The Instigator
TheVoiceOfReason67
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
avery6652
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

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: 5/8/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 33464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TheVoiceOfReason67

Pro

I believe that Halo is better than Call of Duty because:

1. Halo is balanced for competitive game play. The weapons, the maps, the ranking system, the equipment/AA's are all designed to work well in a competitive environment. Every weapon has a different functionality or use giving the game great weapon variety and depth.

2. Halo battles are about outsmarting and outperforming your opponent using your weapons,grenades, melee, and sometimes your equipment to defeat your enemies. Its not all about who sees who first, because while that is a large factor as in any first person shooter game, there is a ton more decision making and skill that goes into a Halo match than any Call of Duty match.

3. Call of Duty campaigns are unoriginal and don't have any in depth story lines, for example, imagine your sitting across a table from your war buddy, and your playing Russian roulette, big shocker, he doesn't get killed and you escape imprisonment. Now, picture a Sergent you've been since the very first Halo game, your fighting the final boss and he gets shot, "oh he'll get up" you said, "he'll be fine" you said, nope he saves you by shooting the guy in the back and with his last dying breath says "Send me out......with a bang."
avery6652

Con

I believe that Call Of Duty is better than Halo because:

Cod has sold 12 million more copies than Halo.(As a series) Also, in recent polls in the gaming community, Cod has gotten more votes on every platform. Call Of Duty also has better ratings than the Halo series.

I would then like to point out that Call Of Duty games come out every year, while a Halo game lifespan is often 2 years. This makes the Halo fans not only wait, but forces them to play a halo game for 2 years, then for the players who aren't compettetive players they won't even enjoy Halo.

Con stats that Halo is balanced for competitive play,but fails to realize that approximately 2 percent of gamers are competitive. This leaves the other 98 percent of gamers left without a entertaining game. While Call Of Duty is made for both competitive( League Play) and just casual gamers.( Public Match)

Also, Con states hat Halo battles are about outsmarting and outperforming your opponents. I would like to say that this isn't entirely true, in Halo polls it is said that 85 percent of people who shoot first win the gun battle. You can use melee weapons , grenades and equipment is a main aspect in Call Of Duty.

Con then states that Call Of Duty campaigns don't have in depth campaigns. This is completely false , as it was very emotionally when Roach and Ghost die by Makrov who was thought to be their comrade. It was a very triumph moment when Captain Price kills Makrov(finally). Also, Cod has a very complex story-line, and you have to play them from the very beginning to fully understand.

I would then like to state that Call Of Duty has a lot more game options to choose from, such as zombies, special ops. Etc.

Call Of Duty has a better story-line, better multiplayer, and more special features. This leads me into my next topic about Cod's multiple story-lines, as Zombies has a story mode which means that Call Of Duty already has 2 story Lines in one game. Which proves that Cod has a far more complex story line than Halo.

Cod has better rating, more options, Compatible for ALL types of players, and has sold a lot better than Halo. Call Of Duty is a far superior game to Halo.
Debate Round No. 1
TheVoiceOfReason67

Pro

Rebuttal:
1. "Cod has sold 12 million more copies than Halo.(As a series) Also, in recent polls in the gaming community, Cod has gotten more votes on every platform. Call Of Duty also has better ratings than the Halo series."

a. that does not make it a better game for the individual.
b. Call of Duty has had more games on more consoles, they will obviously have sold more games

2. "I would then like to point out that Call Of Duty games come out every year, while a Halo game lifespan is often 2 years. This makes the Halo fans not only wait, but forces them to play a halo game for 2 years, then for the players who aren't compettetive players they won't even enjoy Halo."

a. if a game is truly good people should be able to play it for at least 2 years
b. It shows that the developers put time and effort into there games, the fact that call of duty has had no major advancements since call of duty 4 and World at war says a lot

3. Con stats that Halo is balanced for competitive play,but fails to realize that approximately 2 percent of gamers are competitive. This leaves the other 98 percent of gamers left without a entertaining game. While Call Of Duty is made for both competitive( League Play) and just casual gamers.( Public Match)

a. there is a difference between MLG and a gamer who wants to play a game where he doesn't get killed with three bullets
b. (In other words it takes more skill to play)

4. "Con then states that Call Of Duty campaigns don't have in depth campaigns. This is completely false , as it was very emotionally when Roach and Ghost die by Makrov who was thought to be their comrade. It was a very triumph moment when Captain Price kills Makrov(finally). Also, Cod has a very complex story-line, and you have to play them from the very beginning to fully understand."

a. Pro said nothing about Halo's campaign which includes books, Forward Onto Dawn (Movie), and graphic novels
b. Makrov didn't kill ghost and roach, General Shepherd did (gives me a reason to believe con hasn't played campaign)
c. While MW2 did have the best campaign, no other game (excluding black ops and modern warfare those just came out, has a memorable story.

5. "I would then like to state that Call Of Duty has a lot more game options to choose from, such as zombies, special ops. Etc."

a. Spartan ops, Firefight, forge,
b. custom games let gamers make there own game types look at these examples below
c. etc. (LOL, con couldn't think of anymore)

6. "Cod has better rating, more options, Compatible for ALL types of players, and has sold a lot better than Halo. Call Of Duty is a far superior game to Halo."

a. Con did not cite sources when needed (better ratings and sold a lot better*)
*incorrect grammar
b. rest of statement already responded to

FYI: Cite your sources and YOU are con

Custom games http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...

P.S. Halo is the peoples choice https://www.youtube.com...

P.P.S. I didn't want to include graphics, because that's not even a debate
avery6652

Con

I would like to state that i always cite my sources at the end of the of the debate if that is ok with con.

Pro states that "that does not make it a better game for the individual"Call of Duty has had more games on more consoles, they will obviously have sold more games. These are two very reasons that Cod is better.If a game sells more that means it has loyal customers, and people who recommmend the game to other people.

Pro then states "if a game is truly good people should be able to play it for at least 2 years
b. It shows that the developers put time and effort into there games, the fact that call of duty has had no major advancements since call of duty 4 and World at war says a lot". I would like to say, i could never play a game for 2 years, but Halo isn't the only game that people play for two days, matter of fact, i know people who still play cod 4.I would then like to add, just beacuase a developer takes two years on a game doesn't make it better.

Pro stated that "a. there is a difference between MLG and a gamer who wants to play a game where he doesn't get killed with three bullets
b. (In other words it takes more skill to play)" Well in my opionion it requires more skill when it takes 3 bullets to kill because it forces you to be more careful. In Halo, all i see people doing is jumping and shooting and thaT doesn't require skill.

To be honest i haven't played the campain in a while but i assure you that i have played it. Cont then states that" Pro said nothing about Halo's campaign which includes books, Forward Onto Dawn (Movie), and graphic novels
b. Makrov didn't kill ghost and roach, General Shepherd did (gives me a reason to believe con hasn't played campaign)
c. While MW2 did have the best campaign, no other game (excluding black ops and modern warfare those just came out, has a memorable story." Although Halo has books and Forge and even a Graphic Novel, this doesn't make the campaign better, it just means that it has more stuff.

Pro then stated Spartan ops, Firefight, forge,
"b. custom games let gamers make there own game types look at these examples below
c. etc. (LOL, con couldn't think of anymore)" I would like to state that Cal Of Duty does have mods(console) which means that Cod has custom games modes.I said etc. because there are so many game modes to choose from.( Plus i didn't feel like listig any more ;)

I cite my sources at the end of a debate, and i'm sorry for calling you con.( I'm used to being Pro)
Debate Round No. 2
TheVoiceOfReason67

Pro

"Pro states that "that does not make it a better game for the individual"Call of Duty has had more games on more consoles, they will obviously have sold more games. These are two very reasons that Cod is better.If a game sells more that means it has loyal customers, and people who recommmend* the game to other people."
*incorrect spelling
A. So your saying that CoD is better because it's on more consoles, that's like saying "The History Channel: Battle for the Pacific" is better than Infamous because it's on more consoles.
B. Hitler had people who were loyal and he was still bad
C. Formal fans are realizing it isn't that great https://www.youtube.com...
D. How in anyway, shape or, form, MAKE it better (Ex. Wii sports is best selling game of all time, but that doesn't make best of all time.)

I would like to state that Cal* Of Duty does have mods(console) which means that Cod has custom games modes.I said etc. because there are so many game modes to choose from.( Plus i didn't feel like listig* any more ;)
*Y U NO SPELL CORRECTLY
A. Mods are against the Xbox live terms and conditions
B. Like what, are you just being lazy?

P.S. I Forgot to mention this in my previous round "This leads me into my next topic about Cod's multiple story-lines, as Zombies has a story mode which means that Call Of Duty already has 2 story Lines in one game. Which proves that Cod has a far more complex story line than Halo."

("Although Halo has books and Forge and even a Graphic Novel, this doesn't make the campaign better, it just means that it has more stuff.")

2 story lines greater than a movie, books, graphic novels, and a couple of story lines? seems legit.
avery6652

Con

Con misunderstood when i wrote cod was better because of its versatility.I will explain it, since Cod is able to be run on more platforms than Halo, it allows more people to play it.Then i would like to say Hitler was bad is a complete opinion.( although i agree he was bad, but this statement is a opinion)

Pro then states that "x. Wii sports is best selling game of all time, but that doesn't make best of all time.)" Np it doesn't make it the best game but this is one of the aspects of a good game.

Pro then said i was lazy?, but doesn't recognize that all of my arguments were far longer than his.

Pro didn't give me much to argue but i will sum up my debate and why you should vote Con not Pro.
1.Cod has more platforms to play on.
2.Cod has sold better than Halo.
3. Cod works for competitive and regular play.
4. Cod has more games modes to choose from.

Call of duty is meant for EVERYBODY, Halo is only made for the competitive players. Cod clearly out preforms Halo in every asset. I think Pro's argument was more of his personal opinion rather than fact.Then he had no other arguments pointed out a small typo so people would vote his grammar over mine.

Citations:
http://www.freeinfosociety.com...
https://forums.halowaypoint.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheVoiceOfReason67 3 years ago
TheVoiceOfReason67
well that was anti-climactic
Posted by DragonLover74 3 years ago
DragonLover74
In the debate of Halo is better than Call of Duty you can not compare the games very well. Halo is a futuristic game that involves aliens and technologies that we don't even have. Call of Duty is about war, well basically small round matches against players seeing who is better than the other. It is hard to compare the two when they the two games are about totally different things and don't have much in common except that in online multiplayer you are trying to defeat each other. The weapons, vehicles, and damage system are completely different which makes these two games difficult to compare to one another. When you say to base votes on arguments well I find that extremely difficult because you can't argue the two games. It's like arguing ketchup and mustard, both are condiments it doesn't matter which is better it only matters which one you enjoy more. So to my original statement, you can't compare the two games very well because they are so different. The story of the games, the multiplayer, campaign, weapons, everything is different.
No votes have been placed for this debate.