The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Is battlefield superior to call of duty?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
N8BOl has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 96183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I"m a Call of Duty player myself, and have been since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Therefore, I can fully understand the appeal of these games. The single player offers some of the most exhilarating action set-pieces and the multiplayer is addictive. Many would argue that these two games are for two different types of gamer. The reason being that Call of Duty is designed for fast paced arena style action, and Battlefield 3 is designed for slow paced strategic gameplay. For that reason Call of Duty is more accessible to all types of gamers, whether casual or hardcore.

This is the exact reason why Call of Duty continues to become more dumbed down and frustrating to play. Meanwhile, Battlefield is pleasing those who truly wish to know what it means to experience war. So here are a few reasons that support my opinion on why Battlefield is a better series than Call of Duty. Battlefield 3 vehicles include Tanks, APC"s, Helicopters and Jets. All of these can be utilized at anytime during selected match types. Sure Call of Duty may have vehicles to an extent with kill-streaks, but it"s a very small extent. Another one of the Frostbite engines advantages is the destructible environments. As you continue to do battle against the opposing forces, you"ll see all your fighting take its toll on the surrounding area. It seems like Treyarch and other Activision developers have been finding creative ways to mimic this on their engine, but it"s clearly not the same.


Call of duty has killstreaks which are really fun to use.
Its killstreaks vehicles aren't so overpowered like Jets.
Stingers/Anti-air tools are actually effective.
You don't get tired of playing it since the matches are fast.
You have more fun with its crazy physics and gameplay style.
Much less campers than Battlefield.
You can't cap flags on places that's hard to access. (OP Firestorm, etc)
Flags area are smaller and harder to capture.
Players aren't so annoying.
Flashbangs/Stun Grenades.
Throwing Knives.
You don't have to be Premium to rest your stats.
Your stats are actually reseted, not only the K/D, SPM, Accuracy and W/L.
IW/Treyarch doesn't take 3 months to fix a weapon glitch (DART).
It has a old engine, so it has less bugs.
Good single player.
You don't die even if you're in cover after 5 seconds.
No shuttering.
No disconnects from EA Online.
No Badmins since it doesn't has servers in the first place.
You feel something good when you get a double-kill.
It's faster, funnier.
You don't have to walk for 30 minutes to get to the flags.
You don't have to use Origin.
You don't have to use a Browser to start playing.
It's not trying to copy Battlefield with Crazy DLCS like "Far Quarters"
People don't consider themselves as "Pros"
People don't play on Operation Metro to rank up Faster.

Battlefield. It got 99 problems but Cod ain't 1.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.