The Instigator
Pikachu
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
DZL
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,082 times Debate No: 10279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

Pikachu

Pro

MW2 should be called Call of Camping: Modern Camping 2. Everyone camps and is stupid. Nobody plays fair. And the perks are either OP (scavenger) or useless (one man army, anyone?)

The maps are crap. You can't go anywhere without being no-scoped from across the map by some guy with his WA2K.

Also there's no point to leveling up because once you actually hit the max level and get the AK (otherwise known as the best gun ever) you're about to prestige anyway and you basically have to prestige because otherwise you're a noob.

In short, MW2 is gay. Except the graphics are cool, and the spec ops and campaign are lulzy as heck. But we're not debating that. So vote pro.
DZL

Con

1) The perks are sooo much better. Like, I mean, Slight of Hand Pro? I'd apply some of my baby gravy over that. There's something magical about the game when you realize that you pull up your sniper scope in half a second.

2) Kill streaks. They're so good. I mean, tactical nukes? F*ck.

3) You get exp for everything and there's this recognition system for important sh*t you do. So people will actually care when after you've spent 6 minutes spraying at a helicopter and finally manage to shoot it down. That is, after you've died 100 times, f*cking noob.

4) The graphics? They're sooo good. I decided to stop streaming the good stuff off my laptop and instead just turn on my Xbox and let the graphical goodness poor through my 60 inch monster.

P.S. I fu*king hate this game.
Debate Round No. 1
Pikachu

Pro

1) Perks are better? Have you ever heard of One Man Army? Have you heard of Scrambler? One Man Army is useless unless you apply it to more than one class, wasting slots for your precious Sleight of Hand. Scrambler is detrimental to its own cause; jamming nearby enemies' radar only alerts them to your presence. Also on the subject of Sleight of Hand, extend my perk argument - Sleight of Hand drastically reduces time spent helplessly reloading thus enabling the player to spend more time shooting. Sleight of Hand Pro also increases the player's ability to be ready for accurate firing in a tight situation, giving the player a distinct advantage over another player. Sleight of Hand is quite an overpowered perk indeed, and I thank my opponent for helping me with my argument.

2) Kill streaks? The tactical nuke was only half-interesting the first time it happened to me and became boring after that. Also, have fun getting a 25 kill streak when you get shot from across the map (see my first contention) or killed by a Harrier/Stealth Bomber/Pavelow/AC-130/Attack Helicopter... Killstreaks are generally much harder to get in this game. I can easily manage 2 helicopters (7 kill streak) in the right situation on MW.

3) You do not get exp for "everything" as you get no EXP for walking, jumping, reloading, climbing ladders, stunning your enemies, flashing them, the list goes on ad nauseam. Your argument is inherently flawed because of your poor diction. And while you do attain EXP for many more things than you can in MW, you also need thousands more EXP to level up in MW2. That being said, I have already asserted that levelling up is inherently worthless because players throw away their levels and unlocks for the sake of a new 50 pixel by 50 pixel .gif icon signifying the dozens of hours put into their game.

4) MW was hailed as "the most photorealistic game ever" and graphics don't contribute to a multiplayer experience - ask any Counter-Strike 1.6 player how much he cares about graphics.

And your post script? Clearly asserts that you do not care about this game or your arguments, thus voiding them all, thus conceding all of them.

Also, the maps are awful and are easily a contributor to the ridiculous frustration presented by MW2's lackluster multiplayer experience.
DZL

Con

1) Better (adj): of greater effectiveness than its predecessors.

Because the perks have a net increase in effectiveness, or in your words, more overpowered, than the ones in Modern Warfare 2, the perks are "better".

2) It must be fun being on respawn all the time because if your team is bad enough to let the one person on the other team kill 25 of you in a row then you guys deserve to get nuked. Killstreaks are only harder in this game because you just made the transition to MW2 from CoD4 or whatever game you played most before you played MW2. It requires somewhat of a different skill set. Also, most kill streaks will not affect you if you simply create a class dedicated to taking them out. It's not that difficult: Cold Blooded and Stingers, throw in +200 exp or however much they give you for shooting sh*t down and that's what you get out of that beautiful exchange.

3) The point I was making was that the amount of things you DO get exp for exponentially increased. You get exp for tanking damage with your Riot Shield for f*ck's sake. All this means that it's all the more easier to level up, i.e., snipers get the twice the amount of exp for a "long range" headshot. And the only reason you need thousands of exp to level up in MW2 is because you're getting 10x or even 20x the exp you were getting in CoD4. Lern2maths.

4) The graphics are still sexy.

5) Once again, you fooled me into arguing for this trashy game called Modern Warfare 2. I'd say they did a worse job than Treyarch with CoD:WaW. I'm only playing devil's advocate and am probably doing a sh*t job because defending what you flat out hate is quite the challenge. However, my in round disposition should have no value on the actual weight of the arguments I make.

6) You perceive the maps as being "sh*t" because you are not used to checking the map for enemies vertically while CoD4 and most other games only teach you to swipe the map horizontally. Let's be a little more open to new aspects introduced into a genre of gaming.
Debate Round No. 2
Pikachu

Pro

1) I would not consider a perk that alerts your enemies to your presence an increase in effectiveness, but if you do then be my guest.

2) In an online FPS (of which I know you are very very accustomed to) team communication and synergy are next to nonexistent in a group of randomly selected players; teamwork and therefore a general increase of success largely depends on hand picking a group of talented players to work with. Much of the play in generic matchmade games is therefore solo-oriented even though the scoring is team-based. I would hardly believe for an instant that anyone familiar with voice chat in games such as Modern Warfare 2 thinks that it is frequently (or even infrequently) used between strangers for effective communication and strategy. Therefore, I doubt strongly that I "deserve" to get nuked because of the incompetence of my "teammates."

On your second point, neither Cold-Blooded nor Stingers are available at the outset of the game, requiring much time and effort to unlock. Until then, have fun shooting your SCAR-H (with a total of 60 rounds) at that Pavelow. Also it's hardly a beautiful exchange when the AC-130 shoots down both of your Stingers. If you've unlocked them, that is.

3) The amount of EXP given for tanking bullets with the Riot Shield is negligible when considering that it's basically a consolation prize for you choosing to have the killing efficiency of, well, a big sheet of polycarbonate.

4) This argument is mine, simply extend my Counter-Strike 1.6 argument. If you don't accept CS1.6, think of Super Mario Bros (the original games), Final Fantasy VII, and a game I like to call The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time. Graphics do not make a game.

5) "However, my in round disposition should have no value on the actual weight of the arguments I make." Your in-round disposition also should have no place in the debate.

6) Please show me where I literally referred to the MW2 maps as being "sh*t" and I will concede this debate and also give you my copy of the game. I have, in fact, trained myself to check sightlines vertically, but I have not been taught the fine art of dodging a stealth bomber's carpet bombs. Also I hardly consider having to look up a "new aspect" in FPS unless the most recent one you've played was Doom.

For my final focus, please consider the following:
My opponent has allowed his pre-round bias to come into play during the round and used it as a crutch to ask the judging panel for special consideration on a debate that he accepted the challenge to. He has used personal knowledge of my gaming skill, exaggerated my weaknesses, and then used them against me in his arguments (which therefore are invalid against any other opponent). Vote Pro.
DZL

Con

1) Extend my topicality argument which went conceded coming out of my opponent's last rebuttal. It doesn't matter if Scrambler is a crappy perk, there are still all the other perks available that dominate, i.e., Sleight, Stopping, Ninja, Cold Blooded, Hardline, Commando, etc, etc. The perks have a net increase in effectiveness. Moving on.

2) I'm sorry you don't have any friends to play with on Team Deathmatch. All you're doing in your wall of text is raging about how stupid your teammates are, however you fail to realize that Modern Warfare 2 requires people to have their mics put on gamechat as opposed to party chat. Every Xbox comes with a mic and a fat percentage of people use their mics, all you need to do is talk.

3) It doesn't matter what level Cold-Blooded and Stingers have to be unlocked at. If all else fails, just break the rules and camp in a building for 30 seconds. Oh wait, the game IS Camping in a Corner 2 after all. Seriously, don't run out in the open when your opponent calls in a killstreak reward. All of them with the exception of the stealth bomber are announced in game and even with the stealth bomber, all you have to do is have your volume turned on and you can hear it as loud as day. Also, it's not hard to notice when a third of the sky has just turned into a weird, black triangular pattern.

4) The graphical argument is yours. There was no analysis on either part describing why graphics actually matter so this argument has no weight in the debate.

5) No impact analysis: no weight. Stop being a smartass

6) Your argument was about the maps, not complaining about the killstreak rewards, which are balanced considering how many kills you need to get them. It's your team's fault for letting the same guy kill you 11 times in a row.

Final words:
My opponent has done one thing in this round and that is polishing his art of saying a whole lot without actually conveying anything. This only arguments about how imba the kill streak rewards are goes without warrant or significant impacts onto one's gaming experience. Even if you buy 1% of his argument, just extend my argument that if you're so bad to let them get that kill streak, then you deserve to be on lock down for the next 30 seconds. Oh the other hand, I've conveyed to you throughout the debate that Modern Warfare 2 is a new game that is ridiculously good. Also, please first play the multiplayer portion of the game past the first 30 levels before you attempt to make a "well-informed" decision on what kind of an experience it holds. You're doing it injustice. And also, I'm raping noobs with you so it's obviously gonna suck huge meatstick.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by oakley198 6 years ago
oakley198
one man army i not a "useless" perk as you can reload grenade launchers, claymores, grenades, ammo.
and on the other hand scrambler? if used effectively it can work very well if you are a good player which obviously you are not, as you get no-scoped across the map when you shouldn't be in the open long enough and if he is no-scoping then he is out in the open and you should be able to kill him before he does it to you. scrambler pro can delay claymores for about 10 seconds! this has saved my life on many occasions. also on the point of no-scoping it is a lot harder to no-scope on mw2 that on mw1 as the normal bolt action rifle on mw1 (m40) has a higher hip fire accuracy and the intervention has a low hip fire accuracy. also there is a lot of things that you can do on mw1 that make the game a bit unbalanced, such as the g3 silenced glitch when you knife lunge at someone it doesn't work or takes about 4 secs to kill them. also the ACOG scope on teh m40 increases the damage thus making it easier to no scope.
Posted by Westpaw 6 years ago
Westpaw
First of all, what is wrong with camping? It is a resourceful tactic that only makes logical sense, considering your life would otherwise be in the hands of rambos and lone wolves. I have never seen well structured teamwork and communication in call of duty, so I make the claim that camping is the only logical solution.
Posted by Sylux 7 years ago
Sylux
Lol. "Baby gravy".
Posted by Pikachu 7 years ago
Pikachu
Don't expect custody.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
I'll send you a check from time to time. Sucker. Literally.
Posted by Pikachu 7 years ago
Pikachu
I already am. We should talk.
Posted by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
Bear my children.
Posted by Pikachu 7 years ago
Pikachu
I'm level 31.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kirke32 7 years ago
Kirke32
PikachuDZLTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
PikachuDZLTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
PikachuDZLTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Pikachu 7 years ago
Pikachu
PikachuDZLTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
PikachuDZLTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DZL 7 years ago
DZL
PikachuDZLTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
PikachuDZLTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43