Battlefield is better then COD

I will be trying to argue against my own points of view, and defend the Call of Duty series. 1: SOLD COPY STATISTICS First of all, the title of this debate is that battlefield IS better than CoD. I will now prove that the majority of FPS gamers do not think so by showing the amount of sold copies: all of Duty Franchise Sales TotalsReleasedUnits Sold Call of Duty: 1,750,000 Call of Duty 2: 2,500,000 Call of Duty 3: 1,250,000 Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare: 13,500,000 Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2: 23,000,000 Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 3:26,500,000 Call of Duty : World at War: 11,000,000 Call of Duty : Black Ops: 21,500,000 Call of Duty : Black Ops 2: 24,200,000 Call of Duty : Ghosts2013: 14,500,000 Total Call of Duty Franchise Sales139,600,000 source: http://www.statisticbrain.com... This compared to the battlefield franchise sales, in millions: Battlefield 1942 2.47 Battlefield Vietnam 1.36 Battlefield 2 2.25 Battlefield 2: Modern Combat 1.64 Battlefield 2142 Battlefield: Bad Company 2.59 Battlefield 1943 3.64 Battlefield: Bad Company 2 6.54 Battlefield 3 15.00 Battlefield 4 9.63 sources: http://www.vgchartz.com... and http://vgsales.wikia.com... This clearly shows how battlefield is significantly less popular on the market than CoD. 2: MORE OPTIONS PER GAME I could go very elaborate on this one. Just read that Pro wants a casual debate so I'll take it more easy now. A: generally, more game modes. This includes multiplayer game modes as well as zombies/survival, which make for a unique experience with a lot of varying. B: By adding killstreaks, lately the game will in total provide more "extra's" to compensate for Battlefield's vehicles. In total, since BO II, there are more killstreak-advantages than there are vehicles in battlefield. C: Simply the fact that customizing your soldier involves camo's, face paint, perks... Makes character customization in CoD much better due to much more options. 3: SERVES ACTUAL USE IN OFFLINE MODE Pro has made the statement that the campaign in battlefield would be better. However, it is not. Easily proven: CoD hires professional writers, hires great musicians such as Trent Reznor, and hires actors like Sam Worthington. This makes the experience so much better. Not only that, the story of the Black ops series was by far one of the best stories I have played in my gaming career. Although that's personal, I do think everyone will appreciate the fantastic work put into the character Mason, who fights alongside Woods and is constantly helped by Viktor Reznov. The plot was amazing as Mason and the player then realised what the others already knew: Reznov was imagined by Mason all along. This compared to battlefield, where battlefield 3 has a story without any touching characters and close to no storyline, it simply became shooting your way through the AI. Battlefield shines in its multiplayer, and they were smart enough not to spend too much time on the single-player. A third point that must be made here is that the offline mode of CoD-series provides an additional battle against AI, which have a difficulty that can be altered, and the zombies mode to top off the already amazing single player campaign. 4: MULTIPLAYER MODE I will leave this to my opponent so I can see where he will argue in favor of Battlefield. I will reply to his findings, and make my points in the next round. I believe this is what the debate should be about, so I will not waste time here as that is what the debate really is about. You will be able to set out all of your points and hopefully I can then spend my entire next round discussing online experiences with you. I do think it is useless to argue about campaign, or anything else that is not multiplayer. I advise you not to mention it anymore, and hope the voter will not pay attention to this first round of mine which is simply proving a few facts. We are going to debate the ONLINE mode, what people buy the game for, next. And I'm eager to hear what your reply will be!