The Instigator
NIGHTMARE
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
jdog2016
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Battlefield 3 is far superior to Call of duty: Modern Warfare 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
jdog2016
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,622 times Debate No: 32675
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

NIGHTMARE

Pro

I am looking for this to be a hilarious debate. I think Battlefield 3 is much better in software, graphic engines, and flat out game play then MW3 is.
jdog2016

Con

Don't watch video until you get to the part where it says to watch it!!

Mw3
is better than Butt Facker 3 Battle Field 3 because,
1. The maps are ALOT bigger in Bf3 which means you will be running through half of the game, running and running, and running, and when your finally there or almost there you get this warm fuzzy feeling, and you think "YES, I finally made it! Hoo F!CKING Rah! But then wait... ohhh yaaa.... HOLD MY F!CKING D EVERYONE!! I NEED TO RESPAWN ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE MAP REAL QUICK! And do you know why that is audience? Your correct, a sniper shot me in the mutha' F!cking head! Now, being shot by a sniper really makes me want to punch whoever is behind the controller because with a puzzy gun sniper you don't need to run through the whole map to get some kills. YOU CAN JUST SIT THERE BE A LITTLE BATCH!

BA-
TCH
BAAA-

TCH!
2. I don't like the class thing, why cant you have a desired weapon in one class, the classes has its own weapons, I want weapons to be free around all the classes so you can choose all kinds of weapons for all the classes. You get what I mean?

3. What are you fighting for in BF3(BF3 sounds more like a porno name..) multiplayer? Only thing you are fighting for in BF3 is to win a game. In MW3, you fight to earn kill streaks. This makes the person playing actually care if they get killed once, because if they do, they will lose all of their kills. It maKES IT SO LITTLE SNIPER WH0RES CAN'T R@PE THE FACK OUT OF YOU!


I REALLY frigen hate those snipers.............


HERE, watch this sniper azz wipes WATCH THE VIDEO




4. Mw2 was a quite disaster with all noobtubers, rushers and boosters, but I guess that will be fixed in mw3 because they fixed it in black ops. Yeah,yeah, Treyarch made black ops but I think infinity ward will do like them, otherwise this will be a huge letdown.



5. Maps in mw3 is smaller which means constant action everywhere, if you go around a corner you can be quite sure you will find an enemy on the other side.



6. NO VEHICLES in mw3. I hate the friggin' vehicles in bf3! Your not safe anywhere, if you see a tank and run to cover and the tank see you it shoots one time and the whole cover is gone, and the second shot you lay down on the ground lifting your hand. There's vehicles in mw3 too, but there you will have to fight for them, because they are kill streaks. In Bf3 you can even spawn in the vehicles if a friend is in it. Otherwise you spawn a few meters from the vehicles.
Debate Round No. 1
NIGHTMARE

Pro

You do have very valid points with some of your arguments. However, you are taking this a little to serious by modifying names there is no need for that. You may not like the class system in Battlefield 3, but it provides a variation of soldiers on the map, Assault, Recon, Engineer, ext. The point to a class system is built for teamwork which is the way Battlefield is to be played. I agree the snipers are annoying, but are they any better the the quickscoper's in the Call of Duty franchise? Vehicels are available to both teams. All maps in Battlefield 3 are not huge, the have the "Close Quarters" expansion pack which includes several maps that are the same size if not smaller then Call of Duty maps. This provides the non stop action CoD players are looking for and are used too. In Battlefield 3 you aren't killing for nothing, the kills count towards unlocking weapon attachments, new weapons, new ammo types, new camos for your character, ribbons, and medals. So your argument of big maps is kind of cancelled out because Battlefield offers both kinds of maps and many kinds of customization for weapons and your classes. As for your vehicle argument, vehicles are in the Battlefield game because it is for tactical play not to get across the map, you can use them to get cross map, but that is not really the vehicles soul purpose. Battlefield is played like a tactical game and that does differ from Call of Duty's run and gun formula which most people have come to adore because of the constant action, the vehicles are there for tactical use on the map. Also your argument about spawning at one end of the map and running back to get where you were is also invalid. There is a system called "squad spawn" which allows players not just to spawn in friendly vehicles but to spawn in and around the area on their squad or team. This eliminates the need to spawn at the original spot, and allows you to spawn close to, if not right back where you were. Plus, one of the classes carries a revive tool. This gives around 5 to 10 seconds for another player to revive a dead player so the constant action you so claim doesn't exist in Battlefield 3 can continue. The vehicles in MW3 are not operable for free use, which is the major difference between the games. The players need to get their AC130, Predator drone, ext. is what keeps them from truly enjoying the game. I say this because they are only focused on being rewarded by run and gun tactical approaches. Imagine how mad you get when you need one kill before you have your kill streak, and bam somebody blows you away six ways to Sunday. Once this happens you get mad and don't enjoy your experience. Kill streak rewards also create campers, yes campers. People camp to farm kills for their kill streaks. Campers barely exist in Battlefield 3, and if they do they get booted from the game. I see your points in the debate, but with a little research you would understand the mechanics and how certain things are implemented into Battlefield 3 and why. I do respect your argument though.
jdog2016

Con

When it comes to the "taking it a little too seriously", that was on purpose. In round one you said you wanted this to be funny debate. I was only going along with what you said. Now I suppose I will take it back down a few notches because it seems you would rather prefer an intellectual debate. Maybe I miss understood you, but next time please be more specific as to what a "hilarious" debate means. You asked if I thought that the quick-scopers were more annoying than the BF3 snipers? Well, the thing that you fail to see here, is that to sit perched out of a window and snipe a ton of people is worse than a person in call of duty who is actually running around, and then quick-scoping people. Also, anyone can kill with a BF3 sniper, but quick scoping takes skill. I myself am terrible at it. However some people are persistent, and practice a lot, and they become very good at it. You also say that BF3 has an expansion pack called "close quarters". However......IT'S AN EXPANSION PACK!! This means you have to pay for it, whereas in call of duty, those maps are free. There have been plenty of other expansion packs for MW3 as well, however none of them are required in order to have the non-stop action experience. But let's say you don't like the constant action, and you want to play more tactical, and stealth like. Not only does call of duty have smaller 'close quarters' maps, but it also has long distance maps, as well as maps with lots of spots to hide, regroup, use stealth. Whatever! No expansion packs required!


"As for your vehicle argument, vehicles are in the Battlefield game because it is for tactical play not to get across the map, you can use them to get cross map, but that is not really the vehicles soul purpose. Battlefield is played like a tactical game and that does differ from Call of Duty's run and gun formula which most people have come to adore because of the constant action, the vehicles are there for tactical use on the map."


You are arguing that the vehicles in BF3 are for tactical purposes. Well, YA everything is for a tactical purpose. I mean the game is based on a war. Also, not only do people use that vehicles to get across the maps a lot faster than everyone else, but vehicles are like a death trap. They are surrounded by CAMPERS! Last round you said the campers were scarce in BF3. However I see them just as much as in Call Of Duty. The 'gun and run' formula is designed to give players the most player to player contact in 1 match. (about 10 min. long) However, like I stated earlier, there are larger maps, that greatly lessen the effects of this formula. Basically Battle Field is a 1 sided game; you either like it or hate it. But MW3 is adaptable to a wide variety of people, and can be played in the fashion that suits you style the best.

"The vehicles in MW3 are not operable for free use, which is the major difference between the games. The players need to get their AC130, Predator drone, ext. is what keeps them from truly enjoying the game."


Notice the word free in your statement above. This of course means than ANYONE can just come up and hop in a vehicle. In BF3, you don't have to do anything to earn it. This means that a 9 year old nube that sucks at the game could go and hop in a tank, and kill a bunch of people. And all the while this kid is yelling into his mic. about how cool he is, and how good he is at this game. But see, that doesn't happen in Call of Duty, because not just anyone can hop into an AC-130, and kill 10 people. Nope, you have earn your stripes in this game. In COD, you get you vehicles by skill, and strategy. And as for campers, they may get 1 or 2 kill streaks, but none of the good ones. People catch on as to were they are pretty quick, they always die. Also, this keeps away those pesky 9 year olds.


Debate Round No. 2
NIGHTMARE

Pro

Last round you said, "Well, the thing that you fail to see here, is that to sit perched out of a window and snipe a ton of people is worse than a person in call of duty who is actually running around, and then quick-scoping people. Also, anyone can kill with a BF3 sniper, but quick scoping takes skill." The definition of sniping is to "shoot at someone from a hiding place, accurately at long range."
jdog2016

Con

Since you posted a very short response, I shall do the same. Also, note that you ignored some of my arguments.



"The definition of sniping is to "shoot at someone from a hiding place, accurately at long range.""

That is the technical definition of the term 'sniping', or more plainly, the 'real life' definition. However this debate is not about real life. It is in fact about 2 fictional video game worlds. Granted, these worlds are based off of the real world, and while they seem close to the real thing they are in reality, not.

What I'm saying, is that every field soldier in the real world camps, however in a video game, things are not the same. There is no hesitation to kill someone, and when you die you just come back to life. There are no real risks, or fear for the players and/or campers to experience. So a camper, or a sniper who never moves, is basically cheating or using handicap.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
NIGHTMARE

Pro

What I meant was that the campers in the game should at least try to use the gun even though it may not be real life for it's intended purpose. I don't think that people would add sniper rifles to a game so people can quick scope other players, and in Call of Duty there really isn't any need for a sniper rifle because of the maps size and enclosed space. However I did not mention in my last post but you said Call of Duty players earn their stripes, I agree most do. My point is that yes actual skilled players like you and me might be able to get the major kill streak by using pure skill and not using normally one shot one kill weapons like the snipers in the games. The fact of the matter I want to address is that anybody who camps, or quick scopes can just as easily get a kill streak that is powerful like the air strikes and such just by using no skill. Quick scope requires skill yes, but to me it seems more reasonable to use a sniper rifle for it's intended purpose, then to not barely aiming through the scope and killing somebody with one shot. Do you kind of get what I mean? Also I agree real life soldier camp because that is how they stay alive, but in the game people camp to get a reward they might not deserve, I think only skilled players with real skill should have access to the big time streaks. I also think that only people with certain stats in Battlefield should have access to more powerful vehicles at certain times but vehicles just fit the gameplay of Battlefield. My point is anybody in CoD could get these streaks basically by just camping which is a problem in the CoD series in general.
jdog2016

Con

When it comes to campers, I couldn't have said it better myself. Campers basically cheat, and then earn powerful rewards they don't deserve. Both in CoD, and BF3. However in CoD, you at least need to do some work, and get some kills before you get the reward. But in Battlefield, anyone, even if they suck can go get into a tank, and boom your dead.
In BF I always get killed by screaming 9 year olds. They will blow me up with a tank, and then tell me on their mic. how good they are. But as soon as they get out of the tank, they die over, and over, and over. Vehicles in battle field are like handicaps; who ever is in the vehicle has an unfair advantage that they have not earned in any way.



"I also think that only people with certain stats in Battlefield should have access to more powerful vehicles at certain times but vehicles just fit the game play of Battlefield."


Yes, you think only people with certain stats should have access to more powerful vehicles, however they don't! That is exactly my point. Anyone can easily get in any vehicle, at any time. It seems we agree on this.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheVoiceOfReason67 4 years ago
TheVoiceOfReason67
is everyone who voted on this stupid? regardless of who you agree with the person going for bf3 had much better argumens
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
MW2 will always be the best. We can complain about boosters but i will admit it was fun trying to stop boosters it was like a whole different challenge. The maps had some of the best designs i had seen i loved them. I loved how if you made t he false move in the spawn you get spawn sniped thats what made it so competitive and fun. Shotguns as secondarys with low ammo was grreat to. Pro perks were hard to get but fun, the harrier streak has got to be the best 7 kill streak ever. There were so many great things. Grenade launchers were more effective. Commando was single handly one of the best perks. Being able to knife longer distances is great. If someone has their gun drawn before me i want some sort of fair shot to knife. Now you can only knife if your unoticed and behind them. Snipers were great primarys, if an enemy caught you with your sniper handy you can quick scope giving you a fair shot at winning. MW2 is possibly the greatest COD game made, i love MW and i loved cod 3 yes cod 3 it was nice even world at war but MW2 i tthink will always be great
Posted by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
Due to an occasional bug, the 4th round was skipped... If both debaters would like this debate to be deleted so it can be reset and you can start it again, contact me via PM..
Posted by jdog2016 4 years ago
jdog2016
Why is round 4 skipped?
Posted by SuperiorArsenal 4 years ago
SuperiorArsenal
"sniping takes no skill?" Please....
Welcome to Battlefield, there's this little thing called bullet drop that you have to account for. It is a hell of a lot harder than the "point and click" CoD kills. Have you ever tried to get a headshot on a moving target 200m+ away? What about just a regular old headshot past 500m? It isn't easy.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
How was round 3 skipp'd?
Posted by NIGHTMARE 4 years ago
NIGHTMARE
I agree, I am a fan of both series but I have to say I was more impressed with Battlefield 3 then MW3. However, I am looking forward to the unveiling of the new Call of Duty, I hear Ghost might be making a return? That would be epic.
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
MW3 was the absolute worst COD game ever made
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
MW3 was the absolute worst COD game ever made
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by enclave101 4 years ago
enclave101
NIGHTMAREjdog2016Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: BF3 is amazing but jdog is really convincing.
Vote Placed by Noswad63 4 years ago
Noswad63
NIGHTMAREjdog2016Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Proved His Point And Con Basically Complained about getting sniped and features of the game that are also problems in MW3.
Vote Placed by thewhitespoon 4 years ago
thewhitespoon
NIGHTMAREjdog2016Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: mw3 ids boss
Vote Placed by Foxtrot115 4 years ago
Foxtrot115
NIGHTMAREjdog2016Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: MW3... Has a better storyline if you actually played it...
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
NIGHTMAREjdog2016Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con hurt his own argument in round 1 by using the spelling and grammar of the 9 year olds he was railing against in the end. It may have been intended to be funny, but it was too over-the-top. Pros argument about the game being open for everyone was countered by a "I hate noobs" argument. My vote goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by GiantSpoonMan 4 years ago
GiantSpoonMan
NIGHTMAREjdog2016Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: COD remains superior.