is battlefield 3 better than modern warfare 3

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. How many people bought the game? 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.