Battlefield is a better series than Call of Duty
Debate Rounds (5)
The reasons why Battlefield would be better are in fact quite simple.
1) The gameplay will initially provide the feeling of being a true soldier. Undeniably, it is very realistic to a degree and this will stimulate players to play safer rather than bothering to be the n1 player in the game. Later on, ofcourse, that changes: everyone wants to be a good player, right!? But still, the player will be more likely to care about team work and have more purposes than simply being the best.
2) The vehicles are diverse and each type has its own interesting attachments. They are not simply transport and provide more potential situations for the player to face, whereas Call of Duty simply has the situation of PvP combat never requiring to take out a rocket launcher to blast the opponent's heli or tank.
3) The large maps are NOT a disadvantage. They give the player an opportunity to snipe from a safe distance and give the player more places to hide/defend/attack from. Flanking suddenly gets important again. Players can easily take off with their squad in a tank/jeep to try and turn the tide on their own. However, running alone is indeed not fun. Let's not forget though, that there are maps like Operation Metro too.
4) There is a decent soldier system that stimulates players to do teamwork. The fact that each member in a squad can choose to be medic, engineer, support or recon, gives each individual a function in the game that he will feel like doing. It is quite obvious an engineer will stay with a medic, and that the medic will provide health when needed. Points are received when doing so. In Call of Duty, none of this exists: players even evade each other in fear of getting their "kills stolen". The headset system there is also used mostly for speaking of a player's own achievments, like "oh my god, i quickscoped a camper!" rather than: "there's a camper here, help me take him out".
5) I cannot make a count of which game has more weapons and attachments, but where Call of Duty gives its players alot of completely useless weapons and some overpowered, each weapon in battlefield has its own purpose and advantages. There isn't a weapon in the game that is completely useless.
6) This last comment is an argument why Call of Duty would be bad.
Call of Duty takes skill. A player cannot learn and be good, an untalented player will at the most become average. As it is each for himself, this makes the game quite frustrating when facing people with a better aim and quicker reflexes than yourself.
Battlefield does not have this problem. Each player will be of use, no matter what: noobs are still going to be able to shoot an enemy as long as they stick with the others. Moreover, reviving is so easy they will quickly become an essential part on the battlefield.
Check the comment section for some actual interesting debates.
Besides, if you have a pc you can game. All of the games are available online (yarr!) and have allowed many of my less-wealthy friends to enjoy them just as much as i did - if not even more.
The fact that i buy the games legal is only because i play on consoles, which you are obviously referring to when you say that you can't afford them. I'm sorry if you can't.
jo_shan forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an actual argument...
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.