The Instigator
derplington
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DerKing
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Battlefield Vs. Call of Duty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
DerKing
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 53299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

derplington

Pro

Make sure to read the entire argument before making a statement against it.

I also only want a contender who commonly plays at least one game from both series. (Don't include the campaign in the argument, I'm arguing about multiplayer gameplay).

Battlefield and Call of duty are both really awesome game series, but which is truly better. Yes, the Call of Duty games bring in much more cash, but I'm going purely off of game play here. Im routing for Battlefield. I think that huge maps overrule tiny ones. A huge map can house both compact areas, fit for close range combat, as well as open areas fit for long range action (unlike call of duty, where players usually use sniper rifles for close range trick shots). I also enjoy that when you shoot someone in the head they die more often than they don't. I like shooting people in the head once or twice, vs four or five times (when not using a sniper rifle trick shot). More so, I like ramming through small structures with the help of a tank and freely flying around in helicopters or planes. While in Call of Duty, you have no control over your aircraft (besides the gun) after earning the thing through your hard work. (This is gonna be fun... Heh... heh... heh...)
DerKing

Con

Call of Duty multiplayer is better than Battlefield, every one knows this, just like everyone knows the sky is blue. But before I tell you why, let me say why my opponent is wrong. The affirmative gave a list of opinions, bid not mention how they related to his case, and did not provide any other evidence besides talking about how it is better to have a bigger map. Extremely large maps like in battlefield make the game boring, as you only get to engage with people a couple of times in the battle. The spawns are so far spread apart that more of the game is spent wandering than actually fighting. And although you can spawn near your friendlies, by the time you spawn you are either out of the action or about to get killed by the horde of enemies that killed your comrade. Because my opponent holds the burden of proof, and he has posted no facts so far, I will refrain from doing so until he does.
Debate Round No. 1
derplington

Pro

Did you not read my whole argument? Why didn't you comment about the vehicles or the realistic (compared to Call of Duty) amount of damage. This is because Derking knows the rest of the game is better. Just because his opinion is different for one thing, he says that Call of Duty is better. Also Derking, there are more players in the game, therefore increasing your chances of finding someone to kill. If you really want to find someone though, play conquest and go to the flags that are being stolen, or fought over. If your team mates in a pinch and spawning on him/her would end in both of your deaths, drive to the location in the vehicles that Call of Duty does not have!
DerKing

Con

Why didn't I comment about the vehicles or the realistic (compared to Call of Duty) amount of damage? Because there wasn't one. All you said is how you feel that those are good things. You didn't make it a contention of tie it into the previous one. As to the fact that there are more people, if the map is 3200 times as big (Bandar Desert is the largest map in Battlefield history, being around five square kilometers large^1, while a map like Nuketown is only around 1 acre.), and there is five times as many people, (Bandar Desert supports 64 people) it is still harder to get to the action. Although those are the biggest and smallest maps in Battlefield and Call of Duty, respectively, it just goes to show how much bigger Battlefield maps are. And bigger isn't always better. For what you said on the game-mode conquest, just by saying that means you concede that the rest of the game-modes in Battlefield are boring, and by extension, worse. And onto the vehicles. The only reason the vehicles are there is to distract you from how the gameplay is so much more boring than Call of Duty. You claim that you can drive anywhere to help them out? What if they are in the subways featured in some of the maps (also a characteristic of some Call of Duty maps)? Then the vehicles don't help there. Not all maps have these vehicles! Maps like Operation Metro have no use for the vehicles at all!

^1 http://battlefield.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 2
derplington

Pro

Your argument on map size is purely on your opinion, and probably many others. My map size argument is based off of the facts (and my opinion of course). You don't always want close range combat (especially if your a sniper who actually wants to snipe) and like I said there are parts of the maps on battlefield that are close range, like in buildings (especially with flags in them on conquest). If you really want to have a close range game though, play rush, where there is always someone near the bomb. Oh, and if you want t read my first argument again to see my points on vehicles. Some including: There are allot of them, you don't have to earn them, and you can drive them. Is much more needed to prove my point there? Even then though, by saying that vehicles distract you from the "lack of combat" is to say to the people that do understand that the combat in itself is awesome, that the vehicles make it even better. Also, when talking about the subway, you contradicted your other argument. In the subway, there is only close range combat. True though is that you probably can't fit a vehicle in the subway.
DerKing

Con

Before I post the rest of my argument, let me shoot down derplington's.

"Your argument on map size is purely on your opinion, and probably many others." - How can this be true, when I posted actual verified statistics from an actual source, 1 more source then you have ever provided.

"My map size argument is based off of the facts (and my opinion of course)." - A debate should not be based of your opinion, it should be using your opinion to interpret the fact. And to your claim that you actually have facts, you have not provided a single source, nor have you made more than two or three things that aren't blatant opinions.

"You don't always want close range combat (especially if your a sniper who actually wants to snipe)" - Ya, you don't alway want close range, but Call of Duty has plenty of maps where you can snipe from a distance and not be so ridiculously out of the action that it makes it boring.

"and like I said there are parts of the maps on battlefield that are close range, like in buildings (especially with flags in them on conquest). If you really want to have a close range game though, play rush, where there is always someone near the bomb." - No, if you really want close range, you go play Call of Duty. Both you and I have said that battlefield maps are much bigger, and Call of Duty maps tend to have more buildings. Smaller maps with more buildings makes for better close combat.

"Oh, and if you want t read my first argument again to see my points on vehicles. Some including: There are allot of them, you don't have to earn them, and you can drive them. Is much more needed to prove my point there?" - Considering we are debating this, I believe there is a need to prove your point here, which you didn't. And if you read your own first point, all you said was "I like ramming through small structures with the help of a tank and freely flying around in helicopters," besides the controls for the vehicles being different for each one, confusing the game, my earlier around talked about how they are not on every map. And it doesn't matter when you earn them, they are still as confusing and irritating at every point in the game.

"Even then though, by saying that vehicles distract you from the "lack of combat" is to say to the people that do understand" - This is agreeing with me on how it is so confusing, most people do not understand because the game sucks.

"that the combat in itself is awesome, that the vehicles make it even better." - Even though you claim you had mostly facts, this is not backed up by a single one.

"Also, when talking about the subway, you contradicted your other argument." - Except you don't say how I contradicted it, or which one, which makes this statement void.

"In the subway, there is only close range combat. True though is that you probably can't fit a vehicle in the subway." - So you are agreeing with me, which, in essences destroys over half of your whole argument.

And now on to my contentions.

More Customization - In Black Ops 2 you can customize your guns way more than in Battlefield, and in Black Ops you can customize you character way more than in Battlefield. Both have more medals that you can work to achieve than Battlefield. Having more options make the game increasingly more interesting and gives you something fun that you can work towards. It also encourages competition, as there are more medals to compete for.

More Game-modes and Maps - Battlefield 3 only had 9 maps^2, while Black Ops 2 came out with 15^3, and Blacks Ops 2 had as many downloadable maps (16), compared to Battlefield 3's 16. Not only that, but Black Ops 2 has many more game-mode. While Battlefield only has a couple, Black Ops 2 has a whole bunch, plus so hardcore game-modes, which Battlefield does not have, nor does Battlefield have anything close to Black Ops 2's party game-modes.

Zombies - One of the main reasons why Call of Duty is so much better than Battlefield. And not just zombies, Call of Duty Ghosts has aliens (in extinction), and MW3's Special Ops. There are so many different zombie maps you can play on, each with it's own advantages. Actually, there are 21, 11 from Black Ops and World at War^1, and 10 from Black Ops 2. I personally get bored easily, and it is a great way to make the game so much more fun if you have something completely different like that you can do. Especially if it as well make as zombies of Special Ops.

^1http://wiki.answers.com...
^2http://bf4central.com...
^3http://www.blackopsii.com...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
Why did you say you shouldn't use your opinion in an argument then in one of the rounds? Yes, though I shouldn't have said it is what people want in a game, I should say it is what most people want in a game.
Posted by DerKing 2 years ago
DerKing
A debate is using your opinions to interpret facts, to show another your point of view better than your opponent. And besides, how would you, a single person, know what EVERYONE wants in a game?
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
I should have put another round but, Derking saying he didn't base any of what he said off his opinion, is a lie. Part of his argument was,"Big maps are boring", for Pete's sake. How is that not opinion. Also, when I said I would use my opinion in the argument, I meant for how I think bigger maps are better. The rest of my argument is based off of what people want in a game, which is what I see in Battlefield. I guess I should have put this as an opinion, too many people don't care about the argument.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
How long has it been since you played Battlefield 4, Dishoungh? Considering the game is made for an Xbox One (if it's not crashing) or PlayStation 4 (which have more processing power than Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 by far) I don't think you can blame it for being glitchy on Xbox 360 or Playsation 3. If you weren't referring to the consoles they are played on though, battlefield 4 is a pretty smooth working game right now unless you can't take little glitches.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
Whatev's... "I'm so sorry for my misprununciation of the title".
Posted by DerKing 2 years ago
DerKing
I think I will accept this. But you did the challenge wrong. The title should be "Battlefield is better than Call of Duty" and used the first to actually make your arguments.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
No, they just know that Battlefield is kind of a better game. But Battlefield's superiority is insignificant due to Battlefield 4's unplayable condition due to broken servers.
Posted by derplington 2 years ago
derplington
Everyone to scared to go up against me! (I hope not... I wasted an hour writing this).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
derplingtonDerKingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides argued well, in the end it came down to Con however. his arguments were more in-depth and he provided source material