The Instigator
KozWanderer
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Mount & Blade Warband vs Chivalry Medieval Warfare (Multi-player)

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...
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2013 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,463 times Debate No: 40232
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

KozWanderer

Pro

I declare Mount & Blade warband is a more better game than Chilvary warfare, therefore mount & Blade is a better game. Lol jokes.

Your turn.
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat

Con

Oh, it's on.
First off Mount and Blade and Chivalry are completely different games. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a game based on skill, strategy, teamwork, and providing as real and as visceral an experience as the modern PC has to offer. Mount and Blade: Warband's multiplayer was less about realistic medieval fighting and more about cramming a sh!tload of people in a single match.

In CMW (I'll use abbreviations now, so I don't have to write the titles out every time), fighting is based on timing and reflexes. In MnB, it's based on whether or not your opponent has a level 5,000 sword or not. MnB is a good game, but the multiplayer gets boring and repetitive, fast. It just can't compare to the constant, whacked-out awesomeness that is CMW.

Also, you cite yourself as a source. That's never a good thing to do, even if you are trollin'.
Debate Round No. 1
KozWanderer

Pro

KozWanderer forfeited this round.
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat

Con

Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
KozWanderer

Pro

WELL YOU are JUST PUReLY ASSUMING ABOUT WHAT you said about Mount&Blade multiplayer.


"less about realistic medieval fighting and more about cramming a sh!tload of people in a single match."


Since when did a game had to be realistic? And chilvary is also about cramming a load of player to fight each other.


"Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a game based on skill, strategy, teamwork"




Mount&blade allows use in the open world for over a hundred of players to perform such stratergies, teamwork and skill aswell.


"In CMW (I'll use abbreviations now, so I don't have to write the titles out every time), fighting is based on timing and reflexes. In MnB, it's based on whether or not your opponent has a level 5,000 sword or not"



AND HOLY GOD. MOUNT & BLADE NEEDS SKILLS TO PLAY. YOUR JUST SAYING THAT EVERY SERVER USES AUTO BLOCK INSTEAD OF 4 directional blocking. 4 DIRECTION!
And you need better reflexes than CMW, you obviously just watch a youtube video of a single player gameplay with a load of bots.


"MnB is a good game, but the multiplayer gets boring and repetitive, fast."


WHY DOES PEOPLE PLAY IT MORE THAN CMW! The GAme came out in 2008 and people are still playing the game. Unofficial servers have supported as many as 222 players. Go check the servers on chilvary. Than actully download the mods : Full invasion where youll see over hundreds and hundreds of people are playing. And than dowload crpg and theres alot of damn people. And you saying that the game gets boring. Well look at this video
prove that you are wrong about how the game gets boring. Obviously you are lying and that it is your opinion to the game.


"it's based on whether or not your opponent has a level 5,000 sword or not"
Well take a look at this, this has feinting, blocking 4 DIRECTIONS, and reflexes all of pure skill.



Now take a look at your side



Dont look at the quantity but the quality of the fights.


"providing as real and as visceral an experience as the modern PC has to offer"
Are you stupi%, a game isnt great by its graphics. Your implying that mount & blade looks sh!t when it doesnt matter.


LOOK AT THIS! The most epic battle of a really just eouc battle ever. The map is awsome too.


And this


Real tatics right here. And they are players.

Your debate is obviously typed out of impressions and you asume most of everything you ssaid about mount & blade. You have 0 experience about the game. I played both game and experienced both.

"Also, you cite yourself as a source. That's never a good thing to do, even if you are trollin'."

I said its a joke. dumb*ss.....

Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat

Con

Thanks for posting. I'm glad you decided to actually DEBATE, instead, of raging in the comments. Now I get to argue.

Refuting your points:
"Since when did a game had to be realistic? (sic)"
Both games, to the best of my knowledge, try to be realistic. It would be one thing if we were arguing the merits of Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield Heroes, but both MnB and CMW try to make the games fun by making them realistic, using things like swords and bows instead of lightsabers and plasma guns.

"AND HOLY GOD. MOUNT & BLADE NEEDS SKILLS TO PLAY. YOUR JUST SAYING THAT EVERY SERVER USES AUTO BLOCK INSTEAD OF 4 directional blocking."
Many MnB servers do use autoblock, as it has become such a popular hack that they wish to level the playing field. The 4-directional blocking system implemented in the game is good for what it does, but it doesn't compare to CMW's combat system, which could be considered omniblock. Blocking can be a combination of moving your mouse, ducking, and swinging your weapon.

"Are you stupi%, a game isnt great by its graphics. Your implying that mount & blade looks sh!t when it doesnt matter."
It's true that graphics don't make a game great, but they certainly help. Would you rather play Crisis 3 or Quake? CMW has better graphics than MnB. It also has mechanics better suited for bloody, glorious, and above all, fun multiplayer.

"Your debate is obviously typed out of impressions and you asume most of everything you ssaid about mount & blade. You have 0 experience about the game."
Actually, I own and have spent a substantial amount of time playing both games. I played Chivalry for the multiplayer, and MnB for the singleplayer. Please don't make assumptions about people's experiences.

Now I'll talk about the combat, as I feel that's what these games are really all about.

In MnB, you basically have one attack. You click the mouse, your character swings his sword/fires his bow. If your opponent is blocking, the attack fails.
https://www.youtube.com...
In CMW, combat is much more complicated. It actually matters where you hit your opponent, not merely if they had their shield out.
https://www.youtube.com...

Also, there is the leveling system. In MnB, you can have an inherent advantage over your opponent based on what equipment you own. If I'm a Man-at-Arms with a level one sword, and you're a Man-at-Arms with a level 50 sword, you will win a fight, regardless of skill levels. In CMW, we would be on equal playing fields.

Thanks for reading. I hope the next round will be just as good as this one. If you're anybody except Koz, vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
KozWanderer

Pro

KozWanderer forfeited this round.
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat

Con

Well, once again Koz forgot to post, and failed to provide a closing argument. Sucks for him. If you plan on voting on this debate, please take into account the fact that he forfeited the final round, which could be interpreted as ending the debate. Also note that his arguments contained multiple errors in both grammar and spelling. In closure, I ask you readers to read the arguments and come to the right conclusion. Please vote for Con, then spend the rest of the day playing Chivalry. Peace.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KozWanderer 3 years ago
KozWanderer
"Many MnB servers do use autoblock, as it has become such a popular hack that they wish to level the playing field"

You probably just get owned by a naked guy ramming his way through you teamate or you havent played any m&b in 2 years. I hear many noobs saying that the pro guy has hacks on.

"Many MnB servers do use autoblock"

And many dont lol.

"and MnB for the singleplayer. Please don't make assumptions about people's experiences"

So you are making assumptions about multiplayer.

"In CMW, combat is much more complicated. It actually matters where you hit your opponent, not merely if they had their shield out"

WHY are you comparing a pure sword fight to a bunch of idiots smacking a shield. That is just lame. I showed you complicated sword fight already in one of the videos. Also in MnB, it not only matters about where you hit them but it also calculates your movement and foot steps combining the force of the impact when you hit a person, with WEIGHT OF THE WEAPON, with the armour of what his wearing and the way how the enemies move all combining this into one hit being a complicated fighting system.

"If I'm a Man-at-Arms with a level one sword, and you're a Man-at-Arms with a level 50 sword, you will win a fight, regardless of skill levels"

In multiplayer native module, theres no such thing as level on a sword. Again, assumptions. You talking about single player. The title says clearly between the brackets "Muilti-Player"

Also in CMW, a guy archer with his dagger that is as fast at lightning that can block a greatsword is hilarious. What a wierd complicated combat. A dagger can pierce through a knights armour. Wtf lol. In MnB, if your armour is great enough, a knife will bounce off UNLESS if you momentum in movement adds to your attacks.

"Also, there is the leveling system. In MnB"

In single player. Read the title!

Comments. Dont have enough characters. Well all you said is just how dumb MnB looks while saying that CMW has du
Posted by KozWanderer 3 years ago
KozWanderer
ka mon i need to make my goidamn reasons kox what you say is falsly as F84D;ck
Posted by KozWanderer 3 years ago
KozWanderer
just spam something so i can make my sayingS !!!!
Posted by KozWanderer 3 years ago
KozWanderer
Ok, so? (FOgot about debate)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
KozWandererNerd_in_a_TrenchcoatTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments.