The Instigator
revic
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
jo_shan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Battlefield is a better series than 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...
revic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 53500
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

revic

Pro

I am well-aware that this debate is already on this site - but the one defending battlefield is not good with words and practically lost a debate by missing out on arguments he could have used.

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.
jo_shan

Con

video juegos enviaban real. ambos son terribles. Webkinz es mejor. no eres real.
Debate Round No. 1
revic

Pro

Unfortunately, some spanish guy who doesn't really wanna debate has ruined this for me.
Check the comment section for some actual interesting debates.
jo_shan

Con

the battlefeild and coll of dutie games i have never played. i cannot afford those game boxes.
Debate Round No. 2
revic

Pro

then why did you accept this in the first place?
jo_shan

Con

because everyday, i dream that SOMEDAY i will be able to afford some of the luxuries that you middle class people have. when i need to use internet, i dont have the ability to go to my office, i have to go to the public library and use those terrible and slow computers. i dont have the luxury that you richer people have thank you. you shouldn't be mean to people that are less fortunate than you.
Debate Round No. 3
revic

Pro

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be mean at all. I was just looking forward to a discussion with my fellow gamers!

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

Con

you dont understand... i dont own a pc or anything. the most technoilagical thing that our family can afford is a huge tv from the 80s. its terrible.
Debate Round No. 4
revic

Pro

...i'm sorry for you bro... :/
jo_shan

Con

jo_shan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
"Really? I haven't reported him or anything. He probably left himself!"

Heh, I wasn't accusing you of anything, lol. Maybe he left or was banned, who knows.

Again, yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you say. You've built a good case for BF's strong-points. Getting over the difference in control-feeling is something I'll need to do if I'm going to enjoy BF to its full potential.
Posted by revic 2 years ago
revic
Really? I haven't reported him or anything. He probably left himself!

To be honest, I agree that BF's controls aren't the best. But they had to add more buttons, while essentially, it's the same: R1 reload, L1 Aim, analog sticks to move and look, square to reload and triangle to change weapons and X to jump. They've just added tons of buttons for kits, and had to change a few buttons because in battlefield, knifing isn't as important and entering vehicles ( O button) is a decent switch with crouch because crouching must be done fast, IF it has to be done. Most of the time, you have all the time in the world to enter a vehicle.

But I have had the same experience as you and had alot of trouble with the new, tough controls when I first played. Eventually though, you'll get used to it and find that now you have alot more up your arsenal than just one additional claymore or a motion sensor. Each kit really has 2 slots unique to the class, that you can pick. Also, because a weapon can have 3 attachments and there are no perks, every soldier feels the same and will spend more time getting unlocks for his weapons bringing back the focus to the actual gun you have. Making a good kit isn't as fun as it is in CoD, but in the end you'll still end up making combinations for your tactics rather than a survival kit. I used to score loads of points by placing motion sensors in the hotspots on operation metro. I combined that with a semi-auto sniper or the SV98 to snipe the ones with their MG defending from far away. By doing that, not only do i help my teammates out but i also get points for it and feel useful. It really does turn the tide if one soldier is comitted enough, even though you don't get honoured with killcams/KD ratio's afterwards.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
Just noticed that Jo_Shan's account has been closed.

That's a shame, seemed like a nice person.

I hope the moderators haven't overstepped their boundaries and banned Jo's account as that would be a truly douche-bag move considering that Jo is new to the community and deserves a chance.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, they're both brilliant games, and maybe if I spend more time on BF I'll start to enjoy it more than I do COD. Your arguments for BF are convincing and make me want to slip the disc in again, admittedly I haven't played it in a long time and maybe it deserves more time. I think my main problem with BF was the controls, after years playing with the smooth controls of COD every other FPS I've touched since just feels clunky. In conclusion I think it's obvious that BF provides the more realistic and co-operative experience, with better environments, more weapon-permutations, more diverse action thanks to the many vehicles, and arguably, a nicer community, while COD is more arcadey and competitive-based, with smoother controls, faster-paced, and a greater feeling that you, one man, can make a difference in who wins. Like I say, I think I might give BF a spin tonight.
Posted by revic 2 years ago
revic
Nathan is right, you shouldn't worry about it!

Nathan: For those reasons of playability and non-realistic fast paced action, CoD has indeed grown to be the most popular FPS series out there. It also helps series survive even after they are outdated: i can still play WAW zombie matches! amazing! So yes, that most certainly is an argument in your favour.
But, on the other hand, bf3 has only a select people playing it: mostly people who are there to play with friends and to have these "mini-campaigns" on the online modus, like defending a position. You ofcourse know that camping near the bomb in demolition is extremely boring and wont pay off, because you will most likely get stunned or flashed. BF3 did not have such a thing and encouraged people to defend positions.

As for your example of S&D, this really does provide alot of stress and excitement alltogether. That's when the player truly feels alive. But it is the same case when playing hardcore squad rush on bf3, where for each death you will feel extremely guilty. because of the large terrains, these matches take more time but pay off with equally as much stress. Also, the counterargument is that while you are having this awesome time, 5 people are waiting. If you don't know these people, they will be less likely to care: the CoD community involves alot of self-interest. The best example? Zombies. When a guy goes down, he will leave so that his own score would benefit.
Ragequitting is also a fine example, and they are right that they ragequit: you don't have a chance against better enemies who get 11 kill streaks. In BF, ragequitting happens less often thanks to the balanced system where defending your spawnpoints is realistic and offers you a chance to turn the tide. I've began to enjoy these situations so much because they are challenging, mostly so because your enemy does not gain special advantages like killstreaks. In CoD, I often just conclude the match is over and leave.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
That should read: "I don't think it's that we're being mean".

I really should proof-read more often.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
I wouldn't worry Jo-shan. It's okay.

I don't think it's that we're being, but just a little disappointed. I mean if I were Revic and put time and effort into a post I would expect the person to reply to do the same and put time and effort into their response.

Don't worry. No hard feelings my friend.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
It's interesting to note that however, that statistically, COD is more popular than BF. The number of players that play BF3 online for example are around 150,000-200,000 whereas Black Ops 2 for instance is pulling in about 600,000-800,000 the last time I logged on. And I'm pretty sure the other COD games boast equally as impressive stats. So COD appears to be more popular as far as I can see, but I suppose being popular does not by virtue make it the better game. There are games, after all, that aren't popular and no-one plays, yet are absolutely brilliant. Freedom Fighters on PS2 for example was critically praised by journalists but played by very few. To BF's credit, the vehicles are enormously fun, and when I play I always feel as though I'm part of a massive war, with planes flying overhead, missiles raining down on me, snipers trying to pick me off from the roof-tops, and explosions everywhere, sometimes there's so much going on you feel totally disoriented and helpless, but I suppose that's what"s war is like. I love both games. I truly do. But COD has a special place in my heart. There's nothing that gets my heart pumping more than being the last man alive in COD on S&D and facing a 1v1 situation with the bomb-timer ticking away. Not wanting to let your team-mates down induces real adrenaline-fuelled suspense. And the feeling you get when you kill the last guy and defuse with 0.1 seconds left on the timer. Oh yeah, only COD gives me those raw emotional highs.
Posted by Nathan-D 2 years ago
Nathan-D
I agree, BF3 is definitely the more cerebral game, you have to really use tactics to survive whereas COD is more mindless running-and-gunning. And BF3 I think encourages more cooperation as well, players really work together, using their unique class specialities to try and give their team an edge in certain situations and reviving fallen players adds to the game's sense of camaraderie. It's a game where working together is fun and I will concede the maps are more interesting than COD's. Battlefield has of course now introduced destructible environments that adds to the game's realism and immersion. Nothing quite destroys your suspension of disbelief in COD when you shoot rockets at windows and walls and they do nothing. In that respect BF is better more realistic. But COD can be realistic too, albeit in more subtle ways. The decision in COD4 to kill off all of the principle cast was a realistic representation of war; lives can be cruelly snatched away, no matter how invested you are in them. The main narrative in COD4, 2 and 3 was enormously fun. Trying to complete the Carnival mission on Veteran still gives me nightmares. The fast-paced, gung-ho combat in COD, however, isn't realistic at all. But in the best possible, most entertaining way. Also I'm sure there are kids out there who want to join the army because of COD's arguable glamorization of war and think that sitting behind a wall for 10 seconds can heal you from multiple gunshot wounds.
Posted by jo_shan 2 years ago
jo_shan
i am very sorry sir, my english is bad, english is hard. i have to use translator. please don't be mean aboot it
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
revicjo_shanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made an actual argument...