Ben-DutkaMaking blanket statements about groups of fans is never a good idea. And if any offended shooter fans want to even the score, feel free to toss out some generalizations of your own. I'm a fan of old-school JRPGs, so accuse me of living in the past, liking male heroes that look like females, and heading off to cosplay conventions. Go right ahead.
Because I'm about to make an observation that is bound to annoy a great many: I look at various major sources and sites like N4G every day, and when it comes to shooters, many of the most popular headlines involve the graphical display of any given FPS title. For example, the #1 story currently on N4G is, "Battlefield 3 Native Resolutions on Consoles Confirmed." And this is very common. People dissecting videos for the slightest visual imperfection and using it as ammunition against the "other" fans (i.e., BF3 vs. MW3), the continual push by publishers to promote the graphics (EA pushing Frostbite 2), etc.
Unless a game features a blend of gameplay that disqualifies it as a first-person shooter (examples would be Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dead Island ), it really seems that graphics are the primary concern. And that's probably because shooters really haven't done anything too different in the past few years, right? Or is it just because fans of the genre are self-admitted graphic whores? Resistance 3 has gotten a ton of flak for not being as refined or polished as upcoming blockbusters, but it's a great shooter. I'm not sure why that fact is being overlooked.
Beyond the EA vs. Activision mud-slinging, it really seems as if any new FPS immediately falls under the graphical microscope, and that's all the fans really care about. Now, I could be wrong. And I'm not insulting the shooter fans for being shallow or something; I'm just wondering if the visual presentation really is most important in their minds. It's a mild, cheerful, unassuming question, so don't freak out…I just wanna know.