I don't think you can go from 60 fps looking 20-30% better to it having a similar impact in terms of gameplay . While the 30 fps moon doesn't look quite as nice in motion as the 60 fps moon, it still is perfectly targetable. Maybe you can say 60fps makes it 5% easier to target very fast moving targets, but even then things like the player's skill at tracking a fast moving target and their aiming sensitivity settings will be vastly more important at determining whether they hit said target rather than the framerate (though obviously if its not a solid 30 fps and fluctuates between 15/20-30 or so, then you're going to have issues).
I played significant amount of MP time in COD4, MW2 & Black Ops on 360/PS3 and while I enjoyed it, I still preferred Halo or BF3 in terms of gameplay/ gunplay (though not BFBC2 incidentally, they made a big improvement in gun handling from BFBC2 to BF3). And I think that's down mostly to the mechanics and pace of the games rather than the 60 vs 30 fps.
And judging by the huge success of 30 fps Destiny, vs ~60 Titanfall which fizzled out, I don't think any overwhelming preference for 60 fps gameplay in MP shooters is evident.
COD games are so popular because of their mechanics, they are much easier to pick up and play than something like Halo or BF, I know noobs who'll run around with an M60 in COD and rack up loads of kills but'll struggle to get a single kill in Halo (because you can't just get see a guy first, spray half your clip and kill them with the 4 bullets you landed). Ditto with BF, which takes at least 20 hours, just so you can be ranked in the middle of the post-match summary (I know, because it took me about that long to do exactly that in BF4 on PS4, despite spending 100+ hours playing BF3 on 360 - albeit with a 1+ year gap of not playing BF in between).
So I think 343i trying to replicate COD's success by matching them on framerate is silly. They tried to bring the mechanics more in line with COD's in Halo 4 and failed miserably, and even if H4 was 60 fps people would still prefer playing 30 fps Halo 3/Reach.
Other than mechanics, COD is also a gaming institution that is assured runaway success merely based on its past success and the network effects of the huge COD community and the fact that even non-core gamers and non-gamers are familiar with the franchise.
So all those things are going to be hard to trump, and saying framerate is the major reason why COD is so successful seems like specious reasoning to me.
You're right it's not, the reason COD is successful is not because of it's 60fps refresh, if I implied it, then I was wrong in that statement, I don't like COD period. I grew up with Quake and CS roots and busting my chops to get the fps counter above 100 was the key for me to perform better (even if my monitor couldn't show it), and I did perform better with higher frames than when I had lower frames.
Gameplay is still king, I won't debate you here. But if gameplay is solid and fun, then I don't think 343i is doing disservice by upping the frame rate to further improve the mechanics of the game.
It's an interesting damn if you do, damn if you don't situation. People left Halo because it's all the same, at least this is the argument I read often, it's the same game, people will leave it shortly after it launches.
If true then 343i tweaking the formula, adding different game modes, different methods of traversing the map, abilities etc, and changing the way the game is played is likely the right course of action. So I won't fault them for it, I think if H5 was like H4, I think it would truly flop.
Graphics imo, are a one time thing, once you get over graphics the only thing left is gameplay. And everyone gets over graphics after a certain point in time. You can only be awed for so long, and having said that, I don't mind the tradeoff of graphics in return for more frames. Frame rate feels better at all times, graphics will eventually be ignored by the player. i hated all the motion blur added in Bf3, it just made the game harder to win at. I really liked BFBC2, I thought overall it was a better game than BF3 and BF4. Though BF3 was better than BF4, and BF3 only became really good after their premium service finished with Aftermath expansion.
Now on the topic of split screen: Losing split screen hurts, I don't disagree, but what if there is less than 5% of the player base doing split screen, is it worth it to lose double the frame rate for the 5%? I think so, I generally don't have people over to play games with me at all anymore.
Sandbox stills seems to be intact (for now). War zone is an interesting addition to the game. It's 12v12 ! (at least there is some improvement here!)
As with TF vs Destiny - well, you'd have to compare how many Destiny folks are playing Crucible vs the number playing Destiny, and for what reasons. With TF you are playing for the game. With Destiny, most people play to unlock more loot, which has been a driving point for players to invest time in both the PVE grind and now a PVP grind.
