Call of duty Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battle field 3 as far as sales, campign, etc

Once again, I shall attack my defend my case by addressing his attacks made. "First id like to say i read over my stuff and id like to know where i said Mw3 is the better game because more people play it. You have also got to remember this is a video game meant to be fun for everyone not some real based war game. People dont always base things off being real. Spawn camping in Mw3 has not been a big problem. Camping has been reduced by a lot if you play it you will notice it is fast paced and if you take to long camping enemy's will spawn near you. MW3 follows the same story from the first game. It has the end of the world scenario because it is showing the future basically as MW3 take place in near 2022 time and is showing how Nuclear crisis is taking affect as well as weapon development. Bf3 is not the first to have tanks and stuff like that. Cod Waw as well had that and the tanks were a very big complaint on one of the maps as people camped in them. Cod has done alot as far as vehicles." I reference his first rebuttal which states, "Now you said Bf3 looks better yes it does but as far as game play and desire from players it goes to MW3." You're simply stating with this phrase that more people desire to play MW3 so it must be better. You said people don't always play games for realism, yet you say MW3 is much more realistic. You completely ignore the attacks I made on your case where there is clear, solid facts MW3 is completely unrealistic. Then you mention COD:WAW. This is COMPLETELY not related to what were arguing. Were arguing whether MW3 is better then BF3 or not. The fact is, BF3 has vehicles to create a variety in game play which over all creates a more competitive and strategic game. "You saiid kill streaks require luck. They require tactical planning. One thing about Mw3 is the guns actually sway when aiming down sights, a little feature that has been updated from past games giving a sense of realism. Bf3 has co-op but its nothing compared to spec ops and survival." First off, kill streaks require minimal tactical planning. We see this when people spawn camp and rack up kills by standing in one spot. My opponent then moves on and says "One thing about Mw3 is the guns actually sway when aiming down sights." I will cite the source used in my previous rebuttal. Dave Cook writes, "aiming down the sights takes a few moments, as your soldier struggles to swing the weapon up to eye level. It's a neat gameplay mechanic, as it means you really need to prepare your gun in advance of running around tight corners." This is relating to Battlefield 3's realism in handling weapons compared to MW3, where he says, "Modern Warfare 3 handles just like its predecessors, with a reliance on twitch game play." Clearly there is more of an effort that needs to be made in BF3 when aiming then just "spraying and praying." "Now why have fair chance and allow everyone to gt the same thing? It makes no sense to me. In a game you should be awarded by your skill and by your luck as far as getting kills. Mw3 s is more of a lone shooter but what about players in Bf3 who dont have a mic and like to play alone and not use teamwork? In many circumstances they are not gonna do well as to MW3 you cant team up and communicate and you can be alone and do well. The point streak system awards players who play objectives and that has really put more teamwork into the game." In BF3, you are awarded for your skill because you allow for your team to progress and grab the win. My opponent makes the assumption that in BF3, not everyone will have mics. He forgets that BF3's main platform is the PC, where people have the ability to type to teammates. Lastly, he says simply MW3 is better because you can't always team up in BF3. However, I could make the assumption not everyone has a microphone in MW3, and because MW3's main platform is the Xbox, this is more logical then his assumption made towards me. Kill streaks aren't due to teamwork, which is what he is trying to say. Kill streaks are always achieved by getting kills on your own, not with a team. So kill streaks don't really put an effort for teamwork, but rather to encourage a lone wolf strategy." "In the first round i believe you mentioned the engine problem. The main reason the engine is the same as Mw2 was because of this reason. OK Battlefield was not as popular when Mw2 was out and that time alot of people were playing Mw2 all the time so to speak. Activision and IW left the engine the same because there intentions were ok we are competing with a company who has produced a solid very game thinking that there would be less people on the servers. They were wrong but now they are updating alot to fit the player size and not have over run." Again, my opponent refers back to MW2 and the original battlefield, and then earlier, black ops. He isn't sticking to the factors from just MW3, and is straying from the topic were trying to debate here. My opponent, once again, provides no evidence to support his "server expansion" claim and must NOT be weighted in today debate. "My opponent may not understand me when i mean creativity. Creativity as far as- limiting campers, being able to customize weapon load out, kill streaks, emblem, title, prestige mode things of that nature make Mw3 a much more friendly game. Yes in Mw3 they do know how to operate kill streaks yes but you dont see them in a tank camping alot. You said battlefield 3 dosent parachute you into the battlefield as seen here and other videos in the side bar you are in the air going own into the battle field. Now i had a website for he server expansion info but this was the other day and i do not have the website. However if you look up the updates that mw3 has had you will see it is based on server expansion." I concede to my opponents argument of creativity when it comes to dressing up your character, but when it comes to the creativity of playing in BF3 compared to MW3, BF3 is the clear winner. The ability to operate different vehicles in different situations, the destruction of buildings to get a advantage on the enemy, and the different classes with the weapons involved make it a clearly more superior. BF3 doesn't FORCE you to parachute into the middle of the battlefield, if you watched the video, it was the persons choice to take the plane and directly parachute into it. A players choice, not the games choice. My opponent fails to provide any resources to back up his arguments once again, and those arguments such as, 1. Expanding Servers (1st Rebuttal) 2. How the campaigns are similar without an opinionated statement. (1st Rebuttal) Because he did not provide a source on expanding servers, and could not successfully argue that MW3's campaign is much more realistic, they must flow through the round towards my side. Key Voting Issues. 1. I have successfully defended my main arguments for my side of the case, and they must flow through into the next rebuttal. 2. Provides 0 sources for the two that I asked, so his two arguments must fall, and you must look towards my side of this round. 3. My opponent doesn't provide a main case with solid arguments, but rather continuously attacks my case and creates sub-arguments from that. However, I have provided a solid case and defended my two main arguments, which is 1. Realism, and 2. Multiplayer, and because I have proven that they are superior compared to MW3, I have won the debate. I know stand ready to hear Pro's rebuttal in the 4th round.