Battlefield 3 is better than MW3
Debate Rounds (3)
I'd first like to thank you for starting this debate. Both Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 look to be shaping up as amazing games this year. This whole MW3 vs. BF3 feud has been going on for quite a while now, and a deep rivalry has developed between the fans of these FPS giants. I expect this to be a fun debate.
I would like to make a few clarifications before I begin my argument.
- Firstly, it should be known that both games involved in this debate have not been released yet, so the goal therefore should be to prove what game WILL be better than the other.
- Secondly, since neither my opponent or I has had the opportunity to play the finished versions of these games, our projections on this issue can be derived from sources such as demos, gameplay footage, known components of the game, and also the Battlefield 3 beta.
- Thirdly, based on the certain context of my opponent's opening argument, I am under the impression (and I ask my opponent to please correct me if I am wrong) that this debate refers more extensively the multiplayer aspects of these games.
I'll start off my rebuttal by mentioning your one and only contention for why Battlefield 3 is better than Modern Warfare 3: "Realism". First of all, realism does not always make a game superior to others, but I will come back to this point momentarily. Instead, I would like to go ahead and address your argument for how Battlefield 3 is, in fact, more realistic than MW3. You provide very meager support for this claim, insisting that MW3 is unrealistic because it is impossible to live through two 50cal bullets to the head.
This does sound rather unrealistic, doesn't it? Perhaps it may have seemed unrealistic to you in the original Modern Warfare, when that player using Juggernaut (a perk that grants damage reduction) survived your two sniper shots to the face. Maybe it seemed equally unrealistic to you in Modern Warfare 2 when those two bullets to the dome didn't even seem to phase that noob with the Painkiller deathstreak (granting a temporary damage reduction to the player). Yes, I can see where you may have found it unreal, perhaps even infuriating that these players (who clearly don't have any heavy head protection to resist the bullets), would not die to your clean and lethally placed shots. However, your claim that it takes two headshots with the 50cal to kill another player ONLY APPLIES to Modern Warfare 1 and 2. The game we are disputing now is Modern Warfare 3. As I have explained, the only two instances where a player could survive two 50cal bullets to the head are when that player either had the Juggernaut perk or the Painkiller deathstreak. There were many others who were just as frustrated as you about these "unrealistic" annoyances. That's why Infinity Ward listened, and both Juggernaut AND Painkiller have both been confirmed to be OUT of MW3.
Now, my opponent may argue that the addition of the Juggernaut Armor killstreak to MW3 would undermine my point. However, this killstreak gives the player who earns it a HEAVILY armored Juggernaut suit (contained in a care package dropped by a helicopter) that completely covers the wearer from head to toe. I ask the readers to look at the link given below:
Clearly, the idea of these ridiculously armored soldiers being able to survive two 50cal headshots is not nearly as unrealistic as the frustrating follies of damage mitigation found in the previous Modern Warfare installments.
You hinged your entire argument on BF3 being the superior game due to it having higher realism than MW3, and supported this assertion only by saying it was unrealistic to survive two 50cal shots to the head. Since I have negated this point, I have negated the solitary claim you had for your entire argument.
I would now like to return to the point I mentioned earlier. Even if I had not just negated this sole claim of yours, that BF3 is more "realistic" than MW3, you still have not provided any grounds for which realism equals superiority in the gaming industry. Is a hunting-simulation game better than other shooting games because it is technically more "realistic"? No, of course not. This logic is flawed, especially in the world of video games, where fantasy comes to life. We do things in games that we could never do in real life, and that's the fun of it.
So, instead of the defining trait of a superior game being "realism" (which I have already refuted against BF3 having any advantage of), I contend that instead, the traits that should determine which is the superior game are:
3) Gameplay Variance
4) Online Community
I assert that Modern Warfare 3 is superior to Battlefield 3 in all of these aspects and therefore the superior game overall. I will expand on my contentions in later rounds.
I wish my opponent good luck in the remainder of the debate!
first I would like to say that yes "realism" is not the end all be all of video games. but it does set the difference between these two games. MW3 is even parts realism, and arcade style. if what I have seen from the videos, and what I have played of MW2, is the game play they are going for. then you have realistic looking guns,levels, and player models. but you also have "perks" (or in other words upgrades like, increased ammo, and bullet penetration),and "point streaks" (unlock-able stuff like uavs, and care packages through kills). which are of course not realistic, because I'm pretty sure that every soldier has access to sam turrets, and "Juggernaut" armor through getting enough "points". but I can see the appeal of a game like call of duty, because its a "pick up and play" kind of game. it gives of a arcade feel, with the incredible graphics.
Modern Warfare 3 is going to make more money than Battlefield 3, I will give my opponent that. but battlefield 3 is shaping to win where it counts in the long run, critical success. Battlefield 3 has won over fifty awards, and it has not even come out yet! click the link below to see all the awards for your self.
Also here is a question, wouldn't you love to be able to actually destroy a building with your "noob tube" or grenade launcher? you can not in call of duty, at lease as far as I am aware of. but in battlefield 3, you can completely destroy almost anything on the map, till its only a pile of rubble. how is this useful in a shooter like battlefield and modern warfare? well say you got an annoying camper, who just keeps racking up kills because he is very good with explosives like the c4, and claymore. in modern warfare, you have to just deal with him pretty much, because the more he kills, the more stuff like sentry turrets he gets to protect his "base". whereas in battlefield 3, all you have to do is plant some c4, get in a tank, and blow the living crap out of his building, till it the ceiling drops on him. giving you a kill to remember. now I ask the voters, or even my opponent which kill is more satisfying, dropping an entire building on you nemesis, or trying over and over again to get the camper out, and then finally killing him?
so now I will use your four part list in the favor of battlefield 3.
Modern Warfare as I said before is a more "pick up and play" kind of game. battlefield 3 is a very fun and almost as addicting as modern warfare is. but you have to play a couple of games to actually get a feel for the game. battlefield 3 is a gamer where you are going to die allot before you actually get a feel for the controls. so if you want a game that's more "party" friendly then by all means go for Modern Warfare 3. but if you want to feel as if you are a real soldier on the battlefield, then go for battlefield 3.
Well both games have the same modes. Battlefield 3, and Modern Warfare 3 both have a two player coop mode,that is set place during the single player campaign, but are mission designed for two players. modern warfare 3 goes a little farther by having a survival mode in the coop missions. the amount of entertainment you get from these games are based on your play style.
3) Gameplay Variance
This is where I think battlefield 3 wins hands down. because in modern warfare 3 (as far as I have seen, plus what I have played of Modern Warfare 2), the campaign and "spec ops" coop missions are varied. but in multiplayer you are no matter what, running and shooting, even if it is not the goal to kill, you always are. but in battlefield 3's multiplayer. you can rank up to the max rank, without ever firing a bullet! but for the trigger finger crowed, yes, you get more experience for killing. but the main point is, is that you get just as many xp points for killing as you do for reviving some one with the assault's class's defibrillator. also in battlefield 3 you get a whole armory of vehicles to drive,or fly. you get,jets,Humvees,tanks, and quads just to name a few. in comparison, in modern warfare 3, you are always running and gunning.
4) Online Community
this is where I will admit modern warfare 3 wins, because there are tens of thousands more players playing modern warfare, then there are playing any of the battlefield games. which is why modern warfare 3 is going to sell more. not only that, but lets not forget the new app that is pulling all the great modern warfare content, (when I say "great" I mean for call of duty fans), call of duty elite. for those who do not know what call of duty elite is, its a new service that pulls all the states, saved videos, and other stuff, and puts it in one place. but there is a catch, not only to you have to be a gold member on the xbox to use it, you have to also pay to use it. but not to be out done dice has set up there own service as well, its called the "battlelog". it does everything call of duty elite does for modern warfare, but for free! but if you go by the number of people playing call of duty games, and using mics,(if my experience during the battlefield 3 open beta says anything).
now that I have made the points I wanted to make. I give my opponent good luck.
In addressing your second mentioning of "realism" in this debate, I must point out the last argument I made in the opening round. I made the statement that since you had not "provided any grounds for which realism equals superiority in the gaming industry", that "realism" could not be considered a legitimate factor in determining what game is better.
You conceded this point to me by agreeing that "realism is not the end all be all of video games". Even though you followed by claiming that realism sets "the difference between these two games", and went on to give examples of this, your failure to deny my assertion that realism is irrelevant in game superiority has now voided any argument you may make of Battlefield 3 being better than Modern Warfare 3 due to realism.
I think we can both agree that financial success really doesn't prove anything about how good a game is, so I'll just briefly talk about the awards Battlefield 3 has won. These awards, although quite bountiful, have all been won from events such as E3, Tokyo Game Show, and Gamescom. Although there is no reason that DICE shouldn't be proud of all these awards, the fact of the matter is that these honors awarded to Battlefield 3 are honors that do NOT reflect the final product of the game. They instead reflect the presentation of the non-retail version of the game. Since this debate refers to which final version of the game will be better, I claim that although Battlefield 3's impressive amount of awards may show that the game will have a promising release, it does NOT show superiority over Modern Warfare 3.
I'll now move on to your statement about the destructible environments present in Battlefield 3. You claim that the only reason this feature gives BF3 an edge over MW3 is because it allows the player to kill campers easier. For those of you who don't know video game lingo, a "camper" is a player who remains stationary in a well-placed spot and waits for other players to run past him so he can obtain an easy kill. This is considered to be very cheap and frustrating in the video game world, and is drastically shunned upon. You state that because vehicles can be used to blow up the building a camper is in, it is easier to kill a camper. This implies that since Modern Warfare 3 lacks vehicular combat, it is therefore harder to kill a camper in that game.
The problem with this logic is that it is very situational. You make the assumption that all campers camp in buildings, which is definitely not always the case. Campers camp in areas that they consider "safe". Battlefield players know that being inside a building while vehicles are accessible to the enemy is one of the most vulnerable positions they can be in. Campers, therefore, are prone to camp in a much "safer" area, where the threat of vehicles is not as present. Your argument of destructible environments reducing the severity of camping in Battlefield 3 indeed applies to only specific situations.
So what about Modern Warfare 3? Is it harder to kill a camper in this game? No, it is not, and the reason for this is simple. The game provides SEVERAL tools to deal with this issue. Support killstreaks include three specific utilities to alleviate the possibility of campers. These are the UAV (shows the dots of enemies on the whole team's radar), the Recon Drone (targets enemies so the whole team can see their location), and the Advanced UAV (shows position AND direction of the enemy team on the radar). Perhaps you may argue that these are also circumstantial since they are killstreaks. However, there are also tools given to players that do not involve the aggregation of kills: The flash-bang grenade and stun grenade. These two tactical grenades help disrupt campers by hindering their vision and movement. If you were just killed by a camper hiding in a room, all it takes to exact your revenge is a tactical grenade thrown inside followed by a barrage of bullets into the helpless noob. These handy tools are NOT present in Battlefield 3. Camping is NOT harder to deal with in Modern Warfare 3.
Now, on to the four main points I created to determine the superior game.
Your argument is that the Modern Warfare is a "pick up and play" game, while Battlefield games have a steeper learning curve. I will agree with you on this point: Battlefield definitely takes a longer time to get accustomed enough to do well. However, the beauty of the Call of Duty games is that they are easy to play, but difficult to master. This is similar to the sport of bowling. Anyone can have a good time bowling, but those who bowl often and invest more work and time into the sport will always out-perform those who just play casually. Bowling is definitely more playable than a sport such as fencing, and Modern Warfare 3 is definitely more playable than Battlefield 3. You even concede that MW3 is more "party friendly" than BF3. You go on to claim that "if you want to feel as of you are a real soldier on the battlefield", that Battlefield 3 has the advantage. However, referring back to the topic of realism being irrelevant to superiority, this claim has no impact.
You don't really make any arguments here, but instead state that "the amount of entertainment you get from these games are based on your play style". In comparing the two games to each other, you say that "both games have the same modes" (campaign, two-player mission coop, and multiplayer), but "Modern Warfare 3 goes a little farther by having a survival mode". Based on the evidence you yourself have provided, Modern Warfare 3 has, numerically, a larger quantity of entertainment value. I have my own reasoning for why MW3 provides more entertainment, but since you have already tipped the scale in MW3's favor, and since I am running low on characters remaining, I'll save my arguments for the final round if I need them.
3) Gameplay Variance
This is the only quality that you really seem to dispute Battlefield 3 winning. Your argument for this is that Battlefield has distinct classes and vehicular combat, while Modern Warfare 3 is just "running and gunning". The counter to the distinct classes of Battlefield are simply the custom-created classes in Modern Warfare. With the various perks, the classes can be differentiated just as much (if not more than) Battlefield 3.
The real point of your argument here is the vehicle-play in Battlefield. Yes, Call of Duty does not have vehicular combat. Battlefield is more varied in THIS sense. However, in the big picture, Modern Warfare 3 is indeed more varied in gameplay than Battlefield 3. How could this be? Simple: Modern Warfare 3 has GREATLY more game modes than Battlefield 3.
Let's look at the number of game modes BF3 will contain:
- Team Deathmatch
Now, Modern Warfare 3's game modes:
- Team Deathmatch
- Free For All
- Capture the Flag
- Search and Destroy
- Kill Confirmed
- Team Defender
- Drop Zone
- Team Juggernaut
- Gun Game
- One in the Chamber
It is crystal clear that Modern Warfare 3 offers a MUCH more diverse and varied selection of game types. Sure, BF3 may have vehicles to switch things up a little, but MW3 without question contains more variance in its gameplay. You may be stuck "running and gunning", but you certainly have much more to do in the multiplayer.
4) Online Community
Your opening sentence in debating this point started with "this is where I will admit Modern Warfare 3 wins". Although you go on to compare Battlelog to CoD Elite, this is voided because you have conceded this point to me entirely. I have nothing to refute here.
I have now shown why MW3 is superior to BF3 on the basis of these four points.
Again, I wish my opponent good luck in his final round of the debate, and I look forward to reading his response
First I will talk about the "realism" argument I brought up. I will admit my opponent is right when he says "you had not "provided any grounds for which realism equals superiority in the gaming industry", that "realism" could not be considered a legitimate factor in determining what game is better." So now I will explain the thing I should have explained awhile ago. "Realism" is good for video games every now and then because, one, it pushes currant tech to its limits. two, reality will always be more interesting then fantasy. (some may say that I'm backwards there, but that's only because some are "escapists"). and third, it allows us to (in a safe environment) experience things that we would not normally experience. To elaborate on that here is an example, unless you are a soldier you can only speculate how it feels to loose a squad mate and/or friend. that's where a realistic war video game, can come in handy. also a realistic war video games, like the battlefield series, are great recruiting and training tools. because they are both extremely fun to play, but at the same time extremely realistic. If my argument is STILL flawed I'm sure my opponent will tell me in his final argument.
The second thing I will elaborate on is my opponent's counter argument to my destructible environment argument. My opponent said "The game provides SEVERAL tools to deal with this issue. Support killstreaks include three specific utilities to alleviate the possibility of campers." And then you go on to list several things, like the uav and recon drone. Also you talk of the tactical grenades in call of duty. I think you did prove that in call of duty it may be easier to get rid of a camper. but what if you are the type of player who is like me, who cant get a killstreek higher than three going? you might say, well you will have the radar, so you should be fine right? nope, because after I activate my uav, some one activates their anti-uav. so now I'm up a creak with out a paddle, like before. also (i don't know if this is in MW3), in black ops you can lay down an radar jamer near you, and you could have ghost on to block your shots from being seen by the radar. so your argument forgot to talk about all the tools call of duty to support camping. whereas in battlefield you may have less tools to deal with camping outside of explosives,vehicles and your guns. but battlefield also gives less tools to campers, because the only class that can lay down extra ammo is the close to medium range support class, with it's full automatic machine gun with bi-pod. thus making the sniping class A.K.A the "Camping" class limited because the campers will eventually run out of ammo. If not already killed by other snipers. thus making battlefield allot more enjoyable game to play, because your average life span in every spawn is a lot longer than in call of duty.
Now I will tackle your "list" one more time. I will be skipping number 2to come in under the character limit, and not to be repetitive.
Here my opponent makes the argument that call of duty is similar to the sport of bowling because " Anyone can have a good time bowling, but those who bowl often and invest more work and time into the sport will always out-perform those who just play casually." which I admit that this is true. but think about how boring bowling is. Yes, bowling is fun, but only for one or two rounds. its not something you would want to devout a majority of your time playing, like golf. so now I want my readers to ask them selves what types of sports do they watch and play, the easy sports like golf and bowling, or do you watch/play sports that are hard to learn like football, and/or any the sports in the "Xgames"? also a second question is, which is more impressive being pro at bowling, or being pro in football? im pretty sure sure the answer to both questions is, question one, football/xgames, and question two, football. why is this? because the more harder something is, we as humans get exited about the challenge, and respect those who have already have gone "into hell and back" so to speak.
3) Gameplay Variance
Here my opponent brings up the fact that currently battlefield 3 only has three multiplayer modes, compared to the sixteen of call of duty. So in response I will say that maybe im weird, but I like fewer and better designed game modes, than a ton of crappy game modes. The game modes I hate from call of duty are, gun game, because the soldier never pulls out his guns fast enough causing me to die, just because there was more than one guy in the room. then theres the new mode kill confirmed, that from what I have seen, I will hate. because, after I kill some one, I have to then pick up their dog tag. which sucks, because in call of duty I can barley walk two feet with out being caught up in another fire fight. thus causing me to die, and loose the points I should have got from the kill. but any way lets get to my main argument here.
Has any one else noticed that the base gameplay of the call of duty games have not ever changed since MW2? Because I know I have, and thats why I am pissed that I have to pay sixtey bucks an year to get what is pretty much a overpriced D.L.C. Yes, MW3 now has new features like perks for individual guns, as well as class perks. but once you spawn, doesn't it feel too much like the designers just took the lazy way out and not changed ANYTHING?! Now my opponent, might point out that you should not fix what is not broken. but obviously it is because activision has to release patches almost every couple of weeks. There is always something you could do to make it better. That is something DICE Knows and honors. DICE is never satisfied with their finished product, because their is something you could do to make it better. I will ask my opponent to think back to when call of duty modern warfare released. Now I ask him to answer why it was so popular? My answer is that it revolutionised not only the series, but FPS multiplayer just like how Halo 2 did for the original xbox. Now I ask him if he thinks games like the halo series would be as big as they are if bungie never tried anything new, never tried anything like forge, never did anything except use the same engine and copy the previous game every year. I think if bungie did that with halo, halo fans no matter how hardcore would eventualy leave it for something more refreshing. Just like how hardcore call of duty fans, are going to get both MW3 and Battlefield 3.
4) Online Community
Yes again based on the numbers call of duty wins. but again im the type of person who does not like "pop" or popular music because, I listen to it and think, how can any one think this is good, its lazy song writing and horrible execution. just like how the call of duty games are horrible and lazy designed games. but I already said that in number three so I will end it here.
Thanks to my readers and/or voters for checking out this argument. now I want to see my opponents argument, and then see who wins. Me (battlefield 3/DICE) or My opponent (Call of Duty/Infinity Ward).
PS: I thank my opponent for making this an awesome learning experience for me since this is the first debate not only for this website, but any where. That's why I picked a topic I thought I could defend. Thanks DeadLeaves93! :)
You are quite persistent in your constant attempts to establish realism as a deciding factor in game superiority. Your first new contention is that realism "pushes current tech to its limits". This assertion simply does not hold up. Madden '12 is certainly a very realistic game, and although its graphics are good, one certainly would not insist that it pushes technology to its limits. Let us look, however, to Metal Gear Solid 4. This game has a plot more unrealistic than most movies on Syfy. However, its visuals were groundbreaking for the Playstation 3, and could definitely be argued to push technology's limits. I encourage everyone to take a look at the video I've provided above to see how this game truly showed the capabilities of the PS3. It is quite clear that realism is no determinant of pushing technology.
Your second contention is that "reality will ALWAYS be more interesting than fantasy". This is quite an opinionated assertion to be stated as a fact, and although you call those who would disagree with you "escapists", you cannot tell me that fantasy will ALWAYS seem more boring than reality. Did you enjoy the movie Grown Ups more than Lord of the Rings simply because it was technically more realistic? Again, your logic here is flawed.
Your third contention is that realistic games allow people to safely experience things that they "would not normally experience". You seem to ignore the fact that UNREALISTIC games allow people to experience things that they COULD NEVER experience. Non-realistic games can include anything found in realistic games, and infinitely more. This greatly broadens the experiences that players are able to enjoy. Imagination is not bound by the same limits as reality.
Now that I've again negated your use of reality as a trait of superiority, I'll move on to your claim that there are more tools in Call of Duty that support camping than in Battlefield. I'll agree with you on this. However, recall that I never argued that camping was harder in Modern Warfare 3 than in Battlefield 3, I simply stated that camping was not harder to deal with in MW3 than it was in BF3. There are certainly more tools for camping in Call of Duty, but as I've previously argued, there are also more tools to counter camping as well. Again, it is just as easy, if not easier to deal with a camper in Modern Warfare 3 than in Battlefield.
Now, I'll revisit "The List", and address your arguments regarding my four points.
Your claim that bowling is "boring", and "only fun for one or two rounds" is, again, strictly opinionated. As someone who has bowled in a league for several years, I'd like to simply state that I would much rather throw a bowling ball down an alley than skateboard off a ramp in the X-Games. I enjoy bowling more than playing football. It is not "boring" at all to me, and neither is Call of Duty. To be honest, I found the Battlefield 3 beta to be extremely boring. I'm sure you did not feel the same way. This is because we find enjoyment in different things, as do all people. Your opinion that one game is "boring" compared to another holds no grounds whatsoever because it is strictly an opinion and it does not reflect the feelings of anyone but yourself.
My opponent has not refuted me in this category. All my arguments are extended.
3) Gameplay Variance
You claim that you like "fewer and better designed game modes" more than "a ton of crappy game modes". Let's look at the so called "fewer and better designed game modes" of Battlefield 3.
- Conquest (capture and hold flags)
- Rush (attack/defend M-COM stations)
- Team Deathmatch (eliminate a set number of enemy combatants)
Let us now compare some of the "crappy game modes" you insist that Modern Warfare 3 is comprised of.
- Domination (capture and hold flags)
- Demolition (attack/defend bomb sites)
- Team Deathmatch (eliminate a set number of enemy combatants)
Seem familiar? It should, as these are the EXACT SAME game types. You claimed that battlefield had fewer but better modes, but how can that be if every single game type present in BF3 is ALSO present in MW3? Using your own logic, Call of Duty has an ABSOLUTE advantage over Battlefield because it includes every mode that Battlefield has, as well as an additional thirteen. You don't like Gun Game or Kill Confirmed? Not to worry, there are still eleven more game types to choose from. Modern Warfare 3 undeniably has more gameplay variance than Battlefield 3.
Your arguments regarding MW3 not changing enough from its predecessors is irrelevant because we are comparing the two games individually with each other. The games before them have no impact on their superiority.
4) Online Community
Claiming that "Call of Duty games are horrible and lazily designed" is again a use of personal opinion without the presentation of reason or evidence to back up your assertion. Your implication that Call of Duty is bad because it is popular is also flawed reasoning. Many things are popular BECAUSE they are good.
You also conceded this point to me entirely in the last round, so any arguments made here are nullified.
I have once more proven and defended that Modern Warfare 3 is the superior game over Battlefield 3 based on these four crucial categories.
I would like to thank the readers for following our arguments, and I also thank my opponent for this fun debate. It was a learning experience for me as well, as this was my first debate on this site in two years, and all my others were plagued by forfeits. I hope you enjoy playing Battlefield 3 as much as you enjoy defending it.
As for me, I've still got a little while to wait before Modern Warfare 3 comes out. I'm beyond eager to get hold of the game, and I hope that I've convinced others to feel just as impatient.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Call of Duty is awesome and that is what I thought before I read this debate. 2. Call of Duty is awesome and that is what I still think right now. 3. Both debaters were professional and formal in the debate. 4. Both debaters have appeared to have passed elementary school. 5. Deadleaves defended MW3 with a passion and provided logic and evidence that supported why MW3 was superior. 6. Deadleaves presented links and videos as sources almost every round while medianerd used one link.
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.