Cornbread78
Member
Sounds like they are putting effort into both versions seperately, which is awesome for gamers. I hope the nect gen version looks great!
I just hope they leaned with BattleField 4 mistakes.
Yes!!
Yes!!
No!!
Okay!
No!!
It sucks that it's crossgen, but that turned out okay for BF4. With different player counts and destruction, I don't really see how it can support cross play across generations (hopefully it doesn't if the destruction affects game play).
No objective person could possibly hate BF3. It was Battlefield’s CoD 4: Modern Warfare (2007) moment. A game changer. Some people will always continue living in the past like those who still scream ”Bad Company!”. Don’t mind them, they are relics of the bygone era.
SOURCE
- Heavily influenced by BF3
- Large maps, up to 128 players
- Coming to PS4 and Xbox too (graphical downgrade, toned down destruction and will have only 32vs32 player modes)
- Two studios working on last-gen and current-gen versions
- Battle-Royale in development (EA impressed by Warzone success)
Bad Company 2 was designed around the console experience. BF3 was made like a regular Battlefield and got a gimped console version, just like the 7th gen version of BF4. It wasn’t until last gen that consoles got the real Battlefield experience. 32 players is cool and all and Rush was a solid addition, but 64 player Conquest is was Battlefield is all about.Although I personally do think BC2 was a vastly superior title, everything in this game was and still is pretty much perfect, the overall gameplay, the gunplay, the vehicle combat, the maps design, the game modes, I actually launched the game literally about 2 weeks ago via XB BC to refresh the memories, there might have been only 13 people on the map, but fuck me the game didn't age a single day, it's still a fucking blast to play just as it was back in 2010, and I cannot say the same thing about BF3, it wasn't as good from the beginning if you ask me, the lack of destruction, oversized maps, the lacking infantry/vehicle balance, the gunplay etc., it all just wasn't that good and felt like a huge step back from BC2, the audio and visual side is what created all the hype around the game, and since years have past and all that hype is obviously long time gone, I really don't see anything appealing in BF3 that would make me want to go back even for just a single match.
I wish they'd make a new Bad Company, I know PC purists didn't care for it but it was by far the most fun I've had playing Battlefield MP.
Bad Company 2 was designed around the console experience. BF3 was made like a regular Battlefield and got a gimped console version, just like the 7th gen version of BF4. It wasn’t until last gen that consoles got the real Battlefield experience. 32 players is cool and all and Rush was a solid addition, but 64 player Conquest is was Battlefield is all about.
I get your point but I don’t agree. Since it’s based around squads, typically 4 player squads, it’s more a case of 8v8 squads. It is not unusal to fight together with another squad, facing off against two or more squads from the opposing team, while trying to capture the objective. That’s ’only’ 20 or so players in the same area but throw vehicles into the mix and you got yourself a party. And the point with conquest is to have a couple of battles like that on the map simultaneously and let the players decide where reinforcements are needed. Sure, some maps are bigger than others but if you are walking a lot with no action around, you are either on a empty server or doing it wrong. At least one other player from your squad should be close to the action most of the time.I personally feel there's actually much lest action going on with 64 players due to larger maps to accommodate such amount of players. Like in MAG, where you never ever felt like you're a part of a huge, 256 player mayhem. Or any BR game for the matter, where until mid/end game where the map narrows and the game actually starts gaining momentum, but at that point half of the players are already dead with again, kind of kills the entire point of having such a huge amount of players in the first place. And that's why I find BC2 to have that perfect balance between not being a typical 4v4-8v8 experience on tiny maps, but not being the other extreme either with oversized maps with little to no action going on just to brag about the player count. If DICE could replicate that feeling of really being on a battlefield with all the crazy stuff constantly going on, but on an even larger scale, that would've been fucking awesome, but unfortunately after latest installments I have little to no faith left in them, if anything, I won't be surprised if they'll cut down the vehicle count even harder so most of those 128 players will actually have to go on foot around those large maps, which is not the type of activity want to be doing when I want to play a shooter.
SOURCE
- Heavily influenced by BF3
- Large maps, up to 128 players
- Coming to PS4 and Xbox too (graphical downgrade, toned down destruction and will have only 32vs32 player modes)
- Two studios working on last-gen and current-gen versions
- Battle-Royale in development (EA impressed by Warzone success)
How is that going to work?
Some maps/modes playable only on pc/ps5/xbox and other with crossplay with older gen consoles?
Am I the only one who misses the Bad Company games lol?
Bf4 launch was same as ps4 launch. This will be one year later."PS4 and Xbox One"
That's red flags for me. They tried to release BF4 on 5 platforms when Xbone and PS4 were released and ended up with a DOA that another studio had to fix up over the coming year.
They NEED TO DROP PS4 & XBOX ONE for a smoother launch. I'm calling it now this will be a repeat of BF4 launch.
The peak in popularity maybe. The GOAT Battlefield is still BF2.I both agree and disagree here - yes, BF3 was the absolute peak of the series, that's the game that pulled CoD sales numbers, pretty much everybody was playing it back then like crazy, but somehow EA/DICE weren't able to capitalize on its success, the later iterations felt more like a DLC or mappacks than actually new games, with less content and features. And then BF1 and BF5 came in that pretty much buried the franchise.
Although I personally do think BC2 was a vastly superior title, everything in this game was and still is pretty much perfect, the overall gameplay, the gunplay, the vehicle combat, the maps design, the game modes, I actually launched the game literally about 2 weeks ago via XB BC to refresh the memories, there might have been only 13 people on the map, but fuck me the game didn't age a single day, it's still a fucking blast to play just as it was back in 2010, and I cannot say the same thing about BF3, it wasn't as good from the beginning if you ask me, the lack of destruction, oversized maps, the lacking infantry/vehicle balance, the gunplay etc., it all just wasn't that good and felt like a huge step back from BC2, the audio and visual side is what created all the hype around the game, and since years have past and all that hype is obviously long time gone, I really don't see anything appealing in BF3 that would make me want to go back even for just a single match.
I'm just glad that some ppl think logically in this thread. Like do people seriously think that EA will spend millions upon millions of dollars for a console base thats barely at the 3 million mark let along the 4 million mark. Hell No! There are not enough next gen consoles to justify that mostly thanks to limited supply, piece of shit scalpers who sell them for 3 grand or more and the pandemic ain't helping out either.Of course it’s coming to last gen when barely anyone can get a hand on next gen. Even by the end of the year, there is a lot of uncertainty about how this gen will pan out. What, you want them to bomb and sell 2M to a small user base. No way.
Glad it’s becoming modern again, BF3 and 4 were best FPSs ever until Modern Warfare came out. Just hope they got burned enough with virtue signaling and go back to being normal and selling 15M+ per game like they used to.
What would a Bad Company game have that a Battlefield 6 game wouldnt?
Yeah, crossplay would really be a gamechanger with frostbite, if they can't get Fifa to use crossplay, there's no way they'll be able to get BF6 to work.Series has really dwindled in popularity. Needs something special to rekindle, I think cross gen is a big miss here.
Comedy.
The art direction is also a bit thicker based on what I remember, looks a little more stylized and cartoony.
I remember it feeling very differently to play.
BC2 -> BF3 the gunplay got alot better.
Id actually argue that by modern standards BC2 gunplay and movement isnt up to snuff for a multiplayer game.
The novelty of the weight of every action runs out very quickly if youve played any of the BF games after BF3 hell if youve played any modern FPS.
Now give us massive maps and BC2s movement......no thank you.
DICE?Unless they fire there entire dumpster dev team + higher ups. couldn't care less.
Is there any reason Battlefield 6 couldnt have comedic war stories being that its going to be a fictional near future they have no "respect the troops" obligations.
BC2 -> BF3 the gunplay got alot better.
Id actually argue that by modern standards BC2 gunplay and movement isnt up to snuff for a multiplayer game.
The novelty of the weight of every action runs out very quickly if youve played any of the BF games after BF3 hell if youve played any modern FPS.
Now give us massive maps and BC2s movement......no thank you.
As for the art style.....WTF are you talking about?
Did you actually play the Bad Company games....BC one was slightly stylize but BC2 was basically of-gen right down to the bloom.
Heck BF3 looks like a direct sequel to BC2 on some maps so not sure what you are remembering but the artstyle certainly in MP wasnt some cartoony shit.
Maybe you are thinking of Battlefield Heroes?
^Literally just looks like a sequel to the game.
Im even more confused now than I was before at you asking for Bad Company 3 instead of Battlefield 6 since it seems you dont even know what you liked about Bad Company and cant explain why Battlefield 6 cant fulfil that role.
The nuance of text is weird.I dunno why you're acting as if I insulted your baby or something, I also said A LITTLE more stylized and cartoony and I never said that Battlefield couldn't be comedic.
If you actually look at the pics you used the proportions are slightly bigger in Bad Company, they're not super stylized but they're a bit chunkier than in Battlefield and irl.
I am just talking about tone and all I said was that I miss the games...
The mainline Battlefield series just feels more like a typical military dudebro shooter to me while the Bad Company games felt quite different and a bit more arcadey perhaps I dunno how else to explain it they just have a different feel.
I don't need to be able to explain it in great detail to you to have that opinion, you can't always explain it sometimes some things just feel better to you simply because they do.
Edit: I seriously dunno how you can look at those two pics and not see it.They look totally different...
The saturation in particular is way up in Bad Company.
Even if they just remastered BC1 & BC2 and release them together with all maps and the vietnam pack I would be happy.I wish they'd make a new Bad Company, I know PC purists didn't care for it but it was by far the most fun I've had playing Battlefield MP.
A mixture of Bad Company 2 & Battlefield 3 would be the sweet spot for me. There were things from both of those games I really liked.I wish they'd make a new Bad Company, I know PC purists didn't care for it but it was by far the most fun I've had playing Battlefield MP.