The Instigator
SUDDENXD3ATH
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
TheAmazingLiberal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Call of Duty will remain the dominant game in the FPS genre, or will Battlefield take over?

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...
SUDDENXD3ATH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 45446
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

SUDDENXD3ATH

Pro

Call of Duty has been the dominant FPS franchise in the market since CoD: 4 came out in 2007. Many people are stating that they are becoming bored of the mega-franchise Call of Duty. I believe this is not so. Battlefield may have the edge in graphics, but CoD still holds the high ground in server quality, innovation of the game modes, and overall superiority in popularity. Battlefield 3 sold around 60 million units. Modern Warfare 3 sold twice that, a total of 120 million units. Battlefield is the franchise that is lacking innovation. BF4 has the same game modes as BF3. They only changed the maps and the guns. CoD: GHOSTS changed the same thing, but added Blitz, Cranked, Hunted, and even a whole new experience: Extinction. Battlefield 4 can't get by with their server issues, lackluster attempts at changing the game, and relying on their youtube, facebook, and twitter fanbase to keep the game alive. Battlefield hasn't come anywhere near CoD sales since CoD 3. Call of Duty simply trumps Battlefield on almost every level.
TheAmazingLiberal

Con

Like anything,that is prominent in anything,it will have it's demise,Myspace had it's demise,Rome had it's demise. The same can be said for Call Of Duty,the series has dominated the Gaming market,for little over a decade,and has been a major player,in the FPS Market. Battlefield has also been a major player in the FPS Market,but it sells to a slightly smaller audience,since Battlefield requires a fully developed brain to fully play it,and since most Call Of Duty players are 12 year's or 13 year's old,that type of game,doesn't. really sell to them. But eventually Call Of Duty will lose it's prominence in the market,and Battlefield 4,will likely take it's place,or any other shooting game. Also take into account that battlefield 4,is much more of PC oriented game,Call Of Duty,is a console oriented game,and guess what? More people have Consoles.
Debate Round No. 1
SUDDENXD3ATH

Pro

Call of Duty has new game modes, new mechanics, and almost consistently operating servers. Battlefield 4 lacks all three. Call of Duty has dominated for a decade, but Battlefield has been around longer than that (CoD since 2003; Battlefield since 2002). In my family, and most working class families, PC's outnumber consoles 2 to one or 3 to 1. More people use PC's than consoles. Battlefield lacks any advancement in the console world. They still have huge maps that funnel everyone into the middle only to get a multi-kill by someone in a tank dropping a building on them. CoD rewards the players for getting kills, controlling the map, and helping their teammates. Battlefield gives the advantage to the team that can get to their jets faster. CoD rewards the best player with kill-streaks that only the best players in the lobby can get. Battlefield is ruled by the to 10 people ton the leaderboard holding the jets and helicopter-mounted weapons. CoD is balanced around player skill, not the first person to spawn camp with a chopper-gunner with IR flares that is basically invincible once they get into the enemy spawn. CoD keeps the best players on top and the lower player a chance to get there with skill and determination, not learning the fastest way to get an overpowered jet or helicopter.
TheAmazingLiberal

Con

First,more people do not use PC's to game,than consoles,that is facetious,especially in Working Class Family's,who would be the last people,given their dire financial situations,to purchase a Gaming PC. How can you pose the argument,that people aren't getting bored,when you aren't those people,i personally purchased Ghosts,since my cousin plays those games,and I've sat down and played it,and to me it's not that different that Call Of Duty 4. Battlefield 4,takes a certain amount of skill,skill that isn't needed to play Call Of Duty,don't get me wrong COD is a fun game to play with friend's but it in no way trumps Battlefield 4. Call Of Duty Ghosts is utterly boring for me,it's the same rehashed game,I've played 1,000 times,literally since I've been alive since 1990. I personally find BF4,to be a more enjoyable experience,i find it fun,a quality i don't get from most modern day game's,sadly.
Debate Round No. 2
SUDDENXD3ATH

Pro

Call of Duty overpowers Battlefield with a fast-paced, challenging multiplayer. I have bought CoD for over five years. I still play CoD: 4. CoD 4 put the FPS genre on the map. Battlefield 4 could have been DLC for Bad Company 2. GHOSTS has a redesigned multi-player, great campaign, and a new bonus mode. Battlefield doesn't come close. The only thing Battlefield has is a stubborn fanbase that is not ready to admit defeat. CoD has provided endless hours of non-stop gameplay. And the only reason Battlefield is only really played on gaming PC's is because it is needlessly hard to process. CoD doubled Battlefield sales, and could be run on current-gen consoles and last-gen PC's without a problem. Battlefield still doesn't run right on next-gen consoles and needs at least an i7 processor to open up the main menu, let alone play the game. CoD has been on console since the original. Battlefield 4 couldn't run right on an original Xbox 360. GHOSTS runs nearly flawlessly on even my ancient 360 ELITE. Call of Duty is again, superior to Battlefield because of the fact that I don't have to shell out $1,000.00 on an upper class gaming PC. I can play CoD on a 360 without a problem.
TheAmazingLiberal

Con

How is Battlefields Fanbase Stubborn? Because they don't share the same gaming preference as you? I haven't had any problems with Battlefield 4 on Playstation 4. Ghosts campaign is the same rehashed garbage,we've seen from FPS games,for the past half a decade,and that goes for both Battlefield 4 and Ghosts,what exactly is so redesigned about the multiplayer in Ghosts? Why do you even care to debate preference? What's the point? You sound like a employee from Treyarch. Challenging multiplayer? I'm playing against a group of 12 year olds,when i play Call Of Duty most of the time,i get easily 25,30 kills playing Call Of Duty Ghosts. Also,what grandiose achievement,is winning a debate over which multi-million dollar franchise is better,because I haven't taken any sides,I'm taking a consumer Side,and my experience playing these games.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UltimateRussian 3 years ago
UltimateRussian
SUDDENXD3ATHTheAmazingLiberalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Its clear that pro had more evidence and used real data to support his claim nobody made grammar errors but con got mad and lost his temper so i docked him a point on conduct! :)