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.
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.