The Instigator
NeverWakeUp
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
joshuaXlawyer
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,277 times Debate No: 14868
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

NeverWakeUp

Pro

I wish to start a debate concerning the Fallout games vs. the Call of Duty games (as seen in the topic). Both are known to be excellent games, but I will be taking the former's side. My debates will include negativity towards the Call of Duty games while talking positively of the Fallout ones.
May the debate commence!
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Since your pro Im going to let you go first how ever you havent defined anything yet so i will take the advantage and define them.

FPS: first person shooter
RPG: role playing game
Debate Round No. 1
NeverWakeUp

Pro

The Fallout games are based 200 years (or more as time progresses) after the Great War that almost destroyed the world. The state in is plain hell, with almost everything trying to kill you. The almost is one thing distinguishing it from the all-out war of Call of Duty.
Unlike the missions you get in those games, you have more variety and choice that will make you play it over and over. Missions force you to do one thing and going against it will force you will start it over entirely (or from a checkpoint). If one mission in Fallout says to, for example in Fallout 3, you have to find a home for Bryan Wilks. You can send him to his aunt, to a location called Little Lamplight, or you can choose the most evil choice and give him to slavery. However in COD, you are more limited to your decisions. In Fallout, you can go all out and kill everyone in the Wasteland, if you like.
Limited decisions is one. There is also a limited arsenal of weapons, many of them normal weapons found in the army such as grenades, rifles, etc. A lot of variety can be found in Fallout. You can find advanced alien weapons, melee, and special weapons you have to search to find. Modding your weapons is also available in Fallout: New Vegas and can make your weapons lighter, faster, more accurate, etc. There also isn't only one class of weaponry. Melee, guns (small and big), energy weapons, explosive, and even unarmed weapons. Special versions are also available in secret locations for you to find. This proves more variety to kill your many enemies.
As a more open environment, there are also allies and companions (followers) that you can get based on the many choices found in Fallout. You always have your squad in COD, but these followers can be killed, if you want, or switched out as you please. They have different specialties that can help you (or not) in your many quests available and, most importantly, in battle. Not only can human companions be found, but also dogs, a super mutant (mutated human), nightkin (special super mutant), ghouls (mutated human somewhat like a zombie), etc. Allies can be found anywhere, and these people cannot be in your group, but can benefit you ultimately. Based on your choices, you can gain the people of Fallout as friends or enemies. They can give you hints, get you further in the game, give you weapons, give you caps (Fallout money), etc. You can side with the good, bad, or neutral people as you like.
There are more kinds of enemies than in COD as well. Instead of only people (or dogs, in some cases), Fallout has creative enemies such as the many types of mutants and killers you can battle. Mutated versions of insects (ants, praying mantis, wasps, etc.), humans, crabs called Mirelurks and Swamplurks, chameleons (Deathclaws), and even bears (Yao Guai) can be found. More types of enemies make the game more exciting with surprises to face with these enemies.
Go Fallout!
Sources: fallout.wikia.com
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Hello people of DDO i am going to start off by saying that i will provide you your fundamental points of this debate my opponent wants to compare COD to Fallout 3.
Well when comparing something like these games we have to look at what they have in common and which ones dominate that particular area.
What does COD and Fallout have in common?
Guns, simply put this should and pretty much has to, when comparing an RPG to a FPS like fallout and COD for if they had nothing to compare then one couldn't be better in the other because they are different games.

Now i will compare the shooting of both games...

Shooting in call of duty is the best in this case, Why you might as, well as you may know shooting in a RPG is all down to your stats, percentages and equipment stats and perks. So even if you have a good gun but your lv one you could be up close with it point blank and miss or get a head shot and not kill him.
Thats another point i wanted to throw out people can survive , No coming back from wounds or inflictions like:
Head shots,throat's being slash, and the all rare granade and mine survival. Im sorry to say but mines will blow your legs off and head shots will drop you instantly. Also all the guns are the same there are only 2 types of assault rifles,shotguns,and only 3 types of pistols and only one sniper rifle and a mini gun. all shoot like crap if your lv sucks. Then they have Lazer guns and etc however we cannot compare that with call of duty since there are no lazer weapons.

On COD however guns actually work, No Vats, No idiotic stats, and no Lvs.
It takes what a real gun would take to get a shot in, Hand eye coordination, and specializing in your type of weapon. Like assault rifles, sub machine guns, light machine guns, shotguns, and my personal favorite the one shot one kill sniper rifle.
Their are different types of guns and they all shoot differently accordingly, everyone has their favorites.
Usually their are a lot of guns assault rifles usually they have 8 or 9 and shotguns and snipers 4 and pistols 4 or 5 LMGs 4 to 5 and SMG's 6 to 9.
All different and will have a better feel for shooting, rather than shooting right at a person and missing; you feel like your actually shooting rather than trying to increase stats so you can actually hit the person and kill them in one shot. ( thats very hard and unlikely unless you rank up to your 30 to 50s. Even then you will never kill a overlord super human in one shot to the head.)
COD has that feeling of shooting an actual gun rather than pressing vats and praying you hit him and that it kills him.
As well call of duty has Online multiplayer and increase it replay value how ever after beating fallout there is no replay value.
I would know about Replay value on fallout and oblivion ( i have all oblivion acheviments). XP
Debate Round No. 2
NeverWakeUp

Pro

First of all, laser is spelled as so, not lazer.
Second of all, Fallout and COD are not only about killing and weapons. Sure, it's for fun, but there has to be some meaning to them. At least, Fallout is. It has a more open story then COD does; the killing just put in to explain the horrors of the Wasteland. It's not all about the death, but the people you interact with and the decisions you have to make to survive. That's purely what Fallout is: trying to survive after the fallout.
As for the shooting, head shots and grenades will kill, if you have enough experience. If you are not skilled enough, you will miss that shot to the head. The first person view doesn't show that you will kill them. VATS (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System) is a system used (from your Pip-Boy, I suppose) to easily lock on to your enemies. Fallout is a fast-pased and exciting game, and you'll need VATS in case you miss that shot, especially at a low level. As you get more experienced and get more exp. points, you will easier kill your target, just like in real life. COD takes away that challenge. Fallout also has special perks in the game to help you out in the game because it's more difficult than COD to play. It's more complex and contains more thought. An example is in COD: World at War. The first scene is one person cussing out another one and eventually killing him. That's just for useless violence.
Zombies (or Nazi Zombies, some call them) have also been added in COD just to add effect. The public loves zombies, so why not put them in a game about WAR? The Hellhounds and their variants don't even have plausible explanation for existing. A mutated dog is possible. But one with flames streaking out from them and somehow surviving is long from existing. Perhaps in one's imagination. The ghouls, or Fallout's version of zombies, have been created from the radiation from the nuclear bombs. That makes sense. And the cyberdog, Rex, in New Vegas is possible because of more advanced technology. The army fighting zombies does not, unless there was an apocalypse. As for their Nazi name, that couldn't have been possible unless a group containing only Nazis had been infected with the virus. The old Nazis couldn't be either, because they're long dead.
"Even then you will never kill a overlord super human in one shot to the head.)"
It's Super Mutant Overlord. And if it was Overlord Super Human, there should be an an before it. Super Mutant Overlords were also only in Fallout 3, and only if you got the Broken Steel DLC. If you had a powerful enough weapon, you could kill one in one shot. If you are experienced and have an advanced Fallout weapon, then it is possible. And back to the DLC's, that's another good thing about Fallout. Instead of coming out with new games every year like COD does, Fallout brings in DLC's to save the fans of Fallout, such as myself, money.
Go Fallout!
Sources: fallout.wikia.com; callofduty.wikia.com
Question: What is not a wikia?
joshuaXlawyer

Con

Clearly my opponent did not get what I was saying, this debate must be argued about the similarities like the guns with these you cannot compare a FPS and a RPG. She never set up how the debate will be view and i set those parameters and so far she has ignored my point on how we can only compare the similarities of the games, not how the game play is.
Now what my opponent wants you to think call of duty is over made comes out with a new one every year however thats what makes the game. We all love the game play, we only get bored of the guns,perks, and maps. So making a game every year improves call of duty as it evolves every time it comes out.
Yet we must look toward her Fallout 3 which released games and takes years to have another game, and playing fallout for hours and hours and logging 24 or more hours of game play it gets boring and you will have to wait for years to get it.
Debate Round No. 3
NeverWakeUp

Pro

Versus-as compared to or as one of two choices; in contrast with: traveling by plane versus traveling by train. Abbreviation: v., vs.
The title of this debate is Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games. It is neither Fallout weapons vs. Call of Duty weapons nor the similarities of Fallout and COD games.
"We all love the game play, we only get bored of the guns,perks, and maps." We only get bored. How true is that with COD, that you even admit it.
With Fallout, you have an entire variety of items to use and explore. That way, you don't beat the game in an hour unlike COD, where the goals are simple. The more time the game is given to develop, the more the creators get to be creative and actually improve the game instead of adding maybe one weapon or map that changes the game. The changes from Fallout 3 to New Vegas included new characters, weapons, etc.
One thing about COD also bugging me is the strange, Crawler or Gas zombies. It is not even possible that humans could have mutated into those "zombies". Just like the Hellhounds' creation. Takeo Masaki even said "That could not ever have been human!"
Go Fallout!
Sources: My brain.
And thank you for mentioning that I am a she (unlike previous arguments).
joshuaXlawyer

Con

We all love the game play, we only get bored of the guns,perks, and maps." We only get bored. How true is that with COD, that you even admit it.
With Fallout, you have an entire variety of items to use and explore. That way, you don't beat the game in an hour unlike COD, where the goals are simple. The more time the game is given to develop, the more the creators get to be creative and actually improve the game instead of adding maybe one weapon or map that changes the game. The changes from Fallout 3 to New Vegas included new characters, weapons, etc."

1. This is what my opponent says however we I have stated you will get bored of fallout 3 as well, My opponent wants you to believe that it will last longer. This is not the case as a person who would play this game 1 to 3 days in a row more than 10 hours would have done everything possible to do. As well she wants you to believe that the leveling up doesn't have a ending its limitless however this isn't the case, level cap is 30 unless you have a broken steel expansion.
My opponent also wants to justify the add-on's of both games however these are entire different genre and cannot be compare this has been my point for the entire debate and the only similarity it has is the guns my opponent has not offered any others rather the differences at which I have said cannot be compared.

"One thing about COD also bugging me is the strange, Crawler or Gas zombies. It is not even possible that humans could have mutated into those "zombies". Just like the Hell hounds' creation. Takeo Masaki even said "That could not ever have been human!"

2. Oh this is funny, my opponent is complaining how the crawlers that were introduced in black ops "Zombies" which is a little add on game they put into call of duty for amusement at first and became popular, She complains how its not realistically human. May i as so what? So what? It was not meant to be real, and was added for some value at which people had a new challenge to face in Nazi zombies.
Seeing how this is, I would like to add that Fallout is far from reality itself with death claws and mutated people that live forever and their bodies decay but they live name called ghouls a realistic possibility maybe but at this time it is not.
However the crawler zombie is was not human who is not to say it mutated into something of the sort?
As well as the hell hounds? obviously dogs they were turned into zombies and were set on fire, again who cares it was meant for a challenge to the players nothing more. This is a side game added on to call of duty for fun something to mess around with nothing in it is realistic and wasn't meant to be neither was fallout as laser technology that makes guns with lasers hasn't happened might not ever happen. It is nothing more than SciFi, and clearly is a moot point.

3. Again my opponent has done nothing to look over the similarities in the games and wants you to vote for her side on an unfair base set of how to different genre's are and this is unacceptable you cannot compare FPS to RPG seeing how they are both made for different game plays so the similarities must be looked at rather than just difference of both games. We must find a ground to compare I offered that ground however she wishes you to look over this and try to compare to totally different things that were not meant for they same type of game play.
Halo vs call of duty Comparable
fallout vs oblivion comparable
this debate is like trying to compare Halo vs oblivion which isn't really possible because they have no similarities.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Then why are you even making this debate?
Like i said, both aint Sci Fi so you cant compare it.
The only thing you can compare with was the Shooter and FPS.
And of course, everyone knows that CoD wins in Shooter and FPS.
Posted by NeverWakeUp 6 years ago
NeverWakeUp
The level cap is 20 in Fallout 3 and 30 unless you have Broken Steel. The level cap is 30 in FNV and 35 if you have Dead Money.
Saying that they are uncomparable is just an excuse to not compare them. And the debate is versus; so it is not about their similarities. COD is about war and shouldn't be a "SciFi" genre.
Posted by Veridas 6 years ago
Veridas
I agree, dinokiller, apples are way out of pineapple's league.

As for the debate itself, I suppose it depends if you want a timesink and single player replay value, or something shorter and snappier but potentially infinite multiplayer. Simplify the two series' down enough and that's more or less the result.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
If Pro goes on like this, he will keep losing.
Posted by NeverWakeUp 6 years ago
NeverWakeUp
I enjoy using etc.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
exactly why i defined them that way
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
You cant compare a RPG with FPS...
Its just the same as comparing an apple with a pineapple.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
NeverWakeUpjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO has a few things to learn, CON was a little hash but a learning experience
Vote Placed by reddj2 6 years ago
reddj2
NeverWakeUpjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's argument was way too opinion
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 6 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
NeverWakeUpjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro demonstrated a better sense of formality and decorum than con, was more articulate and convincing, and had better spelling and grammar by leaps and bounds.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
NeverWakeUpjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro misunderstands con. Con was better structured as well.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
NeverWakeUpjoshuaXlawyerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Close, but overall better presenation to Con.