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

is battlefield 3 better than modern warfare 3

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 19220
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




This first round will be a agreement



I feel it my DUTY to accept.
Debate Round No. 1


good luck!

I know that battlefield is better because of the following reasons.

Reason 1: Battlefield has a demand of team stratagie. No matter what game mode you play there is strategie that has to be completed.
Reason 2: Lets face it. VEHICHLE'S RULE! You can do just about whatever you want using vehicles!
Reason 3: There is a counter for every wepon. Snipers there flash allows you to counter them. Land mines you have the EOD robot. RPG's you have blow torch to heal your vehichles. For helicopter and Jet planes there is a built in fire extinguisher which supstains all injurys untill you can fix them by landing.



Battlefield is strategic and more balanced, therefore it must be superior

Admittedly Battlefield is a far more strategic game, but to the vast majority of gamers are interested in just having the quick thrill of shooting some loud mouthed squeaky ten year old, rather than the long winded 'hardcore' gamer strategic approach. The maps on battlefield are enormous compared to that of MW3. It takes a good couple of minutes in battlefield just to get into the shooting, the running and the shouts of 'TAKE IT YOU ******* D***head'

Now to address the balancing 'issue', you state that battlefield is more balanced and then go on to say that this makes the game better. The two are sadly unrelated. In my own experience, and of those around me a more balanced game leads to a slower, less action packed game play. My example being COD: BlackOps, the most balanced COD game but arguably the most boring. Lets be honest now, who buys a shoot'em up for slow, infrequent gun fights. That's right. No one.

Essentially, what underpins this strategic advantage battlefield has over MW3, and the overall more balanced game play is that battlefield is aimed towards the 'hardcore gamer' Someone who wants to put in the time to learn the controls, master the strategy and gain the satisfaction of become a virtual killer.

But for the average joe and vast majority of those who play games, the accessible controls and game types of COD, make for an relatively better experience. It is the fact that MW3has an affinity with a much wider audience than Battlefield, that makes me and hopefully the voter believe that MW3 is a better game than battlefield.

Now, I really do need to go to bed so I will rush my next points and pick up the broken pieces in the next round.

Vehicle's do indeed rule, but only work due to the large open spaced maps of Battlefield 3 which as I have already explained is factors for Battlefields 'slow' game play,

I will only make one point in my rebuttal:

Servers are shocking, and I would like Con to provide examples of MW3 servers crashing and large amounts of people complaining about errors preventing them from playing the game.

Much Love, Big Boy Olly.

Debate Round No. 2


Most of what you said appear to be opinion. Slow game play. Thats not even legit. The game play is just as fast if not faster depending on how many people are in an area. The vehicles are great because of the large maps, but that allows you to move about freely and get to target area's. Which also brings up the fact that Battlefield is more realistic


Most of my argument 'appears' to be opinion. Being the reasonable teenager I am, I will assume this must be my fault. I guess I have not have illustrated my point clearly, so I will rephrase (and slightly alter) my argument in response to Pro's qualms.

Pro simply justified his own so called 'argument' by dismissing mine as opinions. This logic leads to a circular argument, surely his 'argument' are opinions as well. A circular argument is the last thing we need, so instead, to carry on with what has already turned out to be an exhilarating debate a we need a clear distinction as to what makes one game better than another. As already discussed Games even within the same genre vary different in graphics, objectives and controls which will play on different people's personal preferences, so how will we ever be able to settle this argument? Well, I think the question of which game is better should be based upon
which game pleases the most people.

Now this is itself a difficult question and could be yet another debate, obviously we can't find a survey of everyone who bought each game and say whether the game 'pleased them.' But to gain an overall picture of which game pleases the most people, we must take into account a couple of things:

  1. 1. How many people bought the game?
  2. 2. What type of person was the game aimed at?

1, the more players a game has, the more chance it has to please a larger number of people. If one game has 10 million players, and the other 1 million obviously the first game is more likely to please a larger amount of people simply by the ratio of the total players. I doubt Pro has realised this but I'm sure one reader has realised that I have assumed that both games 'please' their players to the same amount, and at the same percentages (70% of the total players loved the games for example) but I pray that both the reader and Pro look past this and see that the logic that underpins this assumption is still valid, despite this simplification.

Moving swiftly on, back to the context of this debate - Comparatively, Activision has sold more than 6 million Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 copies in only one day. While Battlefield 3 week-one sales have reached only 5 million units which is a record for EA. This should, at least to a small extent, explain my I am sticking to my opinions.

2, This leads back to the argument I was trying to sprout in the previous round. I proposed, or at least tried to, that battlefield's more strategic outlook to warfare (That is a result of it's balanced guns and large maps - essentially your whole argument) is aimed more at the more 'hardcore' gamer *. It is this therefore, this strategic game play that is harder to grasp that attracts 'hardcore gamers' and alienates the 'casual gamer' Casual gamers make us the majority of the people who plays game, and it is the alienation that means that MW3 pleases the most people, and is therefore the better game.

This should help to support my so called opinions with some factual evidence.

Back to my opponent, I was quite saddened at his response. It lacked any real depth in argument and was simply just a cop out. He made no attempt to even try and respond to the broken servers, which I gave to him KNOWING that Call of Duty's elite service has had similar failures. I tried to provoke a response that would have hopefully stimulated this debate and give Pro a chance to succeed.

However Pro did nothing of the sort, so even if the voters still plan to vote Pro. I urge them to reconsider their vote, simply on the amount of time I've WASTED ON WHAT IS A COMPLETELY POINTLESS DEBATE THAT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THE WORLD OR IT'S INHABITANTS, AND THAT MY OPPENENT HAS THE AUDACITY TO RESPOND WITH A PITIFUL, RUSHED, AND LETS BE HONEST EMBARRASING REBUTTAL.

Debate Round No. 3


Mr.VicePresident forfeited this round.


Metropolis forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SquadSix 4 years ago
I agree with Metropolis, he is putting in all the work while it seemed Mr. VicePresident had no worth in this debate. His forfeit was sure and if he didn't he was going to lose anyways.
Posted by awesomeness 4 years ago
i love mw3!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Metropolis 4 years ago
I meant Pro, And i managed to fudge up how the thing looks. So that's good. Imma sleep.
Posted by Mr.VicePresident 4 years ago
no there actually can be alot of fact to this but if you are intristed in a seprate one off of opinion im up for it just send me a message
Posted by VengeWarlock 4 years ago
this debate is based purely on opinions. Is that what is wanted? if so, i am interested in it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 4 years ago
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious lol