Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BF3 and MW3: Does Single Player Matter?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 30, 2011 5:30:59 PM

Hello everyone! I wrote a paper on video games! I recommend you take the time to read my entire post before jumping to conclusions. Although I am a fan of BF3, I tried to be as unbiased as possible.

Mike Mercury
12/30/11

BF3 and MW3: Does Single Player Matter?

Okay, I'll be the one to say it. I'm noticing that in BF3 vs MW3 threads, for some reason, the single player campaign seems to be an overly hot topic of inflated importance. In both of these games, the multiplayer is the meat of the game. If you want the most awesome single player campaign, my only advice would be not to play first person shooters. Whether we (the gamers) like it or not, developers of FPS games such as BF and COD aren't producing single player campaigns like they're the most important aspect of the game.

So honestly, if BF3's campaign sucks, that should account for a small fraction of your overall impression of the game. Because let's be real, most people (in the long run) put many times more hours into the multiplayer than the campaign. Now, that might not apply to every single gamer. I'm not saying that there's something wrong, per se, to play the campaign more than the multiplayer, but it's not what the developers intended. I guess I also can't say that there's anything wrong with discussing the single player aspect of these games, but it really shouldn't be the selling/breaking point for a multiplayer FPS.

I'll give an example of a game where the campaign actually is important. For many people, (myself included) it kind of sucked that Ubisoft skimped out on the length of the brotherhood campaign in favor of the multiplayer. After all, the previous games were exclusively single player, and the single player was what many fans knew and loved about Assassin's Creed. Brotherhood wasn't a bad game or anything, but it made sense that some people were a little bummed about the campaign being a lot shorter than the previous game.

That being said, battlefield is an entirely different story than assassin’s creed. The campaigns for battlefield have NEVER been really great. Most of the BF games didn't even have a single player. And yet all of the sudden, the fact that MW3's campaign is better than BF3's is like a really big portion of the MW3 fans' argument against BF3. In reality, COD campaigns have always been better than BF campaigns, so it's silly that people are so surprised at how that fact has in fact stayed the same.

The bottom line here is that no matter how you look at it, BF3’s campaign could be the worst piece of crap ever made, but in the end it just doesn’t matter. Conversely, the campaign of MW3 is what it is, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter either. There aren’t any studies showing exactly how many hours have been spent playing the single player versus the multiplayer in either of these games, but if there were to be such a study, the results wouldn’t be hard to predict.

Discuss, and keep the flaming to a minimum! I'm okay if you disagree with me. My goal here isn't to personally insult anyone or put anyone down for having a different opinion.
December 30, 2011 6:45:09 PM

It doesn't matter to people who are competitive in multiplayer and play solely for that purpose. It matters to people who are interested in the story or want to examine the game without being rushed down by other real players.

The games both are largely populated by the former, while the latter tend to be more vocal. It's about as simple as this I think.
December 30, 2011 8:47:29 PM

Hmm from experience the only benefit of single player campaigns is to give you an idea of how a game plays before heading off to play on line.

The down side (especially with BF) is that once the single player is over you seem to spend an awful long time online gaming at the mercy of every bugger wanting to be a sniper....
Related resources
January 1, 2012 4:43:25 PM

ulysses35 said:
Hmm from experience the only benefit of single player campaigns is to give you an idea of how a game plays before heading off to play on line.

The down side (especially with BF) is that once the single player is over you seem to spend an awful long time online gaming at the mercy of every bugger wanting to be a sniper....


It's funny you say that people use the SP to help them with MP. Personally, I found the SP to be of basically no help for the MP. Maybe it's different for other people. And yes I, I feel your pain regarding the sniper buggers, lol.

@casualcolors, if that's all there is too it, then jeez, I've been really over thinking this.
January 1, 2012 4:47:59 PM

kjsfnkwl said:
It's funny you say that people use the SP to help them with MP. Personally, I found the SP to be of basically no help for the MP. Maybe it's different for other people. And yes I, I feel your pain regarding the sniper buggers, lol.

@casualcolors, if that's all there is too it, then jeez, I've been really over thinking this.


I agree with you that SP doesn't really provide much help with multiplayer. Really the action is rarely as fast or dynamic enough to even make keybind familiarity relevant in single player. Can be said for both of these game series.

It's a valid question to ask though, since I see more comments about MW3 and BF3 single player quality than about the multiplayer, despite that both games are designed from the ground up to bring the player a multiplayer experience first and foremost. It's actually pretty baffling that it is even regarded as criteria for either series.
!