I can’t seem to understand the preference of the flyback converters for the reason given below
When you talk about the differences between a flyback and or forward converter, you could say the following:

the flyback converter is usually suited for low to moderate output power (100-150 W as a practical maximum)
the flyback is well suited for moderate to high output voltages and low to moderate currents. For instance, 12 V/2 A, 5 V/1 A or 130 V/1 A in the old CRT applications
the flyback is cheap and requires a simple switch in the primary side plus a diode in the secondary side. Two windings in the basic configuration are needed for the transformer and a third one brings an auxiliary voltage for the controller \$V_{aux}\$.
the flyback works ok with large input voltage variations
the flyback is noisy in the output and generates quite high rms currents for the output capacitor
the flyback is inherently slow and suffers from a right-half-plane zero which depends on the load and duty ratio.
in current-mode control, the flyback suffers sub-harmonic oscillations.
the flyback is an extremely popular topology in the consumer market.
you can build multi-output converters easily but cross-regulation might be at stake.
so much more to say... : )

Now, the forward;

the forward is well suited for low output voltages and strong currents: 5 V/10 A or 3.3 V/30 A for instance.
the forward likes narrow input voltage ranges. You could not easily design a wide-range input forward converter like you would with a flyback.
the forward requires 1 switch in the primary, 1 diode for the demagnetization and two diodes in the secondary.
the transformer requires three windings, one power primary, one demagnetization winding (1:1 turns ratio with the primary usually) and a third for the secondary side. A fourth winding will be necessary for the self-supply of the controller.
a forward requires an inductor in the secondary side, it is a buck-derived topology.
the forward is less sensitive to sub-harmonic oscillations because the magnetizing current plays the role of a compensation ramp. Sometimes it is enough, sometimes you need to add more.
the forward, as a buck, offers a non-pulsating output current and thus imposes a low rms current on the output capacitor.
the forward can be very fast with a high crossover. There is no RHP zero in a forward converter.
you cannot exceed 50% duty ratio for the basic configuration while you can easily exceed this number with a flyback converter.
multi-output is possible with excellent cross-regulation if output inductors are coupled.
member of the buck-derived topologies, the forward can be extended to a 2-switch version, a half-bridge, a full-bridge, a push-pull, an active clamp etc.

These are the few things I think about for these converters. The flyback is the cheapest and simplest to implement of the two and it explains its success in the consumer market. The forward, especially in its 2-switch version, it extremely rugged and was popular in PC silver boxes a while back. The active-clamp forward is popular in dc-dc bricks for the telecom market and PoE (power over Ethernet) applications.