Bad Company 3-Whats the point?

This is not a thread saying that Battlefield 3 is essentially BC3.

But considering really the big deal with Bad Company games was bringing the Battlefield experience to consoles, whats the point when BF3 has already come out?

To me, Bf3 should've been a PC exclusive, and Bad Company 3 a console exclusive. Now DICE and EA risk dividing their audience if Bad Company 3 is really already in development. I remember in the old days Battlefield games lasted a damn long time.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this thread :?

Or What was the point of BF3 for consoles...

Honestly, money. Mutliplats make more money than exclusives on average.

The main Battlefield games are more about serious, BF action with more focus on PC and online.

The Bad Company series puts the focus on consoles (with maps more balanced for 24 players), as well as the single player (which focuses on the semi open exploits of the goofy characters), and a lighter tone with more humor.

I think there can be both BC and BF games if they keep them separate like this.

It's makes them money while somewhat masking the number of games that have been in the series.

It'd be great if BC was made solely for singleplayer while BF remained in the same vein as BF2 which had almost total emphasis on multiplayer.

Have you played the BC2 campaign? The story isn't finished. Thats one reason, the second reason is money [spoiler] It ended showing the Russians invading America [/spoiler]

The point of Bad Company is the campaign isn't Simon says ho-hum. The first one had character and made a decent first jab at something resembling what a Battlefield campaign should be like. If with Bad Company 3 they could match Battlefield MP with Bad Company SP that'd be swell. It should also be set in 2143.

As a massive BC2 fan I actually agree, I wish people would come back to it :( I wish more games had strong communities like Counter Striketomarlyn

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]As a massive BC2 fan I actually agree, I wish people would come back to it :( I wish more games had strong communities like Counter Strikejamejame

I have to disagree, I could never go back to BC2 and enjoy the MP after playing BF3.

EA wants to do a rotation with Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and Bad Company. That way they will always have another military FPS on the market to give competition to CoD

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]As a massive BC2 fan I actually agree, I wish people would come back to it :( I wish more games had strong communities like Counter Strikeslimjimbadboy

I have to disagree, I could never go back to BC2 and enjoy the MP after playing BF3.

The main Battlefield games are more about serious, BF action with more focus on PC and online.

The Bad Company series puts the focus on consoles (with maps more balanced for 24 players), as well as the single player (which focuses on the semi open exploits of the goofy characters), and a lighter tone with more humor.

I think there can be both BC and BF games if they keep them separate like this.

SPYDER0416

Yeah, but now because the main series has made it's debut on consoles, isn't Bad Company rather useless now? And to be honest, I don't think many people actually liked the campaign in BC2 that much. Or bought it for it.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

The main Battlefield games are more about serious, BF action with more focus on PC and online.

The Bad Company series puts the focus on consoles (with maps more balanced for 24 players), as well as the single player (which focuses on the semi open exploits of the goofy characters), and a lighter tone with more humor.

I think there can be both BC and BF games if they keep them separate like this.

OB-47

Yeah, but now because the main series has made it's debut on consoles, isn't Bad Company rather useless now? And to be honest, I don't think many people actually liked the campaign in BC2 that much. Or bought it for it.

There is a difference though.

With Bad Company, everything is geared to be a better experience for consoles. The engine works much better then the newer one BF3 runs on, the maps are perfect and balanced for 24-32 players and Rush mode (but not so much 64 players), and they do things like Onslaught that couldn't be done on PC because it would take up too many servers (or whatever).

BF3 is meant for PC first, as a contrast to the BC series. Its single player is much more tacked on, the co-op works differently, and the online is geared towards Conquest and 64 players, with things like Comma rose, PC first engine, and plus the tone of both games are rather different (with BC edging towards crazy unrealism and BF3 going for a more immersive, less unrealistic goal).

I think once the next generation of consoles come, the divide won't exist and DICE should be able to give a similar experience on consoles with the engine and player count, so you might be right in that regard that the BC series won't be as necessary as today. I do think the Bad Company series has a superior single player campaign, and if they did something unique with it like bringing back the open st.yle of the first with a 4 player co-op focus, and keep the multiplayer goofy with golf carts and Epic Fail and all that, then it would be more worth it I think to continue the series.

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

The main Battlefield games are more about serious, BF action with more focus on PC and online.

The Bad Company series puts the focus on consoles (with maps more balanced for 24 players), as well as the single player (which focuses on the semi open exploits of the goofy characters), and a lighter tone with more humor.

I think there can be both BC and BF games if they keep them separate like this.

SPYDER0416

Yeah, but now because the main series has made it's debut on consoles, isn't Bad Company rather useless now? And to be honest, I don't think many people actually liked the campaign in BC2 that much. Or bought it for it.

There is a difference though.

With Bad Company, everything is geared to be a better experience for consoles. The engine works much better then the newer one BF3 runs on, the maps are perfect and balanced for 24-32 players and Rush mode (but not so much 64 players), and they do things like Onslaught that couldn't be done on PC because it would take up too many servers (or whatever).

BF3 is meant for PC first, as a contrast to the BC series. Its single player is much more tacked on, the co-op works differently, and the online is geared towards Conquest and 64 players, with things like Comma rose, PC first engine, and plus the tone of both games are rather different (with BC edging towards crazy unrealism and BF3 going for a more immersive, less unrealistic goal).

I think once the next generation of consoles come, the divide won't exist and DICE should be able to give a similar experience on consoles with the engine and player count, so you might be right in that regard that the BC series won't be as necessary as today. I do think the Bad Company series has a superior single player campaign, and if they did something unique with it like bringing back the open st.yle of the first with a 4 player co-op focus, and keep the multiplayer goofy with golf carts and Epic Fail and all that, then it would be more worth it I think to continue the series.

Yes, but then in my opinion Bad Company should be kept focused on consoles, so exclusive, while the main series stays PC exclusivity and not sacrifice anything because it would no longer be muliplat. Then, audiences wouldn't be as divided

I guess TC does have a point, BC should have been console only since it what made for it n BF should be PC only since it was made for it. It doesnt make sense to have different BF on consoles,goodness it feels like COD alova again except worse in this case

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

Yeah, but now because the main series has made it's debut on consoles, isn't Bad Company rather useless now? And to be honest, I don't think many people actually liked the campaign in BC2 that much. Or bought it for it.

OB-47

There is a difference though.

With Bad Company, everything is geared to be a better experience for consoles. The engine works much better then the newer one BF3 runs on, the maps are perfect and balanced for 24-32 players and Rush mode (but not so much 64 players), and they do things like Onslaught that couldn't be done on PC because it would take up too many servers (or whatever).

BF3 is meant for PC first, as a contrast to the BC series. Its single player is much more tacked on, the co-op works differently, and the online is geared towards Conquest and 64 players, with things like Comma rose, PC first engine, and plus the tone of both games are rather different (with BC edging towards crazy unrealism and BF3 going for a more immersive, less unrealistic goal).

I think once the next generation of consoles come, the divide won't exist and DICE should be able to give a similar experience on consoles with the engine and player count, so you might be right in that regard that the BC series won't be as necessary as today. I do think the Bad Company series has a superior single player campaign, and if they did something unique with it like bringing back the open st.yle of the first with a 4 player co-op focus, and keep the multiplayer goofy with golf carts and Epic Fail and all that, then it would be more worth it I think to continue the series.

Yes, but then in my opinion Bad Company should be kept focused on consoles, so exclusive, while the main series stays PC exclusivity and not sacrifice anything because it would no longer be muliplat. Then, audiences wouldn't be as divided

I think that would work on current consoles, but like I said, next generation consoles will be new and shiny and up to snuff against PC (for a few years at least), so instead of seperating them, they could just seperate the focus, that way no one misses out.

Right now though, that probably would have been a better route. PC players wouldn't whine about BC2 (even though they didn't even get the first one), and console and PC players couldn't whine about BF3 (since it would be exclusive they couldn't complain that its BF2.5 and console players wouldn't have to deal with the engine compatibility and map balance). It would be two seperate games playing to the system strengths, BC2 being a destructive 32 player blast in Rush, and BF3 being focused more on Conquest and an engine better for PC.

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO

ahhhhh RIPS MY HIAR OUT nO BAD CAMPANY 3 I WILL NOT BUY IT, nO nO

No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO No NO no no NO no no NO No nO NO NO NO no No No nO NEVER AHHH I HATE THIS INDUSTRY IT'S GARBAGE :cry:

Battlefield = PC Game

BC2 = Console game

CoD = Crappy console game

Battlefield = PC Game

BC2 = Console game

CoD = Crappy console game

xxxLUGZxxx

Why did you have to bring COD into this -____-

I mean seriously, are some of you incapable of not bashing cod for like a freakin second?

As a massive BC2 fan I actually agree, I wish people would come back to it :( I wish more games had strong communities like Counter Striketomarlyn

Bad Company 3 is important because it will be the first Battlefield on the Nextgen consoles. EA can not release Battlefield 3 on PS4/Xbox 720, people would feel ripped off and would not buy it or be very hesitant.I can imagine the series will follow a CoD release style in the future, one year Battlefield, one year Battlefield Bad Company.

I agree. I think EA should have kept the series separate because what we have now with BF3 is a disappointing mess. Like TC said, the whole point of Bad Company was to bring a true Battlefield experience to the consoles while still catering to the strengths of the platform and that's what we got with Bad Company 1 & 2.

BF3 was meant to be a PC-centric experience but then they shoehorned in some console features instead of catering solely to the PC community, and then tried shoving it all on consoles and what we got is a frankenstein of a game that doesn't fully take advantage of either platform.

Have you played the BC2 campaign? The story isn't finished. Thats one reason, the second reason is money [spoiler] It ended showing the Russians invading America [/spoiler] gmaster456

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

Battlefield = PC Game

BC2 = Console game

CoD = Crappy console game

OB-47

Why did you have to bring COD into this -____-

I mean seriously, are some of you incapable of not bashing cod for like a freakin second?

If people didn't irrationally spend all their time devoted to a moronic hatred of a piece of entertainment they find "overrated", then Call of Duty articles and videos and news wouldn't get even half as many views since all the people who enjoy it are (statistically speaking) playing the game. The people who hate it are responsible for all the news we get about it, but I like CoD, so thanks haters for making CoD so popular in gaming media.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

Yeah, but now because the main series has made it's debut on consoles, isn't Bad Company rather useless now? And to be honest, I don't think many people actually liked the campaign in BC2 that much. Or bought it for it.

OB-47

There is a difference though.

With Bad Company, everything is geared to be a better experience for consoles. The engine works much better then the newer one BF3 runs on, the maps are perfect and balanced for 24-32 players and Rush mode (but not so much 64 players), and they do things like Onslaught that couldn't be done on PC because it would take up too many servers (or whatever).

BF3 is meant for PC first, as a contrast to the BC series. Its single player is much more tacked on, the co-op works differently, and the online is geared towards Conquest and 64 players, with things like Comma rose, PC first engine, and plus the tone of both games are rather different (with BC edging towards crazy unrealism and BF3 going for a more immersive, less unrealistic goal).

I think once the next generation of consoles come, the divide won't exist and DICE should be able to give a similar experience on consoles with the engine and player count, so you might be right in that regard that the BC series won't be as necessary as today. I do think the Bad Company series has a superior single player campaign, and if they did something unique with it like bringing back the open st.yle of the first with a 4 player co-op focus, and keep the multiplayer goofy with golf carts and Epic Fail and all that, then it would be more worth it I think to continue the series.

Yes, but then in my opinion Bad Company should be kept focused on consoles, so exclusive, while the main series stays PC exclusivity and not sacrifice anything because it would no longer be muliplat. Then, audiences wouldn't be as divided

Well, there will be a bad company 3, if you know how BC2 ends, you know the implications.

Yeah I agree with you here. Bad Company 1 was suppose to be a console game since the consoles have their limits while the main BF games was for pc since they use the full hardware for it. But since Bad Company 2 came out for pc and BF3 for consoles then what was really the point for Bad Company then? And what also made the Bad Company games different from the main BF games was that they had single player but now BF3 has one too. Does that mean that Dice should end the BC games if they are doing this method and since it is now pointless? I don't know, since EA and Dice are becoming real money whores they just love to act strange.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

The main Battlefield games are more about serious, BF action with more focus on PC and online.

The Bad Company series puts the focus on consoles (with maps more balanced for 24 players), as well as the single player (which focuses on the semi open exploits of the goofy characters), and a lighter tone with more humor.

I think there can be both BC and BF games if they keep them separate like this.

OB-47

Yeah, but now because the main series has made it's debut on consoles, isn't Bad Company rather useless now? And to be honest, I don't think many people actually liked the campaign in BC2 that much. Or bought it for it.

BF3 is BC3

I agree. I think EA should have kept the series separate because what we have now with BF3 is a disappointing mess. Like TC said, the whole point of Bad Company was to bring a true Battlefield experience to the consoles while still catering to the strengths of the platform and that's what we got with Bad Company 1 & 2.

BF3 was meant to be a PC-centric experience but then they shoehorned in some console features instead of catering solely to the PC community, and then tried shoving it all on consoles and what we got is a frankenstein of a game that doesn't fully take advantage of either platform.

AcidSoldner

Yeah, that's exactly my point. The focus of both the main series and it's spin off is lost now.

BF3 is not a sequel to BC2, In fact I think BC2 is better on consoles. So while the PC crowd might stick with BF3, console players will migrate to BC3.DeX2010

[QUOTE="DeX2010"]BF3 is not a sequel to BC2, In fact I think BC2 is better on consoles. So while the PC crowd might stick with BF3, console players will migrate to BC3.ducati101

If your isp hosts severs you don'e need to sign up orign browsers, just connect to your isp server internet service provider and u'll not need log on all dam time, down fall howerver is? if you do however rank up in isp server the stats will not be official when you cross back too ea/dice server, yes they own all server rights.

If your isp hosts severs you don'e need to sign up orign browsers, just connect to your isp server internet service provider and u'll not need log on all dam time, down fall howerver is? if you do however rank up in isp server the stats will not be official when you cross back too ea/dice server, yes they own all server rights.

lorddaggeroff

BF3 is BC3

HaloinventedFPS

No it really isn't, if it was it would be called BFBC3 not BF3. BF3 is a direct sequal to BF2, DICE has said this many times.

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]As a massive BC2 fan I actually agree, I wish people would come back to it :( I wish more games had strong communities like Counter Strikejamejame

I know it is your opinion and that's cool, but I have to ask, why do you feel BC2 is better than BF3? Personally I feel BF3 is an improvement over BC2 in every way imaginable