The Instigator
bminer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DemonDog
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Modern Warfare 2 is better than 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  
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: 4/24/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,571 times Debate No: 16120
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

bminer

Pro

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is a better video game than its successor, Black Ops.

1. Better levels. The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay.

2. Spec Ops. Spec ops was WAY better than Zombies in Black Ops. Zombies is fun, but the spec ops were difficult and made for a fun 2-player co-op.

3. The storyline. The campaign in MW2 has a much better storyline with better gameplay.

4. Multiplayer. For some reason, the combination of weapons, maps, killstreaks, and perks in MW2 feels better than the combinations in Black Ops. Certain weapons in Black Ops are avoided entirely due to their extreme weaknesses. MW2 has a nicer strength/weakness trade-off for each weapon, perk, etc.

5. LAG!!! Black Ops is way more laggy. The game crashes way more often.
DemonDog

Con

I would like to say thank you to my opponent for creating this debate topic. I wish him the best of luck.

My opponent has set very low standards when it comes to the parameters of this debate. And I will attempt to use his format. From this point on, BO will refer to Black Ops, and MW2 will refer to Modern Warfare Two.

1) My opponent claims based on an opinion driven statement that MW2 maps "provide way better gameplay."
a) Both MW2 and BO were rendered using and advanced version of the World at War graphics engine created by Activision. This graphics engine allows for enlarged maps with higher graphics. Though both MW2 and BO used this engine, BO featured higher lighting quality, the first 3D addition, and upwards of 60 Frames per second (MW2 caps at 60). BO was also the first game in the series to create scenes based upon motion capturing (which is how the scenes of Avatar were created).
b) Conclusion: My opponent stated that "The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay". My conclusion to the first point is that the Graphic Rendering of BO created better gameplay than the maps in MW2.

2) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory.
3) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory.
4) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory.

Round 1 Conclusion:
My opponent has relied on his opinions to create the perimeters of this debate. I was only able to reply to his first statement because it was the only statement which was solid and provided a path for which to provide evidence to support my arguments.

Sources:
Interview with Producer.
http://www.joystiq.com...

Releases of information before game release.
http://kotaku.com...

Video about the 3D features.
http://www.gametrailers.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bminer

Pro

bminer forfeited this round.
DemonDog

Con

As my opponent failed to post in Round 2, I will simply stretch my R1 to also be my R2.

" I would like to say thank you to my opponent for creating this debate topic. I wish him the best of luck.

My opponent has set very low standards when it comes to the parameters of this debate. And I will attempt to use his format. From this point on, BO will refer to Black Ops, and MW2 will refer to Modern Warfare Two.

1) My opponent claims based on an opinion driven statement that MW2 maps "provide way better gameplay."
a) Both MW2 and BO were rendered using and advanced version of the World at War graphics engine created by Activision. This graphics engine allows for enlarged maps with higher graphics. Though both MW2 and BO used this engine, BO featured higher lighting quality, the first 3D addition, and upwards of 60 Frames per second (MW2 caps at 60). BO was also the first game in the series to create scenes based upon motion capturing (which is how the scenes of Avatar were created).
b) Conclusion: My opponent stated that "The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay". My conclusion to the first point is that the Graphic Rendering of BO created better gameplay than the maps in MW2.

2) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory.
3) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory.
4) I'm forced to ask my opponent to provide evidence to support his theory.

Round 1 Conclusion:
My opponent has relied on his opinions to create the perimeters of this debate. I was only able to reply to his first statement because it was the only statement which was solid and provided a path for which to provide evidence to support my arguments.

Sources:
Interview with Producer.
http://www.joystiq.com......

Releases of information before game release.
http://kotaku.com......

Video about the 3D features.
http://www.gametrailers.com...... "
Debate Round No. 2
bminer

Pro

I apologize for not submitting this argument earlier. I did not intend to forfeit round 1, but I ran out of time. My apologies also for not making my arguments in round 1 extremely clear. I feel as if my opponent has misinterpreted some of my points, so I will attempt to clarify these points.

1. To clarify point 1... I argue that the multiplayer gameplay of the game is negatively impacted by the overall design of the multiplayer maps. I will concede with my opponent that BO maps might be rendered better and look better, but this has little to do with actual gameplay. According to Wikipedia, which at this time references credible sources, "Gameplay is interaction with a game (in particular, video games) through its rules, connection between player and the game, challenges and overcoming them, plot and player's connection with it. Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics, or audio elements." Again, I will agree with my opponent that the BO maps look nicer, have slightly better graphics, and perhaps look more realistic, but this does not address my original argument. Again, I argue that the multiplayer gameplay of the game is negatively impacted by the overall design of the multiplayer maps.

Unfortunately, gameplay is truly a perception of the player, and is often opinion-based; however, I will attempt to describe the problems that I have noticed in playing the game. Maps in BO feel a lot like mazes; they are complex, a bit too symmetrical, and there are almost always two entrances to any given location. There are very few wide-open areas, making sniping very difficult in every map, including Array (which I believe was designed to be the sniping map). All of the maps are designed for close or medium-range combat. There is little variety. While MW2 suffers a bit from the same problem, there are 2 or 3 maps that work well for sniping (i.e. Derail, Estate, Quarry (maybe), and Wasteland).

Spawn points in the map are fairly well spaced, but I've found that too often I am spawned directly in front of or directly behind an enemy. Spawning near an enemy is very annoying, often results in instant death, and it happens much more often in BO than MW2. In objective games, you are sometimes spawned far away from your team and right in front of the entire enemy team. In these cases, although pretty rare, you probably die instantly.

Conclusion: the maps are too complex in BO. They feel like mazes. There is not enough variety. You can't snipe very well. And, finally, spawning was very poorly implemented. All of these points relate to how the maps in BO negatively impact its overall gameplay.

2. Again, this point has mostly to do with gameplay. Personally, I initially enjoyed zombies in BO, but after inevitably dying too much, it became very stale. The objective in zombies is to kill as many zombies as possible before you die. So, really you never "win". The objective is to stay alive for as long as you can until you "lose". In MW2 you had Spec Ops. This also worked as a 2-player online version, and due to its difficulty on Veteran, you almost need another player to help you beat the more difficult levels. In Spec Ops, the objectives varied; sometimes you just kill waves of soldiers, sometimes you have to reach a certain location, sometimes you had a time limit, sometimes you a piloting a helicopter to protect your teammate from a swarm of enemies, etc. My point here is that Spec Ops were much more versatile from a gameplay perspective. The levels also mimicked the maps in the campaign, so the familiarity made the maps easier to play. MW2 Spec Ops were basically military special operations. This just makes more sense! The name of the game is Modern Warfare! Black Ops has a zombies game, but again, this really has little to do with the actual game.

Conclusion: The zombies game type is just silly to include in a military FPS like Black Ops. Although it was fun, it does not compare to the exciting, versatile gameplay of Spec Ops.

3. This is really just my opinion. I thought the BO campaign storyline was a bit boring. In MW2, the game seemed a bit more exciting.

4. I have addressed some of this point in point 1. The M16 in BO was made to be far more useless. The sniper riles are nearly useless. The shotguns are underpowered. It all lead to a negative impact on gameplay. In addition, may weapons designed for medium or long-range combat were underpowered, especially given the nature of the maps, which again, were large mazes with few wide-open areas.

Also, kills you obtain from killstreaks do not count toward your killstreak, which is something I, personally, miss from MW2. I will concede that the "Nuke" and "EMP" in MW2 were incredibly stupid, which is why, I believe, people were annoyed in MW2 when killstreaks got out of control. But, when things were going your way in MW2, the fact that killstreak kills count toward your actual killstreak was an incredible gameplay enhancement. It allowed the momentum of the game to be changed at any time.

5. My overall argument here is that BO is a bit more buggy and laggy than MW2. The nice feature in BO was the ability to invite friends to your game without going through the slow PS3 menu. But, it least it worked in MW2. When friends are already in a game in BO, I cannot join their games. It works less than 25% of the time. I've also been kicked from many more games in BO than MW2. And, finally, the most annoying thing in BO is the lag. I have experienced excessive lag in both games, but I have an excellent Internet connection (over 15 MB). I never have had problems with my connection. There is a problem with lag in both games, but I believe that the lag in BO is much more frequent. I often find myself turning corners to escape gunfire and then dying soonafter. Then, when I look at the killcam, it doesn't show me going around the corner at all, nor does it show me shooting at the opponent. This is a huge negative for gameplay. Unfortunately, I cannot provide any solid facts and figures to support these claims, so I'm willing to drop this point.

MW2 Map Layouts
http://www.mortalkombatunited.com...

BO Map Layouts
http://www.cod7blackops.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Black Ops? More like Whack Ops! Modern Warfare 2 wasn't the best game ever, but it certainly beats BO.
DemonDog

Con

First off, I will further discuss my opponents failure to provide the Burden of Proof (as he is Pro). As is custom, the initiator of the debate must provide a perimeter for the debate, but my opponent did not.

"I feel as if my opponent has misinterpreted some of my points, so I will attempt to clarify these points."

As you can clearly read, most of these points were based upon opinion. The only point that could possibly be logically proven either way was not defined by my opponent, which gave me free control over the direction I thought it should take.

1) My opponent stated: "1. Better levels. The maps in MW2 provide way better gameplay."

My argument was that it wasn't the Maps which provided better gameplay, it was the Graphics for BO. As we know, he did not define a perimeter, so my argument is valid.

My opponent then stated "Again, I will agree with my opponent that the BO maps look nicer, have slightly better graphics, and perhaps look more realistic" and failed to prove why he felt otherwise.

2) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default.

3) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default. He also said, "This is really just my opinion. I thought the BO campaign storyline was a bit boring. In MW2, the game seemed a bit more exciting."

4) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default.

5) I asked my opponent to expand on his opinions with actual evidence. He provided more opinion, without evidence -- Thus granting me this topic as a win-by-default. Though he actually used a statistic -- it was not findable at any listed sources.. Yes I even checked the Wiki.

Conclusion:
My Opponent finished his debate with a slogan... "Black Ops? More like Whack Ops!"
My Opponent held the burden of proof, yet failed to prove Black Ops was a worse game than MW2.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bminer 6 years ago
bminer
To respond to DYTBob: "Killstreaks stacking to other killstreaks caused so many games to be ruined due to rage quitting and unbalanced teams."

I agree to a certain extent. I rarely quit a game, and I played in games where my entire team left. The Nuke and EMP are both stupid. I hated when people used them, BUT... I actually liked the fact that killstreak kills stacked up. It made the game REALLY fun when YOU were the one pwning everyone else. Yes, some games were ruined, but it was rare. And, nothing ruined a game like the Nuke. You could always hide from the Chopper Gunner for a while...
Posted by DYTBob 6 years ago
DYTBob
The killstreak system in MW2 made the game virtually un-playable for those who had not had previous experience with FPS and specifically the COD franchise. Killstreaks stacking to other killstreaks caused so many games to be ruined due to rage quitting and unbalanced teams. Also, Black ops system of purchasing attachments/weapons is much more balanced than the MW2 system, which assumed that some attachments were better than others and limited the playing style of individuals until they had sunk hours and hours into unlocking attachments, once again creating a situation where new players were heinously disadvantaged. Also, so many people complain about the loss of "quick-scoping", quick scoping was dumb, totally unrealistic, and super annoying, but unfortunately BO patched it in recently so its a wash. On another note, the predator missile in MW2 was so much better than the RC car or the virtually useless valkarie rockets.
Posted by DemonDog 6 years ago
DemonDog
Darn, I was hoping to be Pro on this one :P
Posted by theitalianstallion 6 years ago
theitalianstallion
I HATED Black Ops. I'm not a big COD fan to begin with, but I did enjoy playing MW2; Black Ops, on the other hand, was a piece of crap from the very beginning for me.

Can't wait for BF3 and GOW 3.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
agreed below. BF3 all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frenchmoosetwo 6 years ago
frenchmoosetwo
they're the same game.. both boring and generic.. but thats just my opinion <..<, >.>... or is it??
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
bminerDemonDogTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit The arguments seemed to be even but Pro couldn't really show that MOD2 was better than Black Ops