The Instigator
Jhate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Reid
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Call of duty Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battle field 3 as far as sales, campign, etc

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,385 times Debate No: 19642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Jhate

Pro

For my argument i believe Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3 in sales, campaign, multiplayer, etc. I will not post my reasons this round but i assure you i will start debating next round and am willing to let my opponent start now or wait ill second round.
Reid

Con

I accept the resolution given by my opponent and I will prove that Battlefield 3 is the superior video game when compared to Battlefield 3. I hope my opponent chooses to expand on what qualifies as being "better" in terms of a video game then just sales, campaign and the multiplayer. I will be abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 as COD:MW3, and Battlefield 3 as BF3 for clarification. Please avoid personal opinions when it comes to arguing that the campaign is better, or the multiplayer, etc.

I will begin my begin the debate by first addressing the issue realism within both games.
Battlefield 3 developed the Frostbite Engine 2.0 specifically for BF3, which was a complete remake of the first engine. However, COD:MW3 lacked the urge to develop anything new. They continued to use Infinity Ward's old engine which has been known to cause problems before. However, Frostbite Engine 2.0 has sustained the heavy beatings and after the beta, almost ALL known bugs / glitches were fixed. Because of this, Battlefield 3 is considered one of the most realistic FPS games of its time. Unlike COD:MW3 where you regenerate health after every time you get shot, BF3 strays from this and deploys a sense of realism into the game. On top of that, it allows the person to operate all kinds of vehicles including ATV's, Jeeps, Tanks, Air planes, etc. when COD:MW3 lacks that major content.

On a side note, every platform where BF3 was released maintained a 4/5 (8/10) rating or higher by major companies, but COD:MW3 put barely any effort into the WII version of their game, giving it a rating of 4.5/10.

Moving on to address the multiplayer.
As I stated before, BF3 is clearly more real then COD:MW3, and on top of this, BF3 has expanded its multiplayer game play more then COD:MW3. BF3 extended the max player capacity by 40 players, where as MW3 maintained the same amount. BF3 also has the same capabilities as MW3 when being compared to making clans, matches, teams, unlocking system, etc., it is just created differently due to the platform difference.

While COD:MW3 may be more liked and more sold, it doesn't prove Battlefield 3 is any worse. The Call of Duty series has always been more mainstream, due to the amount of Xbox 360 players compared to PC gamers because BF3's main platform is based on the PC. I'm not saying we should ignore completely ignore it in the debate, but fairly compare it its predecessors before it and show the difference in sales.

I look forward to debating this topic, and I wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Jhate

Pro

I wish my opponent best of luck as well. First i will respond to what you said about MW3 having health regeneration. The thing i like is yea its unrealistic to have health regeneration, But thats what the expansion in multiplayer is for. You have hardcore modes for users who really want that real feel. Now you said Bf3 looks better yes it does but as far as game play and desire from players it goes to MW3.

You said it has more operative vehicles basically im not gonna go word for word but not everyone likes spending a whole mission in a tank and jet. MW3 they had some vehicle operation but mainly left it up to you to fight your way through in the campaign. Also vehicles in multiplayer on Battlefield 3 have been a big complaint. Take this you are trying to hide form a tank and it shoots and knocks the cover that your hiding behind away and then the second shot kills you its to easy. Not so realistic.

Bf3 maps are also really big. Yea people like to explore but by the time you've ran for 3 minutes and find someone if you die you spawn pretty far away. I have played both and experienced this. Also the classes for Bf3 are not weapon desired. MW3 allows you to pick and choose what weapons you want and unlock multiple things and choose your camo giving the player a little creativity. Why choose from very little classes when you can make what you wanna use and find combinations that will help you.

Also looks at the campaign compared to last years Call of duty black ops. You are basically being integrated and going back in time to do missions very similar to black ops. Now their are users who dont have xbox live or dont play ps3 live. What can these people do on Bf3? Play campaign. Mw3 has special ops, and survival for people who wanna buddy up and share a controller and do missions and try and survive on a map.This is a very big point and addition as it gives players something to do when tired of dieing on multiplayer.

Also MW3 really gives you something else to play for besides a win. You also try to get kill streaks. Yea Mw3 has some overpowered stuff *sometimes* (key word) and i mean that is how it is more realistic because the better you do the more stuff you call in. It gives you something to work for. Also the challenges offer very challenging things and can up your skill level. It isn't just run and gun alot of Mw3 is teamwork and maintaining spawn positions and watching your back. Yea its fast paced and the only real difference between Mw2 and Mw3 is it has a very similar multiplayer. Story is different, special ops is different, and yea they brought back very few guns from Mw2. Some of it looks the same thats really the only thing. Graphics go to Bf3 but as far as strategy and being user friendly as well as allowing creativity goes to Mw3 and other things. Mw3 is just as real as any war game if not more real.

You mention the unlocking system i battlefield, again i doubt people would rather unlock premade classes then make their own. When i say better i mean something that gives you a better multiplayer and better experience as far as game play and giving multiple options. Yes the engine issue is a very big deal but at the same time the updates are happening and they are expanding servers. As i stated big maps expose you as well. BF3 has server issues, glitches, 20 seconds to start a game, maps too big, fight for vehicles to be able to do awesome things.
In Mw3 It doesn't have vehicles. Yeah cause you're a soldier, not an all round god to know how to pilot all of those.
You dont have parachutes, nope because military isn't stupid enough to airdrop people in the middle of a battlefield. The little things are really the big things when t comes to realism. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Reid

Con

Road Map: I will address my opponents arguments made and defend my own case at the same time throughout this entire rebuttal.

"The thing i like is yea its unrealistic to have health regeneration, But thats what the expansion in multiplayer is for. You have hardcore modes for users who really want that real feel. Now you said Bf3 looks better yes it does but as far as game play and desire from players it goes to MW3."

First, my opponent concedes that there is this "unrealistic" feel. He says, however, that the "multiplayer" is for people who want the feel. But in multiplayer, health regeneration still exists and the hardcore mode just doesn't contain enough realism.
Second and lastly, he says even though BF3 is more real, more people play MW3 which makes it a better game. COMPLETELY and UTTERLY not true. I will give you a similar comparison. The movie Dark Knight was viewed by thousands of more people then the movie, Hurt Locker. However, Hurt Locker received better ratings, achieved "Best Film" award. The Hurt Locker was an under-viewed movie, but in the end was much better. Although BF3 is not as played by as many people unlike MW3, BF3 still contains certain factors which makes it the better video game.

"You said it has more operative vehicles basically im not gonna go word for word but not everyone likes spending a whole mission in a tank and jet. MW3 they had some vehicle operation but mainly left it up to you to fight your way through in the campaign. Also vehicles in multiplayer on Battlefield 3 have been a big complaint. Take this you are trying to hide form a tank and it shoots and knocks the cover that your hiding behind away and then the second shot kills you its to easy. Not so realistic."

In Battlefield 3, you don't actually spend the whole mission in a tank or jet, but a lot of people like variety then just running around on foot. MW3 has barely any real vehicle operation, BF3 however offers a comprehensive list of vehicles to choose from. I would like to see a source from you where vehicles have been a "big issue" because vehicles are apart of the game, and if you got shot by a tank in real life, I'm pretty sure you would die from that first shot or be put into a extreme case of shell shock. Plenty of realism.

"Bf3 maps are also really big. Yea people like to explore but by the time you've ran for 3 minutes and find someone if you die you spawn pretty far away. I have played both and experienced this. Also the classes for Bf3 are not weapon desired. MW3 allows you to pick and choose what weapons you want and unlock multiple things and choose your camo giving the player a little creativity. Why choose from very little classes when you can make what you wanna use and find combinations that will help you."

The map size is depended upon the game type and there are many different ones where people can choose from. This also avoids spawn camping which has been a significant issue in every COD Game released. The classes in BF3 create a sense of balance to support your teamates, play on the assault, or assist vehicles through an engineer class. Each class can be customized by its equipment extensively, maybe not camo, but by the attachments, yes.

"Also looks at the campaign compared to last years Call of duty black ops. You are basically being integrated and going back in time to do missions very similar to black ops. Now their are users who dont have xbox live or dont play ps3 live. What can these people do on Bf3? Play campaign. Mw3 has special ops, and survival for people who wanna buddy up and share a controller and do missions and try and survive on a map.This is a very big point and addition as it gives players something to do when tired of dieing on multiplayer."

I would like some type of source saying the campaigns are very "similar" then from your point of view. BF3's campaign is much more developed compared to MW3's and has more realism then the typical "World Ending" scenario. BF3 may not have spec ops, but we shouldn't look at BF3 from just an XBOX 360 view, but PC as well because that is their main platform for that game. Moving on to address the next argument made. My opponent says MW3 has special ops and COOP, however, BF3 also has COOP for its game as well. So that "buddy" option isn't exclusive to just MW3, but like I said, BF3 as well.

"Also MW3 really gives you something else to play for besides a win. You also try to get kill streaks. Yea Mw3 has some overpowered stuff *sometimes* (key word) and i mean that is how it is more realistic because the better you do the more stuff you call in. It gives you something to work for. Also the challenges offer very challenging things and can up your skill level. It isn't just run and gun alot of Mw3 is teamwork and maintaining spawn positions and watching your back. Yea its fast paced and the only real difference between Mw2 and Mw3 is it has a very similar multiplayer. Story is different, special ops is different, and yea they brought back very few guns from Mw2. Some of it looks the same thats really the only thing. Graphics go to Bf3 but as far as strategy and being user friendly as well as allowing creativity goes to Mw3 and other things. Mw3 is just as real as any war game if not more real."

Killstreaks in MW3 are limited to players who become very lucky or are so dang good they always achieve the best one In BF3, this is eliminated, giving a fair chance to every person playing to have a vehicle / weapon / etc. once unlocked. My opponent conceded that killstreaks are overpowered, but says "its something to work for." But MW3 gives an unfair advantage to people who play this game every so often compared to people who play it every day. BF3 keeps the game fair and balanced. While MW3 may have teamwork, BF3's teamwork is much more comprehensive. [1] From NowGamer, in an article written by Dave Cook, he explains the debate between teamwork in both games.

BF3 - "Teamwork is part and parcel of Battlefield 3. Across all four character classes, you play an active role in supporting the rest of your team. Be it through ammo drops, revives, spot assists or repairing vehicles, every action carried out will reward you with experience, and the more you work together as a team, the more experience you earn. So there's really no reason to resort to reckless lone wolf tactics, because not only do you risk losing your team the game, but it's likely that you will die over and over again for rushing in blindly. Stick with the group, and watch the wins roll in. "

MW3 - "The home of lone wolf play, Modern Warfare 3 doesn't penalise you for running off on your own and sticking to your own agenda."

Teamwork / executing strategies is clearly better seen in BF3, unlike MW3 where being a lone wolf is basically better. My opponent also concedes that graphics go to BF3. He says the most creativity flows to MW3, however, I have shown you through new vehicles, the realism, etc. that BF3 is much, much more creative.

Lastly, he says he doubts people would rather unlock premade classes then make their own. He is viewing this very subjectively and some people prefer a little simplicity in making classes because these classes in BF3 clearly define your role and help develop teamwork much more clearly. He says MW3 is expanding servers, I would also like a source from him that specifies that. His final argument is that MW3 is over all more real because they aren't gods on how to operate all vehicles and aren't dropped into the middle of the map. However, this isn't true at all. In MW3, these soldiers know how to operate all killstreaks from a predator missile, call in precision airstrikes, and use helicopters/AC130. Lastly, they aren't just dropped in the middle of the map and if my opponent has ever played BF3 like he said, he would be able to see this.

[1] http://www.nowgamer.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jhate

Pro

First id like to say i read over my stuff and id like to know where i said Mw3 is the better game because more people play it. You have also got to remember this is a video game meant to be fun for everyone not some real based war game. People dont always base things off being real. Spawn camping in Mw3 has not been a big problem. Camping has been reduced by alot if you play it you will notice it is fast paced and if you take to long camping enemy's will spawn near you. MW3 follows the same story from the first game. It has the end of the world scenario because it is showing the future basically as MW3 take place in near 2022 time and is showing how Nuclear crisis is taking affect as well as weapon development. Bf3 is not the first to have tanks and stuff like that. Cod Waw as well had that and the tanks were a very big complaint on one of the maps as people camped in them. Cod has done alot as far as vehicles.

You saiid kill streaks require luck. They require tactical planning. One thing about Mw3 is the guns actually sway when aiming down sights, a little feature that has been updated from past games giving a sense of realism. Bf3 has co-op but its nothing compared to spec ops and survival.

you said "Killstreaks in MW3 are limited to players who become very lucky or are so dang good they always achieve the best one In BF3, this is eliminated, giving a fair chance to every person playing to have a vehicle / weapon / etc. once unlocked. My opponent conceded that killstreaks are overpowered, but says "its something to work for." But MW3 gives an unfair advantage to people who play this game every so often compared to people who play it every day. BF3 keeps the game fair and balanced. While MW3 may have teamwork, BF3's teamwork is much more comprehensive. [1] From NowGamer, in an article written by Dave Cook, he explains the debate between teamwork in both games."

Now why have fair chance and allow everyone to gt the same thing? It makes no sense to me. In a game you should be awarded by your skill and by your luck as far as getting kills. Mw3 s is more of a lone shooter but what about players in Bf3 who dont have a mic and like to play alone and not use teamwork? In many circumstances they are not gonna do well as to MW3 you cant team up and communicate and you can be alone and do well. The point streak system awards players who play objectives and that has really put more teamwork into the game.

In the first round i believe you mentioned the engine problem. The main reason the engine is the same as Mw2 was because of this reason. OK Battlefield was not as popular when Mw2 was out and that time alot of people were playing Mw2 all the time so to speak. Activision and IW left the engine the same because there intentions were ok we are competing with a company who has produced a solid very game thinking that there would be less people on the servers. They were wrong but now they are updating alot to fit the player size and not have over run.

you stated "MW3 - "The home of lone wolf play, Modern Warfare 3 doesn't penalize you for running off on your own and sticking to your own agenda."

That is wrong. If you dont stay with your teammates and you rush across the map and try and spawn trap or flank people you often die because enemies will spawn near you. Mw3 teaches you to stay with teammates, keep up with teammates and to really pay attention to your mini map. Being a lone wolf is not better in Mw3. I have seen plenty of clans team up against non cooperative teammates and win with teamwork and basic strategy. Don't believe me heck out things from MLG pro circuit and other game battles competitions.

My opponent may not understand me when i mean creativity. Creativity as far as- limiting campers, being able to customize weapon load out, kill streaks, emblem, title, prestige mode things of that nature make Mw3 a much more friendly game.

Yes in Mw3 they do know how to operate kill streaks yes but you dont see them in a tank camping alot.
You said battlefield 3 dosent parachute you into the battlefield as seen here and other videos in the side bar you are in the air going own into the battle field.

Now i had a website for he server expansion info but this was the other day and i do not have the website. However if you look up the updates that mw3 has had you will see it is based on server expansion
Reid

Con

Once again, I shall attack my defend my case by addressing his attacks made.

"First id like to say i read over my stuff and id like to know where i said Mw3 is the better game because more people play it. You have also got to remember this is a video game meant to be fun for everyone not some real based war game. People dont always base things off being real. Spawn camping in Mw3 has not been a big problem. Camping has been reduced by a lot if you play it you will notice it is fast paced and if you take to long camping enemy's will spawn near you. MW3 follows the same story from the first game. It has the end of the world scenario because it is showing the future basically as MW3 take place in near 2022 time and is showing how Nuclear crisis is taking affect as well as weapon development. Bf3 is not the first to have tanks and stuff like that. Cod Waw as well had that and the tanks were a very big complaint on one of the maps as people camped in them. Cod has done alot as far as vehicles."

I reference his first rebuttal which states, "Now you said Bf3 looks better yes it does but as far as game play and desire from players it goes to MW3." You're simply stating with this phrase that more people desire to play MW3 so it must be better. You said people don't always play games for realism, yet you say MW3 is much more realistic. You completely ignore the attacks I made on your case where there is clear, solid facts MW3 is completely unrealistic. Then you mention COD:WAW. This is COMPLETELY not related to what were arguing. Were arguing whether MW3 is better then BF3 or not. The fact is, BF3 has vehicles to create a variety in game play which over all creates a more competitive and strategic game.

"You saiid kill streaks require luck. They require tactical planning. One thing about Mw3 is the guns actually sway when aiming down sights, a little feature that has been updated from past games giving a sense of realism. Bf3 has co-op but its nothing compared to spec ops and survival."
First off, kill streaks require minimal tactical planning. We see this when people spawn camp and rack up kills by standing in one spot. My opponent then moves on and says "One thing about Mw3 is the guns actually sway when aiming down sights."

I will cite the source used in my previous rebuttal. Dave Cook writes, "aiming down the sights takes a few moments, as your soldier struggles to swing the weapon up to eye level. It's a neat gameplay mechanic, as it means you really need to prepare your gun in advance of running around tight corners." This is relating to Battlefield 3's realism in handling weapons compared to MW3, where he says, "Modern Warfare 3 handles just like its predecessors, with a reliance on twitch game play." Clearly there is more of an effort that needs to be made in BF3 when aiming then just "spraying and praying."

"Now why have fair chance and allow everyone to gt the same thing? It makes no sense to me. In a game you should be awarded by your skill and by your luck as far as getting kills. Mw3 s is more of a lone shooter but what about players in Bf3 who dont have a mic and like to play alone and not use teamwork? In many circumstances they are not gonna do well as to MW3 you cant team up and communicate and you can be alone and do well. The point streak system awards players who play objectives and that has really put more teamwork into the game."
In BF3, you are awarded for your skill because you allow for your team to progress and grab the win. My opponent makes the assumption that in BF3, not everyone will have mics. He forgets that BF3's main platform is the PC, where people have the ability to type to teammates. Lastly, he says simply MW3 is better because you can't always team up in BF3. However, I could make the assumption not everyone has a microphone in MW3, and because MW3's main platform is the Xbox, this is more logical then his assumption made towards me. Kill streaks aren't due to teamwork, which is what he is trying to say. Kill streaks are always achieved by getting kills on your own, not with a team. So kill streaks don't really put an effort for teamwork, but rather to encourage a lone wolf strategy."

"In the first round i believe you mentioned the engine problem. The main reason the engine is the same as Mw2 was because of this reason. OK Battlefield was not as popular when Mw2 was out and that time alot of people were playing Mw2 all the time so to speak. Activision and IW left the engine the same because there intentions were ok we are competing with a company who has produced a solid very game thinking that there would be less people on the servers. They were wrong but now they are updating alot to fit the player size and not have over run."

Again, my opponent refers back to MW2 and the original battlefield, and then earlier, black ops. He isn't sticking to the factors from just MW3, and is straying from the topic were trying to debate here. My opponent, once again, provides no evidence to support his "server expansion" claim and must NOT be weighted in today debate.

"My opponent may not understand me when i mean creativity. Creativity as far as- limiting campers, being able to customize weapon load out, kill streaks, emblem, title, prestige mode things of that nature make Mw3 a much more friendly game.
Yes in Mw3 they do know how to operate kill streaks yes but you dont see them in a tank camping alot.
You said battlefield 3 dosent parachute you into the battlefield as seen here and other videos in the side bar you are in the air going own into the battle field.
Now i had a website for he server expansion info but this was the other day and i do not have the website. However if you look up the updates that mw3 has had you will see it is based on server expansion."

I concede to my opponents argument of creativity when it comes to dressing up your character, but when it comes to the creativity of playing in BF3 compared to MW3, BF3 is the clear winner. The ability to operate different vehicles in different situations, the destruction of buildings to get a advantage on the enemy, and the different classes with the weapons involved make it a clearly more superior. BF3 doesn't FORCE you to parachute into the middle of the battlefield, if you watched the video, it was the persons choice to take the plane and directly parachute into it. A players choice, not the games choice. My opponent fails to provide any resources to back up his arguments once again, and those arguments such as,

1. Expanding Servers (1st Rebuttal)
2. How the campaigns are similar without an opinionated statement. (1st Rebuttal)

Because he did not provide a source on expanding servers, and could not successfully argue that MW3's campaign is much more realistic, they must flow through the round towards my side.

Key Voting Issues.
1. I have successfully defended my main arguments for my side of the case, and they must flow through into the next rebuttal.
2. Provides 0 sources for the two that I asked, so his two arguments must fall, and you must look towards my side of this round.
3. My opponent doesn't provide a main case with solid arguments, but rather continuously attacks my case and creates sub-arguments from that. However, I have provided a solid case and defended my two main arguments, which is 1. Realism, and 2. Multiplayer, and because I have proven that they are superior compared to MW3, I have won the debate.

I know stand ready to hear Pro's rebuttal in the 4th round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jhate

Pro

First my opponent accuses that im saying its better cause its more desired. This is true in a way that it is better. Second my sources and this time i will give them. But me saying that Black ops campaign is similar is what i see. I dint look it up. I have beat the campaign and i have seen the Bf3 campaign very similar. You didnt respond back to my statement about people not having live. You said BF3 has co-op. Yes but the story campaign really only has 12 levels and 6 in co-op. so not that much fun.

Second my opponent said we are talking about MW3 not cod Waw, i mentioned world at war because you said Bf3 has tanks and vehicles. I am showing that call of duty already did that and they dont want to make the same thing. Which is an example of creativity instead of a repeat. Also Bf3 i believe was originally a PC game when it was released. please clarify me if im wrong.

you stated "BF3 extended the max player capacity by 40 players" The PC version supports 64 players in Mp and 24 on console. Bf3 isn't that creative besides graphics. Vehicle and soldier specialization(perks) are pretty much rip-offs from the Cod series (no originality) Bf3 has good graphics but there are problems with that. The graphics are good but it is very hard for people to see enemies in. (i will give you all my sources at the end of this round. Yes Cod is more mainstream because it has achieved what it deserves, as battlefield wasn't as popular.

Jim sterling at destrucoid stated "Running at full spec, Battlefield 3 is a jaw-droppingly beautiful PC game and there's no denying that it's the new leader in terms of raw, unadulterated power. This has its drawbacks -- as stated, the graphics make spotting enemies incredibly difficult thanks to how much visual information is crammed into every environment. With the swirling dust, blinding lights and chunks of freshly-destroyed scenery filling one's immediate surroundings, actually getting a bead on something important can prove challenging."

Proves graphics are not always best. As stated in another magazine blog "These are interesting changes, not only because they've clearly been made with a huge audience of highly differentiated skill levels in mind, but because they show that massmarket game design doesn't mean dumbing down. Multiplayer has become more accommodating for everyone, and it makes COD better: how many players regularly clock up 15+ kills without dying? Controlling an attack chopper was a distant dream for most in MW2's multiplayer; in MW3 it's not easy, but it is attainable."

This proving my point that it does take alot technical skill not just hours of playing

Also the fact that MW3 is a lone wolf type game is what fans love. Mw3 is bringing what fans want and thats what is more mainstream. They are bringing what the fans ask for.

Heres some more things about the multiplayer comparison. Now both games do have good multiplayer.
1. Battlefield 3 doesn't let you play online with the same disc on two different consoles without additional payment, and it doesn't have local multiplayer. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 does both.

2. The local thing is a big deal you can actually multiplayer offline. You can he a friend in another room and play sytem link. Yea it was meant to play with alot of people but if you dont have live or just wanna play a game with a friend you can easily

Voting issues
1. My opponent has not answered all my questions.
2. two of my sours, my opponent asked for the server source and the black ops source being similar in campaign. ( i stated that i played campaign and seen BF3's campaign and they are alike you can read the plot anywhere online for both, this is my knowledge and i cant just source my knowledge unless i got it from a website.
3. I attacked my opponents cases because he has a lack of argument with them. i have defended my topic really well.

Here are my reasons Mw3 is better.
1. Spec ops, Survival, system link. Key factors considering people dont always have live and that many family's and people enjoy the living room gaming experience of playing against each other.
2. The online play gives advantages to team work and lone wolf. Game play is fast and theres action just about around every corner. Game dosent take hours of play to be good at.
3.Bf3 has large maps that are time consuming and sometimes people die before even getting across the map.
4. Mw3 has decreased in camping and theres more than one entrance to every building and very little camping due to fast pace action. As to Bf3 who added tanks for people to camp in. (Cod has already put tanks in one of their games not as original)
5. Mw3 offer ability to edit classes to further extent, along with call signs, Famous prestige mode, titles, emblems, accolades, stats listing, as Bf3 does have class options its not original as it almost a rip-off from Cod-games. Reviews show that BF3 shouldn't have tried to be like Mw3 and shouldn't have to try and copy simple things.
6. As state Bf3 co-op allows 6 levels of 12.
7. Mw3 has a better frame rate and frame rate is an issue for Bf3 heres my source on BF3 issue
http://forums.guru3d.com...
8. Mw3 Kill streaks give players a little extra to work for from being able to operate ac 130's, to calling in juggernaut rewarding players for doing good in a game.

Here is a source for problems with Bf3. http://www.egmnow.com...

Here is my source for everything i have stated this round
Reviews: http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Now the black ops thing is my knowledge but i did some research and heres a source on it being similar and what people think. This is a website someone posted that tells about the BF3 story which is pretty similar

as it states it takes you through the eyes of soldier in past events and what not.
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com...##

I wish my opponent luck in 4th round
Reid

Con

My opponent laid out why he won the debate in key voting issues. To prove that I am right, I will argue all 8 of his reasons why he won the debate, and then move on to his key voting issues. After, I will prove why I have won through voting issues and a summary paragraph.

"1. Spec ops, Survival, system link. Key factors considering people dont always have live and that many family's and people enjoy the living room gaming experience of playing against each other."

BF3 others different game modes in their games and COOP. While it may not be the same as MW3, I am not here to prove that they are the same, but that there are reasonable alternatives on the con side to those choices of game types. My opponent states "system link." However, there are lan tournaments who follow this idea and hook up PC's to a lan created match. Exactly the same thing. Lastly, "living room experience." Again, this is an unreasonable factor because people can still choose to play with friends next to each other, and his "having live" argument is invalid towards this debate. Xbox players pay for Live to pay online, however, because BF3's main platform is on PC, there is no live charge and this is a huge factor that MUST be looked at in the debate.

2. The online play gives advantages to team work and lone wolf. Game play is fast and theres action just about around every corner. Game dosent take hours of play to be good at.

My opponent is misconstruing my arguments. There is a bare minimum of teamwork and realism in MW3. In BF3, teamwork is essential and creates a more realistic scenario for people who choose it. However, there are gametypes for lone wolf in BF3, which my opponent fails to see.

3. Bf3 has large maps that are time consuming and sometimes people die before even getting across the map.

BF3 has large maps is a good thing, because getting across maps is quick with vehicles available which BF3 provides and MW3 does not. "People die before even getting across the map." This is REALISTIC, the fact is, there is always that option of getting shot by a tank by a stray shot. However my opponent makes this an unreasonable statement and over exaggerates it completely.

4. Mw3 has decreased in camping and theres more than one entrance to every building and very little camping due to fast pace action. As to Bf3 who added tanks for people to camp in. (Cod has already put tanks in one of their games not as original)

Very little camping is an understatement, and can be seen in MW3 all the time. People still choose to hid in corner, however in BF3, because walls are destructible, this makes the option of a direct suicide run to kill the opponent not the only choice and opens up alternatives. My opponent then says, "people camp in tanks in bf3," yes this may be true, BUT THERE ARE CLEAR WAYS TO DEALING WITH THIS. A simple RPG, anti tank mine, using another tank, an airplane, etc. He also FAILS TO REALIZE were discussing MW3 and not COD:WAW.

5. Mw3 offer ability to edit classes to further extent, along with call signs, Famous prestige mode, titles, emblems, accolades, stats listing, as Bf3 does have class options its not original as it almost a rip-off from Cod-games. Reviews show that BF3 shouldn't have tried to be like Mw3 and shouldn't have to try and copy simple things.

BF3 is not a rip off of any of this and my opponent is LYING. BF3 offers the ability to modify your armor type, bullets, vehicle modifications, etc. Even though you can't dress up your character like a barbie doll, BF3 does not make this a key factor for losing. What "reviews" say BF3 is copying MW3. Again, no sources, no weight in today's debate.

6. As state Bf3 co-op allows 6 levels of 12.

I don't see this as a key voting issue, I don't even understand what my opponent is saying. Grammatical failure.

7. Mw3 has a better frame rate and frame rate is an issue for Bf3 heres my source on BF3 issue

MW3 doesn't have better frame rate, and my opponent fails to realize this is PC issue and not an Xbox issue. He is also using a "forum" where people can post whatever they please, when they could be 100% completely wrong. BF3 and MW3 run perfectly fine on both Xbox and PC, BF3 just requires a better PC due to the amount of realism is put in.

8. Mw3 Kill streaks give players a little extra to work for from being able to operate ac 130's, to calling in juggernaut rewarding players for doing good in a game.

Unfair advantages for people who play this game constantly and can dominate new players. BF3 offers equal opportunity for all players and that is why BF3 is the clear winner over this statement.

"Here is a source for problems with Bf3. http://www.egmnow.com...;
My opponent fails, yet again, to realize this is discussing PC issues, and not console. And on top of that, this was posted in OCTOBER 27th, when BF3 has already patched these issues.

"Here is my source for everything i have stated this round
Reviews: http://www.guardian.co.uk...;
Lastly, this is for console, and not allowing the PC side (BF3's main platform) to have a say.

"as it states it takes you through the eyes of soldier in past events and what not.
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com...;

Wouldn't this be conceding to my arguments, saying that BF3 makes realistic scenarios unlike MW3?

"Voting issues
1. My opponent has not answered all my questions.
2. two of my sours, my opponent asked for the server source and the black ops source being similar in campaign. ( i stated that i played campaign and seen BF3's campaign and they are alike you can read the plot anywhere online for both, this is my knowledge and i cant just source my knowledge unless i got it from a website.
3. I attacked my opponents cases because he has a lack of argument with them. i have defended my topic really well"
I will address all his voting issues now.

His #1 is completely pointless, because my opponent created no questions (and if he did, please state which round they were made and word for word so I can search for them in previous rounds.)
His #2 is completely pointless, because my opponent again does not cite sources and uses his "personal knowledge" and is clearly acting lazy and not doing the appropriate research to back up his stuff. His arguments are subjective and should not be weighed in this debate.
His #3 is completely pointless, because my opponent says I have a lack of argument and he has defended his topic really well. Let's leave that up to the voters, shall we?

I will know restate why I have won the debate with a majority of the SAME key voting issues.

Key Voting Issues.

1. I have successfully defended my main arguments for my side of the case, and they must flow through into the next rebuttal. On top of that, I have successfully argued his key voting issues and why he won the debate. I have also provided the appropriate sources needed unlike my opponent.
2. Provides 0 sources for the two that I asked, so his two arguments must fall, and you must look towards my side of this round. His sources he chooses to provide are unreliable or unreasonable to the debate and must not be weighted.

I have won this debate because I have stayed to the resolution, unlike my opponent, who argues previous COD games, provided RELIABLE sources in today's debate that are not biased / unreasonable, deconstructed my opponents key voting issues and his key reasons why he won the debate, and because of this successfully defended my main case and my key voting issues. It is for these reasons that I STRONGLY urge a CON ballot in today's debate.

I know turn it over to my opponent to hear is conclusion on today's debate, and remind you that no new arguments should be made because it would be unfair for me to argue them back without you having a say.

**TO WHOEVER HAS READ THIS MUCH, MANY THANKS AND URGE YOU TO STAY TUNED TO THE 5TH AND FINAL ROUND**

Good Luck Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
Jhate

Pro

My opponent insults my grammatical error, key word error. "I don't see this as a key voting issue, I don't even understand what my opponent is saying. Grammatical failure." you started this debate off saying you will show battlefield 3 is superior to battlefield 3. Then your last round you just did you said you will show how my opponent has won this debate. Another error. My opponent fails to realize the reason i bring up Cod waw is because i am giving an example that Cod has already used tanks so why keep bringing them into future games like MW3.

I said they pretty much are as my source shows one of e reviewers who reviewed not in a forum stated that they are trying to much to be like Cod which is true. You stated
"My opponent fails, yet again, to realize this is discussing PC issues, and not console. And on top of that, this was posted in OCTOBER 27th, when BF3 has already patched these issues."
then you stated "Lastly, this is for console, and not allowing the PC side (BF3's main platform) to have a say."

I state something about PC you say its only for PC and not console. I state something for console then you say i dont look at PC. Paradox? I dont understand this

Also Mw3 does have a faster frame rate, my opponent seems to be relieing on false sources. I looked up several sites saying Mw3 is higher and IGN/Sledgehammer games stated its the competitive edge. http://www.vg247.com...

"3. Bf3 has large maps that are time consuming and sometimes people die before even getting across the map.

BF3 has large maps is a good thing, because getting across maps is quick with vehicles available which BF3 provides and MW3 does not. "People die before even getting across the map." This is REALISTIC, the fact is, there is always that option of getting shot by a tank by a stray shot. However my opponent makes this an unreasonable statement and over exaggerates it completely."

You have discussed realism alot and i havent argued with you mainly cause of one simple fact. This is a video game its not gonna be based on complete realism. Who wants to spend their whole time going across the map. You say its realistic. But re spawning isn't realistic either so it cancels it out.

"Unfair advantages for people who play this game constantly and can dominate new players. BF3 offers equal opportunity for all players and that is why BF3 is the clear winner over this statement."
Again this is not an unfair advantage. Everyone does bad at a game at one point. This game rewards those who are good and even those who are not good have a chance to get something. Hence the kill streak system that have low set kill streaks.

Tell me this a new player in bf3 vs and experienced player? its still unfair is it not if we go by your case? Now an experienced player that knows how to maneuver and get to a tank vs a player who dosent try and o for vehicles often but decides to. Again unfair. A player in a tank vs a player not in a tank? again unfair if unfair s your answer then please look at scenarios. LIFE IS NOT FAIR

Mw3 point streak support package allows a player to continua kill streak and unlock things and dosent reset the kills after death. Giving even though most negative player a chance to earn the simplest Uav up to an osprey gunner.

"What "reviews" say BF3 is copying MW3. Again, no sources, no weight in today's debate."

My opponent obviously didnt read my source i posted. If he did then he would see that it says since he didnt i will post it allowing him to see what he ignored which led him to make another Wrong assumption.

"Those who buy the game for multiplayer likely won't care that these elements aren't up to par, but what stings most is the thought of what DICE could have done to evolve and expand its multiplayer design skills if the mantra of "BEAT COD" hadn't been drummed so relentlessly into the development process. Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at. Hopefully that's a lesson that will be learned by the time Battlefield 4 roars into view."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

My opponent states the reviews are forums. Now do you see how many people agree with them. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS ACCURATE. So i hope you dont use that against me because it would be another false claim.

"Very little camping is an understatement, and can be seen in MW3 all the time. People still choose to hid in corner, however in BF3, because walls are destructible, this makes the option of a direct suicide run to kill the opponent not the only choice and opens up alternatives. My opponent then says, "people camp in tanks in bf3," yes this may be true, BUT THERE ARE CLEAR WAYS TO DEALING WITH THIS. A simple RPG, anti tank mine, using another tank, an airplane, etc. He also FAILS TO REALIZE were discussing MW3 and not COD:WAW."

This is not true. People ca camp yes but as your teammates progress the spawn system spawns enemy's near u so by the time you get one or two kills the enemy team hears you and is spawning nearby. I assume my opponent hasnt played much. I play alot and see this for myself. But camping is what enhances gaming as well. In the war you dont rush out into open fire all the time. Camping teaches players to check corners and encourages players to use sun grenades and flashes and become more tactical players.

Call of duty is split up into 3 types of players basically. Campers, Rushers, and Tactical players. Campers>Rushers most of the time as rushing players move so quick they dont take the time to look. Rushers> Tactical players as Tactical players tend to be careful and throw stuns and grenades leaving them exposed. And Tactical players > Campers as they are careful and use tactics like grenades to clear rooms and take out players. Now this isn't always the case but it is usually the categories.

My opponent dosent do much good research if he did he would have seen Cod Mw3 is enhanced in teamwork and lone wolf performance. Point streaks are my example. Support kill streaks hep out the team, (Uav's, Recon drone, Ballistic Vests) lone wolf players can use these to benefit for themselves but it also helps the team either way adding teamwork even when not intended.

My opponent wants sources and i give most off them but its obvious he dosent read them so what is the point? but i still give them.

My opponents arguments/my views
1. Vehicles- not everyone lives to play vehicles yes it adds sense of realism but at the same time people it a video game and you keep arguing about realism. I understand having realism but it is not the number 1 concern.

2. Multiplayer its obvious MW3 has decreased camping and the spawn system helps stop it to. Camping is 50% issue 50% helpful. It can be annoying but it helps players learn from over rushing.

3. My opponent didnt acknowledge that the graphics affect game play in a negative way in Bf3.

4. Its not that im not responding to his arguments its that i do and he rebuttles with realism which is really the only thing he has used.

5. Again no argument about survival and spec ops and offline multiplayer that allow families who can afford live to play and have almost endless choices. *Key factor

6. Graphics are not always the most important to a game which my opponent fails to realize a game dosent have to have the best graphics to be on top, Yes it would help but it dosent. An example is The Halo series not the best graphics still very popular.

7. "Xbox players pay for Live to pay online, however, because BF3's main platform is on PC, there is no live charge and this is a huge factor that MUST be looked at in the debate." Yes but also xbox is the biggest online community.

*you fail to look at my sources and acknowledge key points and only argue realism with almost everything. Not the biggest thing.
Reid

Con

"1. Vehicles- not everyone lives to play vehicles yes it adds sense of realism but at the same time people it a video game and you keep arguing about realism. I understand having realism but it is not the number 1 concern.
2. Multiplayer its obvious MW3 has decreased camping and the spawn system helps stop it to. Camping is 50% issue 50% helpful. It can be annoying but it helps players learn from over rushing.
3. My opponent didnt acknowledge that the graphics affect game play in a negative way in Bf3.
4. Its not that im not responding to his arguments its that i do and he rebuttles with realism which is really the only thing he has used.
5. Again no argument about survival and spec ops and offline multiplayer that allow families who can afford live to play and have almost endless choices. *Key factor
6. Graphics are not always the most important to a game which my opponent fails to realize a game dosent have to have the best graphics to be on top, Yes it would help but it dosent. An example is The Halo series not the best graphics still very popular.
7. "Xbox players pay for Live to pay online, however, because BF3's main platform is on PC, there is no live charge and this is a huge factor that MUST be looked at in the debate." Yes but also xbox is the biggest online community."

I will address all my opponents main and final points from the last rebuttal, and by doing so, show why BF3 is a superior game towards MW3.

1. "I understand realism but its not a main concern."
My opponent makes this statement, yet this is a factor to determine whether or not a game is superior. That is also one of the main argument to my case. He simply says "it's not important," and even concedes BF3's realism out matches MW3. To support this, I restate a statement from my opponent. "The thing i like is yea its unrealistic to have health regeneration." He says its not a concern and yet argues. I have won the debate over which game is more "real" and this factor must flow to my side of the round.

2. "Multiplayer its obvious MW3 has decreased camping and the spawn system helps stop it to. Camping is 50% issue 50% helpful. It can be annoying but it helps players learn from over rushing."
My opponent is talking about camping in maps and its something that can't be solved. However, in BF3, the strategic options for dealing with a opponent are numerous and thus offer a more dynamic multiplayer. My opponent once again provides no source for this from a reliable, up to date source. You can see this if you run through all his posted arguments.

3. "My opponent didnt acknowledge that the graphics affect game play in a negative way in Bf3."
Again, this goes back to realism. Sometimes in a real fight there WILL BE dust clouds, and buildings exploding, and that is a realistic factor. The map changes based on the fight and this is something that offers a dynamic multiplayer and major realism.

4. Its not that im not responding to his arguments its that i do and he rebuttles with realism which is really the only thing he has used.
I have addressed the "lone wolf / teamwork" issue, vehicles issue, customization issue, etc. This is completely ignoring all my previous arguments. If you read my previous rebuttals, there was more to just "realism" which he fails to understand.

5. Again no argument about survival and spec ops and offline multiplayer that allow families who can afford live to play and have almost endless choices. *Key factor
I clearly said their were lan options for BF3 on the PC (offline multiplayer for parties, family, etc.), and because BF3's main platform is the PC, there is no live fee to pay for. More then one game type exist for BF3 and that was my argument over the survival / spec ops issue, and also including COOP as well.

6. Graphics are not always the most important to a game which my opponent fails to realize a game dosent have to have the best graphics to be on top, Yes it would help but it dosent. An example is The Halo series not the best graphics still very popular.
My opponent is making a subjective argument stating what is important and what isn't. Some people play games for the graphics, others do not. I have won the debate over realism and my opponent attempts to wiggle out of this with that statement above.

7. "Xbox players pay for Live to pay online, however, because BF3's main platform is on PC, there is no live charge and this is a huge factor that MUST be looked at in the debate." Yes but also xbox is the biggest online community.
His statement is completely new argument, and provides no source stating xbox is the biggest online community. However, I will continue to rebut this argument. [1] Xbox tops around 30 million Xbox Live Users in January world wide. [2] However, according to GamingBolt, the Steam Platform has hit over 35 million active accounts in a September 18th article. I provide sources to back this up.

Key Voting Issues
1. I won the debate over realism, my opponent concedes to this.

2. My opponent says, in a easy to understand way, "More people play xbox, it must be better." Once again, this is not true and I successfully rebut this. I provide an analogy as well in my very first rebuttal.
"The movie Dark Knight was viewed by thousands of more people then the movie, Hurt Locker. However, Hurt Locker received better ratings, achieved "Best Film" award. The Hurt Locker was an under-viewed movie, but in the end was much better. Although BF3 is not as played by as many people unlike MW3, BF3 still contains certain factors which makes it the better video game."

3. Multiplayer is more dynamic.

4. No fee for playing online (Remember, BF3's main platform is PC, which my opponent doesn't seem to understand.)

5. I provide sources, reliable as well, to back up all my claims. My opponent fails to provide RELIABLE and UP-TO-DATE sources from RELIABLE authors / companies, and this must be looked at heavily in this debate BECAUSE many of his arguments are based off of these.

6. My opponent tries to make me look like I contradict myself in his opening rebuttal, however, I clearly do not and if you read you would realize this as well.

I have rebutted all my opponents arguments, and have provided 6 key voting issues along with this debate. Review the arguments and my claims accordingly and fairly, along with my opponent. If you have read this far, I thank you greatly for your time to review this debate as well. Best of luck to the Pro, and I appreciate this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Reid 5 years ago
Reid
I'm reading that article now. Completely missed an extremely good source. Good catch tvellalott.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Also, I'm amazed that Con didn't reference the IGN poll for FPS of the year, where BF3 SMASHED MW3 51% to 19% for FPS of the year. It also won best graphics, best weapons and best multiplayer. FYI, it was an across platforms survey of the games.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
I'll read and vote on this when I get home tonight; I've been playing BF3 myself (I'm not a fan of COD) but I'll try and vote based on arguments rather than my own opinion.
No votes have been placed for this debate.