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

[Retronana]

Neither, BF3 is just boring. CoD is flashy explosions for 4 hours with no sense of pacing. I'd recommend bulletstorm as it's hilariously entertaining and lasts a while, or better yet something like RAGE with huge expansive single player. Or if he hasn't played them yet and doesn't mind an older title pick him up Half-life 2 (plus episodes 1 and 2) which are easily the best single player FPS's

 

[AnarchistAbe]

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

Seriously, If he has like all the CoD games, he will not be disappointed with MW3. It is just as crazy and over-the-top as all of the others! The addition of Spec Ops (again) is a welcome one as well.

Definitely don't buy BF3 for Single Player, though. It's been universally panned as a terrible SP experience.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Honestly? At least MW3 TRIES to give the single player something to play. A fun if brief campaign with lots of thrills, not to mention spec-ops and survival mode. Look, Battlefield is great, but first priority will always be multiplayer.

Thank you! A million times THANK YOU!!! Nobody seems to get that CoD is TRYING to be over-the-top and entertaining, they all just ***** and moan about it, lol.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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

 

[Atmos Duality]

Played it last night as part of the usual "rental reviews" I do with my friend for these hyped-releases (Skyrim is next...whoo..)

Games are rented for the Xbox 360 (for multi-platform releases) since the industry seems hellbent on bugging the shit out of any other port.

Spoiler: Long Version

In terms of general gameplay, it *is* genre-defining: you would be hard-pressed to find a more generic representation of the stagnant shooter genre today than Modern Warfare 3. The one and only thing that truly separates it apart from anything is that it's very, very polished. Everything is a *nice* shade of brown, and ignoring how overdone this "gritty realism" crap is, the settings are very well-put together (map design for gameplay, however, isn't as good with levels being linear hallways as expected).

To say this franchise is as formulaic as Halo is an insult to Halo. Halo at least pretended to improve upon its gameplay with each iteration, by giving us dual-wielding and grossly overpowered melee weapons. MW3 has abjectly tried as hard as it can to stick to its formula, making only "accounting" gameplay balancing decisions for multiplayer and occasionally adding another gun.
If there is any significant difference to be found, it will have to come from nitpicking.

Anyone claiming the "plot" to be deep, intricate or moving hasn't seen or read a good plot in their life (or is REALLY into shitty Tom Clancy novels). But who the hell plays these games for "plot"? The masses love this game for its "award-winning gameplay" right?

I want to say more and not generalize, but really, THERE IS NOTHING TO DO BUT TAKE COVER AND AIM FOR THE HEAD. The helicopter-gunner sections and occasional air-strike/predator drone play like a shooting gallery or sadistic form of bowling, but that doesn't really mix the gameplay up much when you're already playing a shooter to begin with.

In short: I was bored for most of the campaign. Not one moment forced me to change my approach for each situation. I never looked forward to picking up new weapons. Just plugged the baddies and moved onward.
Bay-splosions and cutscene-damage attacks might cream the jeans of 15-year-old gun wankers, but not me.

(Didn't bother with online multiplayer; never wanted to. I already know the sort of crowd that plays uber-popular shooters, and I wish most of them death for being a colossal waste of flesh. Besides, I don't think his rental copy would have allowed us online anyway.)

The biggest positive I can give this game, (like Black Ops) came from its co-operative missions.
Survival is unquestionably the best part I played; it also mirrors Halo in the same way I loved the Firefight mode of ODST and Reach.
Setting up turrets, calling in reinforcements and digging in against the masses is actually quite fun, and the waves are partly randomized so there's at least a small element of strategy.
It's much more interesting than capping the same rubberstamp Generic Russian Mook over and over again while slogging between cutscenes.

Didn't play online multiplayer. I deal with enough assholes in real life already.
Gameplay hasn't budged an inch from last year; the formula is well-intact. Story is cliche', boring, and lacking in any substance.
It's well-polished and runs smoothly on the aging 360 (as one might expect).
Co-op missions and Firefight Survival mode is excellent, and genuinely fun.

Modern Warfare 3 is the single most generic shooter I've played all year.
Final Thoughts: Good graphics and online multiplayer shouldn't define a GOTY winner (nevermind a contender); especially when those graphics and multiplayer are the same as last year's winner, and the year before that...

 

[Slycne]

Between the two, MW3 has the superior single player experience. It's short and might not be worth the $60 alone, but it's a tightly crafted spectacle. BF3's sp was rather bland and boring.

 

[Zhukov]

BF3's single player is arse. Don't pay money for it.

Anyone who liked the previous CoD single player campaigns will probably enjoy what MW3 has to offer.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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?

 

[Zing]

If you enjoyed the single player as a bonus in MW2 you will enjoy it in MW3. It is probably exactly the same length and packed with cinematic action and lacking a deep story.

It's your equivalent of a mindless summer blockbuster film, so if you go into it like that you will probably enjoy it.

I wouldn't buy either game for the single player only though, if you have no plans to play the multiplayer then just don't buy it, rent it.

 

[Awexsome]

BF3's single player has barely any redeeming qualities but CoD's is pretty good. It doesn't have any deep intricate plot or super-greatly written characters but it does its job well of being like a summer blockbuster action movie in game form.

Plus CoD comes with the Spec Ops mode, which may or not be very good but it's more than the jack squat that BF3 comes with outside of multiplayer.

 

[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?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

 

[Dutch 924]

Let me put it this way:

It's got a better campaign than BF3. Much better

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Between those two choices, Modern Warfare 3 is the way to go. Period. I loved the campaign up until the last two levels. It felt a little rushed story-wise from that point and it sort of lost its footing. Still, if you played the first two games, this one is a buy if you want to finish the story--and see what happens to all the characters.

There are other shooters out there with better single player campaigns though. Whatever you decide, I highly urge you to stay away from Battlefield 3 if all you're interested in is the single player. I bought it for that reason and I've been regretting. A lot.

 

[Terminate421]

Its short but it totally makes sense. The real shock will come If you've played CoD4 or MW2.

 

[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.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

 

[Makon]

Both games are very short in the single player department (I finished both in 6-8 hours). Of the two however, I'd say MW3 was the best of the two experiences, but only if you are up-to-date on the previous two MW titles and like it's Hyper-Realism.

Don't get me wrong, BF3's campaign was very good, especially from the more authentic stand-point. Thing is, I just had a lot more fun with the campaign of MW3, plus it has Spec-Ops and Survival mode.

In reality, I wouldn't recommend either title. They both are short and not quite worth a full $60 for just the price. Now, if he likes a Sci-Fi twist with his Military Shooters, I think the above mention of the Crysis series is actually a very good suggestion. Those campaigns (Crysis 1 & 2) are longer and have a better story (Subjective, I know).

As far as a strictly modern military shooter goes, however, I'd actually be the crazy guy here and suggest Medal of Honor (The modern reboot). You can get it cheap in comparison, and I actually was more impressed with its campaign than CoD or BF3. It was a little bit longer, and it actually did have a rather authentic feel that was executed better than BF3 (IMHO).

In the end though, it's your dad, so it's up to you.

 

[XMark]

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.