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

[Makon]

On the single player side, BF3 has more advanced graphics, but MW3 is far more fun to play. And despite the technological difference in graphics, I'd say the overall spectacle of MW3's set pieces far exceeds BF3's.

Gameplay-wise, they're both quite linear but the level design in MW3 somehow makes it feel less like being led around on a leash. The linear path feels more natural, whereas BF3's linearity feels like someone yelling at you to take the one true developer-approved path or suffer the consequences.

Quick! Press the trigger to not die by Rat!

Seriously though, I agree here. MW3 felt more 'fluid', like the game kept pace with me better. BF3 was...not so fluid.

 

[Zantos]

If you're not going to fool yourself into thinking MW3 single player is going to be a hundred hour sandbox then it's pretty good. 8 hours in a linear but pretty tight and enjoyable story. If you're only planning on just playing SP it'd probably be better renting or just waiting until it's cheaper though.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Being that I loathe multi-player, I've gone through both games single player campaign and I can safely say that neither of them are worth the money you'd be slapping down for them; if all you are after is single player satisfaction. They are to solo FPS what McDonalds is to fine dining.

While being no where near perfect, you'd be much better off with Rage. It's competent enough as a shooter to be enjoyable and it has something the other two don't - longevity.

 

[Keymik]

Buy Skyrim for him. Now that's 300+ hours of singleplayer gameplay. Hope you don't mind seeing your father for atleast a week xD

 

[F4LL3N]

How much does he enjoy gaming? Perhaps get him another game, maybe another genre. Skyrim is extremely good.

As for the OT: I'd say get MW3 for singleplayer (peferrably rent to save yourself the money). BF3 had some tank action. But even that was rather bland. The jet section was bland because you weren't aloud to actually fly it, seriously.

I think that's the bad thing about BF3 singleplayer. Were they aiming for a story? Or were they aiming for gameplay? Because they never exactly got either of them.

EDIT: Or get him online. I think he'll thoroughly enjoy BF3's multiplayer.

 

[Spartan448]

Being a Halo diehard, I really can't reccomend either. But there ARE good military shooters out there. If the old man likes REALLY realistic military shooters, and singleplayer, look for a game called Arma 2. (Not sure if spelling and/or capitalization is right, someone please confirm). At a tech camp I attended over the summer, some kids were playing it, and it came to me highly reccomended. So see if you can find it, and give that a try.

 

[doggie135]

I'd say BioShock over all of them (or Half-Life 2), but neither of those are 'military' shooters. And I revere both for their story, not gameplay.

I'm still voting 'neither', but from what I know of the two choices, MW3 is better.

 

[The Lugz]

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

if he's an old school kinda gamer, cod is the only way to go really

your choice, if your set on buying one of them

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

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?

Battlefield 3's Story is a complete knock off of Call of Duty 4... Well atleast they barrowed some very eerilly similar plot points

 

[thelonewolf266]

MW3 definitely has a superior campaign its short yes and the story is pretty ridiculous as ever but its great fun however its best if you have played MW1 and MW2 because it seems to be tailored to veteran players with lots of characters we've met before and flashbacks to previous games.BF3 copies a lot of things from past COD games and just jams them all together instead of doing something different like Bad company did with the campaign being focused on humour and the destruction that frostbit engine provided.Unfortunately they don't copy very well so the BF3 campaign is full of QTE's that are outdated and boring, There is also only really one vehicle mission so they didn't really play to their strengths. the biggest problem for me however is that they managed to make jet combat which is for me the best part of multi-player boring in the campaign that's just inexcusable.

 

[Bvenged]

Battlefield's was you usual military grey shooter. CoD: MW3 was you usual unrealistic grey military o-rah shooter.
I completed MW3 on hardened in 4.5 hours first time. That's dying a few times and slowing myself down to follow the charcaters, too. It was short and shit, with only 3 good parts to it and the ending rounded the series up; whereas Battlefield's was longer but just as bland, though visually fucking awesome to the point of challenging reality simulators.
EDIT: Neither are worth even £20 for their campaigns. Battlefield's wasn't far off but both were designed with multiplayer in mind. Single player only games, they are not. £45 for 4.5 hours fo coD entertainment? I'd rather tie that money to some fireworks.

 

[Rapamaha]

Call of Duty single players have allways been good compared to other simple minded FPS games but they are really short and the single player alone isnt worth the full price of the game, I would recommend looking into some other older games like Brothers in Arms, Operation Flashpoint/ARMA and if you have 360 and your dad is even abit open minded then I would recommend getting Gears of War

 

[Captain Pirate]

There's always Bulletstorm, that was a riot!

This.

Bulletstorm is easily the most fun I've had with virtual firearms.
Total madness that's an absolute blast to play.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I thought the MW3 campaign was great. Filled with the bombast we've come to know and love from Call of Duty (don't whine about the story, it's supposed to be over the top!). As everybody mentions, it's very short though. Even on veteran difficulty you can blaze though it in 5 hours. If you're not into multi-player or replaying the campaign, I don't know if you'll get your money's worth from it. Maybe for a solid single-player shooter Crysis 2 is a better idea.

But between the MW3 and BF3 single-player campaigns, Modern Warfare 3's was just plain better.

 

[SirDeadly]

I personally thought the MW3 campaign was one of the best in the series, it is very short though... It also has Spec Ops which should keep him occupied for a while.