The Instigator
ngowans8
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sircam22
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Battlefield is better than Call Of Duty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 440 times Debate No: 40975
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ngowans8

Pro

This debate is to find the advantages and disadvantages of each franchise and hopefully establish which is the greater intellectual property.

This debate will adhere to the following format
Round 1 - Introduction of yourself and experience playing both franchises and the systems you have played them on and initial reasons for choosing your preferred franchise.
Round 2 - Positive arguments for your chosen franchise (Pro/For = battlefield, Con/against = COD) and reasons your franchise is superior
Round 3 - Negative arguments against your competitors franchise (keep it clean)
Round 4 - Debunking, debating and disproving your competitors round 3 statements.
Round 5 - Final closing statements and summarizing each others arguments.

Also please keep the foul language to a minimum. I know how passionate COD fans can be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets begin.

I'm 28 years old and I have been a gamer for the past 20 years, I play a variety of genres and I started playing first person shooters in 1993 with Wolfenstien 3D followed by the Doom series. More recently I have spent several hundred hours playing Battlefield 3 and Battlefield Bad Company on Playstation 3, at least 30 hours playing Battlefield 4 on Playstation 3, I have also played dozens of hours on battlefield 3 and Battlefield 1942 on PC and unfortunately only 1 hour on battlefield 4 on PC. I have also played roughly 70 hours of Call of Duty Modern Warfare on Xbox 360, At least a hundred hours of Modern Warfare 3 on Playstation 3 and I've played several hundred hours of Black ops 2 on Playstation 3. I also have Battlefield 4 ordered for the UK release day.

The primary reason I believe Battlefield to be the greater franchise is not related to sales figures, but to the innovation and advancement between each successive release as well as the better game-play values, and the technical ingenuity behind the concept. I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to imply that Call of Duty isn't a good franchise, as it clearly is. But simply that it's far too overrated compared to its main rival, and I'd like this debate to examine the reasons behind this.
Sircam22

Con

Ok I have been a pretty intensive gamer for the last 8 years. I have played Numerous amounts of hours on Battlefield Bad company, Battlefield 3, And now 4. I have also played Almost all of the Call of Duty's including the most recent game call of duty ghosts. I enjoy PC gaming (#MasterRace) and also dabble in Console (xbox360). Now Onto The Debate. With experience In both games I can say this, Call of Duty's campaigns are AMAZING! Now saying this Battlefields Online IS AMAZING! So why do I still think COD (call of duty) Is a better franchise... Well the answer is not so simple but bear with me. COD aims itself at an extremely broad set of audiences. You can Go on a call of duty multiplayer match and find a whole wide variety of age levels because it is so intuitive and easy to play. When you get into a game like battlefield it is much more complex and less fun to a simple joe who wants to pick up a controller (or mouse) and be able to play off of the bat. Now saying this I will admit this applies to a very small range of players. However this is where it gets interesting. Recently Money wise the battlefield franchise has been smashing the call of duty franchise in sales but The after sales are what grabbed my attention. Buyers of the newest battlefield 4 game were EXTREMELY dissatisfied with it. Not only is it completely glitchy it is extremely gear based. When I say gear based I mean in order to play the game to its fullest extent you need to buy gaming equipment to help you along. Now of course this does not apply to everyone but after playing the game myself and reading many amazon reviews I can conclude that having gaming gear helps A TON. Having a game that requires gear is usually ok but having a game of this scale and requiring gear is ridiculous. Heck I can barley fly a plane in battlefield 4! Yet the people with joysticks destroy me on PC! Continuing on this expert level of gameplay leaves the majority of gamers who are "casual" gamers gawking! Now looking to call of duty ghosts we can see that there wasn't much innovation witch caused some disdainful remarks on amazon but it still yields an amazing gameplay and a reliable multiplayer. Battlefield has not been able to yield a sustainable Multiplayer and a sustainable offline playing mode while cod delivers on both. Now getting to where you said COD was overrated. I would not say it is overrated more as it is popular with a younger audience. The younger audience is usually the audience who posts about it online and does videos of it and so on. The younger audience hypes cod up because it is really fun. COD aimes at making cool interesting things like the attack dog (witch I hate but for the sakes of this argument I will pretend to love) and the Ridiculously awesome kill-streaks. This makes it fun for a younger audience to play because there is something to work towards. Saying this I also Have heard and read that Many battlefield 4 buyers after buying battlefield 4 have then proceded to buy COD GHOSTS! On any sale sight like amazon, Ebay,etc you can see that COD Ghosts Has gotten Better Reviews! Now What I will finish with is this. When a game Wins over a younger audience It wins over the FUTURE audience and since most younger players play cod, in the future most younger players will STILL play cod! THis is why I think that the call of duty franchise is better, because it appeals to a wider audience and is easy to play! Battlefield 4 might be doing better sales wise right now but just wait till the future to see how cod is going to destroy battlefield!
Debate Round No. 1
ngowans8

Pro

Pick up and win - I must confess that Call of Duty does appeal to a wide range of people due to its "pick up and win" kind of game-play although in the opinion of many people (myself included) making a game where anyone, of all ages can pick up and play and occasionally win, does not make a necessarily make a good multiplayer experience. Many people prefer a game which takes dedication and time to master. Regarding your comment on items for instance, a moderately skilled 1st person shooter player can start a profile on Call of Duty, and using any default class, can win a match against an evenly matched played who has reached master prestige and unlocked all items. This means that in theory a player doesn't need to work hard to win matches. Battlefield on the other hand, a player needs to work to unlock the kits and weapons because the weapons he gains could well be crucial to victory and he can find the perfect gun and setup for any situation. Also a more experienced player in battlefield will have picked up skills, flanking routes and effective methods of dispatching his enemy depending on the situation whether they be armored, airborn, or fast moving targets with real experience (ie not just in game xp) In reality anyone with basic skills can learn to play battlefield, but as you kind of pointed out, younger players might not have the patience to work hard for victory. Which simply put, the game appeals to more people, simply because of human laziness. One of the other reasons I believe cod to be weaker in a multiplayer respect is because of the reliance on luck. Many a time I have played a match and gone 20-0 simply because of the fact that luck was on my side, then the very next match on a similar map I go 2-10 against the same team with the same loadouts, no notable variables have changed, I just got unlucky on many of my encounters, this is also the reason the weaker player can occasionally win.

Teamwork - My other argument for the reason battlefield is a greater game is the teamwork aspect of game-play. Call of duty rarely (and negligibly) promotes game-play, the fact that the only real benefit of working as a team is the few assist points gained for half killing an opponent and your team mate finishing him off and the obvious numbers advantage. Battlefield gives you bonus points for many aspects of squad and team based play. From issuing and following orders to cap objectives to providing health/maintenance on vehicles and spotting and laser designating targets for fellow team mates. Also when a well planned and skilled squad works very closely on battlefield they can overcome almost any obstacle whether that is to destroy a building and the enemies inside, or to defeat a column of tanks and plan an effective ambush, crew a transport helo and provide mobile spawns for the rest of the team while laying down fire, or just take on greatly overwhelming numbers and survive. In COD players just do there own thing and make the occasional callout.

Innovation - For now I speak of the changes between BF3 and BF4. The reason battlefield wins in this respect is the constant improvements made to the game engine itself. Granted the changes are most noticeable on next gen systems and PC but they still exist on last gen systems. These are obviously the levolution events on each map, the lighting and rendering of the game itself and the general destructibility of the environments. Today there are much more destructible elements which in turn means the maps are more dynamic than ever. The programming which went into the frostbite 3 engine must of been so incredibly complex that having it run on anything but a high end pc is an achievement in itself and the nextcode to make damage to every structure and patch of ground appear the same for every player must be so incredibly detailed that COD developers are left standing with mouths wide open. In comparison the COD engine relies entirely on completely static environments with a few simple triggers and some very basic "on rails" events but concentrates entirely on simply mastering the old engine to provide the speed and efficiency required for a twitch shooter. While COD has been trying to perfect its engine between releases and Battlefield has been overhauling its engine on every release Battlefield wins hands down regarding innovation, although the occasional bugs and glitches are the side effect. Also regarding bugs, consider that when cod loads its running a map perhaps 300 x 300 meters max, when BF loads it's creating a map at least 10 times the size.

Campaign - I must confess, the COD campaigns do look very beautiful and play very well they also has a very strong plot and good character development. We should keep in mind however that up (and arguably, into) the modern warfare series, COD had been designed to be a single player game, with a multiplayer aspect "thrown in for good measure" More recently they've seen the multiplayer game explode into what it is today but the multiplayer still uses the same engine it did when it was a single player game with added mulitplayer (albeit tweeked and improved) This is the reason COD has such a strong campaign, because every new title's campaign needs to meet (or exceed) the standards of the previous title and being that it's been so good for so long the campaign have evolved into what it is today. (which is very impressive) Battlefield on the other hand was designed to be a multiplayer experience, the campaign was almost added as an after though to help it appeal to offline gamers. The evidence for this is the titles, "Battlefield" implies large battles on open areas against numerous enemies with numerous allies. "Call of Duty" implies, objectives, missions and saving the world.

So to summarize - The reason Cod appeals to all ages of gamers is simply down to the "pick up and win" factor and the laziness of human nature and as it relies to some degree on the "luck" of the players. Battlefield will always win when it comes down to teamwork, this is common knowledge. Battlefield will always win when it comes down to innovation, this is very evident in every new release. And call of duty will always win when it comes down to Campaign modes, namely because that's where it started out, so its in its heritage.
Sircam22

Con

Sircam22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ngowans8

Pro

ngowans8 forfeited this round.
Sircam22

Con

Sircam22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ngowans8

Pro

ngowans8 forfeited this round.
Sircam22

Con

Sircam22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ngowans8

Pro

ngowans8 forfeited this round.
Sircam22

Con

Sircam22 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.