• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DICE: Battlefield Bad Company will make a comeback

P

params7

Banned
Its just me, but I don't see the difference between numbered Battlefield's and Bad Company except for the storyline campaign obviously. Battlefield 3 could have just as easily been BC3..
 
B

BattleMonkey

Member
Xanadu said:
bad company 2 had nothing on battlefield 2 or 1942, you guys are crazy
Click to expand...

Yea people are crazy. It was ok game for console sized Battlefield game, and nothing more. The single player stuff is just waste of resources in every BF game. With the new consoles and the PC, we need REAL Battlefield which BF4 seems to be heading in that direction at least.
 
C

Courage

Member
params7 said:
Its just me, but I don't see the difference between numbered Battlefield's and Bad Company except for the storyline campaign obviously. Battlefield 3 could have just as easily been BC3..
Click to expand...

Bad Company has more personality than BF3. Less like COD.
 
T

Taurus

Member
TheSeks said:
Yes, that was the major problem of BF3 more than the "lack of destruction." No alternate routes (in Rush) and the maps (in all modes) were pretty terrible outside of Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm for the vanilla maps.

The DLC/expansions were MUCH better maps but since the new modes (like CTF) were limited to those 3-4 maps every expansion, they were kinda... pointless... unless you played Rush or Conquest on them.

But ignoring Rush even Conquest in BC2 had a problem with collapsing buildings and then mortaring people. Nelson Bay Conquest you can "garden" the trees and have them be very barren to where it becomes a bloody stalemate because people can't get across the "line" to the other flags. Similar to how Attackers in Rush can't pass the the starting spawn on that map if the defense is fast (like PS3-GAF did) in "gardening" the line between the first and second set to where if they take the first set, they AREN'T taking the second set with clear lines of sights, snipers, and machine guns with long-ranges mowing them down.

Which is what I'm getting at: Destruction was TOO STRONG in that game and even DICE realized it. Was it fun? Yeah, when the odds of the destruction were in your favor. But it made it so very unfun for the other side that was getting their shit pushed in due to the strong-punching ability of the destruction.

It's why I'm hoping BF4 has found the balance between attack/defense-scales of the destruction to where it is strong but not strong enough to lopside games.
Click to expand...
Maybe they should add something to create cover instead of nerfing destruction, like mortar smoke shells? And a squad of assaults using smoke grenades could make hell of big smoke screen in BC2 if your other teammates understood what's going on.
 
O

Owwari

Banned
Terbinator said:
saltquu5p.jpg

.
Click to expand...

Ice cold.
 
X

Xanadu

Banned
BattleMonkey said:
Yea people are crazy. It was ok game for console sized Battlefield game, and nothing more. The single player stuff is just waste of resources in every BF game. With the new consoles and the PC, we need REAL Battlefield which BF4 seems to be heading in that direction at least.
Click to expand...

agreed, i have a feeling most of the people who see BC2 as the best battlefield are console only players and have never experienced the classics
 
R

Raoh

Member
Love Bad Company 2, was kind of meh with battlefield 3 and not interested in Battlefield 4 due to Battlefield 3.

While they say they will bring back the Bad Company series, they had once said it was dead and being merged into to the standard Battlefield Universe. Too much flip flopping makes it hard to get excited.

And yes, I am a console gamer. Bad Company 2 is one of the best shooters of this console generation.
 
O

OverturePT

Member
Yea, well, I'd prefer not, but I guess everyone stays happy this way.

Why would I want the Battlefield that took the commander away, reduced the players, made squads smaller and made the squad leader basically indifferent?
 
J

Jeb

Member
I don't know about this...
On one hand BC1 and 2 were my all time favorite MP games, but after BF3 I lost all confidence in DICE.
 
N

Neuromancer

Member
childplease said:
DICE please no more single player campaigns.

Focus on the mp don't waste resources on such lackluster campaigns.
Click to expand...
Here's a novel idea: why don't they just make good single player campaigns instead of none at all? We know they're theoretically capable of it, looking at Bad Company 1 and Mirror's Edge.
 
H

Hystzen

Member
Rambo Medics using LMGs

Wookies hiding the hills so go on a mission to knife them

Using C4 to destroy mcoms in or sitting across side of map in tank shelling the buildings
 
V

VicDaMoan03

Member
Why do vehicles in BF3 repair themselves without an engineer? I never understood this and it always bugged me since my main play style was an engineer.
 
T

thegriefer

Banned
Way too much story talk in this bf thread. BC2 was awesome, but come on BF3 was better. PC player here who has been played every installment since BF2. Will play the shit out of every BF coming out, regardless.
 
M

Makoto

Member
VicDaMoan03 said:
Why do vehicles in BF3 repair themselves without an engineer? I never understood this and it always bugged me since my main play style was an engineer.
Click to expand...
It makes even less sense post-BF2 when the classes are streamlined. In another world, vehicle regen would have made a little bit of sense in BF2 since the Engineer class was shit in it (and thus, most people didn't play it) but now that it's not shit, there's really no need to have vehicles repairs themselves.

It really has to do with DICE's philosophy on vehicle disabling but I don't think the vehicle disabling mechanic is where it needs to be at the moment to warrant vehicles repairing themselves.
 
J

jokkir

Member
Sounds great, loved BC2.

Speaking of which, how is the population online now on PC? Might want to play it again instead of BF3
 
Eclectic Jabber Monkey

Eclectic Jabber Monkey

Member
Soulflarz said:
Pleasee still have the bad co 1 humor instead of 2

With the gameplay style of 2
Click to expand...

Parakeetman said:
More Bad Company 1 dialog idiocy, less BC2 pseudo cool. They totally ruined Haggards character in the 2nd one.
Click to expand...

Brerlappin said:
Bad Company 1 had a great SP campaign. Open world destruction, driving a tank across a golf course, it was great. The story was fun too, with great, funny characters.
BC2's SP went down the COD route of linear paths and exciting setpieces, and lost alot of the humour of BC1. Pretty big disappointment.
Click to expand...

I too enjoyed Bad Company's story, much more than I had expected too. I was also disappointed by BC2's story being so "serious". It felt like as usual this gen another dev going after the CoD monies: "We gotta save the world bro!" The quirky, funny characters from BC1 were what attracted me to the game in the first place.

The BC1 multiplayer was pretty good as well. It felt like more traditional PC-only BF maps than BC2s smaller, chokepoint focused shoebox maps. Caoson is prob the worst map in Battlefield history.
 
B_Boss

B_Boss

Member
Oh god......BC3 on PS4? I mean it was literally amazing for PS3 given its 'console' nature....BC3 would puseh the scales to unbelievable heights......

AJSRjtb.gif


Then, notice what Lars says:
When it came to Bad Company, it was creative freedom; don’t take yourself too seriously.”
Click to expand...
This here is the essence of why I think many BF players, even hardcore players, love the damn game.....I mean that statement is even evident in the nature of the characters/storyline/dialogue. I cannot wait....
 
The Faceless Master

The Faceless Master

Member
TheSeks said:
Yes, that was the major problem of BF3 more than the "lack of destruction." No alternate routes (in Rush) and the maps (in all modes) were pretty terrible outside of Caspian Border and Operation Firestorm for the vanilla maps.

The DLC/expansions were MUCH better maps but since the new modes (like CTF) were limited to those 3-4 maps every expansion, they were kinda... pointless... unless you played Rush or Conquest on them.

But ignoring Rush even Conquest in BC2 had a problem with collapsing buildings and then mortaring people. Nelson Bay Conquest you can "garden" the trees and have them be very barren to where it becomes a bloody stalemate because people can't get across the "line" to the other flags. Similar to how Attackers in Rush can't pass the the starting spawn on that map if the defense is fast (like PS3-GAF did) in "gardening" the line between the first and second set to where if they take the first set, they AREN'T taking the second set with clear lines of sights, snipers, and machine guns with long-ranges mowing them down.

Which is what I'm getting at: Destruction was TOO STRONG in that game and even DICE realized it. Was it fun? Yeah, when the odds of the destruction were in your favor. But it made it so very unfun for the other side that was getting their shit pushed in due to the strong-punching ability of the destruction.

It's why I'm hoping BF4 has found the balance between attack/defense-scales of the destruction to where it is strong but not strong enough to lopside games.
Click to expand...

and yet when other people tried those same scorched earth strats against GAF, what did GAF do? improvise! smoke grenades, cover to cover, etc...
 
E

elcapitan

Member
Part of the reason the Bad Company series was so fun was because it was built from the ground up for consoles. Since I played primarily on the consoles, the maps were way better designed than the ones in BF3. Then again, even on PC, the maps in BF3 were meh aside from a couple standouts.
 
L

Lone_Prodigy

Member
Maybe they shelved BC3 because the single player was similar to Modern Warfare (Russia invades the US)?

Wish BC1 was on PC. Would've liked the continuity.
 
H

HariKari

Member
AuthenticM said:
Yup. By a long shot.
Click to expand...

Maybe on console. I'm still laughing at the damage model. It was horrible. BF4 has some BC2 fingerprints on it. The good ones. And they can move the Bad Company series around different timelines if they want (Vietnam DLC was excellent). I don't think we will ever see a 2143 with Battlefront in the rotation.

elcapitan said:
Part of the reason the Bad Company series was so fun was because it was built from the ground up for consoles. Since I played primarily on the consoles, the maps were way better designed than the ones in BF3. Then again, even on PC, the maps in BF3 were meh aside from a couple standouts.
Click to expand...

BC2 rush maps were great, even on PC, because of the tight console design. Big empty space is just that. All the big empty areas of Caspian Border don't really add anything but travel time to the gameplay. I really, really liked the urban BC2 maps on rush. Very intense. But the game was severely hobbled by the console-centric approach, most notably with the damage model. It was impossible to kill anything at range reliably because the time to kill was so high.
 
W

Whitechocolatekrispies

Banned
Yay other people liked Bad Company 1's singleplayer and Bad Company 2's multiplayer too!!

BF3 was so sterile ... BF4 looks just as boring.

I want more pseudorealism Battlefields ... however tbh Battlefront will probably do.
 
O

Ol No Bones

Banned
Bc2 was the shit! I don't see the appeal of bf3 and 4. Everything felt better in bf bc2. Vietnam was the shit too. I hope the Star Wars game is more like a battlefront and bad company hybrid. The less like bf3 the better.
 
E

elcapitan

Member
HariKari said:
BC2 rush maps were great, even on PC, because of the tight console design. Big empty space is just that. All the big empty areas of Caspian Border don't really add anything but travel time to the gameplay. I really, really liked the urban BC2 maps on rush. Very intense. But the game was severely hobbled by the console-centric approach, most notably with the damage model. It was impossible to kill anything at range reliably because the time to kill was so high.
Click to expand...

I had no issues killing at range. Actually, I felt it was easier in BFBC2 than in BF3. With a 4x scope, I had no problems taking anyone out from across the map with either assault rifles, LMGs, or even carbines. In BF3, I had to change my whole play style to run and gun to compete. It was a combination of maps and changes to weapon handling/scopes that forced my hand.
 
D

DracoBlade

Member
Good. Bad Company 2 was the last BF I liked remotely.
Pre-COD crowd appeasing features. Granted there has only been BF3 since then....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Starting December 8 2023, Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 1 & 2 will be removed from digital storefronts
News 2
62
4K
DeepEnigma replied
Former Battlefield creative director announces new studio TTK Games
News Game Dev
11
921
solidus12 replied
Battlefield Game Director Marcus Lehto Has Left EA
11
895
Hudo replied
Former DICE Dev Says Battlefield 2042 "Never Stood Much Chance Being Great At Launch"
News Drama
10
1K
wolffy66 replied
[GVMERS] The Rise and Fall of Star Wars Battlefront
14
1K
Tal Shiar Agent replied
Top Bottom