Erm. My point was to separate the games that

a) specialize in multiplayer (Quake Wars, BF series, Tribes, UT, Q3, Modern Warfare,TF2)
from games that
b) focus on single-player and waste time on an unbalanced/exploitable/overall gimmicky/crappy multiplayer component that everyone will forsake in 15 minutes and go play a game from a) list

There's nothing new anymore, but implementation is what makes all the difference.

I was neither trashing nor praising BF3 multiplayer, but I understand the reasons why it would be made. Rage multiplayer, on the other hand, strikes me as falling into the b) category.

Why I would compare BF to UT? Because they're both primarily multiplayer games. One of them has a far less "serious/real" approach to its levels, graphics and mechanics than the other. I'm not into the whole "serious/real" bit, as stated earlier.

As for "disturbing", yes it's my personal judgement. I am much more at peace blowing up shit in a made-up setting and watching gibs fly than being in some quasi-realistic village blowing up quasi-realistic soldiers with some rather, let's face it, boring quasi-realistic weapons.