Originally Posted by Dart06
You probably shouldn't go around pushing your opinion on others because of it's bias.
People like CoD over Battlefield for a variety of reasons. I prefer the faster paced, more arcadey gameplay of Ghosts than the slower and more strategic gameplay of Battlefield 4.
Trust me, I enjoy Battlefield 4 as much as the next guy but there has always been something gameplay wise that just feels "off" to me. It's been that way in Battlefield 3 and 4.
Liking one over the other doesn't make someone a l33t pc master race gamer, it just means they prefer one gameplay style over another.
Ghosts is also a good looking CoD game, and by far the best one to date. Just because the optimization is downright louzy doesn't make it not a pretty game to look at.
It's nice that you have an opinion..
Most "people" you refer to liking Call of Duty, are not the same "people" who are playing COD five months later... are they? Those anticipating Ghost where doing so because they had stopped playing the last one..
Yes, it is known that younger minds have limited periphery.. and, that run & gun style of play is much easier for them.
But as said, after YEARS of "easy play", one will eventually graduate to something a tad more strategic & challenging. A game that consist of something more than yourself, etc.
Again, the adolescent mind is well known, and/or why people choose an arcade shooter over something more demanding, like BF.
My opinion comes, based on those who claim COD is relevant today... or, even over the past 5 years.
And that it's "blockbuster" status wasn't because of the game itself.. but because of the marketing hype of the game. As a player & community we've acknowledged relatively few COD games have been that great. Not-to-mention it's "blockbuster" sales, have come on consoles and that in the PC arena COD is end-of-line.
They know this, so now they are marketing simulated FUR on an NPC in a fps shooter..? These guys are trying so hard to market this turd & save face.