are attempting to integrate small multiplayer instances into the larger single player narrative, at the option of the player. How effective that will be is anyones guess, and it's fine if you think it will flop. My issue is with you turning their inclusion of an option into some kind of grand persecution of people who prefer not to exercise that option.

The bottom line is it's a patently ridiculous, and frankly insulting, notion that they are suddenly going to make options other than multiplayer incredibly labor intensive just to annoy people who don't like multiplayer. That just smacks of paranoia and martyrdom. You really need to re-examine your perception of the universe if you believe people are out to get you like that.

As far as defending Bioware's honor, meh. I just enjoy helping people. And boy, do you guys need help.

Modifié par Zu Long, 17 novembre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Zu Long]

iakus wrote...

Zu Long wrote...
Given that you clearly think nothing of implying that Bioware employees are a bunch of greedy liars bent on sadistically punishing their loyal fans, I couldn't care less if your feelings are hurt by the simple truth.

1) The concern HAS been addressed, several times. It is your refusal to acknowledge this and continuing to complain incessantly that causes me to lose any and all respect for you.

2) They are trying something new by allowing multiplayer success to translate to the single player experience. They have recognized that some people will not be interrested in that gameplay and have therefore stated REPEATEDLY that it will not be necessary to achieve the best ending. You and those like you have responded by conjuring up what if scenarios predicated on the assumption that Bioware has added multiplayer in order to punish and marginalize those who prefer a single player experience. This assumption is completely groundless, and seems to exist mostly to justify continuing to complain about existence of the multiplayer feature.

3) Point of order- only the part about being looney-tunes is an ad-hominem. Calling you paranoiacs when you are, in fact, being paranoid is totally justified. The rest is simply the only logical reasoning I can come up with for why you are still harping on this issue. Well, that or you're trolling. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I do not speculate on the motives of putting multiplayer in a single player trilogy.  Maybe they are greedy liars.  maybe it was a call made by someone higher on the food chain.  Maybe they genuinely think it's a good idea.  At this point it's irrelevant because it's going to be in ME3.  And they did conceal that fact.  And they are not.  

1) The only thing that has been confirmed is that it's possible to get the "optimal ending" without multiplayer.  We have not been told how viable an option that is.  It's possible to walk ten miles rather than drive to a location.  One option is typically more viable than the other.  If you think this is irrational, well, I think you're wrong.  But i won't insult you about it.

2) See above.  And the "scenerios" are not as farfetched as you may think.  Though I do not think it would be a "punishment" as such.  But simply the result of not playing "the full game"  How can they possibly balance the accumulation of a resource around both players who only do single player and those who do single and multiplayer?  If part of the game's challenge is to gain enough of these resources, how can it be equally challenging for both?  The latter group will inevitably have access to a greater pool of resources, making it either trivial for them, or incredibly hard/tedious for the single-player only group.

Would addressing that concern really spoil the game/

3)  Well at least you admit some of it was insulting.  That's a start 

 Look at it this way, I admit that my outlook on multiplayer is somewhat pessimistic, though I think I have cause.  You, however do not see a problem.  But I have never accused you of being delusionally optimistic, or some other nonsense.  Heck I don't even think you are.  You simply believe the hype.  I don't.  Not without more information.

1) But WHY would you assume that they would do that? That's what I don't get here. In order to get the results you are talking about, a large group of the people making this game, the programmers, the writers, the directors would have to sit down and say "You know that multiplayer option we added? Let's make it ludicrously difficult to get the best ending without using it. Because we hate the people who've bought the last two games. And then we'll lie about it."

It's your apparent assumption that Bioware REALLY sat down and had that meeting that simply boggles my mind.

2. It's pretty simple, actually. You start with a really good single player experience, with a number of required and optional missions the main character can undertake. Each mission gives you a certain amount of Macguffin points. By playing through enough of the optional quests in that experience, you can max out your Macguffin meter. Then, you add in a number of multiplayer missions, which also give you a certain number of Macguffin points each. This gives the players the OPTION of subbing out Multiplayer missions for optional single player missions. They can also do both, though that will obviously take more time.

Your assumption seems to be that they will make the single player options ludicrously onerous in order to push people towards multiplayer. My counter argument is that not only is your assumption completely unsupported by all of Bioware's prior history, it actually directly contradicts what we know about about how ME3 was developed.

You then say that they should come out and say so, and I say based on prior posts on this board, many of you probably wouldn't believe them even if they did. I also wonder whether anyone has actually asked that specific question on the available forums like twitter. It seems entirely reasonable to me that they wouldn't have thought it's a real, valid concern. I know it never would have occured to me to include in a FAQ section.

3) I really don't care about whether you like multiplayer. It's fine that you don't. I have my doubts about how much I'll play it, but I'm willing to give it a try. What I don't understand is how your dislike of multiplayer transforms into some kind of vendetta by Bioware to obfuscate how badly they've screwed over those of us who prefer a single player experience. It's just silly and seems more like an excuse to complain than an actual concern.

[Elbahor]

 My opinion about this whole multyplayer matter is that the idea came in the wrong time. ME3 is the closing title of the Shepard trilogy. We had a huge buildup for this final showdown with the Reapers  and I think everybody expects a huge, epic finale surprassing everything seen before in the franchise. This means that they should invest everything in making the single player campaing and do it right and work on it to make it as perfect as possible. Now this multyplayer feature on the other hand seems like an unnecessary tinkering which takes away time and resources from developing the campaing. Its not even that but that they are implementing it may indicate that they may not be even confident enouh in the story to carry its own weight without MP. Also the implementation of MP to make sense or the campaing to make sense without it may harm the actual story and gameplay especially for those who don't play MP. This may cause a serious disappointment for those who choose not to play MP. 

Most importantly the MP feature is not there to make the game more fun, its about money. Its there to prevent pirates from downloading the games free because then they can't go to multyplayer and may think its not worth it. For the same reason I have a feeling that everybody who plays offline will get an inferior experience to those who play it online and Bioware willl make it intentionally that way. Of course its a bummer for those who don't want to play MP because they want to play a single player game alone as a single player game is supposed to play [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]  

However if the game is a disappointment then they'll lose many customers and fans as well especially after the disappointing DA 2. Through I don't have numbers to gauge which is the more profitable way, losing customers or forcing pirates to buy the game( they think the latter IMO).  

[Reptilian Rob]

It's really tragic that most people don't realize that the MP was implemented so EA could slap their ridiculous online pass onto Mass Effect 3.

This isn't about a great new feature, although it's looking to be good. It's about EA's obsession with controlling their games and forcing their customers to jump through extra hoops just to play the game.

[didymos1120]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

It's really tragic that most people don't realize that the MP was implemented so EA could slap their ridiculous online pass onto Mass Effect 3.
 

OK, aside from whether you're correct or not...tragic?  Yeah, that's a bit much.  It's tragic when people starve to death due to famine.  It's not tragic when people aren't aware of why some feature in a video game was implemented.

[DrFumb1ezX]

I got $20 bucks on a bet with a friend that even those who are saying that MP is gonna ruin ME3 are still gonna buy it. Easiest $20 I ever made. XD

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

didymos1120 wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

It's really tragic that most people don't realize that the MP was implemented so EA could slap their ridiculous online pass onto Mass Effect 3.
 

OK, aside from whether you're correct or not...tragic?  Yeah, that's a bit much.  It's tragic when people starve to death due to famine.  It's not tragic when people aren't aware of why some feature in a video game was implemented.

Well , I mean it's not like this isn't new and alot of companies have been doing the whole online pass thing.Is it fair ? , depends on the way you look at.To me I prefer this , we could always get a Mass Effect 3 Elite with day one problems for a premium paid dedacted servers.I think theirs a way to do online pass the right way and their is a wrong way like COD:Elite.

Ultimately it's the consumer's descision in the end because they could always not buy the game or buy used/rent and play single player(Unless it's Rage or Batman:AC and then you get screwed out of a good chunk of the game:whistle:).

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

To me even with the whole pass which was on ME2 , their isn't a big reason not to get this game.Now if the next ME title is DmC'd than that's a big reason to not buy something.

[Mecha Tengu]

-Call of Duty Syndrome-


A term coined to describe the recent trend of games and formerly respected gaming series' to be dumbed down to appeal to the larger, absent minded CoD base. Symptoms include short, repetitive gameplay, linear levels, simple controls, completel dissolution of innovation in creativity and puzzles, $10 DLC map packs, and an average gamer age of 12. Recent examples include Ace Combat: Assault Horizon and (soon to be) Mass Effect 3.


"The new Ace Combat game has a serious case of Call of Duty syndrome"

Modifié par Mecha Tengu, 17 novembre 2011 - 06:16 .

[Iakus]

Zu Long wrote...

1) But WHY would you assume that they would do that? That's what I don't get here. In order to get the results you are talking about, a large group of the people making this game, the programmers, the writers, the directors would have to sit down and say "You know that multiplayer option we added? Let's make it ludicrously difficult to get the best ending without using it. Because we hate the people who've bought the last two games. And then we'll lie about it."

It's your apparent assumption that Bioware REALLY sat down and had that meeting that simply boggles my mind.

2. It's pretty simple, actually. You start with a really good single player experience, with a number of required and optional missions the main character can undertake. Each mission gives you a certain amount of Macguffin points. By playing through enough of the optional quests in that experience, you can max out your Macguffin meter. Then, you add in a number of multiplayer missions, which also give you a certain number of Macguffin points each. This gives the players the OPTION of subbing out Multiplayer missions for optional single player missions. They can also do both, though that will obviously take more time.

Your assumption seems to be that they will make the single player options ludicrously onerous in order to push people towards multiplayer. My counter argument is that not only is your assumption completely unsupported by all of Bioware's prior history, it actually directly contradicts what we know about about how ME3 was developed.

You then say that they should come out and say so, and I say based on prior posts on this board, many of you probably wouldn't believe them even if they did. I also wonder whether anyone has actually asked that specific question on the available forums like twitter. It seems entirely reasonable to me that they wouldn't have thought it's a real, valid concern. I know it never would have occured to me to include in a FAQ section.

3) I really don't care about whether you like multiplayer. It's fine that you don't. I have my doubts about how much I'll play it, but I'm willing to give it a try. What I don't understand is how your dislike of multiplayer transforms into some kind of vendetta by Bioware to obfuscate how badly they've screwed over those of us who prefer a single player experience. It's just silly and seems more like an excuse to complain than an actual concern.

1)  I don't know. Why would they sit around and go 'You know what would be the perfect addition to a single player game?  Multiplayer!  Let's spend more money, hire more people, bring in another studio, and create a multiplayer feature that players can completely ignore.  That's a great way to spend EA's resources"?

IF they're going to put so much effort into shoehorning this into the game, they're going to want to encourage people to use it.  How beter a way to nudge people towards that than by a little negative reinforcement in the single player?

2) If there was a single player or multiplayer option for certain side missions, I could believe that multiplayer is merely subbing out certain side missions.  But I suspect that such "either/or" conditions are not the case.  The simpt fact is that doing muliplayer will grant more opportunities, and thus, a larger pool of War Assets to draw from.

As to  my theory being unsupported by Bioware history, I would contend that Bioware putting a multiplayer component into a single player game, in a way which affects and is affected by the single player campaign, is unprecedented as well.  

And it appears there are several questions about multiplayer that have not been addressed.  Have you seen the thread about Origin being required?

3)  It's good that you do not care about my feelings about multiplayer, as you clearly don't know them.  My concern here is multiplayer in Mass Effect 3.  Any other feelings on MP are irrelevant.  I think MP is uneeded from any narrative perspective, I am unconvinced it will not hurt the SP campaign in any number of ways.  And the fact that they waited until October to release this information bodes ill for how honest they are being about it.  I do not know why they felt the need to conceal this, but the fact that they did makes me suspicious that all is not as they say.

Modifié par iakus, 17 novembre 2011 - 06:50 .

[StephanieBengal]

Kingofthebonggo wrote...

I know I'm late to this party, but Bioware I cannot believe you're selling out like this to EA. Multiplayer has absolutely no place in this series! I know you think you've figured out a cool/clever way to implement it but I can assure you, it is not going to be amazing and will ultimately disrupt the immersion that your RPGs are traditionally some of the best at. I highly suggest you back off of this so that the trilogy is not marred by pointless MP moments. Why not just develop a parallel MP co-op game AFTER you complete the shepard story arc? No one wants to stop being shepard for 30 minutes to go partner up with 12 year olds.

In Short: PLEASE REMOVE THIS CONTENT OR FOREVER REGRET RUINING THE IMMERSION THAT THIS SERIES IS THE BEST AT IN SCI-FI VIDEO GAMING!!!!!!

And? 

People always got something stupid to say, when they don't know anything. Just play the damn game first, or don't play it at all. Then **** all you want. Until then, unless you work for Bioware you're just as clueless on how this ultimately came to be. 

[Eckswhyzee]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

-Call of Duty Syndrome-


A term coined to describe the recent trend of games and formerly respected gaming series' to be dumbed down to appeal to the larger, absent minded CoD base. Symptoms include short, repetitive gameplay, linear levels, simple controls, completel dissolution of innovation in creativity and puzzles, $10 DLC map packs, and an average gamer age of 12. Recent examples include Ace Combat: Assault Horizon and (soon to be) Mass Effect 3.


"The new Ace Combat game has a serious case of Call of Duty syndrome"

Any time someone talks about "The COD fan base", I always know they're talking out of their asses.

Do you know how many copies COD:Black Ops sold? 13.7 million copies in the United States alone, according to this link:

www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/03/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-now-the-best-selling-video-game-of-all-time/

To assume that all of the millions of  people that bought this game, and presumably enjoyed playing it, are all "absent-minded twelve year-olds" is just laughable. In case you don't get it NOT ALL FANS OF COD ARE THE SAME.

It's this same ridiculous stereotype that gets trotted all over the internet. "Well, they're just trying to appeal to COD fans" "COD fans are all dudebros".

We all know that Bioware fans are NOT losers living in their mother's basement drooling over Liara and Morrigan because they can't get a real life girlfriend. By that same token, COD fans are NOT all twelve year-olds who swear at everyone they meet.

[RiouHotaru]

@Reptilian Rob: You do know ME2 had a online pass sort of function, right? It was called the Cerberus Network. It's basically one of the many new functions developers/publishers come up with to encourage the sale of NEW games, as opposed to USED.

[Reptilian Rob]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

-Call of Duty Syndrome-


A term coined to describe the recent trend of games and formerly respected gaming series' to be dumbed down to appeal to the larger, absent minded CoD base. Symptoms include short, repetitive gameplay, linear levels, simple controls, completel dissolution of innovation in creativity and puzzles, $10 DLC map packs, and an average gamer age of 12. Recent examples include Ace Combat: Assault Horizon and (soon to be) Mass Effect 3.


"The new Ace Combat game has a serious case of Call of Duty syndrome"

Any time someone talks about "The COD fan base", I always know they're talking out of their asses.

Do you know how many copies COD:Black Ops sold? 13.7 million copies in the United States alone, according to this link:

www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/03/11/call-of-duty-black-ops-now-the-best-selling-video-game-of-all-time/

To assume that all of the millions of  people that bought this game, and presumably enjoyed playing it, are all "absent-minded twelve year-olds" is just laughable. In case you don't get it NOT ALL FANS OF COD ARE THE SAME.

It's this same ridiculous stereotype that gets trotted all over the internet. "Well, they're just trying to appeal to COD fans" "COD fans are all dudebros".

We all know that Bioware fans are NOT losers living in their mother's basement drooling over Liara and Morrigan because they can't get a real life girlfriend. By that same token, COD fans are NOT all twelve year-olds who swear at everyone they meet.

This is how you get your point across, with good old fashion sources and logic. +1