Okay, so I needed some replacement PS3 controllers and was having trouble finding some. I decided to buy a PS3 off of Kijiji that a guy was selling with 4 controllers (one had the thumb sticks in rough shape, but the others were in great condition) and it came with some games. I didn't want any of the games or the old 75 or 80 gig fat PS3, so I bought the lot, kept the 3 good controllers, and resold the PS3 with the rough controller (full disclosure in the add of course). The guy that bought the PS3 didn't want the games, so I started selling those off separately, which I haven't finished doing yet.

SO, after all of that (I ended up getting 3 used controllers at a good price considering, and still have the rest of the games to sell) I'm left with some left over games. Two of those games are Battlefield 3 and Battlefield Bad Company. I would normally not bother with either of those games, but since I have them lying around, I decided to try them out. This is how I feel they compare.

Bad Company is the lesser of the two titles. I played up to some point in mission 2 of 7 and got bored. It's a boring war-themed FPS with boring brown levels, boring grey weapons, and boring trite characters. It feels exactly what I felt like it would feel, and have given up on it.

Battlefield 3 is a little better than I expected though. A few tweaks to the pacing, tone, and level design (compared to BC) are making a huge difference. The action feels faster and more intense, enough so that it helps to overshadow the characteristics that tend to keep me away from FPSes set in more realistic modern-day settings. It's still not something that I feel like I've missed out on not playing it, but it's fun enough to keep me going on it. Currently I'm on mission 5 of 12.

So Battlefield 3 gets my vote for the better single-player campaign, if for no other reason than at this stage I'm willing to try and finish it.