The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Battlefield is a better game series than Call of Duty

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,390 times Debate No: 34997
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




I believe that in the game series Battlefield with the developers by DICE is a more delevoped and better constructed with all of the factors included game, than of the game series of Call of Duty with the developers like Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Studios. The games I will be using in my debate will be dated back to the first game on Pc and Mac Battlefield 1942 to the newest instalment Battlefield 4. You can do the same with the first Call of Duty game to the newest, Ghosts.

This debate will be 4 rounds long so my opponent must be up to the challange. My opposer may start first.

My debate will be split up into 3 topics. Con may have the same plan if wished.
#3.Terrane and vehicles

P.S: Retaliation is adviced and may the best debator win.


I would like to thank TheSupremeDebator for issuing this challenge, as both games are of excellent quality, and I wish him luck in debating his side.

First off, I'll say that I am a fan of the Call of Duty series, and consider those games more enjoyable than the ones I have played in the Battlefield series. Despite that, I do not feel either game can truly be considered better than the other, at least not beyond personal preference.

Consider this:

- For any product to be considered better than an alternative product, it must achieve its goal to a higher degree.
- The goal of any game is to provide entertainment.
- Whether or not a person finds a game to be entertaining is based on their individual opinion.
- To determine the degree to which a game entertains, one would have to know all of these opinions.
- Without polling the entire gaming community, one could not know the degree a game entertains.
- I am part of the gaming community and have not had my opinion included in such a poll, for any game.
- No one knows the degree to which any game entertains.
- No game can truly be considered better than any other game.
- Therefore, Battlefield games cannot be considered better than Call of Duty games.
Debate Round No. 1


I would also like to thank mrsatan for participating in the debate I made and good luck to your 4 rounds. Both of these series are very sophisticated in many ways throughout quality, campaign and multiplayer.

Firstly, I would like to say that both games are basically same type first-person shooter and I do know that they are changing it up with thier newer games in my opinion neither are really any better in the actual game play. I would also like to say that I have personally played most of the Call of Duty games out there instead of the newer installments. Even though Call of Duty is coming out with content in thier games I mostly think they are just changing the names of guns and adding stuff thats already used in the past and putting it into thier to the mutiplaplayer because it is more futuristic. Thats why I like battlefield it just stay classic. The only thing that believe is really changing is the campaign because of thier new games like Call of Duty Ghosts and Black Ops 2.

But think about this, I do know that Call of Duty and Battlefield achieve thier goal by entertaining thier fans based on thier preference. I basically have the same opinion as you I'm just saying that Battlefield have a way more vast content in thier games than Call of Duty and in my opinon makes it better in many ways. Anyways there would be no point in this debate if our own personal opinions weren't talked about these topics.

So I would 1st like to talk about it's realism:

Now this is an opnion of a army squad leader on Battlefield's present game BF3.

"Having been a squad leader in the Army, I know first hand about the look, feel and sound of battle. I recently had the opportunity to preview Battlefield 3 and let me tell you that what I saw and heard sent shivers down my spine. The sound alone is almost dead on. I say almost in that BF3 in its current form doesn’t quite have the realistic timing of the sound nailed quite yet, but it’s very close. You see in most games a grenade goes off near by and you instantly hear the explosion sound effect. Same with gun fire. The sound is usually instantly triggered after the gun is fired. However in reality, sound takes a moment to travel to you. You’ll hear the crack of a bullet and almost a moment later the effect of the bullet hitting it’s target. It seems minor but it would amp up the realism for any soldier who’s ever held a weapon."

"Graphically, BF3 is absolutely mind blowing. D.I.C.E is using a newly created engine called Frostbite 2.0. This allows for incredible visual fidelity unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. Soft shadows, realistic lighting, day and night cycles and god rays are all prevalent through out. What will truly set Battlefield 3 apart from its competitors is the destructable environments."

By: William Countiss

I would also like to add that since thier first instalments Call of duty and Battlefield featured vehicles, wepons, campaign, mutiplayer and gameplay to the same extent but I believe that from the start Battlefield had mostly added destructable environments which makes it more real same with it's different mutiplayer objectives like CTF which generally has a more co-operative focus than previous games of this nature, as it is not only important to kill the opposition but to also hold certain "control points" around the map. Capturing control points allows the team to reinforce itself by enabling players and vehicles to spawn in a given area. Which is almost like you being in the army yourself.

To thier newer games with a much better graphic engine (Frostbite 2.0) that is better developed then the one for the Call of Duty franchise.

I mean just look at the graphics of thier new game

Plus they have always had a more advanced weapon system and how they actually have a health meter then just recharging thier health out of nowhere. Also in thier newest game you can have fully destructable building in multiplayer.

My last example would be the factions of enemys or allies in the Battlefield series more recently are more present and more believable like it could actually happen at any moment compared to the militia's and groups that haven't even been introduced into society yet made by Call of Duty.




Well, I'd be happy to share the reasons I prefer Call of Duty, but first I suppose I should clarify which games in each series I've actually played.

Call of Duty: I've played five of the nine games currently available. I started with World at War (the fifth release), and each of the four released after that. I've completed all of the single player campaigns, excluding Black Ops 2, the most recent release.

Battlefield: I've only played Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3. I didn't complete either single player campaign, though I did play through some of each.

I didn't find the campaigns in Battlefield to be very engaging, and wasn't able to get sucked into them at all. I didn't much care for the campaigns in Call of Duty, either. There were only two reasons I even played through them entirely. One was putting the difficulty on veteran to hone my skills. The other was for achievements. Because of this, I will focus my attention on the multiplayer aspect, as that's the only place I find any real enjoyment in either. Both games have pros and cons to the multiplayer, and the gameplay in each is vastly different, but I'll get to that a little bit further on.


For now, I'll turn my attention to the realism aspect. I won't argue against Battlefield being more realistic. I agree completely that it is, but I don't agree that it really matters. Yes, the games are both set in the real world, but that doesn't mean they have to be completely real, or that having more realistic integrity makes them better. I have no doubt that realism is important to many people. I also have no doubt that to many people, such as myself, that realism is highly unimportant. That said, there are many contributing factors to why it's more realistic, but since the destructible environment is probably the biggest of those factors, I'll concentrate on that. It is most certainly an amazing feature that, as far as I know, isn't in any other game. That's not to say it doesn't have drawbacks to it, though:

Drawback #1: To incorporate such a feature, the maps have to be much larger than they otherwise would. This makes for a slower paced game, as it takes longer to get to the action if you're killed. Well, the multiplayer in Battlefield has vehicles, and this naturally counters that problem, at least somewhat. It is further countered by allowing players to spawn at a teammates location, or in a vehicle with them. At this point, you might be asking yourself, "Well, what's the problem then?"

The problem with it, for me at least, is that one of the reasons I prefer Call of Duty is because it doesn't have player controlled vehicles in it's multiplayer. It originally did, but they've since been phased out of it completely. World at War had some maps with a few tanks on them, and the games after that had nothing. Battlefield has a plethora of vehicles on the majority of its maps, ranging from ATV's and jet skis, to helicopters and jets. This makes it less of a first person shooter, and more of a full-on war game. While this may be a good thing to some people, it's not what I'm looking for.

The spawning on teammates also brings problems, as sometimes players will spawn behind nearby enemies. It makes it hard to keep a sense of any sort of a frontline, and essentially impossible to use tactics to cover your teams flanks. For me, this is an even bigger problem than the vehicles.

Drawback #2: In Call of Duty, if you have a couple snipers on a roof, and a couple guys guys in the building protecting them, you have three choices. You can try and out-snipe the snipers, you can do a tactical sweep on the protectors, and come at the snipers close range, or you can risk spreading your team thin and try both at once. In any case, it requires you to have more skill than the other player. If I die because the other player has more skill, I can accept that.

In Battlefield, however, you have that fourth option, you can just blow up the building. But blowing up buildings doesn't take skill. You just need some explosives. Take out a few sections of the base walls, and the whole thing comes crashing down. For me, this hurts the game more than helping it. Again, I can only speak for myself, and this may not hold true for other players.


As I said earlier, I find the gameplay between the two series to be vastly different. BOTH games have game modes such as Capture the Flag. Considering Pro has played both, I'm not sure why he thinks it's only in Battlefield. I'll leave it to Pro to include the different modes included in Battlefield, as he's played them more than I have. These require varying levels teamwork to be successful, but all of them benefit from it (excluding Free-For-All, for obvious reasons). The modes that are consistently in Call of Duty [1] are as follows:

- Team Deathmatch
- Mercenary Team Deathmatch
- Free-For-All
- Capture the Flag
- Domination
- Headquarters
- Ground War
- Search and Destroy

Many of these are available in hardcore (limited HUD, no health regeneration, no mini-map) as well as core.

I prefer to play either Team Deathmatch, Domination, Ground War, or Search and Destroy so I'll talk about those for a moment.

- Team Deathmatch is simple. You just kill people. First team to get 75 kills wins.

- Domination is a little more complicated, and the more coordinated and tactical tam will generally win. There are three domination areas, and a team gets a point a second for each area it has control of. You need to work as a team in this in order to keep the control of captured areas, while simultaneously capturing the areas controlled by the opposing team. First team to 200 points wins.

- Ground War is just a mixed playlist of the Domination and Team Deathmatch modes, but with teams of 9 instead of teams of 6.

- Search and Destroy is the most tactically demanding game mode there is, no holds bar. It's teams of up to 6, and consists of up to 7 rounds, with each player getting one life per round. One team tries to plant a bomb at one of two targets within a certain time limit. Each team gets three rounds to attack, and three rounds to defend, with the tie breaking round being random. Attackers win a round when the bomb is planted and detonated, or the defenders are all killed. Defenders win a round when time runs out, or the attackers are all killed. With only one life per round, players have to be very tactical. Winning consistently in this does not happen without strong tactics and teamwork. First team to win 4 rounds wins the game.

Besides the standard game modes, Treyarchs games (World at War, Black Ops 1 & 2) also include the Zombies game mode [2]. This mode can be played both single player, and co-operatively with up to 4 players. The objective is to survive round after round of attack by the zombie horde. With each round, zombies become harder to kill, and more zombies attack. This mode, whether you're playing with a few friends, or trying to survive on your own, can be extremely fun and challenging.


And, of course, the graphics. Better graphics most definitely enhance a games quality. But, they also come second to good gameplay, always. While I agree that Battlefield 4 looks amazing, so does every other next gen game I've seen footage for, including Call of Duty: Ghosts. Since screenshots can never do a games graphics justice, here is a link to gameplay footage for Call of Duty: Ghosts

[1] Call of Duty, Game Mode Details -
[2] Zombies Game Mode Details -
[3] General Call of Duty Information -
[4] General Battlefield Information -
Debate Round No. 2



Campaign- Yes, I do realize that you may not have a preference for any campaign in either two game series, but out of the two I believe that Call Of Duty take a more direct focus at the characters point of view like it were a story in a book. In Battlefield I know that it takes it story and puts a lot of emotion into what you do, like the characters in Battlefield Bad-Company 1&2 tells a story between a special team of soilders protecting the world from nuclear destruction, and in the newer games feature stuff that you can't do in multiplayer or co-op it makes you get that sense of feeling that you're in a full out war, and I'm not saying that the Call of Duty franchise (which I do like equally) does it in a poorer way.

Realism- In some gamers view's I think one of the big points is a games graphics atleast a lot of critic's focus on that as one of the topics. So personally I think it's one of the factors that should be included into Battlefield's "realism".

Drawback #1: If you would rather have a first person game as just a whole bunch of players shooting guns on a small map I don't think that would be the definition of a war like both games are suppost to be. Battlefield however has bigger maps that have vehicles to counter-act that feature like you said. But you can't con that fact that Battlefield's vision is to create a euphoria of action based common warfare.

The spawning on teamates might create problems if you spawn right as you teamate is being shot down hence you dying but it is better than responding at the base plus it puts you usually right where the action is so there isn't any lollygaging, so I also don't view it a big issue concerning the multiplayer.

Drawback #2: In Battlefield, with the scenario that you had thought up in your mind you could do everything that you stated plus use special wepons or vehicles to give you way more options on how you want to take down those enemys in a more realistic way. Theres no way that Call of Duty gives you more tactical advantages or equal to Battlefield's multiplayer.

Not all players just blow up buildings for the hell of it, it's either because they're trolls or experiance junkie. Most expert player don't play dirty and anyways it takes 17000 score for unlock.

Gameplay- Even though Battlefield 3 only has 5 multiplayer modes including conquest assault, team deathmatch, squad deathmatch, rush, and co-op it expands on each one to make it's gameplay superior to Call of Duty and including the other games has way more modes almost equaling Call of Duty's list.

Graphics- I do realize that graphics come in second when it comes to gameplay, but Battlefield 3's graphics are better than any of Call of Duty's games execpt Ghosts because I haven't seen it. I agree screenshots do no justice so here is some gameplay from Battlefield 4:

Second topic combat and weapons.
Assault Rifles
  • AEK-971
  • AK-74M
  • AN-94
  • F2000
  • G3A3
  • KH2002
  • M16A3
  • M16A4
  • M416
Back to Karkand
  • L85A2
Close Quarters
  • AUG A3
  • SCAR-L]
  • A-91
  • AKS-74u
  • G36C
  • M4A1
  • SCAR H
  • SG553
Back to Karkand
  • G53
  • QBZ-95B
Close Quarters
  • ACW-R
  • MTAR-21
Hand Guns
  • .44 Magnum
  • 93R
  • G17C
  • G18
  • M9
  • M1911
  • MP412 REX
  • MP443
Light Machine Guns
  • M27 IAR
  • M240B
  • M249
  • M60E4
  • PKP Pecheneg
  • RPK-74M
  • Type 88 LMG
Back to Karkand
  • MG36
  • QBB-95
Close Quarters
  • L86A2
  • LSAT
Personal Defense Weapons
  • AS VAL
  • MP7
  • P90
  • PDW-R
  • PP-2000
  • UMP-45
Back to Karkand
  • PP-19
Close Quarters
  • M5K
Rocket Launchers
  • FIM-92 Stinger
  • RPG-7V2
  • SA-18 IGLA
  • SMAW
  • 870MCS
  • DAO-12
  • M1014
  • SAIGA-12K
  • USAS-12
Back to Karkand
  • MK3A1
Close Quarters
  • SPAS-12
Sniper / Battle / Marksman Rifles
  • AS VAL
  • M39 EMR
  • M40A5
  • M82A3
  • M98B
  • MK11 MOD 0
  • SKS
  • SVD
  • SV98
Back to Karkand
  • L96
  • QBU-88
Close Quarters
  • JNG-90
  • M417

Including the gadgets you unlock throughout score. I believe the mass ammounts of that Battlefield holds makes the game a better wargame plus the combat with the wepons and how it takes in player opinion into the game to make it the ultimate war.





I'm not sure I agree that Battlefield has better graphics. If they are, it's certainly not by much. I would, however, like to better explain why graphics hold little weight to me personally.

The first video game console I ever used was the original NES, and then the Super NES when it was released. Some of the most well-crafted games I have ever played were on those systems. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past may very well be my favorite game of all time. While it was excellent for its time, compared to the graphics of todays games, the 16 bits that it bolstered are nothing. Even so, I still love playing it (gotta love emulators), and other games from that era as well. Don't get me wrong, though. I, of course, love the graphical improvements games have made over the years. In my eyes, they basically rank in as a bonus, rather than a necessity. For instance, I love Minecraft. Graphics are no where near a strong point in it, but the gameplay, along with the nostalgia of playing with legos as a kid, more than makes up for it.

Drawback #1:
For the map sizes and gameplay, I honestly don't care what the game are supposed to be. All that matters is what they actually are. As I said before, I do like that players have to rely on there skill with a gun to achieve victory, rather than firing explosives from a tank, or firing missiles from a jet. And besides that, Call of Duty does still have the other elements of war through the killstreak/scorestreak systems. AC-130's, assault drones, helicopters, and UAVs/Counter UAVs to name a few. The biggest difference between CoD and Battlefield here is that in CoD, you're rewarded for skillful play with these powerhouse weapons or tactical support. In Battlefield, you can jump in a jet right when you spawn, attack with it until you die, and then wait at the spawnpoint until another one appears. It requires no skill, and I simply don't like that. (Yes, I know, not everybody does this, but I've seen plenty of people do it)

As for the spawning, it seems you misunderstood me. I didn't mean dying because you picked a bad time to spawn on a teammate. The problem I had (it's very possible this has since been patched) is that when someone spawns on a teammate, they sometimes spawn behind the players they are trying to kill, rather than right next to the teammate. Enemies magically appearing behind you and killing you gets extremely annoying, quickly.

I admit, this MIGHT happen in CoD, but if it does, it's generally because you're team isn't working together, and you're all spread out over the map.

Drawback #2: I never said CoD gives you more tactical advantages. Neither game gives you ANY tactical advantages, as no matter which game you're playing, anything your team can do, the enemy team can also do.

Of course, not all players blow things up as a primary tactic, but there are still plenty more than I'd like who do, as expert players are certainly not the majority.

Gameplay: I wasn't saying CoD has superior gameplay because of those modes. I was simply saying that Battlefield isn't the only one of the two that has multiple modes, and fosters co-operative play. I just prefer the faster paced combat that, in my experience, CoD provides better than Battlefield.

Weapons: I'm not sure if your list of weapons is all from one specific battlefield game, or multiple ones. If it's from a single game, while variety is great, 70-some guns seems a little excessive. If it's from multiple games, then I'm not sure why you think that's so much better than CoD.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has 38 guns in total between primaries and sidearms. They are plenty varied, and that's not including the wide array of attachments you can put on the guns, lethal/tactical equipment, or the many different perks you can use to make custom classes that play the way you want them to.

Black Ops 2 also takes the class customization to a whole new level with it's pick 10 system. Basically, you have ten points to use, and any guns, attachments, perks, and equipment you want to use each take a point. For example, you can run two primary guns, each with 3 attachments, and take no perks or equipment if you want. Or, you can take six perks and hatchet, and nothing else, and use whatever weapons you find on people you take out. In my opinion, it's an amazing system that takes player preferences into account to an impressive degree.
Debate Round No. 3


TheSupremeDebater forfeited this round.


In conclusion, while both games have pros and cons, our personal opinions on these two games do not really matter beyond us. As Pro didn't refute my original argument, and in fact agreed with it, the resolution has been negated.

I would again like to thank TheSupremeDebater for issuing this challenge, and to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate. I hope it was enjoyable for everyone.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Conduct to Con due to FF. Also argument to Con due to the fact PRO completely avoided Cons opening statement that any game can not be better than the other, thus pro did not meet the BOP.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought it was an even debate, but TheSupremeDebater forfeited so I'll give conduct to mrsatan