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

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,503
0
0
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 :p
 

crepesack

New member
May 20, 2008
1,189
0
0
Neither game was tailored for the single player play (focus is probably like 80% multiplayer and 20% single player). Both are a few scant hours long and aren't worth it for your money...if you play sp only.
 

Evilbunny

New member
Feb 23, 2008
2,099
0
0
I don't think either one is too great but if he liked past COD games for their Single Player modes then he'll probably like MW3 too because it's more of the same. Not that that's a bad thing mind you, it's just that if he liked and grew attached to the characters he'll probably want to know what happens to them in the end.
 

ResonanceGames

New member
Feb 25, 2011
732
0
0
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.
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,503
0
0
ResonanceGames said:
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?
 

ResonanceGames

New member
Feb 25, 2011
732
0
0
Volf99 said:
ResonanceGames said:
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?
The difference mostly lies in the intangibles. The set pieces are tighter and more interesting in the COD games and the pacing is better. The Battlefield campaigns are very, very similar in design but they lack character and panache.

Frankly, I'd recommend something like Singularity over both of them for a similar (but more fun) experience. But it's not strictly a manshoot, there are also mutants.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
CoD has a fantastic, 4 to 5 hour single player. It is top notch, but if you are just looking for single player, that's a lot of money for a short play time. There's a coop mode if that helps but really, CoD was made to focus at least a little on Multiplayer. Battlefield has a more pure Multiplayer pedigree, and honestly, the multiplayer is probably better, but most people aren't fans of the single player.

He ever play Brothers in Arms? Older graphics, but fantastic single player filled with authenticity. Besides that, Im not sure what else to recommend.

::Edit:: if a dash of Sci Fi and superpowers is acceptable, Crysis 2 is pretty solid.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
ResonanceGames said:
Volf99 said:
ResonanceGames said:
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?
The difference mostly lies in the intangibles. The set pieces are tighter and more interesting in the COD games and the pacing is better. The Battlefield campaigns are very, very similar in design but they lack character and panache.

Frankly, I'd recommend something like Singularity over both of them for a similar (but more fun) experience. But it's not strictly a manshoot, there are also mutants.
Singularity was a good game, sadly very underrated.

As for the two, if for the SP, MW3, it is a lot better and more fun. Plus if he doesn't want to play online, there is Offline Survival and Spec-Ops missions. Which are GREAT!
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,503
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
CoD has a fantastic, 4 to 5 hour single player. It is top notch, but if you are just looking for single player, that's a lot of money for a short play time. There's a coop mode if that helps but really, CoD was made to focus at least a little on Multiplayer. Battlefield has a more pure Multiplayer pedigree, and honestly, the multiplayer is probably better, but most people aren't fans of the single player.

He ever play Brothers in Arms? Older graphics, but fantastic single player filled with authenticity. Besides that, Im not sure what else to recommend.
Thanks, I'll take that into consideration.
 

Bishop99999999

New member
Dec 6, 2007
182
0
0
I really like CoD's single player. Leaps and bounds beyond BF3, and there are always the spec ops missions and survival mode to keep running through. Not as fun as the multiplayer, but certainly worthwhile.
 

Last Hugh Alive

New member
Jul 6, 2011
494
0
0
I haven't played Battlefield 3, but Modern Warfare 3's single player isn't very good imo. I finished the game in 5 hours and 1 minute, and I haven't touched a COD game in 2011.
 

Kingme18

Destroyer of Worlds
Mar 26, 2011
199
0
0
If we are strictly talking MW3 vs. BF3, I would NOT choose MW3. I just beat the campaign and I'll say the other two were much better than this one. Maybe just choose an entirely different game?
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
Volf99 said:
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 :p
It would be better to save your money and go for a longer, older game. Even if the graphics are not as good having a campaign 2 or 3 times the length will more than make up for it. He would probably get a lot more enjoyment out of a Killzone or Resistance game. I would recommend Brothers in Arms for it's excellent Campaign, but it is much more of a military simulator than, say, COD would be, and quite story driven (not that that's a bad thing)

 

ScrubberDucky

New member
Feb 17, 2011
212
0
0
Yeah, both singleplayers suck. If he wants to play the SP, just get him to rent each one. They last about 6 hours each and aren't worth $60.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Volf99 said:
ResonanceGames said:
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?
I'll agree with [user]ResonanceGames[/user] here. The SP campaigns for both games are really only training simulators for online MP, but CoD is the better of the two. The storyline for MW3 is, admittedly, bat-shit bonkers, but at least the main campaign isn't an endless stream of QTEs like Battlefield. And as for flying planes, the only time you're in a plane in in the SP campaign you're the co-pilot in charge of flares and missiles, you don't get to fly anything - which simply makes the plane section like the AC-130 sections from CoD, just quicker.