The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Is Call of Duty still the King of FPS?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 831 times Debate No: 45464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




1. Call of Duty has led the field in video game technology for over a decade. CoD became a must-buy FPS in 2007 when CoD: 4 Modern Warfare came out. Battlefield may have the advantage on CoD in the graphics area, but in terms of game play and innovation, CoD leads Battlefield by a long shot. CoD: GHOSTS introduced new game modes, like Blitz, Hunted, Cranked, and Extinction. CoD also introduces improved ways of mantling objects, contextual lean, and lethal(but not over-powered) terrain destruction. Battlefield 4 has improved nothing like this. Battlefield only upgraded the graphics engine from Frostbite 2 to Frostbite 3. As CoD continues to make these enormous advances in coding, the fact that ACTIVISION releases a new CoD every year instead of every two like Battlefield cannot be discounted. CoD makes three times the number of major advances as Battlefield in half the time. That is a feat to be reckoned with.
2. When it comes to Halo, CoD Black Ops II had just as many advances in game play as Halo 4. Halo improved graphics and physics, whereas CoD mastered the art of creating engaging and difficult to play Zombie maps. Halo is easily the 1st runner up to Call of Duty. I believe that CoD will stand fast, however, and retain its dominance over the FPS market.
3. When it comes to Team Fortress 2, the lesser known FPS from Valve Co., CoD brings a better class selection capability, a more professional-looking game, improved physics, a more balanced game play, and a massively superior graphics engine. This game is as good as gone when stood up next to its rivals.
Call of Duty is widely considered to be the best, most well known, and fastest FPS on the market today. The competitors to this mega gaming franchise have been left in the dust by ACTIVISION's latest installment, CoD: GHOSTS. I anticipate the same welcome that every CoD since Modern Warfare has received.


When it comes to video games, what truly defines a “King”?
My opponent seems to define it in a varsity of ways by cherry-picking what it has over other games, instead of directly defining the term. By that definition even I could be a King by pointing out what I do better than others around me and ignoring what I do worse.

When it comes to selling numbers we don't really have a good definition. Sure, out of the best selling FPS games COD does sit high up, but falling under that same definition that means that Wii sports is the King of All games as it is the best selling video game ever released with 82 million copies.[1]

So, we look at ratings. In this definition we suddenly have a vastly different playing field:
Taking the average of several top-rated lists [2-5] we see that COD games end up averaging around 5-6th place. The Franchise that more often turns up seems to be the famed Half Life series, averaging around 2-3rd place.

And that is what makes a great game, quality over quantity. The Half life series isn't big, but it is thrilling, it focuses on breathtaking graphics, Impressive storyline that offers an immersive experience. It bonds with the player and leaves a mark that makes the player yearn for more without relying on multi player. Bioshock, Crysis and Killzone all do this as well. They leave a mark, they change in more than just game play, they change their mood, they truly try to stick with the player and lure them into their world with a promise of sweets and thrill, terror and sorrow and pure entertainment. They stretch further than the simple FPS genre, and that is why they are more deserving of being the kings of FPS.






Debate Round No. 1


Call of Duty nets the largest audience of any FPS video game out there. I personally have never heard of or played "half-life". All I hear are Battlefield and Halo players hating on CoD because CoD offers one of the most moving campaigns out there. Following the story of two brothers and their dog, Riley, trying their best to follow in their fathers footsteps, and then, to avenge his death seems very immersive to me. CoD allows players to develop a sentimental attachment to the characters in the campaign. CoD also offers modes like extinction, that give the player the freedom to choose their own course of action while trying to save the Earth from a race of aliens attempting to exterminate us. CoD also offers one of the most challenging and fastest-paced multi-players available. Call of Duty also sold over 120 million units, twice that of Battlefield. A true "King" is one that has a proven advantage over the competition. I have played FPS games from Halo to Battlefield, and I have seen nothing between the two that has an advantage over CoD. My first argument outlines CoD's advantages. Net values indicate that CoD stomps every other FPS by at least a 3 : 1 ratio. This is what defines the true king of the FPS genre.


Just because you have not heard of a franchise that has often been states as being one of the greatest FPS games ever released and sold millions of copies does not mean that it does not exist.

My opponent builds his entire argument in this round on sales, that a best selling franchise must be the best franchise, and that it then deserves a “King” status. This is not true, as games are not defined by their selling numbers. They are defined by the way the public receives them. If you are to defend the argument that COD is the king of FPS games you must then also admit that the following franchises are the kings of video games as a whole:
Mario; Super Mario; Pokémon; the Wii games series; The Sims; Grand Theft Auto; Need for Speed and Tetris.

All these franchises have larger net values and have sold on average 67 million more copies than the Call of Duty Franchise. Would you be willing to debate with me that Wii: sports is a better game than Call of Duty: Ghosts with you taking the Wii side of the debate? Can you defend that Wii sports is a better game that COD? If you cannot then you are forsaking your own argument because the exact same reasoning you're applying to this debate will also have to hold in that debate.

Half life proved it's advantage over the competition, it became a legend in the video game industry, we actually have an official term that describes “Pro half-life” and “post half-life” to describe the changes that appeared in the fps genre. BioShock also had a similar impact, it went against the typical hit and run style that Cod has placed its value on, it brings you into a world where nothing is as it seems. It created a detailed world that offered players something they had never seen before. The original had one of the greatest plot twists known to video games. It brought something new to the world with each game. It told us that an FPS is more than the guns, more than the war, more than what Call of duty has to offer.

Debate Round No. 2


Wii Sports, Mario, and Pokemon are the kings of their respective genre. I am basing my argument on the fact that CoD sells more copies because the fan-base of CoD is not anywhere near the age group of games like Battlefield and Halo. Because of this they cannot affect the ratings at IGN and places like that as effectively that those at that play half life do. Most lack consistent access to the web to voice their opinions. I base my arguments solely on the fact that CoD sells more because this is the only way the masses can really voice their opinions. Not every CoD player can come and debate this on The number of copies Half-life sold pales in comparison to CoD. "King" status is really determined by the number of satisfied customers, of which, I estimate CoD to have an excess of 100,000,000 at this point. CoD has been responsible, in part, to two of the biggest debates in gaming history : CoD vs. Halo, and CoD vs. Battlefield. So yes, an FPS extends beyond the guns. In CoD's case, it extends into players daily lives. That's more than I can say for any Valve FPS!!


Dear readers of this debate; Here I have spent three rounds explaining that a game expands past the number of copies they sell. I look at the quality of the games themselves. In my limited 2000 characters I fixate on what makes the games great. My opponent however is fixated on an entirely different topic: For he has spent 6000 characters in 3 rounds fighting for the topics “A game is defined by how many copies it sells” and “COD is better than Battlefield or Halo” I have cited numerous sources and websites to prove my point, be they reliable or not, while my opponent cites none.

Pro, you have not answered any of my questions and you left my arguments completely open in most parts. I did not mention Halo nor Battlefield in any of my rounds and yet you keep shooting at them like they are the only games in the FPS genre that are worth fighting. We aren't discussing those games, so any arguments made in that context is mute, unimportant.

Just because a franchise has a large following does not ensure it's quality. If Cod is the King of games it should have ranked better in top ten lists, it should have been able to produce better arguments than selling more copies than a specific franchise. It didn't. The debates you listed aren't even debated, they are wars between franchises. Bigger debates include Nudity in games, Unfair male-to-female character proportions, overuse and addiction, social isolation, and the biggest of all, that violence in video games affect behaviour, something that was sparked by the gruesome gore and violence in mortal kombat that was realised a full 11 years before COD.
To conclude, COD is not the King of FPS games. There is no king of FPS games because there is no definition that everyone agrees on. What games you prefer does not change someone else opinion, and I hope that you'll see that games go beyond the capitalistic definition that money is everything, that selling is more important than the art form of video games.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by User607 2 years ago
Lol it never was the king of fps
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
Way to make a debate about who is the King of something without defining 'King'.
Posted by SirTobin 2 years ago
Just because a game has more sales doesn't mean it's better. It can, or it can mean every time another title in that series is released, everyone buys a copy. Battlefield 4 not only had better graphics but actions to be done.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
Man, next time try to have a bit larger character limit. Fitting such a vast topic into 2000 characters each round is a pain in the back, I had to skip an entire paragraph that I really liked just because I ran out of room. :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling was shockingly good for both sides. Conduct was also good. Con had quite a layer of sources, even if only in his R1 argument. Pro had none. Neither side truly proved which game was King. However, Pro's whole argument he used, the Copies Sold argument, didn't hold up to Con's case.