Yes. I'm going to be the controversial one and say that I would rather want a new BC3 before the next main line BF game. Up until this day I've played BF1942/43, BF2, Heroes, BF:BC1/2 and BF, in other words most of the BF games with the exception of Vietnam and 2142.
So what's this all about? Well the fact is that when Dice released the Bad Company series they aimed for something a little less serious than what we had been used to. The singleplayer campaign(s) were/is thus actually decent, not the best, but very much enjoyable. The multiplayer modes and maps also fit to the target audience (console users) and was thus not a mess in terms of map design.
Along came Battlefield 3. The returning king of the FPS genre. Bigger and better than ever. And it was good. Oh yes I enjoyed BF3 quite a lot when it released. In fact I spent 120 hours within weeks (3-4?) just playing this game - I had no job and my education wouldn't begin until February. I didn't really grow tired of it and don't misunderstand me - I am not hating, not at all.
So what's the problem then you might ask? Plenty I'd say. Or not. really, since they aren't problems per se.
With the release of BF3 something was quite clear once you booted that thing up. It was more mature, more gritty, more blue, more realistic with more realistic sounds. Tons of things the regular/casual gamer wouldn't think about, but things that were different from the BC games.
This is specifically why I want a new Bad Company game:
- The sound. Yes BF3 is more realistic while BC2 had more in-your-face sounds. They were awesome. They might not be completely true to reality, but I don't mind. It was fun and I liked it. I want my games to be fun (not that BF3 isn't). Most people won't consider this, but there IS a big difference and Dice have stated so themselves. The sound guy from Dice had an interview before the game released and he specificially mentioned this. I miss the sound and considering how huge it has become in the BF series I'd say it's easily one of my main "issues".
Interview with sound guy from Dice - he states the above mentioned near the beginning (around 30 seconds and onward or so):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc8WQsIxhro
- Maps made with the intention to not target every single type of gamer out there, but with a specific purpose. Don't know what I'm talking about? Why do you think that most people are enjoying the DLC maps in BF3 more than the vanilla maps? Because they were made for a specific purpose, oppose to the vanilla maps that tried to cater to everyone and somewhat failed at this. In Battlefield Bad Company 2 you had maps that were made with consoles in mind and for once this wasn't a bad thing, why? Because they simply just played well for the most part.
- Deathmatch/Squad Deathmatch was a 100 times better in BC2. The reason is because of the above mentioned - the maps were made with this in mind. It doesn't work out that well in BF3. I never really enjoyed the deathmatch maps in BF3 because it was quite obvious from the get go that they weren't made with that in mind. The (deathmatch) maps in BC2 had a perfect size for 23-32 players (depending on the map), you could easily get from the one end to the other and there were usually more than one way to go. The maps were played out fast while still maintaining the BF atmosphere. In BF3 it just.. doesn't work out that well as already mentioned. Sure they featured "similar" designed maps, but they're still not equally as good.
- The main issue: Not enough destructibility. When Dice made the Bad Company series they made two things clear - they would focus on awesome sounds and destruction. BF3, being a main line game also features these aspects. The issue? BC2 featured tons of completely destructible houses, in fact you could more or less level entire maps. Without putting much effort into this I can remember (not by name) 5-6 maps that featuresd large areas with houses. You could jump from roof top to roof top. Take advantage of your newly created window or just destroy the last pillar ruining someones hideout. In BF3? It's seen, but very, very limited. The B2K maps featured a lot of glorious destruction, but never in the same way as BC2. Sure you can blow a whole and stuff like that, but it's still not on the same height as the BC2 maps.
- I liked the motion sensor ball <3
So as you might've understood from all this there are various difference between the two games. They might be minor complaints to some, but they're pretty important to me. I'm NOT saying BF3 is bad. No, it's good in its own right and BF4 will be so too. I'm just saying that I would've rather seen BC3 next year with all these things and BF4 in 2015 or something like that. Both BC2 and BF3 plays good, they just do things differently and I like my alternatives. And no I'm not interested in playing CoD since that's a completely different experience.
I also don't care about the typical BF veteran elitist junk about how deathmatch and Rush doesn't belong in the series. FFS guys it's an FPS game. If killing people for the sake of just killing them doesn't belong here there's something really messed up in your priorities.
TL:DR version
- They changed the sound in BF3 to be more realistic. I want more in-your-face sounds.
Interview with sound guy from Dice - he states the above mentioned near the beginning (around 30 seconds and onward or so):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc8WQsIxhro
Also check this for comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrE9EWHftpg
- Maps that actually was made for specific purposes and not to cover all types of gamers (issue with BF3 vanilla maps).
- Better Deathmatch/Squad deathmatch maps like those in BC2 (due to above mentioned issue).
- Full destruction/I want to level entire villages like in BC2.
In conclusion, I would rather see a new BC game before BF4. I like both the BC and BF games though.
Log in to comment