Call of duty is better than battlefield
This has been a long lasting war between call of duty and battlefield. I want to finish it off with a debate. In my opinion I prefer Call of duty and think it is better than battlefield. I'm not saying Battlefield is bad however it is not better than Call of duty. ( I will explain why in the other rounds to follow and kindly don't be rude and insulting in this debate).
Thank you for accepting this challenge. I shall begin with the campaign, now we all know that Cod has a better campaign than battlefield for the following reasons
1. It makes you care about the characters and have feelings about them
2. Has an interesting story which makes it very entertaining
3. It is well structured
4. The criminals (characters) are also very unique
5. It's missions around the world or in space, underwater, ships etc. The missions are very nice to enjoy with every mission having their own unique feature.
So as you can see if people don't like playing online with others Cod has backup such as a great campaign and spec ops, zombies etc which I will tell you more about later on.
Also in black ops 2 you have the free will to choose your own weapons for that mission which is a fantastic feature. Overall Cods campaigns are better than battlefields.
Now I shall admit Battlefields Multiplayer is better however not by a long distance as a matter of fact Cods multiplayer can be more fun I shall explain why.
Battlefield is more realistic than Cod so you can do the following
1. Bullet drop
2. Destruction of buildings
Also Battlefield has tanks, helicopters, jets and bigger maps, more attachments etc. There is one bad thing with big maps in battlefield, So I have played Battlefield play4free online on the Internet www.battlefieldplay4free.com In big maps if other players have taken the tanks and vehicles you have to walk a lot to reach enemies and opponent base camps which can get boring. One really bad factor about battlefield online ( battlefield 3/play4free/4) is that for unlocking certain guns you have got to purchase with real money which is really not fun and very bad.
Cod is also very good in multiplayer and more fun, I will explain why
1. In cod everything is free
2. Cod has way more game modes than Battlefield which makes it so much fun such as I have cod ghosts which is amazing an example of a fun game mode is infected which is really fun.
3. Cod has more perks, has kill streaks etc.
The turning point on why COD OVERALL is better than Battlefield
Besides fun multiplayer and average campaign does battlefield have anything else, not really so for cod it has more varieties of options for example
1.Treyarch produced a very popular mode called zombies which you have to admit is very cool and fun
2. Infinity ward made special ops which has 3 more options in it Missions mode, survival mode and chaos.
3.cod ghosts from infinity ward has extinction which is so much fun and squads.
so overall cod has more options which are a lot of fun to produce the ultimate entertainment package. Overall I think that cod is better than battlefield since it has more game modes and game options to choose from and you don't have to pay for anything separate especially for something so small like a particular gun ridiculous is dice money hoggers.
Now for the multiplayer of both franchises i see you have already given some reasons why battlefields multiplayer is better so i do not need to cover them, but i do believe battlefields multiplayer is exceptionally better than call of duty's.
I think you are exaggerating the point of walking far distances to reach enemies. It does not take that long to reach destinations on foot and the only way it could get so boring to the point where people need to complain is if they have really short attention spans. Also the only way you do spawn far away from enemies is at the start of the game or your team is unable to secure bases to give you other spawn points. An easy way to stop spawning far away from enemies is play with a squad so then not only do you have bases to spawn at you can spawn at teammates who are deep in battle and you are able to get into the action straight away. This also give you the option of choosing a spawn which call of duty has never been able to introduce.
I do agree with the fact that it is bad that you have to pay real money for certain guns in battlefield but battlefield 4 has approx. 110 guns to choose from and call of duty ghost has only a mere 40. So even though you have to pay for some guns, i am sure battlefield have more free guns to choose from anyway.
Call of Duty does have a lot more game modes than battlefield but this year in Call of Duty Ghosts took out game modes which were liked by the public. This could also be a reason why it is the first decline in sales between games in the franchises history!
Call of Duty does have the perk system but many do not like perks as well as the people who do. They do also have kill streaks but they are mostly helicopters and other vehicles which battlefield already have without needing to earn them. This is much better for gamers who are not very good at FPS and do not get many kill streaks in COD. This means that they can use these vehicles in battlefield without earning them and fun like everyone else. Kill streaks also mean RAGE. I have experienced this first hand. When you are one kill off precious kill streak and then, BOOM, you walk past a claymore and die. All you want to do is turn off your xbox/playstation/pc and not play the game.
Yes call of duty do have many fun modes but a mode that battlefield has that does not get enough credit is commander mode. I have actually caught myself using commander mode more than i thought. If you are getting slightly bored playing but you still want to play games with your friends or still stay with you squad being the commander is a good option as not only are you still playing with your friends but now you can be a tactical mind to try help your team win. It gives you a good fun escape from gameplay before you are ready to play again.
You have some good points there however if players are not very good in cod they can use the support kill streak system or other options which help team mates and it is not very hard if you choose this option.
there are a few options of which package system or which kill streak system you want which gives you the free will of supporting your team or on the assault. Cod Ghosts have removed only few game modes however added some new ones which are more fun such as infected and hunted, these both are so much fun to play and has team work in it so cod can also have team work like battlefield.
I know in most game modes and matches there is no team work but that doesn't necessarily mean thats bad. It gives gamers a challenge or free will of roaming and killing however they want.
Perks are actually sort of popular and make things easier for the gamer and help him such as slight of hand reloads guns very fast so there can be no worries if an enemy comes past him.
Besides battlefield 3 and 4 the others(battlefield 2/1) were not as popular however for cod even the old ones are very famous as a matter of fact cod 4 was the biggest leap of the franchise it redefined the FPS as all action blockbuster.
Cod is also a bigger and hence better franchise than battlefield.
besides battlefields overwhelmingly great graphics there are a lot of hackers in battlefield especially in battlefieldplay4free everyone complains in the comments. also in battlefield there is glitches especially in battlefieldplay4free and I admit both cod games and battlefield games can have lag.
For cod infinity ward they have a twitter account which you can easily give complains to and the hackers are banned, its harder in battlefield and anyways cod has less hackers.
Cod is more hardcore since you need skills to get kills, in battlefield you can shoot someone with a tank which is not hard.
yes battlefield has more guns options which is good however battlefieldplay4free has only frag grenades not semtex while cod has the options of different variety of explosives as well.
in some ways not being to realistic with the game is a lot of fun like a huge amount of gamers enjoy quick scoping which is not in battlefield which makes not being to realistic a factor of entertainment to much realism can spoil the game like suppose if your grenades can hurt team mates there will be trollers and people who kill you for fun.
cod doesn't only have kids screaming in mikes or noobs
battlefield has idiots and noobs as well, one example is in battlefieldplay4free I had placed a mine when I was going a team mate shot the mine and blew it I put one more mine again he shot it while I was there and I died.
Cod is more addictive and you play it for hours long and have fun battlefield has addictiveness but not as much as cod as it lacks many game options, game modes and is too realistic and slow paced, cod is fast paced and makes you play many matches for very long. So as I said before Overall Cod beats Battlefield
Overall including multiplayer, campaign, other types of game modes so cod is overall better having all the things it needs to provide the ultimate entertainment package as I said before.
You mention the support kill streak package to help players, but the package is not as fun as the assault package. Call of duty players are not really interested in helping the team win in public games, they just want a good kill death ratio or a fun kill streak. When you compare a kill streak from both packages which are around the same kills, which would you rather have: an attack helicopter you are allowed to control which comes with a minigun and flares, or a device which dsiables enemies sat coms?
Infected is not a new mode, the last time Infinity ward made a game it included infected, Treyarch did not just carry it over. Infected was in Modern Warfare 3. Infinity ward has mistakingly took out game modes that were important to competitive call of duty. They nearly killed the one thing that continues to get call of duty attention. They took out favourites such as hardpoint and capture the flag. Changing game modes could also stop people from buying as people do not like change. The game modes you have mentioned could increase teamwork in competitive COD but they do not use these game modes and no one cares about teamwork on public matches, they only care for themsleves.
In battlefield you can also have free will, just don't play in a squad.
Call of Duty has been out for a longer period of time hence why it is more popular than battlefield, but battlefield took off a game earlier than Call of Duty and each year, battlefields sales are edging closer and closer to call of duty's.
You cant expect a game that you can download for free to have no hackers, creators will have no intention or motivation to sort it. It would not be in their best interest. They would want to concentrate on the game you have to pay for to keep the players happy as they have actually paid.
Call of Duty has 3 verified twitter accounts to which none of them reply to twitter users publicly (they might reply through direct messages), while battlefield have 5 verified accounts to which 3 reply publicly reply about problems or hackers. Battlefield also have verified accounts for spanish, french and japanese unlike COD who only have English. I do not believe your research was thorough with this point or maybe you could not just find the accounts so i will leave links below.
I do agree a lot of kills in battlefield are not hard, but only in some way is COD about skill. COD comes a lot of the time down to connection. Unless you are really good playing in a lobby of average players or really bad this is not the case. But if two similar skilled players end up in a gun fight, most of the time the host of the game or the person with the strongest connection to the host will win. Evidence of this can be found in competitive COD as games must be played in system links to not give one team an advantage.
Once again you speak about a free version of battlefield, but in the actual game of battlefield, it offers 18 items of equipment while Call of Duty only offers 16 items.
I see your point with Call of Duty and quick scoping but every year when each new game for both franchises are near release you hear the same argument all the time that battlefield is more realistic and continues to pulls sales.
Battlefield's friendly fire situation is sorted very easily by EA. If the culprit continues he gets kicked. Simple.
COD can be addicting but one bad game and most likely people will stop playing but for some reason which i can't figure out if you are doing bad in battlefield it is more tolerable.
Cod zombies has been a hit and a world wide popular feature which is a very important reason why so many people bought black ops 2. In many videos people say the first thing they do once they buy black ops 2 is play zombies which proves how popular it is.
Zombies, extinction, squads, special ops with missions mode,chaos mode, survival mode are such popular modes they are the reasons why cod has the edge. These are things that make people like cod more and buy it.
Battlefield is said to have only good multiplayer , destruction and commander mode while cod is famous for all its modes and is given the advantage and win.
IGN ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RATING SITES GAVE COD GHOSTS 8.8 AND BATTLEFIELD 4 8.5 WHICH MEANS OVERALL THEY ALSO BELIEVE BATTLEFIELD IS BETTER.
you can search battlefield 4s rating by ign and cod ghosts.
cod ghosts campaign also has the feature of tanks and helicopters which doesn't make battlefields vehicles so special now that cod also has it and I know you would be then saying it doesn't have vehicles in multiplayer, well it doesn't really take away vehicles and destruction in battlefield it will be hated cod doesn't even have it however ask cod fans they don't mind and its popular without it means that cod without all the advantages battlefield has is still very popular and those are the only reasons why battlefields like by the average gamer
PS: you wrote dsiables instead of disables so if its a draw I might get the winning edge by the votes ratings :).
Since you are trying to find faults in my arguments, an easy fault that i could state for you is that you have not listed a single source this whole debate.
I am keeping my last round argument short as my opponent does not have a chance to reply back and I would like to thank the pro for this enjoyable debate.
|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||2|