DICE Reveals Why They Have Not Made Battlefield: Bad Company 3

[TopWargamer]

I loved the Bad Company series simply because it was a bit different than the other Battlefield games, in the sense that it wasn't as serious. I still remember when I get bad Company 2. I beat the campaign that same day. I sat down, played it all day, and loved it. That's how good it was, and now the single player in modern shooters are quite frankly extremely shotty, not good, and serve no purpose at all. It's a shame.

[geforceftw]

Bad company 2 is probably the best FPS i've ever played. I still play online quite a bit. I couldnt get into battlefield 3 probably because of EAs origin and their stupid web based multilayer thing. I hated that.

[ACatWithThumbs]

What makes Bad Company 2 great:
-Destruction changes how every round plays and makes the gameplay dynamic and mostly camper free.
-Not to many weapons and gadgets so it's simple,balanced, and skill based.
-No unnecessary features like suppression or shining sniper scopes.
-Maps are open but with a more linear flow not just open big circles like in Battlefield 4.
-Vehicles are few but strong and are a real threat.
-More focused on rush.
-You don't show up on the mini map when shooting.
-Weapons feel like they're shooting heavy bullets while in Battlefield 3/4 it feels like you're shooting paintball's.


 

[Common_Courtesy]

One thing for me that made the game overall feel better than BF3/4 is the lack of vaulting animation, movement just felt so much smoother without the animation being there to glitch out every time you jumped over anything bigger than a pebble. That and the weapons simply sounded and handled better, along with the destruction constantly changing the environment and making everything a lot more hectic.

[Victorious Secret]

At least they are being brutally honest and telling us why, and its alright by me. I'd rather they figure out what made BC1 and BC2 tick apart from the hilarious SP and "destroy everything" physics engine. 

 

And LOL @ "Actual bf fans". Thats what sad, lonely people tell themselves when they realize their 'obscure' game became really popular and thus complain about every change and look to the past with rose tinted glasses and disregard new users as not being "actual fans" 

[mgsstar]

I remember I was a pretty good sniper in BC2. I remember that you can only crouch and not prone which made you more visible imo. Lets hope that if they were to create BC3 not have a web based server browser requiring plugins and stuff. Liked how in BC2 the server browser was integrated into the game.

[LOST TALE]

A remastered edition with new graphics would be a complete buy.

 

The simplcity yet comes with the amazing battlefield moments. And every apsect is much more connected directly. Othe rBF games have more aspects that aren't as directly connected. By adding more aspects and more indirect connections, you feel a little disconnected from the BIG difference in battle.

 

Every action in BFBC2 is closer to an epic Mcom arm.

 

BFBC2 is like crysis 2, you get that super hero feel, but without actually having superpowers, which then feels special. Only BFBC2 brings that.

 

The smaller scale of BFBC2 is the udnerlying truth that induces the liking also. I completely understand the underlying factors that ar ecommon to many people that would explain this.

 

But to convince the leaders of the studio of the truth to help themselves is a whole different story.

That is why I did not write the full psycho analysis here. Just the general idea. None of the underlying effects where mentioned (they were only hinted ). The uncompletnesss of this post is purposely made.

You could demand actual explanation.

 

I'll benefit whoever hires me. There is no way to prove this in an application. Only afterhand.

[The_Evenger]

screw bad company 3, I want to see 2143!

[LOST TALE]

What makes Bad Company 2 great:

-Destruction changes how every round plays and makes the gameplay dynamic and mostly camper free.

-Not to many weapons and gadgets so it's simple,balanced, and skill based.

-No unnecessary features like suppression or shining sniper scopes.

-Maps are open but with a more linear flow not just open big circles like in Battlefield 4.

-Vehicles are few but strong and are a real threat.

-More focused on rush.

-You don't show up on the mini map when shooting.

-Weapons feel like they're shooting heavy bullets while in Battlefield 3/4 it feels like you're shooting paintball's.

 

This is exactly their issue, I disagree with all you have said. And BFBC2 was still amazing but for totally different reasons.

-you do show on minimap when shooting.

 

except for the point on vehicles.

[matin94]

haha, funny thing is, i completely agree, bad company 2 was the best battlefield i ever played. but i dunno why. at the time maybe the building destruction was amazing and new, we had a lot of fun playing 1vs1vs1vs1.

it looked different than anything else, it just had a unique feel to it which i cant describe.

[colonel_mortis]

Dice is doing the multiplayer.

Anyways, bc2 was amazing because it was balanced. And it was balanced because there were no more than 50 weapons in the game, with very little gimmicky customization.

NO! DICE are helping Viceral, using their experience with the Frostbite engine, and their assets (by the looks of the beta). But they are not "doing the multiplayer".

 

Actual bf fans have not enjoyed a single bf game after 2142...

I think that makes them not BF fans. A BF fan is a fan of Battlefield games. Not a fan of a game that was published 8 years ago. The series has changed, but the old fans can no longer call themselves true battlefield fans if the new games aren't their thing.

[ACatWithThumbs]

This is exactly their issue, I disagree with all you have said. And BFBC2 was still amazing but for totally different reasons.

 

except for the point on vehicles.

Tell me those reasons.

The map design also plays a huge role.

In Bad Company 2 you always have the feeling that you're pushing with your team on the other team while in Battlefield 3/4 you have the feeling you're running in circles.

And the cause for that is that every map in BF4 needs to support almost 10 game modes while in BFBC2 the maps where designed around 2-4 game modes.(Some are even rush only)

Bad Company 2 maps are built around the objectives and have a more linear layout:

Battlefield 3/4 maps are round and big with no direction:

BF3/4 feels like they tried to slap every feature possible into one package without having any real direction of what the game should actually be.

The game is inconsistent in everything even materials and textures are inconsistent through out the game.

 

[LOST TALE]

Tell me those reasons.

The map design also plays a huge role.

In Bad Company 2 you always have the feeling that you're pushing with your team on the other team while in Battlefield 3/4 you have the feeling you're running in circles.

And the cause for that is that every map in BF4 needs to support almost 10 game modes while in BFBC2 the maps where designed around 2-4 game modes.(Some are even rush only)

Bad Company 2 maps are built around the objectives and have a more linear layout:

Battlefield /34 maps are round big and with no direction:

BF3/4 feel like they tried to slap every feature possible into one package without having any real direction of what the game should actually be.

The game is inconsistent in everything even materials and textures are inconsistent through out the game.

Indeed, The reasons of BFBc2 being awesome are induced partly by the map deisgn everything has to work together.

I disagree that BF4 doesnt feel like pushing the team. I don'T feel running in circles that much. I almost always disagree with ''Battlefield /34 maps are round big and with no direction''

Altough I see why most players would feel that way.

 

Refer to my post that followed. I will actually post the actual thing later. My mind is a little absorbed by the tought of playing dirt 3.

[techie]

I liked it because the maps were specifically designed for either rush or conquest, with alternate modes being played on specifically designed maps in the same setting.

I also loved how stripped out it was. Just one 4x scope, one red dot sight, a tank, a quad bike, etc.

It had huge maps, and everything could be destroyed. Yes it was Scripted, but that doesn't matter.

What made it good was the fact that it wasn't trying to be the most sophisticated shooter. It was stripped out, fast and fun. It wasn't appealing to the masses as a fast, frantic paced shooter. It was slow and calculated, and frantic at the same time.

That's what made it great imo

[BallisticPeanut]

 

Personally I have not played BC2 even though I own it on Steam (yes, shame on me), so I can't really comment on this.

 

I bought BC2 on steam, played for a few minutes and the fact that I couldn't strafe run made the game feel very weird and I stopped playing.  At the moment I don't feel like playing the game, but I will probably revisit it when I get bored of all my other multiplayer games.

[Bonn]

The MP was just epic. The destruction, maps, weapons were pretty much perfect. MP forced team work, which made it super fun. You had to spot, had to use motion detectors, had to use the mortar strike, taking down a helicopter needed teamwork... unlike BF3 and BF4.

The sounds and effects were absolutely amazing, I still think the sound quality shits all over BF3 and BF4.

This game made me a PC gamer. I purchased it on PS3 and was amazed, and thought how awesome it would be on PC. First real DX11 title too!

 

 

[MonkeyFace]

Because I loved BF2...I was more into BF3 than BFBC2. 

 

It plays different from other Battlefield games. It's simplified and much more fast paced (BFBC2). 

[Lyons]

My primary problem with battlefield in general is the sloppy input response. It's obviously a better series than call of duty, but that's the one thing that COD gets right...

[Imaginaerum]

My primary problem with battlefield in general is the sloppy input response. It's obviously a better series than call of duty, but that's the one thing that COD gets right...

Everything feels so heavy after Battlefield 2, I never liked that. I guess it might be realism and supposed to change up the 1-man-god you can be in CoD with your jumping and insta-turning and 720 no scope but it's just annoying most of the time.

 

Either way I had a moment when I was playing Bad Company 2 then went to a friends house and played Battlefield 3 with him. I thought they were the exact same game and had no idea they were different, I just thought he had DLC for different maps and guns or something. To this day I still don't know the difference between them besides the campaign (one is coherent and the other makes Duke Nukem Forever look like a genius comedy).

[SkilledRebuilds]

The Humor is what got me interested in the SP of Bad Company, I bought the game (2nd hand) just for the lols.

Comical Scenes in Bad Company 

[WolfDeville]

BC2 just seemed a lot more fun, balanced, net code was never an issue! It was just a good game, but they guy is right it's hard to put your finger on it to really explain what was so good about it.

LOL. hahaha you're a funny guy!

[jmaster299]

They can't do this, but they can make things like Battlefield Hardline, which is supposed to be a standalone game, even though it's pretty much a complete rip-off from Battlefield 4, which is also a pretty bad game. 

DICE is in no way involved with the development of Hardlines. 

[Wiff]

One thing for me that made the game overall feel better than BF3/4 is the lack of vaulting animation, movement just felt so much smoother without the animation being there to glitch out every time you jumped over anything bigger than a pebble. That and the weapons simply sounded and handled better, along with the destruction constantly changing the environment and making everything a lot more hectic.

lol, the movement was the onl annoying thing, it was much better in bf3

[fojacko]

Actual bf fans have not enjoyed a single bf game after 2142...

 

Exactly. Bad company 2 is a watered down battlefield game, it is also where teamwork died. Battlefield 2142 had a innovative game mode (titan) that encouraged team work to it's fullest potential. It had great creativity behind it, just look at the maps, weapons, gadgets. It also had Squad Leader's and Commanders, which actually were of great support, your squad leader could either put down a spawn beacon, spawn a flying drone that either spots enemies or shoots them. The vehicles were just amazing, the apc rocket pods, used for reaching high buildings, accessing the titan or many other things.

 

Every "battlefield" game since then has not been a full experience, there has not been a proper commander mode (no, bf4's is crap, nobody uses it either because it is crap. Half the time i don't even know if there is a commander online they make that little significance to the game), squad leader abilities, or interesting game modes (all of the added modes have just been modes copied from the 200,000 other fps games out there, no innovation left in DICE). The maps are all similar, whenever i played a map on bf2142 I knew exactly what map it was and if someone said the name of a map right now, I could remember what it looked/felt like playing. With BC1/2 and BF3/4 maps I can't recall the majority of maps, I'm trying to think of a map in BC2 but all i can remember of it is that there was a ship in the middle of a desert (and i played 300+ hours of BC2), yet i can remember Suez Canal, Minsk, Camp Gibraltar, Sidi power plant, Belgrade and Cebere Landing from BF2142.

 

 

LOL. hahaha you're a funny guy!

 

Yep, I definitely don't remember rubber banding through entire buildings in that game... /s

[Switchblade Ninja]

Exactly. Bad company 2 is a watered down battlefield game, it is also where teamwork died. Battlefield 2142 had a innovative game mode (titan) that encouraged team work to it's fullest potential. It had great creativity behind it, just look at the maps, weapons, gadgets. It also had Squad Leader's and Commanders, which actually were of great support, your squad leader could either put down a spawn beacon, spawn a flying drone that either spots enemies or shoots them. The vehicles were just amazing, the apc rocket pods, used for reaching high buildings, accessing the titan or many other things.

 

Every "battlefield" game since then has not been a full experience, there has not been a proper commander mode (no, bf4's is crap, nobody uses it either because it is crap. Half the time i don't even know if there is a commander online they make that little significance to the game), squad leader abilities, or interesting game modes (all of the added modes have just been modes copied from the 200,000 other fps games out there, no innovation left in DICE). The maps are all similar, whenever i played a map on bf2142 I knew exactly what map it was and if someone said the name of a map right now, I could remember what it looked/felt like playing. With BC1/2 and BF3/4 maps I can't recall the majority of maps, I'm trying to think of a map in BC2 but all i can remember of it is that there was a ship in the middle of a desert (and i played 300+ hours of BC2), yet i can remember Suez Canal, Minsk, Camp Gibraltar, Sidi power plant, Belgrade and Cebere Landing from BF2142.

 

Could not have said it better.