Battlefield 3 is better than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Debate Rounds (4)
To begin, I would like to establish a common ground with my opponent on what shall be defined as better. According to dictionary.com, better is described as "of superior quality or excellence." 
Now allow me to elaborate on why Battlefield 3 (from now on it will be abbreviated as BF3) is superior in quality to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (from now on it will be abbreviated as MW3)
BF3's Frostbite 2.0 engine supports, "unlimited light sources, allowing the placement of hundreds of light sources in a single room and increasing the level of realism."  The engine allows for both micro destruction (such as small objects like cover) or major scale destruction (where entire buildings can collapse).
The following video will compare both games' graphics and illustrate BF3's engine capacity.
It clear that the BF3 is superior in graphics. Furthermore, MW3's has errors in gun detail as shown by this screenshot: http://www.gamersbook.com...
Allow me to list a a plethora of features that are unique to BF3:
1) Player controlled vehicles
2) 64 player battles (on PC)
3) Specific class system with unique class equipment
4) Over 100 ribbons and medal awards for good play
5) Larger maps
6) Squad based multiplayer (where you can spawn on your squadmates)
These are the major highlights, but there are too many to list. Refer to my source if you would like a more detailed report on the features of BF3. 
BF3 also includes entire gameplay mechanics that are non-existent in MW3. An example of this is the bullet drop mechanic. The bullet drop mechanic is a feature of the Frostbite 2 engine that allows weapons to account for bullet travel time as well as gravity. This adds a layer of realism to the game and a greater skill curve for competitive players. A demonstration and explanation of the bullet drop mechanic can be seen here:
BF3 weapons sound different depending on the area where they are fired. The audio is crisp and realistic, and far better than MW3's pop guns. An accurate comparision between both games can be seen here: #!
My opponent will attempt to discredit my argument by saying that MW3 is more popular than BF3. Let me remind you that this is not a discussion on what is more popular, but what is superior in quality as previously defined. Correlation does not imply causation. While MW3 might have sold more games, this does not neccessarily indicate that MW3 is a superior or of the same quality as BF3.
I disagree with my opponents defintion of better, I defined it as "preferred". I feel this defintion is better is more relavent in today's debate as we are comparting to things. His defintion is simply opitionated, and if we look to an opionated defintion we will never reach a closure on today's debate.
Now it is simple to say that Call Of Duty(CoD): Modern Warfare 3 (MW3), matches my defintion of better, but that it also matches my opponent's (this will be done when I attack his case).
People prefer the MW3 more than BF3. In the first 24 hours MW3 sold 6.5 million units it toke BF3 an entire week to sell only 5 million. This shows how people would rather price MW3 rather than BF3 since it is better. This alone means the resolution should be affirmed, but shall we continue? MW3 in the first day on sale, there were 7 million multiplayer hours logged, averaging 6.19 hours per playre , while BF3 users did 4.45 hours. Again not only does this show that it sold more, but people wantd to continute to play because it is better, leaving the resolution in the affirmative.
Short and sweet.
My opponent's case:
I will first address the Frostbite Engine which my opponent said is superior and therefore better, this is completly false. "Frostbite 2 has really disappointed me." Good enough right there, already showing the lack of "being superior. "Why is there no splash effect for water?... there is no splash effect and it essentially looks like they are walking on water." A game in which soliders can walk on water, but be swimming 0.0? Yeah this in titles a game which lacks being superior in graphics if something as simple as swimming is not even illustrated correctly. But of course there is more. "If you've played Battlefield 3, you may have noticed what I believe is a stupid bug.. Once you've destroyed a tank, or killed a person, you may end up using the tank for cover and using a person to be invisible to your enemies". Last time I held up a person in real life I didn't become invisible, I simply became a prisoner. This shows a complete lack of "being superior" on BF3's part. It is clear that while Frostbite is bragged about superior graphics they are losing out on simple things that need to be in a game to be superior. This is summed up in the final quote, "Is it me or is Frostbite 2 just about visuals? It seems to be that all DICE seemed to brag about was how good something will look in FrostBite 2. I mean I've seen better engines who can do so much mor than what FrostBite 2 does.".
"unlimited light sources, allowing th placement of hundreds of light sources in a single room and increasing hte level of realism", my opponent states. That may sound superior in an engine but in order to be superior you must also include the small details, like a splash effect so it doesn't look like you are walking on water. He then says, "The engine allows for both micro destruction (such as small objects like cover) or major scale destruction (where entire buildings can collapse)." If a small object, such as a person, is getting such good destruction then why can you still hide behind them and be invisible, it is because the engine once again forgets about the little things. While the graphics look good they are missing small important details that lack in the engine, lacking superiorness.
WM3 does provide this small things, and makes the game more fun and more prefrable to play.
This contention needs to be ignored all together, it is completly opionated. One person could think X feature of MW3 is better than feature X of BF3.
MW3 has the ablity to swim and not swim/walk. Yes, this is a legitmant argument as I speficify above.
I will give this argument to the affirmative, since it is simply not important in today's debate.
My opponent concludes what I am going to do and makes the argument that this is of what is better and better is to do with quality. But he simply forgets my right to define terms as I would like, this means this section of this debate is simply ignoring rules of debate, since he did not clarify I couldn't define better the way I wished. My opponent should be marked down for this as he simply wishes to remove a fundemental right of debate.
I see nothing but an affimativ on the resolution.
Maedis forfeited this round.
milktea forfeited this round.
Maedis forfeited this round.
milktea forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.