• 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 Reveals Why There's No Battlefield: Bad Company 3

S

Sn4ke_911

If I ever post something in Japanese which I don't understand, please BAN me.
DICE has revealed Battlefield: Bad Company 3 hasn't been made yet as the studio can't isolate what it was that made the originals popular.

"We take all this into account when we think about the future, and do franchise strategy," Troedsson said in response to fans wishing we'd seen Bad Company 3 revealed instead of the upcoming Battlefield Hardline. "But there's one thing that lingers with Bad Company that we've been asking ourselves: what is it that the people really liked about Bad Company?

"Some people say they found the multiplayer controls faster and more direct. Some people liked the single-player and the characters and the humour. People love different things about it. It's starting to almost get to that place where, if we were to make a sequel to Bad Company, what would than even imply?

"It's scary to go back and try to remake an old fan favourite when actually no-one can really put their finger on what it is people love. Bringing back the characters and creating a great single-player out of that, sure, I can understand that.

"But some people say this: the Bad Company 2 multiplayer is the best you've ever done. Okay, why is that? It's hard for people to articulate what that is, which is actually hard for us. It would be hard to remake something like that. Can we do it? Of course. We have our theories when it comes to the multiplayer."

So does this mean we'll never see Bad Company 3? "Well you'll have to wait and see," was Troedsson's reply. "The Bad Company sub brand is something we hold very near and dear. We'll take that into account when we think about the future.

"It's never dead. You can always revive it, as with any TV series, movie or IP. It's going to come down to, if people really want it and if a team inside my group really wants to build it, then sure."
Click to expand...

IGN via Eurogamer
 
K

Kade

Member
I don't think it'll happen since they've incorporated what makes Bad Company into Battlefield 3 and 4.
 
Ein Bear

Ein Bear

Member
I've never understood why they didn't just combine the two brands anyway. The BF3/4 campaigns were amazingly shitty, and I always figured that when people said they wanted 'a new Bad Company game' they were referring to the awesome campaigns, as the multi-players are largely the same at this point.
 
D

Diablo Rosso

Member
The single player in BC1 is easily the best they've done because it is more open and lets you tackle things in the same way as you would in multiplayer, as well as the great main characters. The multiplayer in BC2 had the best maps IMO so there's a start.
 
A

antitrop

Member
I completely agree, I think BC1 and 2 were so different that it's impossible to precisely define that series.

Also BF3 and 4 absolutely destroy BC in sales, that's another obvious reason.
 
V

Varth

Member
My god.

"we're basically useless as game designers".

Yeah, no shit.

EDIT: also, I blame this on having Goldfarb out of DICE.
 
P

PsihoPerihelion

Member
First they talk about their focus on combat on the new Mirror's Edge (which was the worst part of the game) and now they acknowledge they have no clue what made their own creation popular. This DICE is on a roll today.
 
BigTnaples

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Bad Company 2 multiplayer was indeed a blast. But BF4 has topped it imo. (aside from issues taing a while to fix)
 
X

Xater

Member
I am not looking back at Bad Company 1 because of the MP but because of the SP. You know the part that turned into a total shit show in BF3 and 4.

More destruction in MP would help though.
 
C

Calmine

Member
Full on destruction and humour and none of the bullshit end of the world all serious n shit from 3 and 4, that's what made Bad Company great. Plus the maps in Bad Company 2 were awesome!
 
Y

Yopis

Member
BC2 single player was some Hogans Heroes wannabe garbage. Why people liked I will never know. Thanks for never bringing that crap back. Mp was fun Vietnam was awesome.
 
T

The_Darkest_Red

Member
It's simple for me, it had MP maps designed around Rush, the greatest mode every invented for a competitive FPS. In 3 and 4 Rush feels like an afterthought.
 
E

ElzarTheBam

Member
Humour/light heartedness.

Focused objective mode and maps built around that one mode. Other modes supported around it as well.

Balanced map design.

Varied map design.

Very specific classes aided by a decent variety but not OTT weapons and equipment.

A blatant disregard in copying its competitors.

Hire me.
 
M

McLovin

Member
Make everything destructible. .. everything! Make it next gen only and make it so you could level the entire level if you wanted to and you would have a winner.
 
D

DieH@rd

Banned
antitrop said:
I completely agree, I think BC1 and 2 were so different that it's impossible to precisely define that series.
Click to expand...

They don't need to precisely define the series. They need to create sequel in the spirit of the first two, and even if the end result is a little different game that they, that will be all right.

DICE/EA may think that they are working on a rocket science, but they are not. They are just over-thinking it, or entire article is bullshit and they will just stick to mainline BF because that makes easy money [especially if Hardline fails].
 
A

antitrop

Member
Battlefield 3 and 4 are two of the absolute worst shooter campaigns I've ever played in my life, so if having a BC3 can mean a return to decent BF campaigns, then I'm all for it.
 
S

SolidSnakex

Member
It's scary to go back and try to remake an old fan favourite when actually no-one can really put their finger on what it is people love
Click to expand...

They love the characters. Notice how no one is asking you to bring back characters from Battlefield 3 or 4 for BF5? In fact, people are telling you to dump the single player altogether in those games because they're so damn bad. They also love the open-world structure that was present in BC1. It actually felt like what you'd expect from a Battlefield single player campaign. A large world where you can choose to approach your mission like you wanted to. Instead with BF3 and 4 you made a poor imitation of CoD's linear set-piece driven single player design.
 
BibiMaghoo

BibiMaghoo

Member
BC2 multi is the best because of the tightly confined yet moderately open level design, coupled with the fewer player count. The destructibility also helped greatly with contributing to that open yet confined level design. It was a great balance I have never seen managed as well by anyone since.
 
eot

eot

Banned
antitrop said:
I completely agree, I think BC1 and 2 were so different that it's impossible to precisely define that series.
Click to expand...

They must be, because people rave about the first game's campaign. I only played the second one and it wasn't good. Not a suffocatingly linear mess, but forgettable at best.
 
T

The Jackdog

Member
Bad company multiplayer seemed like it was designed to be a fun enjoyable experience.

Battlefield 4 multiplayer felt like it had been designed to be a spectacle or something. They seemed to stop trying to make it fun and started trying to make it "battlefield", whatever that means.

The shift from Battlefield BC2 to Battlefield 3 felt like changes in a lot more than just tone
 
P

PIMPBYBLUD

Member
BC2 had the greatest multiplayer. I love the shit out of that game, even the single player was decent. Hell at this point just give me a higher rez version on XBOX1 or PS4 and I'll be happy.
 
R

Renekton

Member
Reminds me of Diablo 2 -> Diablo 3. Fans can't seem to articulate accurately what they like about Diablo yet were vocal about everything, leading to weird compromises like Nephalem stacks.
 
X

Xater

Member
SolidSnakex said:
They love the characters. Notice how no one is asking you to bring back characters from Battlefield 3 or 4 for BF5? In fact, people are telling you to dump the single player altogether in those games because they're so damn bad. They also love the open-world structure that was present in BC1. It actually felt like what you'd expect from a Battlefield single player campaign. A large world where you can choose to approach your mission like you wanted to. Instead with BF3 and 4 you made a poor imitation of CoD's linear set-piece driven single player design.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The openness wasn't perfectly executed but it felt way more interesting. Problem is instead of improving on that idea they just made another corridor shooter.
 
P

Phatmac

Member
Man Bad Company 2's multiplayer was so great. I loved the Vietnam expansion to it as well. I can't find the same enjoyment with battlefield 3 and 4.
 
Cynn

Cynn

Member
I really, really miss Haggard, Sweetwater, Sarge and Marlow. The way Bad Company was basically a parody of modern shooters clicked with me.

All this patriotic and drama filled stuff bores me.
 
I

Ikuu

Had his dog run over by Blizzard's CEO
Not surprised that DICE is clueless on what makes a good game. Also thought BC2: Vietnam was loads of fun, though some of the maps were pretty bad.
 
C

Crackbone

Member
BC2 was great for a number or reasons. It never took itself too seriously and the map design was some of the best out of DICE in a long time.

The maps allowed for some flanking however it also wasn't too open as to promote firefights and were fun and exciting.

It's a shame it seems like we won't be seeing another chapter for awhile.
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
ElzarTheBam said:
Humour/light heartedness.

Focused objective mode and maps built around that one mode. Other modes supported around it as well.

Balanced map design.

Varied map design.

Very specific classes aided by a decent variety but not OTT weapons and equipment.

A blatant disregard in copying its competitors.

Hire me.
Click to expand...

I'd also add the pace of the game, which didn't feel as fast as BF3. And no jets. No excessive unlocks.
 
Duxxy3

Duxxy3

Member
I'd buy battlefiled again just for another bad company single player campaign. Haven't bought a battlefield game since BC2.
 
Insane Metal

Insane Metal

Member
ElzarTheBam said:
Humour/light heartedness.

Focused objective mode and maps built around that one mode. Other modes supported around it as well.

Balanced map design.

Varied map design.

Very specific classes aided by a decent variety but not OTT weapons and equipment.

A blatant disregard in copying its competitors.

Hire me.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes yes yes, this.
 
L

Lgndryhr

Member
I would love another Bad Company! I still replay the first two. Battlefield 5 should be Bad Company campaign and with Battlefield multiplayer. But I am not surprised by their response.
 
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
CDPR: "We don't see a place for microtransactions in single player games"
Game Dev 2
73
3K
Bojji replied
  • Poll
Do you really think gaming industry is in trouble?
Opinion 2 3
146
5K
Mooreberg replied
'We don't have shareholders, but we also don't think about them' — Larian Studios speak out against a brutal industry climate on stage at DICE Awards
2
57
4K
ANDS replied
Battlefield 1943, Bad company 1-2 and are being delisted on April 28th
2
92
4K
Team Andromeda replied
Top Bottom