The Instigator
jake9710
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GeekiTheGreat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Battlefield 3 better than Call of Duty: Black Ops?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/17/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,894 times Debate No: 32592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

jake9710

Pro

Let me just start off by saying good luck! Now, straight to the point. Battlefield is just great overall. Yes, Black Ops 2 is good, but Battlefield 3 has great graphics, great gun customization, great team play, great maps, ect.. I could go on all day.

As you can see in this link: www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii/ Black ops 2 got a 8/10.

While Batllefield http://www.gamespot.com... a 8.5/10. This is all I have to say for now, for I would like to see what my contendor has to say. Good luck!
GeekiTheGreat

Con

This is such a dumb argument. I can go on about how battlefield 3's maps are to large, and the teams are so uneven, not to mention the private server system giving Hosts a sense of false power, but you are simply stating an opinion. Of course you think your game is better then mine, and of course i think my game is better then yours. It is an opinion!

Though, in all good sportsmanship, I will address BF3's flaws.

1) BF3's classes are so uneven. People who have been playing sense the release date have an extremely unfair advantage against new players. I know that veteran players deserve an advantage they dont deserve as big of an advantage that BF3 gives them. When you have a super high level gun verses a guy just starting out, and you pick the same guy off over and over again because he just got the game an hour ago, it makes it harder for new players to be immersed into the game.
2) BF3's maps are made so large, of course to use vehicles, but when the vehicles are really only used to go across a map that is only big so you can use vehicles (don't get me started on the planes) its makes it an endless cycle. Halo doesn't even use vehicles well, but at least people don't over use them. BO2 doesn't use vehicles because the CoD team knows to take out any mechanics of a game that don't mesh well with the rest of the game play.

I do have a lot of things to say about BO2 though, but i think BF3 is just a game that's good ideas, like so many games before it, were not executed well enough. BO2 is just more practical in it's game mechanics. The developers are using what they know how to do, and doing what the consumer expects. Which in some aspects are bad, but BF3 listened too much and didn't test it out well enough. Battlefield 3 is just another product create to suck the money out of fan-boys. Which i guess, is what EA is best at.
Debate Round No. 1
jake9710

Pro

I understand that this isn't an important arguement, you think I don't understand that? It's for feedback, so you can chill out. Thank you for your feedback
GeekiTheGreat

Con

Stop looking for feed back. This is not feedback, its you being a moron cause you can't accept the fact that someone else disagrees with you. Stop making Debates.
Debate Round No. 2
jake9710

Pro

jake9710 forfeited this round.
GeekiTheGreat

Con

As my final argument, i have to say, both games are created to appeal to a certain fan base. Mainly to as large a fan base as possible. BF3 has fans that don't like BLOPS2 and vice versa, but also there are fans of both series who enjoy both games. To say whether BLOPS 2 or BF3 is better is like choosing whether the Mona Lisa or the portrait of George Washington is better. They are both paintings, they are both portraits, but they are made by two completely different people and appeal to different art fans, in a their own way.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
i don't need to have a credible source because there is no source that can prove which OPINION is better then the other.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
i don't need to have a credible source because there is no source that can prove which OPINION is better then the other.
Posted by LotusNG 3 years ago
LotusNG
Geeki wins in my book. Pro basically forfeited 2 rounds and gave up on my debate with him for no good reason.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
Whatever im losing, he wont even say anything. my arguement was really, that these are jsut opinions, some people like BO better then BF. Its an opinion, you can't decide which is better like you cna decide what is more filling: A slice of bread or a steak?
Posted by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
Geeki, even if you have argument points, he has for conduct, 1 for SG, and has provided a source.

So far, you are losing. I suggest putting a credible source in the next round.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
Wait he ignores contestants? lol
Posted by LotusNG 3 years ago
LotusNG
So am I allowed to contest with you this time or are you just going to ignore it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.