DICE reveals why bf3+bf4 are so shit, brilliant insight

'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.'

u fukin piece of shit clowns no wonder bf3/4 suck ass. bad company 2 is the greatest multiplayer game ever made full stop and these ass holes cant even figure out what made it amazing, here let me help u out

great map design - so many classic maps like arica harbour, valpariso, white pass, nelson bay, oasis, harvest day, heavy metal etc. perfect size, not too big not too small

better controls - the game feels more arcadey + no prone. bf3/bf4 just feel so sluggish and slow in comparison

better destruction - whole buildings can be collapsed, no place to hide. instead of expanding on this premise what did dice do? created big ass sky scrappers with destructible walls. well fukin done dice

better class/guns balance

more health encouraged greater movement because u dont die instantly if u get shot

i could go on and on, bad company 2 i salute u

ps. if anyone hasnt played bc2 multiplayer i sugggest u buy it during steam sales, pc community is still very active

BC2 is one of the best multiplater games of last generation. I'm not one to make claims but i'd say it's as close to perfect with a battlefield game we'll ever get.

its perfection. no other word for it, i would just happy with a hd re-release. the x360 community died a year or 2 ago so i bought the pc verison but i would instantly buy a hd release for ps4x1.

I take it this is only from a console perspective? lol at best battlefield game.

If that video is suppose to do it any justice....

I miss Bad Company series. I used to be in the top 500 in the beta of Bad Company 2. I was a bad ass ;)

firstly, lol mbirdy comment

secondly, bad company 2 is THE GREATEST multiplayer game ever <<truth fact

you can try and make that a thing if you like, good luck.

What a lovely video.. of a slow moving guy hip spraying 3 people who are bullet sponges in close cod like enviroments. the destruction? oh please..... the only fully destructible buildings were the crappy block ones. it was a much shallower version of destruction. but oh well.

maybe it was the best for you console peasant. but population speaks volumes and bad company has become irrelevant.

Well, for starters the BFBC games catered more to consoles, which made the multiplayer better than the cut down maps of BF3 because of the game being designed around PCs more than consoles. Of the two BFBC games I liked the first more for the SP, I liked the quasi-sandbox nature and the characters, a group of undisciplined misfits in a disciplinary squad. What failed in the sequel was they got rid of the quasi-sandbox design, went for shorter linear levels, and they took out the misfit nature of the squad, and instead placed them in the most highly sensitive and responsibility demanding of tasks in the armed forces; booo. But what it lacked in the SP it made up for with the MP.

If I had to say what I want out of BFBC3, design it around consoles again. Bring back the quasi-sandbox SP, and this time do it right, allow for 4-player co-op (I mean there's 4 characters after all). Bring back their undisciplined misfit nature. Bring back the humor. Make them go AWOL again on a cockamamie mission.

'slow moving guy' - haha bad company 2 movement speed is faster than other bf games, even dice acknowledge this. bf3/bf4 feels slow as shit

'bullet sponges' - so u like 1 hit kills? lol cod noob

'he only fully destructible buildings were the crappy block ones' - what now? most buildings on the map were destructible except the large construction site which were few in numbers anyway. bf3/4 idea of destruction is puncturing a hole in a wall haha pathetic

'maybe it was the best for you console peasant' - i play it on pc

'population speaks volumes' - no it doesnt, cod is horse shit yet people play it.

Lol no. Bad Company 2 is great, but it's not "perfect".

Map design isn't bad, but they are all basically just extended corridors. Very few maps are "true" Battlefield maps. Battlefield 3 at least tried to make maps more open, with rolling fields and space to design proper conquest maps. The only really open maps in Bad Company 2 were dominated by helos as you had very limited AA options while helos were damn strong.

What? BC2 feels just as sluggish as BF3. The difference is that the maps are tiny in comparison. Plus no prone was BS, and I thank the lord that DICE brought it back in BF3

Not all buildings were destructible, and generally having many buildings destroyable was annoying as hell. For example Rush in Arica Harbour, you could destroy MCOM A in the first phase from miles out with a tank by just collapsing the building on it. On phase two it was even worse, you could destroy both MCOM's from the road leading down into the town with a tank or RPGs. Battlefield 3 has a nice balance where buildings can be damaged, holes can be blown into them, but they don't god damn collapse every four seconds. Some games of Bad Company 2 became utter crap because there was absolutely no cover left anymore as everything was destroyed. A single assault could bring down an entire house in 4 or 5 grenade launcher shots, which brings me to the next point:

Better weapons? Like what? Recoil was no where near as varied as in Battlefield 3. You also had some blatantly dominating weapons in every class. You also had some utter BS stuff in the game, like the assaults grenade launcher which could eff over buildings like there's no tomorrow and was lethal as hell against infantry. In general explosives were way too strong. Also class balance in BF3 makes oodles more sense than it did in BC2. Support actually supports and assault actually assaults, not in BC2 where assaults were camping at back and spamming GL's while the support was assaulting. And recon is now useless against armor which makes damn sense, in BC2 you could get a recon running around with a VSS and he could rape infantry and tanks, while motion sensoring everyone to hell and back.

There's very little difference in health between the games, for example the M16 in BC2 kills you in 5-6 shots while the one in BF3 kills you in 4-5 shots. Also damage drops off with range far faster in BF3 than in BC2.

Seriously, stop raging. Bad Company 2 was a great Bad Company game and really one of the better MP games in a while, as a Battlefield game it was wholly underwhelming.

That video is a console gamer is it not? slow aiming more so than movement.

sorry, either we played different games or you have brain lag but battlefield 1942/2/2142/3 and 4 are not one hit kills. not even as fast as CoD in dying. well, maybe if your bad I guess?

sure you do.

Because CoD was considered really fun, people get bored of rehashes though.

If BF4 wasn't so buggy and their netcode was better... there is no real reason to say its not the best. and DICE were right. there is a difference in full destruction ruining maps and carefully design destruction. but yes, keep pretending thats more important.

you sound very upset.

Then again, I should of known I was talking to a niche idiot when you complained about proning..... yea you are some PC gamer alright....

Because it's a brofest?

Please pay me soon, because I'm unemployed, broke and my last shred of self esteem withered away a year ago.

Two words: Electronic Arts

No other excuse is needed for why BF4 launched so disastrously.

Not really. Played BC2: Vietnam a while ago and there was like one server.

They should dial the series back to the Battlefield 2 era. That was the best.

PC user here

Bad Company 2 was easily the most fun I've ever had with a Battlefield game. It streamlined all the right parts in Battlefield and made a fantastic core experience. BF3 and BF4 just simply add more pointless features and make the game unnecessarily complex.

'Very few maps are "true" Battlefield maps' - and? traditional bf maps suck. bf3 has the worst maps of any multiplayer game i have ever played along with halo reach and halo 4. they were a snooze fest

'Plus no prone was BS' - what!! prone is horrible, just encourages camping even more + makes shooting campers harder

'Not all buildings were destructible, and generally having many buildings destroyable was annoying as hell' - annoying for campers yes, and your example of mcom stations being in buildings yes that was bad placement but that isnt a draw back of destruction. dice should have moved them to another location

'Some games of Bad Company 2 became utter crap because there was absolutely no cover left anymore as everything was destroyed' - thats the brilliance of bc2, as the matches progressed players had to change their tactics because the battlefield changed. u cant use the same tactic all through out the game. amazing stuff

'Better weapons? Like what?' - guns feel much better to shoot, more satisfying. i havnt played bf3 in eternity so i cant remember all my complaints against that game but it is a shitfest

'Also class balance in BF3 makes oodles more sense' - just because something makes more sense on paper doesnt mean it translates well into the game. whats wrong with recon running around with vss? rather having them running around than camping in their base with 10x zoom sniper

'M16 in BC2 kills you in 5-6 shots while the one in BF3 kills you in 4-5 shots' - 1-2 shots is a big difference

'Seriously, stop raging. Bad Company 2 was a great Bad Company game and really one of the better MP games in a while, as a Battlefield game it was wholly underwhelming.' - heres the thing, traditional bf games suck.

No more LAN play, no more BF (PC) for me. The last one I was addicted to was BF2.

'That video is a console gamer is it not? slow aiming more so than movement.' - i dont know if begger race knows this but u can adjust sensitivity of the controller, clearly he hadnt big deal.

proning is horrible but then again, if i remember correctly, im talking to someone who thinks titanfall takes more skill than gears of war. just lol

vietnam is an expansion pack though that has to be bought separately. the main game is still very active

So basically by dumbing BF2/BF2142 down and making it some 24 player arcade game the series is better?

See I don't have a short memory. During the time of Bad Company and BC2 the fans of BF2/BF2142 bitched continually on how shallow the series got. I enjoyed BC2 greatly but it's hard to ignore the fact that the original fanbase complained night and day about how shallow and console focused the series became.

So DICE actually listened and now everybody is pissed.

'So basically by dumbing BF2/BF2142 down and making it some 24 player arcade game the series is better?' yes!! they streamlined what is best about battlefield so u get to experience those 'battleifeld moments' more often thorugh out a match. also its 32 player on pc + the destruction is dumbed down for the main series

the original fan base has gotten bf3/bf4 now but bc2 fans havnt had anything, its about time they released bc3

Nah Wasdie... its not the majority, its a minority like ghostwarrior .... and perhaps console gamers that never played BF2/2142.

even his response to you ... makes it sound like its fact. lol. its quite funny.

"The best elements faster" ... ironically... he says bad company is better because its faster and condensed... like oh I dunno COD.

The whole destruction debate is moronic..... DICE were spot on when they said the level of destruction in bad company ruined the map design.1

BC2 didn't have "battlefield moments". Don't kid yourself. It had none of the same intense moments that the previous games had. The game was simply an arcade FPS with the Battlefield name. The focus was on infantry combat and the Rush game mode. The complete opposite of what the entire series was before the Bad Company series came along.

I loved the destruction in BF3/BF4, it was handled much better than in BC2. It never ruined the map yet did have a profound effect on the maps at the same time. Leveling all of the houses on a small plateau where a capture point is is not good destruction.

The best use of BC2's destruction was actually in the squad vs. squad deathmatch in hardcore mode. Those focused infantry game types with the really small maps showed how well the destruction could play out when you didn't have to account for higher player counts or vehicles. Those were some of the better moments of the game for me.

BC2's maps were decent for what the game was going after but it is in by no way emulating what they did with the series prior to that. BF3 was an attempt at merging the old with the new and BF4 was a much better attempt but had a lot of non-gameplay related issues (mostly QA).

I really wish BF4 didn't have the QA problems it had. I would have play it a lot more.

Despite being unbalanced and broken at launch.

So wait, you're telling me BF3 and 4 aren't shallow?

yep thats battlefeld. all other bf games are just large ass maps with people camping, bad company saved the gaming world from mediocrity that was bf mainline series

actually alot of people like bc2 more than bf3/4 not just me, heres a thread i made 2 years ago and yep most people were agreeing with me.

'he says bad company is better because its faster and condensed... like oh I dunno COD.' - lol bf was a snoozefest, they needed to make it more faster. bc2 strikes the perfect balance, not as bs as cod but faster and more intense than bf games. destruction dint ruin map design, it ruined enjoyment for campers which is what traditional bf players mostly are anyway

I fucking adored BC2.

Spend whole weekends sitting on the floor playing that shit.

And yet bad company is dead... clearly what the people waned right?

proof that you don't actually like battlefield, I think that is enough to end this thread.

Lol at that gameplay... such epic ... whoa.

Bad Company were good series because had focus and design around gold rush mode. Map design and detail benefit from this. And gameplay was own style.

Battlefield 3 and 4 do not even have door to buildings... Sad attempt to court COD fanbase and complainer and you end up with messy game lacking focus. COD gameplay with conquest map does not mixn

lol a bf camper vet who is sad his building gets torn apart in bad company haha keep crying

This.

lol a bf camper vet who is sad his building gets torn apart in bad company haha keep crying

I don't need to cry matey.... they still make proper battlefield games ;) isnt this thread all about you crying?

enjoy the rehashes they are releasing, assuming u can connect to a server, because destiny/titanfall/cod/halo are going to end this garbage franchise.

M60 sniping

I was already done with it. like Wasdie... if it was void of its issues I would still be playing. but it not. but despite its problems.... still more people playing it than bad company did at its prime. so mad, how sad.

BC2 had plenty of "battlefield moments." Don't kid yourself.

I've been with the series from the start and while it was the most streamlined title in the series, it was also the most focused design wise.

@ghostwarrior786:

But vietnam was the best part about bad company 2 :(

Battlefield 2 was probably when the Battlefield series was at its peak. It's unfortunate that the console gamers only got to play the gimmickified Battlefield entries. Bad Company 2 is pretty good but far from the best Battlefield game and I'm not even sure if I'd argue it being any better than BF4. It's too arcadey, gives straight damage bonuses to users who have played longer, and in general had pretty unbalanced weapon arsenals. Battlefield is at its best when it's not designed for consoles in mind.

BF2 was better.

This. BF2 was by far the best BF.

I don't even consider bad company to be a real BF game. Yes it was good but nothing special at all.

Bad Company 1 and 2 were basically the only militaristic FPS games I enjoyed last gen.

While we're praising Battlefield Bad Company's multiplayer, can we also praise it's much more enjoyable single player campaign?

BF2 and BF2142 are always better. Generally I'd say that Battlefield 2142 was the best in the series, because it cut away the unnecessary fluff off of Battlefield 2, had a very interesting setting and had much more focus. Battlefield 2 was an enormous game, but it was a bit out of focus at times, too many classes, maps that had questionable design decisions etc. . But Bad Company 2 was great as well, no doubt. Battlefield 3 and 4 as well, but they need to get their shit together and firstly stop releasing such similar games so close to one another and also stop releasing pre-alpha games and asking people to pay to test them out.

I still have faith in DICE, but there is a lot resting on Battlefield 5, and I hope they take their time with it. Preferably a couple of years worth of time. Make Bad Company 3 in the mean time, make sure Hardline won't alienate your fanbase further etc., AND PLEASE DONT MAKE IT MODERN AGAIN, 2143 NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

Most of the hardcore fans of Battlefield (like me) really respected DICE for making a spin-off series for the consoles, and we enjoyed it. Both Bad Companies were very polished, focused and very well done team based games that condensed the Battlefield gameplay into a console-friendly version. Most of us saw Battlefield 3 as a worthy sequel to Battlefield 2, even if it had issues. Battlefield 4 would have been amazing, but the state in which it was released was just an insult to everyone.

Its certainly a lot better than BF3/4, but probably not the best in the series. BF2/2142 take that honor. Funny I have a better K/D and W/L ratio in BF3/4 than in BC2 but I had so much more fun in BC2. 3 and 4 are just so bland, they have no personality whatsoever and the crazy netcode/damage model certainly doesn't help.

Both 2142 and Battlefield 3 were Bad Company 2's superior.

2142, yes.

BF3, hhheeeeeeelllllll naw.