Battlefield is better then COD
Debate Rounds (3)
1: SOLD COPY STATISTICS
First of all, the title of this debate is that battlefield IS better than CoD. I will now prove that the majority of FPS gamers do not think so by showing the amount of sold copies:
all of Duty Franchise Sales TotalsReleasedUnits Sold
Call of Duty: 1,750,000
Call of Duty 2: 2,500,000
Call of Duty 3: 1,250,000
Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare: 13,500,000
Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2: 23,000,000
Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 3:26,500,000
Call of Duty : World at War: 11,000,000
Call of Duty : Black Ops: 21,500,000
Call of Duty : Black Ops 2: 24,200,000
Call of Duty : Ghosts2013: 14,500,000
Total Call of Duty Franchise Sales139,600,000
This compared to the battlefield franchise sales, in millions:
Battlefield 1942 2.47
Battlefield Vietnam 1.36
Battlefield 2 2.25
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat 1.64
Battlefield: Bad Company 2.59
Battlefield 1943 3.64
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 6.54
Battlefield 3 15.00
Battlefield 4 9.63
sources: http://www.vgchartz.com... and http://vgsales.wikia.com...
This clearly shows how battlefield is significantly less popular on the market than CoD.
2: MORE OPTIONS PER GAME
I could go very elaborate on this one. Just read that Pro wants a casual debate so I'll take it more easy now.
A: generally, more game modes. This includes multiplayer game modes as well as zombies/survival, which make for a unique experience with a lot of varying.
B: By adding killstreaks, lately the game will in total provide more "extra's" to compensate for Battlefield's vehicles. In total, since BO II, there are more killstreak-advantages than there are vehicles in battlefield.
C: Simply the fact that customizing your soldier involves camo's, face paint, perks... Makes character customization in CoD much better due to much more options.
3: SERVES ACTUAL USE IN OFFLINE MODE
Pro has made the statement that the campaign in battlefield would be better. However, it is not. Easily proven: CoD hires professional writers, hires great musicians such as Trent Reznor, and hires actors like Sam Worthington. This makes the experience so much better. Not only that, the story of the Black ops series was by far one of the best stories I have played in my gaming career. Although that's personal, I do think everyone will appreciate the fantastic work put into the character Mason, who fights alongside Woods and is constantly helped by Viktor Reznov. The plot was amazing as Mason and the player then realised what the others already knew: Reznov was imagined by Mason all along.
This compared to battlefield, where battlefield 3 has a story without any touching characters and close to no storyline, it simply became shooting your way through the AI. Battlefield shines in its multiplayer, and they were smart enough not to spend too much time on the single-player.
A third point that must be made here is that the offline mode of CoD-series provides an additional battle against AI, which have a difficulty that can be altered, and the zombies mode to top off the already amazing single player campaign.
4: MULTIPLAYER MODE
I will leave this to my opponent so I can see where he will argue in favor of Battlefield. I will reply to his findings, and make my points in the next round. I believe this is what the debate should be about, so I will not waste time here as that is what the debate really is about. You will be able to set out all of your points and hopefully I can then spend my entire next round discussing online experiences with you. I do think it is useless to argue about campaign, or anything else that is not multiplayer. I advise you not to mention it anymore, and hope the voter will not pay attention to this first round of mine which is simply proving a few facts.
We are going to debate the ONLINE mode, what people buy the game for, next.
And I'm eager to hear what your reply will be!
So online. One thing that is truly remarkable in BF is that they have bullet drop. You actually have to aim and make calculations to where you have to fire. There are game modes that make it an epic challenge and team challenge for players. the buildings fall apart and if you hid in cover it eventually (depending on what it is) WILL fall apart. The sprinting part of the game is very well made. You can sprint for as long as you want but, if you notice, you start to slow down a little bit until it really doesnt have any benefits. This is a true fact. In the real military they can run that long so its a nice touch. the fact that you can destroy buildings is ridiculous. you are no longer safe in buildings forever. instead off hit boxes you have what they call SUPPRESSION. This is when your fired at and it almost hit you but it didnt. you get a blurred vision so its harder to fight. The vehical combat in online is awesome as well. This is because in choppers you can give air support and even destroy the buildings for youre team. In COD there really isnt any. Another neat feature is that the more you use the vehicals the more that you can unlock for them.
to the voters i thank you for listening to my rant.
to my competitor i just want to take the time and say thank you for all this i appreciate this, thank you for taking the time to do thiss with me. its fun!
I'll list your points below just so that it is clear, and I'll then respond to them.
1) Bullet drop improving difficulty
2) Challenging game modes that improve teamwork
3) Environments in maps
4) Running is realistic
6) Vehicular combat
I'll try to reply to each of those points now, and see if I have space left for my own list of benefits to CoD multiplayer. If not, I will spend the entire third round listing those.
1) bullet drop improving difficulty
This feature is more likely to improve realism rather than for the challenge. It is well-known that CoD does not have this, but to add to the challenge of using sniper rifles, they added weapon sway so you would have to steady your weapon. That makes sniping in CoD so difficult, it has literally become a sport, something to make videos of and almost the idea behind the series. Here, battlefield chose for a realistic sway which makes it easier to use sniper rifles. Call of duty snipers who play battlefield, will whipe the floor with us battlefield players simply because they built up more skill learning to shoot while having particular disadvantages. The bullet drop will not be as bad, as the bullet still falls in a vertical line which still makes it a point-and-shoot challenge.
--> aiming difficulty in CoD is still harder, thanks to weapon sway.
2) Challenging game modes that improve team work
You are absolutely right about the team work - although I will prove that CoD has more challenging game modes. First , CoD has more game modes in the game (without DLC). Second, the game modes are much more challenging. They are more challenging because when comparing Rush to Demolition, in rush, there is no time limit: only a ticket limit. The rush games end up being a bunch of "front lines" that need to be moved as close to the objective as possible. In CoD, it is simply killing the enemy and finding 8 seconds to arm the bomb (off-guard!). In Rush, not only will you win only when the 'front line' is already past the objective, but you can also shoot while arming the bomb.
It will indeed take team work from BOTH sides to make the game challenging. If not, then rush is just a walk in the park (just like conquest).
3) Environments in maps
I think you are aware that when mentioning "destructable environment" that only goes for certain buildings? All players are aware what can be destroyed or not, which makes it quite obvious where players will be hiding. Destroying the environment is only fun when in a tank, but your average enemy will be smart enough to hide in the indestructible buildings.
Comparing the elements mentioned by you to those in CoD is hard. CoD makes maps for fast-paced action, in which they succeeded. Battlefield makes giant buildings collapse, but had tons of problems with freezing games at launch. Be my guest, pick what you will: a functioning game that fulfills its purpose, or one that freezes trying to impress the player?
4) running is realistic
Agreed that CoD does not have a realistic running period, but that is necessary to prevent players from rushing through the maps. On a whole, I wouldn't judge a game by how the player runs.
This only occurs in battlefield 3, I am not sure if they used it in 4. I consider this a good feature within the BF franchise, but not one that makes the game better than CoD. CoD doesn't want you to take cover or hide, it doesn't want a realistic experiecnce. It wants the player to go head-on so that he keeps being in the middle of the action. Both succeeded at what they wanted to do, so this does not prove BF to be better than CoD.
6) Vehicular combat
Fighting with vehicles adds to the challenge, but as said earlier, there aren't as many types of vehicles as there are killstreaks. Killstreak also seem to balance the game, while easy-access to vehicles in battlefield does not.
Why the vehicles do not work as they are supposed to:
A: everyone can access them, which can have devestating results for the team.
B: there is no counter against an already-dominating little bird.
C: The enemy can steal your vehicles, making it impossible to turn the tide.
I see that I have 5700 characters remaining, but I'm a bit tired so I will leave my description about CoD for later. I wish to hear my opponent's reply to these points and possible new argumentation.
Looking forward to the next round!
The class customization is different as well. you have three different slots for specified attachments like; scopes, and lasers and the such. there are so many more guns and attachments. that's really all i got so my prediction is you win this argument but it was well fought buddy and kudos to you man
I enjoyed this too, but if I were you, I wouldn't give up on defending battlefield so fast.
The fact that there are more guns and attachments is very true, although there are a fair amount of useless guns and attachments.
Thanks for having this debate!
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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded the debate in round 3
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.