Activision seeking $400 million in damages from West, Zampella, and EA as Black Ops exceeds $1 billion in sales

@48 I am far from an “arrogant elitist”, i know my opinion isn’t the law, I’m just saying that I personally feel CoD is incredibly overrated & most people only buy it because their mates own it, i don’t know a single person who bought a CoD game since Modern Warfare because of the games true quality but instead, just as an online arcade stylized shooter, which it exels at, but IN MY OPINION, doesn’t warrant a new full priced game every year.

“I’m just saying that I personally feel CoD is incredibly overrated & most people only buy it because their mates own it”

Wow, you must be really popular if you know “most” of the 14 or so million CoD players in the world…

The people that you’re referring to are not “blind sheep”, rather, it’s you who simply doesn’t understand the appeal that a particular product has in the eyes of others.

Some people, such as yourself, are so convinced that others only buy CoD ‘because their friends all bought it’, but I’ve never once seen anyone on this blog ask a CoD fan why they like/bought the game.

…You must be some sort of mind reader then, eh?

In any case, I’m almost certain that any such quesion is almost never going to be met with any response along the lines of ‘…duuuh… coz all ov my mates playz it, bruv!’, so I’m inclined to believe that you’re just jumping to naive conclusions.

Why do people buy (and continually play) CoD? Because there are elements of it’s gameplay that they enjoy, which you apparently don’t find appealing.

Why do people buy an iPod Shuffle? Who knows… Maybe they’re happy with the simplicity and functionality of iTunes and know about Apples reputation for good build quality.

Don’t be so naive so as to think that everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion is doing so without reason. Or for as simplistic a reason as following the crowd.

I’ve been playing CoD almost exclusively since I first tried the CoD4 beta. Before that, I bought CoD3 and played it a handful of times. After CoD4, I bought WaW and really didn’t like the MP, so I didn’t play it. After that, I bought MW2 and played it loads, because I enjoyed it. Now I have BO and I’m playing it a lot, because I think it’s the best CoD so far by a long way.

If I and the other 14 or so million (iirc) regular CoD players out there found a game with gameplay, a levelling up system, a stat system, a party/matchmaking system, customisation, visuals and audio, that we geniunely thought was better than what CoD offers, we would drop CoD in an instant and play that game.

Just like I dropped GRAW for Gears, just like I dropped Gears for R6 Vegas, just like I dropped R6 Vegas for CoD4, likewise CoD4 for MW2 and likewise, MW2 for BO.

@GHZ, ok, so what you’re telling me is that your m8s playing CoD has no influence on your decision? I just don’t know anyone who bought CoD that isn’t a sheep to popular trends, they all believe that it’s the best shooter out there but in the end, the multiplayer feels very arcadey, you spawn, then you have 2 choices, run around like a headless chicken or camp in a corner (yipee for being desperate enough to win that you stand still the whole game), same goes to Halo, & Resistance, but atleast they both have interesting stories behind them, nothing wrong with arcade shooters, i too often enjoy playing mindlessly from time to time, just not CoD where everybody becomes abusive if you get a minus kill ratio, might enjoy CoD if they introduced full environmental destruction, but til then, it’s lacking in too many MP features for me, hell i have more fun with zombies in CoD…

Interestingly enough, almost all of the people that I play with regularly, I met online.

I actually very rarely play with any of my IRL friends. Even the ones that I’ve known for over a decade either simply don’t play CoD or we’re simply hardly ever online at the same time.

I first got interested in CoD4 because of the beta that I was honestly sceptical about before I tried it. Before that, only one or two people on my FL had either CoD2 or CoD3.

Before that I played R6 Vegas and FIFA while people on my FL were playing Halo 2 and PES.

On top of that. The vast majority of the games that I play are Free For All, which is all vs all, rather than a team game with other people, anyway.

As for there only being two ways to play CoD, then this isn’t the case by any means. But that’s a completely different discussion.

Also, if you have a personal issue with CoD because some people talked trash about you in a team game, then it’s not really anything to do with the quality of the game.

I must admit that sometimes I’ve had a go at some people on my team who end the game 1 and 12 or something. Especially when we end up losing by two or three kills. Again though, this could happen in almost any team game in almost any genre.

“Having a go” at anyone in a video game, unless you’re playing professionally, is pretty damn sad.

When my friends and I lose in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (we’re currently sitting on a win / lose ratio of 4 to 1) we shrug it off and move on to the next match.

It helps that we all know each other in real life. It’s very easy for a lot of people to treat others like shit when you don’t have to see their faces.

I only get angry when my team8 acts spiteful, such as team killing, if it’s their skill at the game, i can shrug that off, but the one thing i hate above all is those who take it too seriously, it’s just a game after all.

That’s why I almost exclusively play games online only with people I know.

I’ve only ever done it a few times. The first time I remember ‘losing my rag’ was with someone who just wouldn’t leave after four or five rounds, even though he kept going negative by a large amount. He was basically causing us to lose when we very likely would have won without him.

That’s basically sabotaging someone else’s game through your ‘n00bishness’. No-one pays £200+ for a console, £40 for a game and £35-40 a month for cable broadband just to have to put up with people who see no problem with ruining your days gaming.

It’s like playing a single player campaign where someone keeps walking into your room/house, plugging a controller into port 2 and making you lose a boss battle when the boss is down to 1% energy.

He defended himself well enough though, and gave as good as he got. Anyway, whatever i said to him seemed to work, as he played much better after that.

Besides, this is the main reason why I mostly play Free For All when my clan isn’t online. I don’t like the idea of going 30-6, but still ending up on the losing team because someone doesn’t care how many times he dies.

I don’t plug my headset in, mute anyone as soon as I hear a noise, and focus on winning.

I just get angry when I join a match playing Firing Range or the terrible Nuke Town, because I know every moron in the game is going to vote to play those maps over and over.

In my experience OMP shooters bring out the worst in people. And often offer some of the worst gaming experiences to be had. The games themselves are fine, down right enjoyable even.

But people do tend to rage over them.

I have found myself so uptight after a few matches that I have had to walk away. I have high blood pressure, and playing long stretches of something that can be so down right frustrating is not a good thing.

And here is the secret factors that no one can control:

That one or two players(and avoid like the plague games that promote clans vs gen. public) that are godly and shouldn’t be matched up in your same game. Skillwise.

And the fact, I don’t care what anyone says, the fact that the majority of OMP shooters are crawling, even overrun with, kids. Weather they have no skill, no sense of tactics at all. Or if they just gott home from a long day at school being bullied(or bullying) and are looking to give out abit of their angst to a game full of strangers.

Not a CoD vs BFBC2 thing – but I enjoy games that don’t make winning(or even kill/death ratios) the focal point of enjoyment. In BFBC2, so long as I play well, someone else isn’t going to ruin my game. Our team could lose badly, but I personialy never feel dominated after the experience. Heck the more they get shot, the more chances I have to revive em(playing as a medic).

But ultimatly the OMP shooter games are driven and motivated by a very competitive nature. And a lot of folks will end up taking that personialy. And I feel that playing these games long term does imapct a gamers behavior. Not to mention it greatly impacts the way that gamer looks at other games. Things that they used to enjoy now not only take a back seat to, but often don’t get any play time due to their OMP Shooter of their choice.

Ask G1GA how many other games he plays, how often, and if it was always that way? Not picking on G1GA, fo course, just an example we can all relate to. I can see the samething with my sons and their friends.

@OG, i get those same feelings, but before i react, i remember that it’s just a game & i calm right down, does it truley matter if i lose in a video game? ofc not, but i would have liked to win, but losing has no effect what so ever than a virtual statistic.

You’re right OG, people do rage over OMFPS’s, probably more than other game types.

I think that the reason for this is mostly down to the fact that all things being equal, they are supposed to be a true test of skill and ability.

The problem is that things are almost never, ever equal.

The way that latency has such a huge effect (on ALL OMFPS’s, bar none!) causes people, who are rightly confident in their ability, to be hit with an overwhelming sense of frustrating injustice on a regular basis.

For example, almost every single one of a person’s senses tells them that they shot someone else first, but they still end up dying.

This in itself is enough to make someone shout at the TV/monitor in annoyance, but that’s not the only problem.

A bigger cause of anger is when one team plays another team, but latency has such a big effect that it becomes unfair.

So you end up with one team feeling frustrated and annoyed because they’re losing heavily to another team that isn’t even very good.

In turn, that frustration ends up spilling over into the lobbys and random gamers playing on their own end up in the crossfire.

It’s interesting though, because I got into StarCraft 2 for a while and even though it’s an online game, it’s almost a completely different culture.

Players will start games with ‘Hi GL HF’ and end with ‘GG’. Win or lose.

There’s hardly ever any trash talk, and even when there is, all abusive language is blocked from text messages.

Of course, latency doesn’t play anywhere near as big a role in RTS’s as it does in twicth shooters, but there is a definite culture difference between the two. After all, I’m pretty sure that it’s (among other age groups) kids of the same age playing CoD as are playing SC2.

As for what games I play, well tbh, I’ve usually always been someone who plays a game until I get bored of it.

It’s difficult to get bored of CoD, because almost every game is different, against different players with different skill levels, in different game types with different weapons, etc.

However, the game that I’ve been playing most recently is Tetris Splash on XBLA. I played SC2 on PC for a while. Other than that, just FIFA on the odd occasion or TDU/MC:LA if I feel like going for a virtual cruise.

I’m waiting for TDU2 at the moment, but most other games just don’t offer me what CoD does.

I don’t know whether this is just an old fart thing, but I agree with OldGamer. I’m a bit tired of games that exist on naught but brutal competition myself. I’m generally a much more calm person in games, and I can’t get myself worked up into some fuming rage of righteous glory that these kids can. In fact, in most competitive FPS games, people find my calmness absolutely infuriating. They want me to be angry, they want me to hate them, but I just can’t do it. The years tend to take any angst out of a person, usually the first 20 years.

This is why when it comes to online multiplayer games I’m putting a lot of hope into Guild Wars 2. There’s one thing they really seem to have down pat: The very notion that it’s just a game. It’s something we’re doing for fun. We’re grown ups, and we should all be able to enjoy ourselves and get along without needing to compare our dick size every few seconds. And getting angry over those who have the largest dick, or those who simply couldn’t care less about such things.

Even the game mechanics seem to be leaning toward that, with the public events and all trying to equal the playing ground. And really, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with that. If the not-so-humble FPS took a page out o that book, I think that the online multiplayer world would be a better place.

But that’s just my opinion, no need for anyone to bust a headvein over it.

I respect CoD’s popularity, but at the same time I cant understand completely why it is more popular than Battlefield, when its clearly the worse game.

You have no idea how much I am looking forward to Guild Wars 2. I mean REALLY looking forward to it. That and Diablo III.

And I agree with ya G1GA so many things factor into if a match is fair or unfair. Lag, prolly, being the biggest. Esp where pin point acuracy is needed.

Oh well live and let live I guess. Just games, have to keep that in mind sometimes.

“It’s difficult to get bored of CoD, because almost every game is different, against different players with different skill levels, in different game types with different weapons, etc.”

Exactly. Be it CoD or Battlefield or Halo. This has to be the main reason these games are so compeling. Plus the shear value. One game(even with DLC) = near limitless hours of entertainment. Vs one game(still likly to have dlc), one and done = played once = not worth the price. Hard to agrue the draw of OMP shooters.

I just want a new MechAssult(console, not a PC Mech Warrior “Sim”).

@64 that is your opinion and obviously the majority disagrees. I love both games but I must say that I don’t get nearly as frustrated playing bfbc2 as I do playing cod. But I play cod more….go figure.

Am I the only one who finds it genuinely fascinating how different generations being forced together has created unexpected inter-gamer conflicts?

as kids we had rules (we invented) for whatever game we played, now however, etiquette is stretched by age and culture barriers.

There will always be shoddy games, with imperfect balancing, narrow focus or a fanboy culture. The difference between games and music, or cinema however, is that different generations of audience are far more likely to clash.

God I’m one of the worst online ragers & I’m 30 odd. Thing is I’m not a rare exception, the most shit I get/hear is from guys around the same age. People always moan about kids/teens, but I don’t hear them. Just us men behaving badly

I’ll amend what I said to the first 30 or 40 years taking all of that angst and hate out of us, then? Or maybe it’s just a person to person thing. I’m what most of the competitive community would call a ‘carebear’ myself. I like co-op play, doing things for fun, and I even like competitive games but where the emphasis is on fun rather than outright competition.

That’s actually why I’m rather fond of Plain Sight for the PC. I keep going back to that as it’s a genuine little bit of joy. The thing with Plain Sight is that it evens the playing field by allowing for so many elements which could turn the tide of a battle at damn near any moment. That actually makes it a lot more fun, because people don’t play it so seriously then, folks just play it to be nuts. BABO kind of has the same feel to it as a competitive game. The Ship is also another little competitive gem that doesn’t rely on out and out brutality in competition, it’s far more subtle. It’s sort of like the grown up brother of Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood.

Those are a few games I’d love to see staffed by more players, but the reason I think they don’t have much of an audience is that they aren’t really competitive enough, and most online players who do the multiplayer thing are absolutely brutal with competition, and that’s what they look for. That’s actually why I’m a bit worried about Guild Wars 2, despite desperately wanting that to be a success.

I love how some people think it’s deranged to like Call of Duty, but somehow not to say that every single one of the people who do are all brainwashed adolescents who don’t know a television advert when they see one. That’s sound reasoning, right there.

Anyway, Activision would need some seriously solid evidence to prove what they’re claiming in this case, and I don’t see how they would come up with it. If all they have is a contract saying that Zampella and West have to behave themselves within a certain margin, this one’s going right down the drain.

I don’t think there’s any chance in hell for a settlement, either way. This is Mortal Kombat.

Boring.

Good post, Wulf.

Myself, I love the competitive element of gaming. I consider all the best games to be those of depth and skill. Bayonetta, Street Fighter, etc.

I’ve never liked Carebear gaming to be honest. I don’t think people who play bad should get a leg up, at least not in the multiplayer environment. That’s one reason I dislike Call of Duty’s multiplayer – the “everyone wins, even the losers” approach to levelling. Its dumb and brainless.

That said, I still don’t understand why people rage. It’s a game. If you’re getting angry over losing in a video game, you seriously need to reassess your own priorities.

@72, I don’t think the leveling up system is quite fair in many fps, i mean a pro could have just started a game & get beaten by an average guy simply because he has the better weapon, so what chance does an average guy like myself have when i start playing while everyone has been playing for ages & have better weapons? I think i prefer halo’s approach to this where all upgrades are purely cosmetic, just my opinion…

I seriously doubt that there’s a single gamer on the face of the earth that hasn’t wanted to throw their controller through the screen at one stage or other. (Without doing it, obviously.)

The nature of gaming is that it delivers extreme highs and extreme lows. That’s what makes it so compelling. It’s the extreme lows of failing/losing repeatedly (while learning) that makes finally winning so much more psychologically rewarding.

Every gamer gets angry at some stage when they game.

Different people express their anger/disappointment/joy in different ways, but eliciting such emotions from the user is part of the basic game design that the top devs all try to achieve.

Anyone who claims that they are immune to getting angry at a range of loss causing gaming annoyances, such as (but not limited to) bad/unfair AI, game breaking bugs, save wiping crashes, online cheaters/glitchers/hackers or simply bad game design in general must be either lying or suffering from apathy.

Besides, I find it difficult to believe that someone who spends so much of their time arguing with other members of the forum (like tea) with such vigour (and large amounts of foul language), suddenly becomes the pinnacle of stoicism as soon as they pick up a game pad.

Very unlikely indeed…

“so what chance does an average guy like myself have when i start playing while everyone has been playing for ages & have better weapons?”

There are two responses to this.

The first is game specific, so as you didn’t mention any games by name, I can’t really comment. Some games do give long term players an unfair advantage, but there are others that are (even though, maybe it’s not so obvious) well balanced.

The second is the general answer, which is that you’re not supposed to do well.

When you start a new game, some devs might make the assumption that you (the user) expect to fail repeatedly as part of the learning process and that you will have no problem with this.

So getting shot repeatedly by someone of the top rank with the uber-weapon will theoretically encourage you to continue getting your proverbial butt kicked until you’ve played the game long enough to get the same weapon and finally give dish out some steel toe-cap treatment of your own.

In any case, the real pro’s are the ones who can take the standard weapons with the standard options and still beat other players who are using the best set up.

Just look on Youtube and you’ll see the pro gamers running around in FPS’s using set-ups like knife or pistol only and finishing games with no deaths.

“So getting shot repeatedly by someone of the top rank with the uber-weapon will theoretically encourage you to continue getting your proverbial butt kicked until you’ve played the game long enough to get the same weapon and finally give dish out some steel toe-cap treatment of your own.”
I get the opposite feeling, i feel why bother? I give up, I’ve got better things to do than play 100′s of hours of catch up, as i said, I’m an average player, so on a fair battlefield i’ll normally place in the top half.
It’s frustrating playing a game & getting beaten by 12 year olds only because they have the better weapon from countless hours of playing, oh the bragging, i can’t take the kids’ bragging.
Games such as CoD have the worst online environments, from a horrible match up of immature kids & adults who take the game too seriously, which means i have to have everybody muted but then i can’t talk tactically with the occasional friendly player, i may as well play with bots in that case…

^^Agreed

One of the reasons that games go for an easier entry level is to ease new to the game players into the frey. Otherwise new players will have a hard time getting their feet wet and I believe by enlarge, be turned off from playing the game.

We say this in EA sports games a couple of years back, they have been trying to make the games friendlier to new players. Look an xb360 controler has, what, 16 buttons? And to do things in games it take more then just nimble fingers, it takes an understanding of what does what and in what combinations. I think this defines the reasons behind the wii/Move/Kinect.

And to a lesser degree, why CoDs gameplay to some feels water downed/pick up and play/arcady. And I think it works, look at the wide range of players across the demographic lines. Samething with Halo too tbh. Pick up N play.

But by enlarge those games still suffer from noobs getting dominated. Todays noob = tomorrow repeat customer. So it is an issue I think we can see some games adressing.

But getting killed over and over doesn’t encourage most gamers to keep playing IMO.

“I get the opposite feeling, i feel why bother? I give up, I’ve got better things to do than play 100’s of hours of catch up, as i said, I’m an average player, so on a fair battlefield i’ll normally place in the top half.”

I think this is a very interesting subject when it comes to game design.

It’s also a big proof that not everyone enjoys the same gameplay mechanics. This is another reason why I say that it’s possible to judge a game based on sales combined with hours played (which is basically ‘voting with your feet’). Because some people will loathe one game design choice, but others will find it difficult to put the game down.

What we’ve been talking about here is a typical RPG levelling up system. Take a look at any RPG, or Zelda in particular, and the user will usually start of with one heart for energy and an easily broken wooden shield. In the first few levels, the user will typically get repeatedly killed by the most basic of enemies, because they don’t even have so much as a sword.

By the end of the game, the user has about 14 hearts for energy, some sort of master sword, a level 2 boomerang, etc, etc and those initial enemies can be taken out with ease.

Obviously, there are players who really enjoy this type of system, and there are almost certainly others who will get bored during the first few levels.

Some people like it, some people hate it.

To me, this also seems to be the same when it comes to most OMFPS levelling up systems.

Take a look at a (best selling) game like Football Manager as a quick example, and you will see this complete difference in preference very clearly.

Some players only ever play in the low divisions, with the worst teams who have the least money. They enjoy the difficulty and the challenge. They enjoy getting promoted after losing almost every game in the first half of the season because their defence was so bad. Then, when they get promoted and move up one or two leagues, they think the game is too easy, get bored of winning all the time and start again.

Some other players could never enjoy playing like that. All they want to do is pick the best team with the most money and keep winning game after game after game. As soon as they start losing, they get bored and start again.

Naturally, you’re going to get a similar difference in preferences in almost every game. It’s only a small range of genres such as management sims that can afford to cater for the wide difference in preferences, so other games are left having to go either one way or the other.

It’s a game design choice made by the developer that I’m not sure it’s correct to say is necessarily a good or bad design choice.

Do you make the player struggle for rewards, or do you make all rewards meaningless, thus making the entire levelling up system worthless?

So far, based on sales and hours played, it seems as though most gamers enjoy struggling for rewards.

_______________________________________

On the subject of CoD:

On the one hand, you have people saying that anyone can play CoD and do well, because it’s so shallow that no skill is required. Yet on the other hand you have people saying that an average player can’t do well at the game because the other players have spent hundreds of hours unlocking all of the best stuff.

It’s not possible for both to be the case. Either the game is shallow and everyone can do well, or the game is deep and it takes skill and ability to get to the higher levels.

(side note: Getting to the highest level of each prestige can take anywhere between ~18 hours to ~50 hours depending on good you are.)

Whatever the case, when it comes to CoD in particular, you’ll find that the weapons that most people moan about (M16, UMP45, etc) are available to everyone at level 1. Even the biggest killstreak rewards are unlocked after just a few levels.

My view is that for an average player, it’s easy to blame the fact that you’re not doing well on someone else having a weapon/ability that you haven’t unlocked. In order to do so, however, you need to conveniently forget the fact that the best players can win most games with just a pistol or a knife.

See here for a perfect example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuICJzG87y0

Why? Because an FPS isn’t just about what weapon you have. It’s about thinking one step ahead of your opponent at all times.

If it’s possible to win with nothing other than a knife, you can guarantee that the same can be done with any of the level 1 weapons.

@GHZ, i love RPG elements in gaming, but i don’t think it should have a large place in an ultra competetive gaming environment where it does affect the outcome, cosmetic differences are fine, but in a game like CoD, i like to run & gun my way around but the unlockable weapons make a huge difference & often changes the outcome of my assualt, knowing that i normally wouild have won if he had a lower level weapon irritates me just as much as lag/frame drops at inconveniant times.

Some good points G1GA.

@Crysis, I feel your pain man, but there are some things you can do to even the odds a bit when you’re a noob.

In CoD you can pick up the weapons of dead guys, make a habit of picking up better weapons whenever you can. I agree with you, even just a red dot sight can make a massive difference, particularly at range.

There’s also a death streak perk that allows you to steal your killers class. This is less useful to noobs tbh, unless you understand what the perks you’re getting do, you can’t really make the best use of it, more useful for prestigers making their way back up the ranks.

Similarly in Bad Company 2 you can lift the kits off corpses, which can put you on a more level pegging.

Over-rated game is over-rated.

Junk. I don’t want to dirt my PC and PS3 with this game.

I’m going to point out the giant elephant in the room. If you are getting beat that bad then maybe you should try a different game or different genre. In every cod the guns are pretty well balanced (with a few exceptions). But no gun is the “uber-gun” that you’re going to destroy everyone with. Every time I prestige I have a little trouble until I unlock create-a-class. Then it’s open season on EVERYBODY. Level 50 or not, cod is not about “who’s the highest level”, if you know what you’re doing you can kill anyone.

Oldie but a goodie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0wXR3vfM28

“Different people express their anger/disappointment/joy in different ways, but eliciting such emotions from the user is part of the basic game design that the top devs all try to achieve.”

That’s funny, I never cussed out people’s mother or called them derogatory names when I lost a game of football or pool or any other number of sports offline.

But this is somehow acceptable when you’re starting into a TV screen? Really? Okay then. *rolls his eyes*

“Besides, I find it difficult to believe that someone who spends so much of their time arguing with other members of the forum (like tea) with such vigour (and large amounts of foul language), suddenly becomes the pinnacle of stoicism as soon as they pick up a game pad.”

You can believe whatever the damn hell you want to, buddy. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong. You’re not even remotely close to what I’m feeling or how I’m reacting 99% of the time.

I’m sure you would love to believe I’m sitting at the other end of the computer, veins popping out of my neck and tears running down my cheek as I’m (presumably) venomously attacking someone, but your observations of my behaviour couldn’t be further from the truth.

I sit there, make an observation on something he posts, and make my own observation in response. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because the words and language are aggressive doesn’t mean the way its being said is.

If someone is “a fucking moron”, that’s those are the adequate words to use. For some reason, I doubt you were raised in Saint Mary’s School for Good Verbal Etiquette yourself, so please, spare me the hypocrisy.

I’d say there’s maybe been one occasion where his attitude made me angry, and that’s simply because his general attitude is one I find sad and deplorable. It wouldn’t matter who it was, if they were acting the way he does.

Someone’s way of treating people and their rather disgusting moral viewpoint is pretty damn far removed from playing a video game online with strangers. You’re comparing chalk to cheese.

“Very unlikely indeed…”

Only if you’re ridiculously simple minded.

“That’s funny, I never cussed out people’s mother or called them derogatory names when I lost a game of football or pool or any other number of sports offline.

But this is somehow acceptable when you’re starting into a TV screen? Really? Okay then. *rolls his eyes*”

Please quote me where I said that doing these things that you’ve specifically mentioned here were “acceptable”.

Don’t try and invent statements that were never said.

It’s not very adult.

If you jumped to incorrect conclusions based on the simple words “had a go”, then maybe that’s just you judging people by your own standards. Perhaps asking for clarification would have been more productive.

“I’m sure you would love to believe I’m sitting at the other end of the computer, veins popping out of my neck and tears running down my cheek as I’m (presumably) venomously attacking someone, but your observations of my behaviour couldn’t be further from the truth.”

Tbh, I’d prefer it if you’d just stop.

I think that your opinions on gaming are much more interesting to read than petty insults about how much money a person may or may not have, for example.

In any case, a person’s physical demeanour has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how angry they are or how much offence they can cause when it comes to the things that they say (and type). When a person is angry, it’s possible to express it by causing others grief and upset with nothing more than a few simple breaths of laughter, so what about someone who spends their time locked in long winded, foul mouthed exchanges?

I’m not telling you that I think that you fly into uncontrolled tantrums, rather, I’m simply pointing out that you have proven yourself to be capable of reacting to others by attacking people that you’ve never met over some text on the internet (as have I). Whether you were leaning back in your chair or jumping up and down spitting feathers isn’t the point.

Because of this blatant fact, I could never take your self righteous tone regarding reassessing priorities*, seriously.

*Now that is hypocrisy.

“Please quote me where I said that doing these things that you’ve specifically mentioned here were “acceptable”.”

Reminder to self: Exaggeration and sarcasm never works online with, even when it’s made pretty blatantly obvious to someone.

@83 completely agree. The times I hear people moaning that somethings OP & should be nerfed. I swear they won’t be happy till we’re all running around with just one gun.