Poll: Thinking of buying Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, is the single player good?

[Loonyyy]

Neither: Both have short singleplayers.
If you are stuck on buying one, (I'd still recommend COD 4, better, longer singleplayer), get MW3. It has an interesting, fun and vibrant action movie of a singleplayer. It's very short though, but the survival modes and spec ops could keep him going longer, and if you have another controller (If you're on console, since PC coop is over the internet), then you can play too.

Battlefield has a short singleplayer, but it's one of the driest experiences I've ever had. It's like eating stale ice crackers, while Cod might be compared to fairy bread, childish, but fun. It too is short, but it's also boring, and the effort that went into it is basically to showcase the destruction (Which is patheticly scripted rather than emergent and procedural) rather than to give you a good time. It's very deffinitely made for Multiplayer, which is fine, but the singleplayer isn't worth it.

I'd get MW3, but better yet, I'd get one of the previous ones, with a longer campaign.

 

[Loonyyy]

COD. Neither series has ever really excelled with the single player, but the Battlefield games are definitely the weaker of the two in that area.

Any particular reason why you would say the BF series is the weaker of the two in regards to SP? Isn't there more vehicle use than COD? Like flying planes and such?

Nope: The section with planes is only a turret section. It's functionally identical to the chase scenes and car sequences in COD, just with skies instead of roads. It's a terrible singleplayer. I love Battlefield 3, the Co-op is excellent, and the multiplayer is great, but when I played the singleplayer to get me started, it almost made me want to return the game.

And vehicle use would not necessarily make singleplayer better in any case, it's an interesting story, engaging characters, and exciting action that make that. Battlefield 3 manages to fail on all those counts. I was hoping for so much more...

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Neither, tbh. Both are fairly unfulfilling Singleplayer Campaigns.

However, if he's insistent, go with MW3, since it has more Single-Player options aside from the Campaign than BF3, which is almost entirely Multiplayer with a bit of a rushed Campaign.

 

[Owlslayer]

If he only plays singleplayer, then you really shouldn't pick either. From what I've heard, both are relatively short. Tho MW3 singleplayer did have a lot of cool moments, if you like explosions, slowmotion and all that. And yes, i like it a lot. So...yeah. Your pick!

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I haven't played it, but come on, it's CoD. For all its vaunted focus on multiplayer, the series originally made its name as a single player game. I'm sure the campaign is short, but I really don't understand why a short campaign in a shooter is supposed to be a bad thing; past about the six hour mark, they start to get boring. Anything over 10 hours is /really/ excessive.

 

[dyre]

Honestly, I didn't really like MW3's singleplayer. And this is coming from someone who liked both MW and MW2's campaigns.

There's just no sense of pacing in the new one. It's literally explosions and your squad vs a mob of 9000 enemies all the time, with maybe three pauses in between. In the two previous games, you would fight small groups, then bigger groups, then have a climax fight, but in this one, it's a constant climax, and that leaves you pretty desensitized. Plus, I'm sick of surviving plane/helicopter/car crashes (while all the unimportant NPCs get killed in them). One or two crashes is okay, but after a certain point it's just like "oh, another crash. I guess I'll get dizzy for a few moments, then back to normal"

As for Battlefield 3, I haven't played the campaign, so I couldn't really say.

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

Modern Warfare's single player beats Battlefields, hands down.
The campaign is far more enjoyable to play through and you can actually see what's going on without all the overblown dirt and lighting effects. (Seriously, when does dirt actually stick to your eyes IRL).
Also Spec Ops and survival are a blast to play through, even if you're playing solo.

Regarding multiplayer, both provide a really solid experiences. It's all down to personal preference if you want to play through expansive maps destroying and defending objectives, utilising vehicles with a team orientated astethic. Or if you prefer fast, explosive arcade style gameplay with a vast unlock system and numerous customisation options.

Both are great FPSs. Fuck the fanboys.

 

[Catalyst6]

I loved MW3's campaign, it was a good time from start to finish. The only problem was that it was so... "concentrated". Okay, it was short, but it was still good. BF3 was not. It was competent, I suppose, but it was boring and relied too much on scripted events. And I don't mean in the MW3 sense of scripted building falling on you and whatnot. I mean waiting until your teammates catch up since you are unable to open a door that has a hostage being killed on the other side.

 

[AnarchistFish]

If he only plays single player then you're looking at the wrong games.

What games would you recommend then? Anything for PS3 or Xbox 360?

Is there anything he wouldn't already know about or have?

he isn't a gamer, so he pretty much only knows about COD.

What platform?

It just seems weird to have someone who isn't interested in the story and only plays single player only play CoD and military shooters.

what do you mean what platform?
Yeah, he just likes the shooting aspect.

PC? PS3? 360?

Well if he's only interested in shooting, longer single players like Skyrim and Fallout are pretty useless.

 

[megapenguinx]

So my dad's birthday is coming up and he like the military shooter games, doesn't really care about the story. He liked the past COD games and has never played the BF series, but he only plays single player. Which game would you guys recommend I buy for him and why?

P.S. I'm not trying to start a flame war

BF3 wasn't really built for single player, so go with MW3.

Yes multiplayer is still a big focus, but you also get the Spec Ops missions and survival mode to muck around in for some hours after the campaign ends.

 

[zuro64]

COD. Neither series has ever really excelled with the single player, but the Battlefield games are definitely the weaker of the two in that area.

Any particular reason why you would say the BF series is the weaker of the two in regards to SP? Isn't there more vehicle use than COD? Like flying planes and such?

CoD have always been the better of the two in SP simply because they have done it before and they have done it GOOD before! Except for the Bad Company games, Battlefield has never had SP before BF3 but the true BF experience is MP and has always been! I mean in the first four BF games(+3 Expansions and 3 booster packs) the SP was MP with bots!

BTW. booster packs = map/play mode/vehicle packs if you wonder.