buy teh haloz
Banned
I guess I'm in the minority here, because I liked BF4 way, way better than BC2.
-
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
- Thread starter Sn4ke_911
- Start date
The higher health for characters was one of the biggest differences. You didn't die in .2 seconds and had a chance to get away and have a little 'cat and mouse' battle (They lowered it in the Vietnam expansion and as a result it wasn't as fun). It was smaller in scope, 24 players on consoles. No going prone. No Jets. Maps that took advantage of the destructibility. The maps in general were very good after they added more post-launch. Classes felt balanced and purposeful. Characters feel weighty but still responsive.
BC2 is definitely there best multiplayer since BFII and it's the best multiplayer of the 360/PS3 generation.
BC2 is definitely there best multiplayer since BFII and it's the best multiplayer of the 360/PS3 generation.
Facism
Member
It's a shame DICE can't do it right
Their definition of Rush these days is to force 64 players into a meatgrinder where the mcoms are 5 meters apart. Nadespam, c4, claymores, rpgs, all sorts of spam.orthodoxy1095
Banned
I would fork over money quickly for another good Vietnam. So much fun.
I played Rush a handful of times and I don't find anything exciting about one team camping a box, and if you happen to get through rinse/repeat 3 more times. But yeah maybe that's just my experience with it in 3 and 4.
Are you primarily a console FPS player? I don't say that to be rude at all, but for me I associate BF with Conquest mode since the series started.
This plus the weapons (great feedback), large SP levels (BC1, not the shitty BC2 levels), perfectly sizes MP maps with few vehicles.
That's what I remember about those games.
I think this trailer was the key to the success. Still find it funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRX6K-A_Xg&feature=kp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRX6K-A_Xg&feature=kp
Razgriz-Specter
Member
It's a shame DICE can't do it right
This, Rush is unplayable outside of Bad Company.
Unknown One
Member
It's a shame DICE can't do it right
And no destruction with a lot of hiding spots.
Rush is about sneaking around too and Dice doesn't get that.
buy teh haloz
Banned
It felt like not very many people played Vietnam, I had a lot of trouble finding full matches.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Exactly. One of the most important variables with Rush is player count because you only have 1 or 2 objectives at a given time so all of the action will be concentrated near those points. Not enough players and the offense is at a major advantage, too many players and the defense has the upper hand. In my opinion 12 on 12 is about right.It's a shame DICE can't do it right
Summer Haze
Banned
Oh God yes....Vietnam was AMAZING. Hill 137 Rush, mowing people down in the Huey whilst listening to Ride Of The Valkyries, flame-thrower <3
IceDoesntHelp
Banned
DICE Reveals Why I'm Never Going To Buy Another Battlefield Game
Not really a loss. Never liked Battlefield Bad Company. Of course I skipped the campaign in the 1st because the gunplay always felt too sluggish. never tried BC2's campaign.
Honestly, I never understood why people liked these games. Rush mode was awful. It's the complete opposite of what I like about Battlefield. It's a mode that funnels people into specific areas, making you just basically run one way. The maps become smaller because of it and you hardly need to move around whats available. Battlefield is about big open maps and BC has none of that. It was worse in BC2 because clearly the maps where designed around rush and so even on conquest all the capture points were in a straight line and right next to each other, offering none of the openness of maps in other Battlefield games. Even the previous gen Modern Combat game had bigger maps that were better designed. Maps that actually had a lot of nooks and carnies and special buildings to them. All the maps in BC game feel the same and are small.
Honestly, I never understood why people liked these games. Rush mode was awful. It's the complete opposite of what I like about Battlefield. It's a mode that funnels people into specific areas, making you just basically run one way. The maps become smaller because of it and you hardly need to move around whats available. Battlefield is about big open maps and BC has none of that. It was worse in BC2 because clearly the maps where designed around rush and so even on conquest all the capture points were in a straight line and right next to each other, offering none of the openness of maps in other Battlefield games. Even the previous gen Modern Combat game had bigger maps that were better designed. Maps that actually had a lot of nooks and carnies and special buildings to them. All the maps in BC game feel the same and are small.
Oh, man, i remember these sneak armings...
And heroic one-man defenses where one person kills like ten attackers.
BC2 maps didn't do that, for they were good.
the_prime_mover
Member
You shall speak for me in all things BC2 related!
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Yeah I am definitely a console FPS player. I've played some PC shooters over the years (Counter-Strike, Quake, Unreal, TF2, BF 1942) but the majority of my experience is with console shooters. I know Conquest is "the" BF mode but you could tell BC2 was designed with Rush primarily in mind which is why the mode ended up being so great.
Like I said, nowadays I am all about Conquest. DICE has no idea what made Rush a great mode back in the BC days and they don't seem interested in trying to remember.
COMBAT RECON! EAT MY MOTION SENSOR BALL AND SHOTGUN ROUNDS!
I think the classes were just better with the gun and skill pairing, as well as the maps. Medic with weak guns are less Rambo than Assault dudes who never gave health because they were (trying to) shot people with their AR or 40mm grenades. The loss of ghillie suits, C4 and the tracking balls (and the lush forests and bushes everywhere) hurt my fun with playing REcon as well. Never played Recon in BF3, but loved to rock a G3 or shottie and rush to MCOMs, arm them and either call in an artillery strike on my own position and run like hell or lurk around after placing C4 over the MCOM to defend it from disarming. And I repaired tons of vehicles in BC2, but hardly anyone let me do it in BF3, they either drove away or bailed out.
They could just remaster BC2 with all the destruction in the new engine and slap it on the new consoles and PC and I'd be content to play this resurrected game.
Edit: And Rush is just more fun than Conquest, sneaking into the house on Port Valdez and mowing down defenders trying to disarm a MCOM with the stationary MG is much better than running around a map in circles to retake flags for the billionth time.
I think the classes were just better with the gun and skill pairing, as well as the maps. Medic with weak guns are less Rambo than Assault dudes who never gave health because they were (trying to) shot people with their AR or 40mm grenades. The loss of ghillie suits, C4 and the tracking balls (and the lush forests and bushes everywhere) hurt my fun with playing REcon as well. Never played Recon in BF3, but loved to rock a G3 or shottie and rush to MCOMs, arm them and either call in an artillery strike on my own position and run like hell or lurk around after placing C4 over the MCOM to defend it from disarming. And I repaired tons of vehicles in BC2, but hardly anyone let me do it in BF3, they either drove away or bailed out.
They could just remaster BC2 with all the destruction in the new engine and slap it on the new consoles and PC and I'd be content to play this resurrected game.
Edit: And Rush is just more fun than Conquest, sneaking into the house on Port Valdez and mowing down defenders trying to disarm a MCOM with the stationary MG is much better than running around a map in circles to retake flags for the billionth time.
Sylvrfonic
Member
Battlefront: Bad Company
I can dream.
I can dream.
scoobs
Member
BC2 easily the best multiplayer game I've played since counterstrike originally blew me away in 1999.
-destruction
-balanced maps with a really good push/pull feel to them
-guns had recoil and when you got shot by someone you typically had a second or two to react and counter... instead of dying instantaneously and respawning a second or two later across the map
-destruction
-balanced maps with a really good push/pull feel to them
-guns had recoil and when you got shot by someone you typically had a second or two to react and counter... instead of dying instantaneously and respawning a second or two later across the map
Summer Haze
Banned
All this talk of BC2 is making me depressed. That 'Africa' remix isn't helping either, bringing back some great memories of that game.
Fuck you, DICE.
Fuck you, DICE.
I'm specifically talking about BC2. Thats the reason I stopped playing the game, because all the conquest maps felt like straight lines on small maps. There was nothing good about them.
Nope. BF4 has pretty awesome maps. BF3 actually has good maps, it's just they all happen to be DLC. I found BF3 and 4 to be much better then the BFBC games.
Liamario
Banned
Reading some of the comment on neogaf regarding bad company and it's clear to me at least, that the series is way overrated. The battlefield main games are much better games in terms of multiplayer. I find the campaign in battlefield games as a whole to be very poor, possibly even worse in the bad company series. Really like bad company 2, but prefer the main battlefield games. Can someone explain to me why they find bad company so special and why it couldn't be done in a main battlefield game?
Brerlappin
Member
How can a developer be so clueless about their own titles? Its not rocket science. BC1 had a large, open map littered with vehicles, destructible scenery, and fun. Driving a tank across a golf course? THATS fun Dice, not following Omar from the Wire's character arc as he goes from rebellious gruff jarhead, to slightly less rebellious gruff jarhead.
1. No lock-on launchers, if you want to lock on you have to gve up your secondary for a tracer dart. And actually hit something with it.
2. Vehicles were precious team assets with good survivability.
3. GREAT maps, designed consistently for a single mode.
4. Longer kill-times. Less twitch, more tactics.
5. Less grindy unlocks.
6. No prone, encourages more mobility.
7. Better, more predictable destruction. Destruction kills.
2. Vehicles were precious team assets with good survivability.
3. GREAT maps, designed consistently for a single mode.
4. Longer kill-times. Less twitch, more tactics.
5. Less grindy unlocks.
6. No prone, encourages more mobility.
7. Better, more predictable destruction. Destruction kills.
Unknown One
Member
Forgot to add
+no constant vehicle regen.
+hold one grenade
+better motion grenade controls
+no claymore
+less pointless gadgets
+destruction 2.0 was fun and strategic
+no spawn beacons
+UAV
+no spinning out tanks
+less or no mobility kill on vehicles
+Weaker vehicles blow up instantly
TouchMyBox
Member
Well let's see. I thought BC1 had a very enjoyable campaign which I played through multiple times because it respected the player and didn't take itself seriously and let me have fun. In contrast the campaign in BF3 was the most terrible and offensive shit i've ever had the displeasure of playing which came from so desperately trying to be Call of Duty but didn't understand what made call of duty fun that they ended up making a game for nobody.
The multiplayer in BF3 was alright and everything on a base level, but then they molested it with the BF Premium shit which made me never want to play a battlefield game again.
I imagine if they were to make another Bad Company, they'd still be trying to chase that call of duty tail, and they'd still introduce offensive free-to-play inspired battlefield premium shit, so I guess any future game from them is doomed to be shit.
The multiplayer in BF3 was alright and everything on a base level, but then they molested it with the BF Premium shit which made me never want to play a battlefield game again.
I imagine if they were to make another Bad Company, they'd still be trying to chase that call of duty tail, and they'd still introduce offensive free-to-play inspired battlefield premium shit, so I guess any future game from them is doomed to be shit.
Uiki
Member
Bad Company didn't take itself seriously, even with the second installment and felt more like having a fun time. For me at least, in multiplayer, the chaos of the entire map been destructible, combined with it being a mostly ground based affair, just felt like I enjoyed playing the game. I did put a few hours into Battlefield 4 and enjoyed it, but it didn't captivate me like the bad company games did.
Parakeetman
No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Maps didnt suck and had insane amounts of destruction...
SirMossyBloke
Member
Even Battlefield: Modern Combat was better than BF3 and 4.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
I can't even
Destroyed most of the credibility of the brand for sure.
That's pretty funny.
It doesn't matter whether he is console gamer or PC gamer, nor does it matter that the series started on conquest. The mainline BF games (2,3,4) are much more conquest focused, and Bad Company 1 & 2 were basically made for rush. I highly recommend going back and trying rush on BC2. Maps aren't built like a corridor/funnel combination, bomsites can be hit from every different angle, and neither side seemed to have more of an advantage than the other.
The closest I've found to BC2 rush is China Rising rush, but they are still worlds apart.
SniperHunter
Banned
All the guys who made BC2 left the studio, thats why there will never be a BC3
FlyingSaucer
Banned
BF4 : so buggy, even the previous episodes get affected.
LithiumSpade
Member
I loved Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. But you are definitely wrong about BC2's maps. There was huge variety, and you're obviously only remembering the smaller, tighter maps . Remember Heavy Metal?
That map was enormous. Not Caspian Border huge, but about the largest map you could make when limited to 24 players. For example, Caspian Border on BF3 on 360 was dreadful because you never saw anyone. You could actually spend the whole game capturing points without running into another player. On a full server. BC2 had the right balance of the smaller funnelling maps and the larger ones. Even on those smaller ones, like Port Valdez, you could easily circumnavigate the defending players to attack from the other side. It was about careful sneaking. Such a great multiplayer.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
This is comedy. Before clicking the thread I thought they probably are so far removed from those games as the last 2 BFs have proven that they don't know what makes Bad Company awesome. And sure enough.....
OldAsUrSock
Banned
Pretty much everything about the Bad Company series has been better than what we are getting now. I miss the story, destruction and just better map design.
You can just get those games on a sale on PC. There are still a good amount of people that play the game.
You can just get those games on a sale on PC. There are still a good amount of people that play the game.