The Game Asteroids is better than Space Invaders

Okay, when I talk about better, I'm talking about overall better in three categories: Graphics, Difficulty, and Fun Value.

Asteroids is much better because of it's simple graphics and ever growing difficulty, as well as it's ability to make the player focus almost solely on the game. Space Invaders is much to easy and does not figuratively surround the player as much.
Prove me wrong.

Thank you for this entertaining debate. May the best debator win.

Your resolution procures a definity. You make exceptions for your case but to my case, I allow the "Likability" factor to be introduced. You may or may not percieve it as such but...

My opponent arrives at an opinionated crossroad. He asks me to prove that Space Invaders is better than Asteroids when, in reality, he has brought up nothing but one gamers perspective.

In a survey done by http://www.2atoms.com...

The top ten classic arcade games were:
"The 2atoms All Time Arcade Top 10
10: Gauntlet
9: Galaga
8: R-Type
7: Space Invaders
6: Tetris
5: 1943
4: King of Dragons
3: Out Run
2: Tehkan World Cup
1: Darius"
Asteroids is not included in this list, as well as several others including "Space Invaders."
If this is a question about graphics, Space Invaders has far better graphics as shown in these two comparitive screenshots:
Space Invaders:

http://www.cokeandcode.com...

Asteroids:

http://msdn.microsoft.com...

I'm not suire but, don't most gamers like BETTER graphics? I myself am a gamer and, although it was before my time, grew up with both games and found myself DRAWN to Space Invaders in contrast to Asteroids. (Frogger as well, just to provide evidence against my upbringings and the questions thereof.)

"Space Invaders is much to easy and does not figuratively surround the player as much.
Prove me wrong."

I don't have to prove that statement wrong as it doesn't prove the resolution false.

BUT, Space Invaders does have increasingly complex rules, scoring systems, life counters, weapon choices, and enemy variety in comparison to Asteroids.

For the reasons presented before you, you must vote Con.

Thanks,
-EG

My opponent brings up a good point. Thank you for this debate and if you think I haven't refuted his previous case well enough, read round one again.

Wow... Your good...

"I'm not suire but, don't most gamers like BETTER graphics?"
You would think, but at least some gamers(myself included) would rather go for the simpler graphics.
Gamers such as I like the simpler graphics because they
A. Distract less from the game play.
B. Don't have much of an effect on the gamer's eyes as more complex graphics do.

"[Draxxt] found myself DRAWN to Space Invaders in contrast to Asteroids"
Now your only expressing one gamer's opinion, much like myself. I find myself drawn to asteroids, and I have access to games with amazingly textured and beautifully built graphics.

"BUT, Space Invaders does have increasingly complex rules, scoring systems, life counters, weapon choices, and enemy variety in comparison to Asteroids."
Exactly. Space Invaders is much more complex, and for gamers that want to quickly play a game for five minutes, Asteroids is a much better choice due to its simplicity. Space Invaders, in the end, has the player worrying about shooting this enemy instead of that, getting that UFO, and destroying the first row immediately, which puts to much stress on the player.

The survey you have mentioned was probably completed by hardcore or avid gamers who don't play games for a quick de-stressing or for a little fun before some stressful situation, such as a job interview.

The game Asteroids, however, does fill the player's mind during the play-through, all not to the extent that they lose total track of time, making Asteroids a much better game for gamers who play as a hobby, and since there are more hobbyist gamers than hardcore gamers(similar to the fact that there are more people who do puzzles as a hobby than those who visit the puzzle competitions), Asteroids would be considered a better game overall but much more people, it might even be considered better by some hardcore gamers, too!

Thank you for that comment, you have given me a run for my money which will be explained later.

"Gamers such as (myself) like the simpler graphics because they
A. Distract less from the game play.
B. Don't have much of an effect on the gamer's eyes as more complex graphics do."

The reason this entire debate is a challenge for me is because this debate is one a biased stance. This is your opinion.

"Now your only expressing one gamer's opinion, much like myself. I find myself drawn to asteroids, and I have access to games with amazingly textured and beautifully built graphics."

Again, purely bias.

"Exactly. Space Invaders is much more complex, and for gamers that want to quickly play a game for five minutes, Asteroids is a much better choice due to its simplicity. Space Invaders, in the end, has the player worrying about shooting this enemy instead of that, getting that UFO, and destroying the first row immediately, which puts to much stress on the player."

Isn't a revolutionary idea like better graphics and more ways to play a game considered progress? A more challenging game is much like a more challenging debate. If one wins repeatedly and it is of no challenge to him/her at any time, it may get boring. Games were meant to keep changing and getting better to meet the ever-increasing demands set about by gamers who enjoy a tougher challenge and a more revolutionised game.

"The survey you have mentioned was probably completed by hardcore or avid gamers who don't play games for a quick de-stressing or for a little fun before some stressful situation, such as a job interview."

That may be but it was the only source given. If you had gone out of your way to find a couple of statistics that say otherwise, you might have the higher ground. That being said, you didn't find any that prove Asteroids have higher ground than Space Invaders.

"The game Asteroids, however, does fill the player's mind during the play-through, all not to the extent that they lose total track of time, making Asteroids a much better game for gamers who play as a hobby, and since there are more hobbyist gamers than hardcore gamers(similar to the fact that there are more people who do puzzles as a hobby than those who visit the puzzle competitions), Asteroids would be considered a better game overall but much more people, it might even be considered better by some hardcore gamers, too!"

You have no proof for this statement aside from saying "Hey, this is MY opinion."

For the above reasons and refutations, you vote Con.

Thanks again for this debate,
-EG.