I would rather see Bad Company 3 before Battlefield 4. BF-Veterans be hatin'

They need to decide what they are going to do...Battlefield or Bad Company...and stick with it. Diverge the two lines if they have to. Dont mix the two which is exactly what BF3 is. There were only 2, maybe 3, launch maps that weren't scaled down and catered to COD style close quarters or rush mode. Back to Karkand DLC, Armored Kill DLC, Caspian Border, and Kharg Island are the type of maps you expect in a Battlefield game. The rest belong in Bad Company.

As other's mentioned, the communication is Bad Company, not true Battlefield. No Command structure depletes the team coordination. No commander assets basically makes Recon a stat padder class, and C4 is useless except to blow up tanks. With Commander Assets, recon could have C4 and get behind enemy lines to blow those up like the old Spec Ops class.

BF4 needs to have nothing but large vehicle maps designed for Conquest first and foremost + command structure + commander assets. Everything else needs to go to Bad Company 3.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Battlefield is an overrated series. I used to own Bad Company 2, I had to buy it for that stupid online pass (COD never has online pass), which was basically required as the single player sucked. I couldn't even finish it.

The multiplayer is not that good, it has some cool ideas like destructable enviornments and bullets dropping over distances (I think KZ is the only other game I have seen that does this) and it has a nice selection of vehicles, but overall it's nothing special.

You do not get kill streaks, it takes FOREVER to get to your destination, it should be called walking field because that's all you do. Just walk. You rarely come across people to kill, the session is full but where is everyone? The maps are just too big and people hog the vehicles. The game is nothing special.

I played the beta for BF3, it also sucked. Just save your money for a better game, like Black Ops 2. That game is going to be a day 1 buy for me.

ShadowMoses900

Hardly, most people just hog vehicles. And they don't control very well to begin with.

COD you walk and shoot lot's of people, in BF you hardly come across anyone to shoot. They should just give you a side arm in that game because that's all you need, you will never use all your ammo.

I play rush on operation metro, and average 40-60 kills so I don't know what you're talking about. I also always run out of ammo, which frustrates the hell out of me as every single (yes EVERY) goddamn support soilder in this game is a complete idiot who doesn't understand what "I NEED SOME FUKING AMMO" means when i'm shouting it in his face whilstsimultaneously stabbing him.

I agree completely bro, here have a beer

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Battlefield is an overrated series. I used to own Bad Company 2, I had to buy it for that stupid online pass (COD never has online pass), which was basically required as the single player sucked. I couldn't even finish it.

The multiplayer is not that good, it has some cool ideas like destructable enviornments and bullets dropping over distances (I think KZ is the only other game I have seen that does this) and it has a nice selection of vehicles, but overall it's nothing special.

You do not get kill streaks, it takes FOREVER to get to your destination, it should be called walking field because that's all you do. Just walk. You rarely come across people to kill, the session is full but where is everyone? The maps are just too big and people hog the vehicles. The game is nothing special.

I played the beta for BF3, it also sucked. Just save your money for a better game, like Black Ops 2. That game is going to be a day 1 buy for me.

ShadowMoses900

Hardly, most people just hog vehicles. And they don't control very well to begin with.

COD you walk and shoot lot's of people, in BF you hardly come across anyone to shoot. They should just give you a side arm in that game because that's all you need, you will never use all your ammo.

They need to decide what they are going to do...Battlefield or Bad Company...and stick with it. Diverge the two lines if they have to. Dont mix the two which is exactly what BF3 is. There were only 2, maybe 3, launch maps that weren't scaled down and catered to COD style close quarters or rush mode. Back to Karkand DLC, Armored Kill DLC, Caspian Border, and Kharg Island are the type of maps you expect in a Battlefield game. The rest belong in Bad Company.

As other's mentioned, the communication is Bad Company, not true Battlefield. No Command structure depletes the team coordination. No commander assets basically makes Recon a stat padder class, and C4 is useless except to blow up tanks. With Commander Assets, recon could have C4 and get behind enemy lines to blow those up like the old Spec Ops class.

BF4 needs to have nothing but large vehicle maps designed for Conquest first and foremost + command structure + commander assets. Everything else needs to go to Bad Company 3.

-ArchAngeL-777-

I like this respons, especially considering how some of the most popular maps were ported to BF3, you know.. City maps such as Karkand and Sharqi. In fact I'd wager that the most popular map in BF2 was Karkand. Other popular maps were Sharqi, Road to Jalalabad, Mashtuur City and Gulf of Oman. None of those were "large vehcile maps", maybe mid-sized maps with mixed infantry/vehicles combat

It would also be much easier for you if you understand that we won't ever see command assets again. Dice have already stated why. We can only hope for improved order issuing system and VoIP.

With that said I do somewhat agree on the first part of your post. BF3 tried to be too much and please too many types of gamers.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]

They need to decide what they are going to do...Battlefield or Bad Company...and stick with it. Diverge the two lines if they have to. Dont mix the two which is exactly what BF3 is. There were only 2, maybe 3, launch maps that weren't scaled down and catered to COD style close quarters or rush mode. Back to Karkand DLC, Armored Kill DLC, Caspian Border, and Kharg Island are the type of maps you expect in a Battlefield game. The rest belong in Bad Company.

As other's mentioned, the communication is Bad Company, not true Battlefield. No Command structure depletes the team coordination. No commander assets basically makes Recon a stat padder class, and C4 is useless except to blow up tanks. With Commander Assets, recon could have C4 and get behind enemy lines to blow those up like the old Spec Ops class.

BF4 needs to have nothing but large vehicle maps designed for Conquest first and foremost + command structure + commander assets. Everything else needs to go to Bad Company 3.

danish-death

I like this respons, especially considering how some of the most popular maps were ported to BF3, you know.. City maps such as Karkand and Sharqi. In fact I'd wager that the most popular map in BF2 was Karkand. Other popular maps were Sharqi, Road to Jalalabad, Mashtuur City and Gulf of Oman. None of those were "large vehcile maps", maybe mid-sized maps with mixed infantry/vehicles combat

It would also be much easier for you if you understand that we won't ever see command assets again. Dice have already stated why. We can only hope for improved order issuing system and VoIP.

With that said I do somewhat agree on the first part of your post. BF3 tried to be too much and please too many types of gamers.

Your being knit picky. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Sharqi, Jalalabad, Gulf of Oman, Karkand...while not the largest maps available, they most certainly have a good vehicle presence. Karkand probably the least, but its a classic layout thats far better than anything they launched BF3 with. Compare that with Sienne Crossing, Operation Metro, Grand Bazaar, Damavand Peak...maps that have very little vehicle presence if any at all. That's the whole point.

[QUOTE="Rockman999"]Yeah no, I liked BC2 enough to put in some 400 hours into it but BF3 easily donkey punches and teabags the face off it. BC2 felt too constricted compared to BF3, like you could only play the game the way it wanted you to whereas BF3 felt like you could play how you wanted to. BC2 was a dinky console game while BF3 is what a PC game would feel like on consoles. I hate PC elitism but in this case I can see where hermits are coming from with their criticism of console gamers. Fvck a Bad Company game, the only good one was BC1, if you muppets want a "console" BF game then go hop on Medal Of Honor.danish-death

I also agree. BC2 had a sense of humor that made enjoy the game more.

[QUOTE="danish-death"][QUOTE="Rockman999"]Yeah no, I liked BC2 enough to put in some 400 hours into it but BF3 easily donkey punches and teabags the face off it. BC2 felt too constricted compared to BF3, like you could only play the game the way it wanted you to whereas BF3 felt like you could play how you wanted to. BC2 was a dinky console game while BF3 is what a PC game would feel like on consoles. I hate PC elitism but in this case I can see where hermits are coming from with their criticism of console gamers. Fvck a Bad Company game, the only good one was BC1, if you muppets want a "console" BF game then go hop on Medal Of Honor.Rockman999

They need to decide what they are going to do...Battlefield or Bad Company...and stick with it. Diverge the two lines if they have to. Dont mix the two which is exactly what BF3 is. There were only 2, maybe 3, launch maps that weren't scaled down and catered to COD style close quarters or rush mode. Back to Karkand DLC, Armored Kill DLC, Caspian Border, and Kharg Island are the type of maps you expect in a Battlefield game. The rest belong in Bad Company.

As other's mentioned, the communication is Bad Company, not true Battlefield. No Command structure depletes the team coordination. No commander assets basically makes Recon a stat padder class, and C4 is useless except to blow up tanks. With Commander Assets, recon could have C4 and get behind enemy lines to blow those up like the old Spec Ops class.

BF4 needs to have nothing but large vehicle maps designed for Conquest first and foremost + command structure + commander assets. Everything else needs to go to Bad Company 3.

-ArchAngeL-777-

Are the maps in Battlefield 3 bigger on the PC? If not, that must be one big cluster****.Drasonak

I would have rather gotten Bad Company 3, also. Or Battlefield 2143 / 2152 / whatever it would have been called. Battlefield 3's weakest point is the single player, and that is not a problem that Bad Company shared. There's also too many modern military shooters these days, which the 2142 franchise doesn't have a problem with.

I think it's too soon for Battlefield 4, but whatever. I am prepared to love it if it's good.

the bad company series is my favorite cause its funny..except for BC2 i was disappointed in the seriousnss of haggard but i just like funny games than serious ones

I'd rather see 2143.

gameofthering

Regardless of BC isn't it a bit soon for another BF?
I've played BF3 for a while and there are still DLC being released. I rather have a BF 2 years after the last DLC and with actual improvements than seeing a kind of Fifa-esque release schedule.

Regardless of BC isn't it a bit soon for another BF?
I've played BF3 for a while and there are still DLC being released. I rather have a BF 2 years after the last DLC and with actual improvements than seeing a kind of Fifa-esque release schedule.

KungfuKitten

I honestly enjoyed BC2 way more than BF3. I already stopped playing BF3 because the gameplay started to annoy me. BC2 just felt better and doesn't act bigger than it is. BF3 is just overhyped with an extremely overrated engine.

F*** the multiplayer, I want a SP-only Bad Company 3.

A Goddamn point-and-click adventure with Haggard and Sweetwater

^^

If EA isn't already paying you for this idea then the gaming industry is indeed doomed.

People, we must kickstart this, or something. Make it happen!

I didn't like the Battlefield: Bad Company games all that much for PC. Its good as a console multiplayer game ,but I found maps weren't really designed with the PC version in mind. You'd have bottlenecks in the map being camped by tons of snipers. Since people have way bettertarget acquisition with a mouse and keyboard than a controller the gameplay would become tedious at best. It just wasn't fun trying to get a bunch of people with sniper rifles to actually move up.

Personally, I still think Battlefield 4 will run the risk of being, essentially, a big level pack with a storymode if it comes out too soon.

[QUOTE="-ArchAngeL-777-"]

They need to decide what they are going to do...Battlefield or Bad Company...and stick with it. Diverge the two lines if they have to. Dont mix the two which is exactly what BF3 is. There were only 2, maybe 3, launch maps that weren't scaled down and catered to COD style close quarters or rush mode. Back to Karkand DLC, Armored Kill DLC, Caspian Border, and Kharg Island are the type of maps you expect in a Battlefield game. The rest belong in Bad Company.

As other's mentioned, the communication is Bad Company, not true Battlefield. No Command structure depletes the team coordination. No commander assets basically makes Recon a stat padder class, and C4 is useless except to blow up tanks. With Commander Assets, recon could have C4 and get behind enemy lines to blow those up like the old Spec Ops class.

BF4 needs to have nothing but large vehicle maps designed for Conquest first and foremost + command structure + commander assets. Everything else needs to go to Bad Company 3.

DragonfireXZ95

And people use it on flags for cheap kills, but that still doesnt make it all that useful. I'm sure a strategic hole in the wall here and there is not bad, but it actually had a more legit purpose in previous battlefield games. Also, previous games like BF2 nerfed the C4 on tanks. You needed to throw your whole inventory on one to even have a chance at blowing it up. C4's main purpose was to blow up commander assets. The Spec Ops/Recon class was the one that carried C4 for that reason.

I would rather see a Bad Company 3 over BF4. But I'd really love to see a BF 1944 and not just some arcade game ethier.