I brought up age classifications, not gender. When it was suggested the cartoony elements were added for females (fox pro's assertion) instead of an under 17 crowd (my assertion) that is supposedly not marketed to, I hit Google and found the admittedly non-scientific blops2 demographic poll from IGN (link included at that time) and posted that I thought their number for females was low, but regardless, there are more under 17 year old males playing this game than females of any age. THAT started the pissing match. Since gender was never an issue for me in the first place, and Fox Pro would never be allowed to concede there may be content designed to appeal to the under 17 crowd (because of the M rating) I conceded the point. Perhaps I should not have changed my under 17 to under 17 males, but it seemed best with FP taking all females.
I still feel that there are more males under 17 playing the game than females of any age. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone else here prove the opposite is true? Not unless they have access to Activision demographics information that I am not privy to. Is it worth a third day of arguing over? Not in my book, especially when the cartoony elements are just 1 of the 8 items I thought were included to appeal to the under 17 crowd in a post I made on the 25th. However, if anyone would like to continue the debate, I would hope they would do it in another thread so we can get back on topic here.
For a 4th time, I admit I have no data to prove the previous guess I made about the female population in blops2 being 2-3%. From the responses here, it appears to be more. Much more.
Frankly, if anyone wants to bash me about something I said in here, I would think the posting I made on the 28th, in the second to last post on page 14 about the blog article that led to this topic would be the one.
It is about the blog, includes a link to the entire blog story, includes an entire paragraph from the blog and how I felt that despite the title of his article, Mr. Amrich failed to show there was any real death threat, his examples of death threats were anything but death threats and the entire article was self serving, including using the same tactic he feels journalists use against the gaming industry.
I would, however, like to apologize to the entire community for not researching the original blog before my very first response here. Had I done that instead of going off the title of this thread and a handful of summaries I read in the thread (which turned out to be untrue or half truths to make a point) I would not have even bothered going down the "under 17 years old" path.
Had I done that instead of going off the title of this thread and a handful of summaries I read in the thread (which turned out to be untrue or half truths to make a point) I would not have even bothered going down the "under 17 years old" path.
You weren't the only one. I think it really stresses a good point though that a large part of the community likes to hate the little kids who play this game. Sure they're annoying, but until the community can agree that immaturity has no age limit I don't think we can come to a consensus on how to best deal with the situation.
My beef wasn't with the kids, it was with Activision for putting out a product I feel is increasingly aimed at them with each iteration.
We buy the product, we tell them the maps are too small & cluttered, the spawns are borked, the lag to much, the sight lines too short, camo should conceal you, not make you visible across the map and the maps keep getting smaller, the sight lines shorter, the spawns worse, the lag at new levels of unplayable. With the exception of lag, in my humble opinion, these are all to satisfy the younger gamer which is how I brought up the under 17 crowd - an Activision problem, not a kid problem.
Within this game and unto itself, we have the freezing issue, the helicopter noise issue, the no sound issue, the search for your disbanded party for a day issue and others.
When the community asks for the same list of changes to be made in order to make the game playable again and again and all we get are denials that any of those complaints are true, "but here are some postage stamp maps where a middle school kid would like to play (skate park, paintball place, ski slope, running lava, rock start stage etc) and glow in the dark camo for ya. That'll be $15.00 cha ching" we have a right to be angry.
Mr. Amrich could have chosen to include positive tweets and constructive criticism tweets, instead, he picks three that he describes as death threats in his blog, then we find out they are "Yet Vahn often gets told he should die in a fire or kill himself or is a horrible person." While there is no need for content like that, not one of those is a death threat or remotely close to a death threat.
He goes on to state that these horrible statements made by COD and other gamer communities all make the gaming industry look bad.
Of course a journalist will report on a crazy fringe person before a saint, it gets readers. No one would read an article titled "Johnny thanks Vahn for nerfing the AN-94, sends him roses." That is the same reason Mr. Amrich titled his blog article "Stop Threatening Game Developers" instead of "Weapon balancing complete" with a sub paragraph stating not everyone is happy and including some constructive criticism tweets.
So, while he wants the community to stop calling out TreyArchs failure to address the same problems for over a year, or going so far as to call someone there a "terrible person" he wants us to all just post praise for those that gave us such a flawless product because God forbid we say something that might be used in a lawsuit later or something that might make a scandalous headline that grabs a reader, like, oh I don't know, how about "Stop Threatening Gamer Developers"
Mr. Amrich, you are a hypocrite. I'm glad it is a personality flaw and not something fatal, I'd hate to get banned.
Very interesting read (article and entire thread, safe from the digression into female players)
I am definitely not condoning the actions and attitudes of those who make these threats when things change in a way they do not like, but...
It is an interesting point that the series has come to the place where the people who are playing the game are of a maturity demographic that think it is ok to make threats like that (regardless of age) - the game is catering to those who do not know to not bite the hand that feeds them; Ironic that the article brings that to mind the same thing from the gamer's perspective as well...
It is very unfortunate, no matter which angle you look at it.