Those are reasons?
5 - Fast paced action... Not really, single player is just move up vs endlessly spawning guards and waiting for shots to move up on, multi is spam LB + RB with a bit of crouch and prone ASSUMING you play spray and aim assist where you are more likely to find a campfest which isn't fast paced at all. Casual shooter? Oxymoron, not saying every FPS should be played hardcore 24/7 none stop tournaments, simply that you can play any game on any platform "casually", COD is just lazy and scrubby.
4 - Set pieces? I can partially credit but compared to what? its some what prematurely moot. Want to vs against previous battlefields? Sure, you the player make your set pieces, nothing like a black hawk loaded with friends swing it in above a cap point to cap yourself a point with tanks which a couple of your teammates then take and ride over the hills to stomp another point with you and remaining friends gunning out of the black hawk suppressing the point and covering friends in tanks from opposition AT and air support and when all looks grim a commanders artillery strike ensuring that last second on the capture and a buggy drop to get you out of there in time. etc, every BF2 player can tell you an amazing story on how teammate and vehicle support came together to form something action film worthy. CoD? like 1 scene out of a game which is attempting to play like a film.
3 - Framerate... oh dear lets not get started
2 - Publicity, is this even a good thing? I point to MW2 and black ops, the topics that existed on these very forums and many more around, *hype* *hype* *hype* *release* *disappointment* *wait on patch* *preowned bin*, not to mention the negative publicity which gets hoovered in too like say short campaigns, bad net code, annoying features, activisions ignorance/refusal to listen to customers, look at the recent tears from treyarch "wahh gamers dont know a good thing our game isnt broken".
1 - Recognisability, partially a credit as all the console kids and folk alike will be all over it, but again like above, is this a good thing? I'd say its recognised for the wrong things, namely everything thats wrong with online gaming in recent years, its the epitome of the downfall.
Most of the dudes arguments lie on "wahh i dont has good pc", he overly pimps what spec BF3 will require, and sure whilst it will probably be heavy, its unlikely to be so heavy every pc gamer will be made to go buy a new pc just for it, as shakey as DICE are with new releases im sure their optimisation will be good enough that ample PC's can run it just fine and still have it looking and running fantastic. GTA4 was hailed as been a bad port, personally i say its only true requirement is a quad core processor which again IMO should be standard for any gaming PC, they dont really cost that much more over a dual (at the time gta4 was around a Q6600 was only 20-50 more over a Q8300 which still did gta well but you really noticed the improvement on a quad), but when you got GTA4 running on a reasonable rig with the pieces in the right place? ran much better than consoles, much much better. What if that dude did have a pimped to the nth dimension PC? Would his opinion change the other way? Because on the PC side of the fence COD stands for garbage and BF franchise whilst controversial stands tall as one of the defining FPS's amongst others like quake/tf/UT etc as being unrivalled on consoles, even console ports or versions fall flat compared to their predecessors.
Personally i'm sitting back from all the hype train and news slinging between EA and Acti, news (good and bad) on battlefield and mw3, i already know both games will disappoint in aspects and excel in others, whilst im skipping cod and picking bf3 and am ultimately more interested in bf3, i really can't be bothered with all of this really but its articles like that which just make me think *facepalm* someone needs to catch up and pay attention for a supposed "journalist".
Edited by FireFalcon (Thu 07-Jul-11 08:06:57)