Instigator / Pro
16
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Plants vs Zombies 1 is not better than Plants vs Zombies 2

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Games
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
42
1415
rating
47
debates
36.17%
won
Description
~ 59 / 5,000

PvZ is not better than the sequel.
I need a fan to accept.

Round 1
Pro
  Plants vs Zombies 2 has more plants and better animation. Also less glitches and Zomboss easier to defeat.
Con
Since my opponent has not set up any parameters for this debate, I will refute right away. 

Plants vs Zombies 2 has more plants and better animation.
Well, not exactly. Having better graphics means it is published in a more recent period of time, rather than being better. It is proven that Pvz2 is made one generation later than Pvz. Let me check the articles just to be sure.

Pvz is published in 2009.
Pvz2 is published in 2013.
That would make it natural for PvZ2 to look better because no one wants to play something of NES graphics on their 4k monitor unless it is such a classic, which Pvz isn't as much as a classic as Mario 1, Mario World and Mario 64. 

Speaking of Mario, what if you compare Mario 64 to Fortnite? Huh? Mario 64 prevails because it is clean and has a better community. Fortnite is too much into the popular culture that it lost its purpose and it relies on celebrities and internet personalities to advertise it instead of using its own hardy quality which it doesn't have. 

That is the same for Pvz and Pvz2. Of course, Pvz2 isn't as awfully cringy as Fortnite, but it is still not as good as its prequel.

Pvz2 is all about the flash and style that it lost its original purpose: You are supposed to defend your garden from an army of zombies. Now, what about Pvz2? Hurr Durr skeleton zombies, Bah wah Diego Brando, Hee hee zombies just casually wearing neon clothes as if they want to be discovered. What is the purpose? Is this a game show or a war that is supposed to happen?

About more plants, REMEMBER, THIS GAME IS SUPPOSED TO BE CHALLENGING. All of them have gimmicks that are equivalent to superpowers. Lost the game's true purpose. Remember back when you can beat a flock of jumping zombies with a 4-count pea shooter? Now it is replaced with whatever flashy stuff the EA cash grabbers could think of. Flower frogs. fire pea shooters. flashing fire flowers. Rupee grasses that shoot lasers. Especially dozens upon dozens of premium plants that made this a pay-to-win instead of an actual challenge. This game is basically a cash-grabber for EA consider it is near impossible to beat the last level without paying any kind of money, and when you pay money, it is not even a nuisance anymore. 

Also less glitches and Zomboss easier to defeat.
Keep in mind. Glitches made Mario 64 popular, and glitches made Big Rigs the meme it is today. 

Also, Zombie bosses are supposed to be the most difficult thing ever. Beating them with flashy gimmicks aren't fun. Also, knowing I have even more bosses to beat just makes me less happy. We have a condensed boss in Pvz1 that will give you the most relief even if you beat it.

Vote CON!
Round 2
Pro
  I currently love this debate. 
Rebuttals.
1. I actually like the earlier graphics and agree. I also do not like Fortnite and am glad to meet some else who agrees with me. 
2. It depends on my definition of a classic is. Plants vs Zombies has made 5 versions already. And it  has a lot of Youtube videos. The original has also sold the most in 1 day for an apple app. Therefore a classic according to me.
3. Some people actually like flashy effects.
4.The Zomboss in PvZ 2 is actually still a bit difficult but I kind of agree with you. 
5. If you don't account for the buy plants you still have lots of good ones like Sadow Pea which you earn through packets. Leveling up is a concept PvZ does not have. Pea pod is a bit flashy, but stil good. Glad to hear from you. 
FYI This was meant to be a funny debate.
Con
1. I actually like the earlier graphics and agree. I also do not like Fortnite and am glad to meet some else who agrees with me. 
2. It depends on my definition of a classic is. Plants vs Zombies has made 5 versions already. And it  has a lot of Youtube videos. The original has also sold the most in 1 day for an apple app. Therefore a classic according to me.
4.The Zomboss in PvZ 2 is actually still a bit difficult but I kind of agree with you. 
Concession. Vote CON. 

2. Pro refuted, but for the wrong reasons. What I am trying to convey is that earlier graphics don't have a positive linear correlation with its quality. Con just proved my point by saying that Pvz1 IS a classic. and is popular.

4. The disadvantage of having multiple Zombie bosses is that once you are so late in the game, defeating a zombie boss wouldn't feel like such an achievement compared to the one in Pvz1. The reason these games exist is that they want people to feel good, and having multiple zombie bosses, with the last not so much harder than the first, would make people feel less good about defeating one. Like what is the point of defeating a world if the game won't get any harder(or the game actually gets easier because you get more ridiculously overpowered plants every time, whether if you buy them or you just fail. Either way, it is not the right difficulty. 

Also, Pvz2 Zombie bosses are sneaky and quick. That will discourage players rather than encourage them. Pvz Zombie's boss is tough, and knowing he won't cut you off as easily, it will rather encourage players, especially this is the final trial, whereas Pvz2 you are facing a giant robot every single world.

Some people actually like flashy effects.
Does that make it good huh? No. You aren't proving that flashy effects are good. Then there are millions of weed smokers in the United States, does that mean smoking weed is good?

If you don't account for the buy plants you still have lots of good ones like Sadow Pea which you earn through packets. Leveling up is a concept PvZ does not have. Pea pod is a bit flashy, but stil good. Glad to hear from you.
That is just an excuse for being a cash-grabber. Then you are either spending all night grinding currency or you are emptying your wallet just to make the game easy. Without, the game is discouragingly hard, and with it, the game is easy and lost its purpose to be pleasurable. PvZ's nature of not upgrading plants made it a classic and not a cash-grabber. PvZ cannot upgrade plants, and no one will. This will make players spend hours trying to figure out strategy instead of doing repetitive commands or just spending money and give up.

FYI This was meant to be a funny debate.
Get serious or you lose. I am not even using any useful sources yet.

Round 3
Pro
1. The difficulty of Zomboss depends on the world you are in.
2. It depends on a person's tolerance or repetition.
3. Each person prefers a different thing. I like flashy effects, but you don't.
4. I have never spent any money but it is still very easy. It does not bore me.
Con
The difficulty of Zomboss depends on the world you are in.
My opponent had failed to refute my points. I said that multiple zombie bosses would mean that defeating one would mean less pleasure, no matter how easy or hard it is. 

Say, is climbing stairs harder, or is climbing a cliff harder? I'd say the latter. The first zombie boss is, let's say one half the hardness of the last one. Because everything went harder from the first one, climbing from the second last world to the last wouldn't be hard and it wouldn't be a big challenge. Since the harder the challenge, the more the reward usually, it would be normal that beating Pvz1 is more pleasurable than beating Pvz2.

It depends on a person's tolerance or repetition.
It is unclear what my opponent is referring to since he did not use any of my quotes for direct refutations. Also, a normal person would AT MOST have as much fun playing pvz2 as playing pvz1. My reason for why Pvz1 is better is clear:
  • One and only boss, more cognitive rewarding
  • Stick to one theme instead of having informational overload(going through time? going back the time? WTF?)
  • Minigames(in Pvz1 Minigames were actually fun where you are hitting zombies with random plants all of the sudden, in Pvz2 there is barely any at all)
  • More revolutionary(Pvz2 has no innovations except for a couple of plants and thematic derailings)
  • You actually see the ending in Pvz1
Now, I want my opponent to refute all these points with at least plausible logic instead of subjective feelings.

Each person prefers a different thing. I like flashy effects, but you don't.
I hate smoking, Snoop Dogg likes smoking. Does this mean that smoking is as good as not smoking?
Evidence suggests otherwise, so to my opponent, people liking it doesn't mean it is good. You are supposed to prove that Pvz2 is at least as good as Pvz1, and you are not doing it right now.

I have never spent any money but it is still very easy. It does not bore me.
Please use plausible logic. No one cares what you think because you can't justify it. If I wrote a book but I never published it then I would never be credited for an author. I understand that for some people may be professionals and they may feel easy with no financial input, however, you have yet to disprove my point about why EA cash grabs through Pvz2. 

I meant for not or.
My opponent wrote this in the comments. Since the argument section is really that all it matters for the debate itself, fellow debaters should give me the grammar and spelling point, unless I made another mistake to be pointed out.

Round 4
Pro
Rebuttals:
1. I meant to say " It depends on a person's tolerance for repetition." What I mean is that some people can tolerate repetition more that others. 
2. All I was saying is that some people like flashy effects and others don't. Flashy effects does not make the game better or worse, just depends on weather or not you like flashy effects.
3. PvZ 1 has you pay to get the full version. What is the difference?
4. What is the reward for beating Zomboss in PvZ 1. A music video? All it does is start over with Crazy Dave choosing some plants for you this time. Is that a reward/
5. What I meant is that you do not need to spend any money for the game to be fun.
Con
1. I meant to say " It depends on a person's tolerance for repetition." What I mean is that some people can tolerate repetition more that others. 
First, typo may count as a one-off for Grammar and Spelling. Debaters decide. 

Second. No matter how many repetitions the person can tolerate, that still wouldn't change the fact Pvz1 is better than Pvz2. Pvz1 doesn't repeat at all The first world is garden, the second garden night, the third pool, the fourth pool in the night with fogs, the fifth on the roof. Pvz2 consists of various reskins of similar enemies, and costumes are flashy as human crap. You get a good-looking grid, zombies in costume, zombies in costume with cones, zombies in costume with buckets on top, imp, and gargantuan zombies, etc, maybe just three or four zombies that just represents their supposed setting so straightforward that they may have been the product of cramming and rushing. Pvz2 had set themselves with expectations that are way too high and way too inconsistent consider there are too many different themes, and more than half of them are just reskinned, Pvz1 Zombies. Pvz2 had little to no creativity for zombies because they fit with their setting so well that any living human being could have thought of that. "Hey, it is the wild west! Might incorporate some bulls, some cowboys, and some ragtime entertainers!"

All I was saying is that some people like flashy effects and others don't. Flashy effects does not make the game better or worse, just depends on weather or not you like flashy effects.
With flashy effects, they are setting themselves too high of an expectation and we'd expect new things, but using the good old zombies from Pvz1 with reskinned textures is just subpar. It is barely original. Read the last paragraph if you haven't.

What is the reward for beating Zomboss in PvZ 1. A music video? All it does is start over with Crazy Dave choosing some plants for you this time. Is that a reward
Cognitively, Zombie boss in Pvz1 is the most rewarding thing because it is harder than every single thing you have met. In Pvz2 since you are alerted of how hard Modern Day boss is, it isn't a really big achievement in your brain once you beat it. I know comparatively with no barriers, Modern day boss is harder than Pvz1 boss, but you still marvel at how Pvz1 boss looks like if you don't get spoilers. Keep in mind the average North Korean citizen in poverty would be happier to receive $1,000 per month compared to Lil Pump with $500,000 per month. Some men that haven't achieved much in life would think masturbating is a bigger achievement than to invest in the stock market and gets stable money back, because of how the brain is hardwired.

So in conclusion, what makes beating Pvz1 Boss so pleasurable is not about the music video, but the fact you just beat him. In Pvz2 there is no such feeling, and there isn't as satisfactory as an ending.

PvZ 1 has you pay to get the full version. What is the difference?
Pvz1 costs money but after that, there is pretty much nothing for you to spend. Pvz2 doesn't cost money initially, but it encourages you to spend money. You never disproved why Pvz2 was a cash grab.

What I meant is that you do not need to spend any money for the game to be fun.
I agree, but that is not a concession. Pvz2 encourages you to spend money, grinding coins, and drain yourself just to beat a fictional robot. Pvz1 isn't about that.

Round 5
Pro
 Rebuttals: 
1. All the PvZ boss does is give you zombies and occasionally smashes your plants. The zombies it gives get harder until you get to the hardest at that point: gargantuan. To me, it was easy to beat. The only really hard zombie it gives off is gargantuan. And even then you can defeat it with 2 explosive plants in a row. I completed the game and replayed the last level. It was not so hard. PvZ 2 actually gives you a challenge. Just, some people get bored with it. 
2. It has you pay to get in-game coins faster with gimmicks like Dave's wallet. And if PvZ 1 doesn't have any money, where are they going to get it from? As a business, they need to earn money. That is why there are so many in app purchases in PvZ 2. 

Con
2. It has you pay to get in-game coins faster with gimmicks like Dave's wallet. And if PvZ 1 doesn't have any money, where are they going to get it from? As a business, they need to earn money. That is why there are so many in app purchases in PvZ 2. 
Concession. Vote CON. I think I will write again about why cash-grab for a game is bad. 
Cash-grabs refers to when a company makes a game for the sake of earning money rather than letting people play it, and in loss the game lost its true purposes and it stole away people's cash wallets just by advertising premium content. That is what Pvz2 had done. My opponent had failed to prove why Cash-grab is not bad and/or Pvz2 doesn't use Cash-grab. 

1. All the PvZ boss does is give you zombies and occasionally smashes your plants. The zombies it gives get harder until you get to the hardest at that point: gargantuan. To me, it was easy to beat. The only really hard zombie it gives off is gargantuan. And even then you can defeat it with 2 explosive plants in a row. I completed the game and replayed the last level. It was not so hard. PvZ 2 actually gives you a challenge. Just, some people get bored with it. 
My opponent had failed to refute every other point I have made. My opponent had only used personal experiences that cannot be justified whatsoever. 

Just, some people get bored with it.
My opponent had disproved himself since the support for his side was an example of one person, and the opposing force towards his side is at least one person. If there is as much opposing evidence as there is supporting evidence, and both can be proved by the same degree of authenticity, then this argument holds no value. Again, my opponent can outrage that the opposing evidence wasn't justified either, but neither was his supporting evidence. 

Vote CON!