Plants vs Zombies 1 is not better than Plants vs Zombies 2
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
PvZ is not better than the sequel.
I need a fan to accept.
Plants vs Zombies 2 has more plants and better animation.
Pvz is published in 2009.
Pvz2 is published in 2013.
Also less glitches and Zomboss easier to defeat.
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.
Some people actually like flashy effects.
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.
The difficulty of Zomboss depends on the world you are in.
It depends on a person's tolerance or repetition.
- 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
Each person prefers a different thing. I like flashy effects, but you don't.
I have never spent any money but it is still very easy. It does not bore me.
I meant for not or.
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.
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.
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
PvZ 1 has you pay to get the full version. What is the difference?
What I meant is that you do not need to spend any money for the game to be fun.
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.
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.
Just, some people get bored with it.
PRO did not provide sources.
PRO provided 1 sentence arguments that CON refuted easily.
Arguments: One sentence answers.
Sources: Zero sources from Pro vs some sources from Con
This debate came down to Con outlining several issues with pvz 2 while Pro either agreed or replied with his own opinions. Basically, both sides should've looked more into objective sources, if Con and Pro give me 2 opinions that conflict I can't side with one over another unless one can appeal to the opinion of gamers as a whole. This locks down several contentions, basically making them tied. But, Pro conceding the graphical point and the point about legacy really turn the tides against him. Moreover, he never properly refuted con's points about the monetary burden of pvz 2. He seemed to appeal to his opinion rather than the totality of gamers, some of whom spent money on the game when they may not have needed to in pvz 1.
The Instigator only provided single-sentence points, and gave no sources.
Con provided more in-depth arguments while Pro just listed a few things in single sentences.
Con used a few sources as opposed to Pro’s none.
Pro did not make an argument differentiating the true benefits of 2 over 1. Pro pointed out some grievances with 1 over 2, but did not compare and contrast. Pro just sat in rebuttal mode, and through their rebuttals. Pro also agreed with Con on two occasions in round 2. It is not a full concession, however it is demonstrative of the persuasiveness of Cons arguments.
Con used sound logic in pre-emotively negating the quality of graphics challenges, and that led directly to some of the concessions.
The narrative was not as organized as it could have been. Overall Con has it.
I meant for. Typo. A person's tolerance for repetition.
I meant for not or.
Pvz1 to Pvz2 is Mario Kart 7 to Mario Kart Tour. Good enough analogy.
I'll always appreciate some humor.
I think next time my girlfriend is over, I'll introduce her to these games.