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

Valve is the best games developer

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,807 times Debate No: 59174
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)




In my opinion, valve is the best video games developer. Con must choose a single developer which they believe does most things or even all things better.

Round 1. Acceptance and stating developer
Round 2. Listing pros of your dev and cons of the opp's dev
Round 3. Rebuttal
Round 4. Further rebuttal, either against points forgotten or left out by text capacity, or against Round 3.


Accepted. I'll be arguing infavor of Ubisoft. For those that aren't familiar with Ubisoft, they have made the Assasin's Creed series, the Far Cry series, and the Rayman series.
Debate Round No. 1


Pros of Valve as a developer:

  • Story lines in valve's games are second only to those featured in Bethesda games

  • The graphics are far in advance of many developers for their time, and their cinematics are unrivaled full stop.

  • Valve have perfected balanced competitive games, i.e. DoTA 2 and CS:GO

  • Valve don't release games to pump money in, they release games which will please their fan base. Portal 2 was 4 years after Portal 1, and they had added and changed the perfect amount to make a sequel.

  • Valve have spent time perfecting their source engine, and it now makes games much smoother, better looking and more accessible than Ubisoft's games.

  • Endless replayability- the online modes on Ubisoft's titles do not justify hundreds of hours for gamers. Counter Strike (and sequels), Team Fortress/ 2 and DoTA/2 all can have 100s of hours from the average gamer

  • Price- 2 of Valve's 3 biggest titles are free to play, with added costs only being cosmetic, and the other is £12 but has been available for £3.

Cons of Ubisoft as a developer:

  • Apart from dated titles, such as the single Prince of Persia developed by Ubisoft and Splinter Cell, the only popular game is £40 on steam (cheapest first hand). It has not seen a decent sale and does not justify the price.

  • Weak multiplayer- feeble and repetetive gameplay does not make for a good multiplayer system, which is where Watch Dogs fell down. No more than 60 hours can be squeazed without getting very bored. There is no incentive to replay games to do things you missed, because the insane amount is accessible at all times.

  • Games aren't released when they are promised, or even finished. Watch Dogs had unfinished settings hidden inside config files, because they wanted to get the money before pleasing customers

  • Graphics are gritty usually, without the innovation of Valve's games they bring nothing new to the table and look mediocre unless pre-rendered.

  • Story lines are not immersive and don't feel fun after a while. Gameplay is where they try to succeed and it is a niche market they successfully breach.

Valve's games available on PC. Only games developed by Valve count.

Ubisoft's games available on PC. Only games developed strictly by Ubisoft count.

Surprised you chose Ubisoft over Ubisoft Montreal, but you chose it and it is up to you to stop digging the hole you jumped in the moment you accepted the debate.



First of all, you're assuming that Valve and Bethesda are top of the line in storytelling. You're forgetting about Bioware. Not to mention Valve is weak when it comes to storytelling. Only the Half Life games, and the Portal games actually have a story. The rest just have a setting but not a narrative. There's a difference. All the important Ubisoft games have a narrative.

Graphics wise they're just decent. Half Life graphics are terrible by today's standards. Graphics in the other games are ok on console, and pretty good on pc.

Dota isn't very good if you're comparing it to LOL, and that's not just me talking. I haven't played CS:GO.

To be fair, videogames are a moneymaking industry, so at some point, you have to favor making money over pleasing ALL of your fans, which is near impossible.

Ubisoft releases it's games on consoles and pc's. Because of this, they have to change their engines regularly to accommodate the constantly changing specs.

Now onto attacks made on me. First of all, my opponent only talks about games on Steam, but fails to consider console gamers. Far Cry 3 is hugely popular, and so was Splinter Cell Blacklist. And Watch Dogs is hugely popular. Don't forget about the Rayman games that came out. My opponent is being a bit close minded.

The multiplayer is quite fun, especially in Assassin's Creed 3, and Splinter Cell Blacklist. I haven't played Watch Dogs, but I get the feeling that my opponent is referencing Watch Dogs because that's the only one he's actually played. Whereas I've played two so I know what I'm talking about.

Arguing graphics is weak because their games are also ported to consoles which naturally look worse than pc.

Then my opponent brings up the games Valve has versus the ones Ubisoft has, but it doesn't account for all the games so it's pointless.

That's it.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I would like to point out that Ubisoft did NOT develop the far cry series, Assassin's Creed, splinter cell black list or indeed any of the Rayman games. I stated that Con was to use a single developer, and he chose Ubisoft. Ubisoft Monpellier developed Rayman, or at least the latest one, Tom clancy's Splinter Cell Blacklist was developed by 3 separate devs, none of which were 'Ubisoft', and Far Cry and Assassin's Creed were Ubisoft Montreal.

From saying that you said 'Graphics wise they are just decent', I can assume you are a console player. Good graphics aren't defined by the blooms and reflections. The source engine has the most advanced lightning I have seen, and the textures and among the most highly detailed. Even today, Half-Life 2 has aged well enough to rival call of duty and other releases of today (I admit call of duty isn't hard to beat, but HL2 is 10 years old).

Then, he claimed that the Assassin's Creed 3 mp was fun. I know many people who have played the AC games from launch. They all agree it is less fun, as, on PC at least, it didn't add anything graphically and they had removed the only game mode any of them ever enjoyed, from Brotherhood.

Finally you say LoL is superior to DoTA. DoTA started the genre, and is completely original. Even I admit DoTA is more balanced, fun, good looking and amusing than LoL and I hate MOBAs. If you disagree then it is clearly down to a personal opinion. Knowing how popular COD instalments are, you can't bring in the argument of popularity.

Watch Dogs is the only game developed by Ubisoft I have played, but not the only one PUBLISHED by Ubisoft I have played.


Ok, i'm gonna switch gears because I've finally realized what's really going on. This debate is entirely opinionated. Ultimately, there is no way to prove that either Valve or Ubisoft are better than one another, because nobody has exactly the same opinions as one another. For instance, I play on both console and pc, and I was still not amazed by portals graphics either way. Some people think they're awe inspiring, but arguing opinions is pointless, so instead I'm going to prove why my opponent can't possibly win.

It's my opponents OPINION that Valve is the best game developer. I don't think that Ubisoft is the best, but I think they're pretty good. I've enjoyed the games they've made, so I consider them one of the best, much like my opponent. I think the same of Valve. However, if I had to pick the "best," I would choose Bethesda. However, my opponents BOP is to prove that Valve is the BEST, which is inherently impossible, because there are always going to be people whose opinion it is that Valve is just decent, or perhaps bad. Me for example. Because my opponent can't fulfill his burden of proof, this debate is impossible for him to win. Keep in mind, that I don't have to prove that any developer is the best, just that Valve is not. Which I have because there are people whose opinion is that Valve is decent or bad but not the best. Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 3


The point of this debate, was for Con to bring to the table a single developer, which could show Valve is not the best. I have given my points, yet you have taken every oppurtunity to NOT make your own relevant ones or completely ignore the point.

To ultimately win over the last votes, I believe it is simply necessary to give a reason why he is wrong. Saying that someone is the best is not down to opinion. Valve have successfully made several games which are superior in the ways stated above. Con's choice to leave them out of his argument, implies he does not wish to bring them up, and as such I can assume that he agrees that the games are superior in that manner. They do have amazing, deeply developed storylines when Valve chooses. In Watch Dogs, the game with what I would call the best story of all games published by Ubisoft, you have 11 frames of daughter, which I cannot remember, as a motive to hunt down the man who ordered the hit. It strays away too much. In Half Life, you are in a life or death situation. You are being hunted by the military for your involvment in an enormous accident, and you must fight your way out. It develops as you go (I won't give spoilers) and feels immersive. In Watch Dogs, the story does not provoke emotions, nor does it flow smoothly, or get adrenaline running.

Then, he brings up opinion in multiplayer being good. It is the general opinion that it is boring. Evidence? The waiting times for small lobbies. He also brought up the problem of graphics being bad because it was ported to consoles. Counter Strike was ported to consoles, but it still had a beautiful version. So why would any other game be excused? Not primarily a PC developer? Put more effort into the console version. Watch Dogs bottlenecked the PS4? Their fault they chose the wrong market.

The BoP I feel has been lying on top of Con like a corpse on a bed of nails. It won't move and he can't move it. I have provided both opinion and fact, mostly the latter. It is not my fault if Con completely missed the point of the argument. I admitted Bethesda was better at storylines, but they aren't better at everything. A single developer, where both common opinion and fact state that it is better in most or all ways was asked for. They brought to the table a less than satisfactory argument, as thus dug a hole pretty deep. They failed to provide sufficient fact over opinion, digging further. Then, they wasted a turn by attempting to divert the floor's opinion without an argument, lying down, getting shot and being left among his other Jewish friends and family. Sorry for the holocaust analogy, but I think it proved my point rather well. I urge the floor strongly to vote for Pro, especially those who got annoyed about missing appostophes. Thank you and good night.


Okay, I was kind of enjoying this debate until my opponent decided to be an insensitive, anti-Semitic a-hole, by using one of the biggest tragedies in human history as an analogy in a debate about video games. Not only is this morally reprehensible, it's also childish. Save it for 4chan buddy.

Reason 1 to vote the affirmative down: See above.

And now I'm going to move on to reason number 2.

This entire debate has been a waste of time. The resolution is worded in such a fashion that the Aff can't win. In order to decide if something is the best, you have to have a unanimous decision. Two people saying something is the best is not reliable. Many people think that Valve is ONE OF THE BEST, myself included, but not all gamers. You must take into account all the people that prefer console gaming, and all the people that don't hardcore game at all, and instead just play Angry Birds on their iPhone. They don't think Valve is the best. A lot of them probably don't even know what Valve is. So because there are people who think the negatory, this means a unanimous decision is impossible. Thus, Valve is not, nor ever will be, the best developer.

So, this means that the ONLY POSSIBLE DECISION IS TO VOTE NEG. Namely because I've proven that Valve is not the best games developer. I'm the only side that has fulfilled their BoP, thus you must vote for me.

Reason number 2 to vote down Aff: He can't win. Plain and simple. He says I dug a hole for myself by picking Ubisoft. I say he dug a hole for himself the second he wrote the resolution.

I understand a lot of Valve fans are going to vote aff, and provide some BS reason for doing so, but for the more logical minded folks out there who are following this debate, I urge you to carefully think about what I've said here.

For once you do, the decision will become clear.

Thank you.

Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Forte 7 years ago
"Saying that someone is the best is not down to opinion." This one statement obliterated any chance that pro had. The fact that he initiated an entirely subjective debate, and then called for a proof based on
"factual evidence" (i.e. his opinions and tastes in games) threw any chance of a good debate out the window.
Posted by mudkip624 7 years ago
Thanks for the good debate. Looks like that's gonna close it out.
Posted by Irrelevance 7 years ago
Btw I can see why you would think that is BS so don't bring that up, I will only deny it and neither of us can prove it
Posted by Irrelevance 7 years ago
I am not bitching, I am explaining in a calm and collected manner. If you are worried, which I doubt you are, you may think it is bitching, but instead the reality is I have too much free time.
Posted by mudkip624 7 years ago
Dude just quit bitching about it.
Posted by Irrelevance 7 years ago
How did he have the most reliable sources? He didn't use any. So even if you don't think mine were reliable, there is still no way he could get that point. Also I conducted myself in a perfectly acceptable manner, staying within the rules, which Con failed to do. He made a statement which he explained instead of proving (he went into detail about why I couldn't win, without any prove or believable statements). The most convincing arguments is usually a matter of opinion, but due to his lack of arguments and his piles of BS filling up the slots, I don't see how anyone would say he had better and more convincing arguments. Also my OCD noticed grammatical mistakes in his argument.
Posted by rings48 7 years ago
"Ubisoft Montreal (French: Ubisoft Montr"al) is the Canadian subsidiary of the French video game developer Ubisoft, located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada." -
Posted by Irrelevance 7 years ago
I'm not going to go as low as Con has. I am going to simply let people read for themselves and realise- He had worse grammar, he had worse conduct, I was the only one with sources, and I actually had arguments to be the most convincing. Unless you are going to go lower, this will be at the top of the comments until the winner is declared.
Posted by rings48 7 years ago
You are the one who fails to understand how gaming production works. All developers have a number of teams that are connected to different projects. Most conglomerate a group of teams and call them a studio.

Valve doesn't release almost any information on its teams beyond "people who helped with blah are working on blah 2"

Ubisoft developed a number of micro-studios because of its focus on different environments. They are spread out across the world to help with the development on different locals and make them more authentic while others focus on engines and graphics.

Irrelevance is just getting mad because there is "important sh*t right here". EA is a publisher who owns developers. Ubisoft is a publisher and developer who owns a bunch of studios.
Posted by Irrelevance 7 years ago
No, you clearly decided to rebut the concept of the debate. Not once do you rebut my arguments, you pull the subjectivity card. I even rebut that, stating how it can be proved, yet you ignored my argument and refused to rebut my arguments in order to taint votes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rings48 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I am going to call Pro out on semantics and bad conduct. Ubisoft developed all the games Con listed ( ), and by the argument at the time Con wins. Con importantly brings out Ubisoft releasing games across platforms where Valve focuses only on one. Pro's arguments are often based on X game by Valve is the best at Y (example: Half Life best storytelling). Con rebuttal that Valve only has one of two games that focus on Y (storytelling) while more Ubisoft games include it, though they are not as good. More points to Con for Pro bad conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.