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

Road Map: I will address my opponents arguments made and defend my own case at the same time throughout this entire rebuttal. "The thing i like is yea its unrealistic to have health regeneration, But thats what the expansion in multiplayer is for. You have hardcore modes for users who really want that real feel. Now you said Bf3 looks better yes it does but as far as game play and desire from players it goes to MW3." First, my opponent concedes that there is this "unrealistic" feel. He says, however, that the "multiplayer" is for people who want the feel. But in multiplayer, health regeneration still exists and the hardcore mode just doesn't contain enough realism. Second and lastly, he says even though BF3 is more real, more people play MW3 which makes it a better game. COMPLETELY and UTTERLY not true. I will give you a similar comparison. The movie Dark Knight was viewed by thousands of more people then the movie, Hurt Locker. However, Hurt Locker received better ratings, achieved "Best Film" award. The Hurt Locker was an under-viewed movie, but in the end was much better. Although BF3 is not as played by as many people unlike MW3, BF3 still contains certain factors which makes it the better video game. "You said it has more operative vehicles basically im not gonna go word for word but not everyone likes spending a whole mission in a tank and jet. MW3 they had some vehicle operation but mainly left it up to you to fight your way through in the campaign. Also vehicles in multiplayer on Battlefield 3 have been a big complaint. Take this you are trying to hide form a tank and it shoots and knocks the cover that your hiding behind away and then the second shot kills you its to easy. Not so realistic." In Battlefield 3, you don't actually spend the whole mission in a tank or jet, but a lot of people like variety then just running around on foot. MW3 has barely any real vehicle operation, BF3 however offers a comprehensive list of vehicles to choose from. I would like to see a source from you where vehicles have been a "big issue" because vehicles are apart of the game, and if you got shot by a tank in real life, I'm pretty sure you would die from that first shot or be put into a extreme case of shell shock. Plenty of realism. "Bf3 maps are also really big. Yea people like to explore but by the time you've ran for 3 minutes and find someone if you die you spawn pretty far away. I have played both and experienced this. Also the classes for Bf3 are not weapon desired. MW3 allows you to pick and choose what weapons you want and unlock multiple things and choose your camo giving the player a little creativity. Why choose from very little classes when you can make what you wanna use and find combinations that will help you." The map size is depended upon the game type and there are many different ones where people can choose from. This also avoids spawn camping which has been a significant issue in every COD Game released. The classes in BF3 create a sense of balance to support your teamates, play on the assault, or assist vehicles through an engineer class. Each class can be customized by its equipment extensively, maybe not camo, but by the attachments, yes. "Also looks at the campaign compared to last years Call of duty black ops. You are basically being integrated and going back in time to do missions very similar to black ops. Now their are users who dont have xbox live or dont play ps3 live. What can these people do on Bf3? Play campaign. Mw3 has special ops, and survival for people who wanna buddy up and share a controller and do missions and try and survive on a map.This is a very big point and addition as it gives players something to do when tired of dieing on multiplayer." I would like some type of source saying the campaigns are very "similar" then from your point of view. BF3's campaign is much more developed compared to MW3's and has more realism then the typical "World Ending" scenario. BF3 may not have spec ops, but we shouldn't look at BF3 from just an XBOX 360 view, but PC as well because that is their main platform for that game. Moving on to address the next argument made. My opponent says MW3 has special ops and COOP, however, BF3 also has COOP for its game as well. So that "buddy" option isn't exclusive to just MW3, but like I said, BF3 as well. http://www.youtube.com... "Also MW3 really gives you something else to play for besides a win. You also try to get kill streaks. Yea Mw3 has some overpowered stuff *sometimes* (key word) and i mean that is how it is more realistic because the better you do the more stuff you call in. It gives you something to work for. Also the challenges offer very challenging things and can up your skill level. It isn't just run and gun alot of Mw3 is teamwork and maintaining spawn positions and watching your back. Yea its fast paced and the only real difference between Mw2 and Mw3 is it has a very similar multiplayer. Story is different, special ops is different, and yea they brought back very few guns from Mw2. Some of it looks the same thats really the only thing. Graphics go to Bf3 but as far as strategy and being user friendly as well as allowing creativity goes to Mw3 and other things. Mw3 is just as real as any war game if not more real." Killstreaks in MW3 are limited to players who become very lucky or are so dang good they always achieve the best one In BF3, this is eliminated, giving a fair chance to every person playing to have a vehicle / weapon / etc. once unlocked. My opponent conceded that killstreaks are overpowered, but says "its something to work for." But MW3 gives an unfair advantage to people who play this game every so often compared to people who play it every day. BF3 keeps the game fair and balanced. While MW3 may have teamwork, BF3's teamwork is much more comprehensive. [1] From NowGamer, in an article written by Dave Cook, he explains the debate between teamwork in both games. BF3 - "Teamwork is part and parcel of Battlefield 3. Across all four character classes, you play an active role in supporting the rest of your team. Be it through ammo drops, revives, spot assists or repairing vehicles, every action carried out will reward you with experience, and the more you work together as a team, the more experience you earn. So there's really no reason to resort to reckless lone wolf tactics, because not only do you risk losing your team the game, but it's likely that you will die over and over again for rushing in blindly. Stick with the group, and watch the wins roll in. " MW3 - "The home of lone wolf play, Modern Warfare 3 doesn't penalise you for running off on your own and sticking to your own agenda." Teamwork / executing strategies is clearly better seen in BF3, unlike MW3 where being a lone wolf is basically better. My opponent also concedes that graphics go to BF3. He says the most creativity flows to MW3, however, I have shown you through new vehicles, the realism, etc. that BF3 is much, much more creative. Lastly, he says he doubts people would rather unlock premade classes then make their own. He is viewing this very subjectively and some people prefer a little simplicity in making classes because these classes in BF3 clearly define your role and help develop teamwork much more clearly. He says MW3 is expanding servers, I would also like a source from him that specifies that. His final argument is that MW3 is over all more real because they aren't gods on how to operate all vehicles and aren't dropped into the middle of the map. However, this isn't true at all. In MW3, these soldiers know how to operate all killstreaks from a predator missile, call in precision airstrikes, and use helicopters/AC130. Lastly, they aren't just dropped in the middle of the map and if my opponent has ever played BF3 like he said, he would be able to see this. [1] http://www.nowgamer.com...