Is the Battlefield 3 campaign REALLY that bad?

All the major reviewers say it is familiar, boring, and overall lackluster? But Battlefield 3 owners, I (being a huge single player gamer) want to know: is the campaign as bad as they say?Is the Battlefield 3 campaign REALLY that bad?
Battlefield series has never been about single player, in fact, before the Bad Company spin offs, none of the previous BF games even featured a single player. Bf1942, BF2 (just 2 not BC2), bf 2142, BF vietnam (no not the DLC for BC2), were all multiplayer exclusive games.

Now the SP campaign in BF3 is more or less okay, not bad, but were the game shines, just like in all Battlefield games, is it's online multiplayer. BF has always had a reputation for quality online long before Call of Duty did. No one buys BF3 for the SP, they buy it for the great online. Since you are focused on SP games then you might want to skip BF3 or CoD since these games are far more online oriented. If you are looking into SP games then go for Skyrim, that is if you like rpg games or not, or some other shooter without a large emphasis on multiplayer.
It's not as bad as reviewers make it out. But some parts could have been better, for instance at points (very few points) you're just pressing the button it tells you to press on the screen which I feel could of had a different approach. The ending was dissapointing though, it didn't feel like a climax ending.Is the Battlefield 3 campaign REALLY that bad?
So ive heard. But that's what I think is the difference between COD and BF. COD's campaigns are good and the multiplayer sucks and BF's campaign sucks and multiplayer is goodIs the Battlefield 3 campaign REALLY that bad?
yes it is freaking horrible probably the worst campaign ever well bfbc2 campaign is worse but yes this is Absolutely horrible
Its not terrible but its definitely not as good as the hype. The multiplayer is even worse.
Below expectations in my opinion, kinda cliche.