• Battlefield: Bad Company 3 will happen, says DICE
    89 replies, posted
[QUOTE=<man>;42392683]BC1 had a great cliffhanger ending that I would love to see concluded.[/QUOTE] I would just like a revert back to BF2 days. Is that so hard to ask for, DICE? :c [QUOTE=VOSK;42392462]Thats BC 2[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/vp/image/1364/42/1364421857011.jpg[/IMG] [sp]Blackbird do you follow every post I make and rate it dumb, if it's related to me disliking BF4?[/sp]
I enjoyed Bad Company more then BF3 and probably will over BF4. The single player was so much better too.
Please, please make it more like BC1 than BC2. It was much more interesting and quirky. I don't know if BC2 was supposed to be all satirical, but it felt like they were seriously trying to make more "realistic" and "modern," completely nullifying BC1. Hell, wasn't the premise in BC1 that they were screw-up soldiers, put into the "expendable" company? In BC2, they tossed that out, and made them a more actual military squad. It felt... boring.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42394167]Please, please make it more like BC1 than BC2. It was much more interesting and quirky. I don't know if BC2 was supposed to be all satirical, but it felt like they were seriously trying to make more "realistic" and "modern," completely nullifying BC1. Hell, wasn't the premise in BC1 that they were screw-up soldiers, put into the "expendable" company? In BC2, they tossed that out, and made them a more actual military squad. It felt... boring.[/QUOTE] Yeah but keep improving on BC2s multiplayer. BC1 MP cant hold a candle to BC2. Fuck BF3 and 4 can't hold a fucking candle to BC2's MP. Fuck me, BC2's MP was even more fun than BF2. Maybe it's just because I played BF2 recently and it was extremely dated but still.
anyone who's excited to play a sequel to bad company 2 clearly hasn't been paying attention to DICE in the last 3 years. it's going to be extremely rushed and they're probably going to outsource the campaign to Danger Close so they can slap together a somewhat playable rail shooter campaign in the 2-3 months they're given.
I really hope they go back to the open world singeplayer like in BC1. That's the one thing I hated about BC2. They completely got rid of the whole idea of completing the objective however you wanted. Instead, they turned BC2 into another linear singleplayer.
I fucking loved BC2. Was the best multiplayer experience i probably ever had. BC3 would be amazing if it had the same feeling it did in bc2. The transition from the BC2 Engine to BF3 engine was way to drastic for me and felt just clunky.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;42394167]Please, please make it more like BC1 than BC2. It was much more interesting and quirky. I don't know if BC2 was supposed to be all satirical, but it felt like they were seriously trying to make more "realistic" and "modern," completely nullifying BC1. Hell, wasn't the premise in BC1 that they were screw-up soldiers, put into the "expendable" company? In BC2, they tossed that out, and made them a more actual military squad. It felt... boring.[/QUOTE] Yeah, my main problem with BC2 was that it was less of "Bad Company" and more of "Bad Ass Company". The MP was improved in BC2 though.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;42392908]I would just like a revert back to BF2 days. Is that so hard to ask for, DICE? :c[/QUOTE] pls no. I prefer it when my game is actually playable and not a semi-workable piece of shit the majority of the time. I quite like being able to shoot at people and not requiring a vehicle to actually hit people. [editline]3rd October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Minimal;42395139]I fucking loved BC2. Was the best multiplayer experience i probably ever had. BC3 would be amazing if it had the same feeling it did in bc2. The transition from the BC2 Engine to BF3 engine was way to drastic for me and felt just clunky.[/QUOTE] BC2 was far, far clunkier because the engine was still in its infancy really. It still felt alright to play, it was just a bit clunky at times.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42395157]Yeah, my main problem with BC2 was that it was less of "Bad Company" and more of "Bad Ass Company". The MP was improved in BC2 though.[/QUOTE] I could care less about the single player anyways. It's just linear shootman campaigns. I loved the MP in both games though I hope it returns in a great fasion. (and not some COD-esque bullshit like BF3)
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42395183]pls no. I prefer it when my game is actually playable and not a semi-workable piece of shit the majority of the time. I quite like being able to shoot at people and not requiring a vehicle to actually hit people.[/quote] Okay, well I agree with you on that. The bullet spread was pretty absurd, but the way they have it now, basically has no recoil or spread even after shooting automatic for 20 rounds, when most AR's would start arcing in your hands, instead of being pinpoint accurate. I'm just talking about the specific factions, and the fun that BF2 was, when playing it. I mean, there were assholes and elitists that hogged the helicopters and jets at times, but when there isn't. It was pretty fun. You'd jump around, trying to get up to places, to kill camouflaged snipers, sitting in a bush. Waiting till they shot to know where they were. Setting up ambushes in a control point with C4 hiding it in areas, and blowing it up. It was fun as hell, and I miss that aspect. The horrible netcode and all that, I don't miss.
Great news but if you ask me there was nothing "Bad" about Bad Company 2. In BC1 you accidentally invade a neutral country chasing mercenary gold while avoiding the US army. In BC2 you just follow orders so if anything they were just "Good Company". I hope they go back to the way the first game was when it comes to the story.
Why? BC2 had the same Multiplayer as all the other BF games. The only thing Bad Company had going for it over Battlefield was the satirical, off the wall storyline, which they more or less removed in BC2. Go back to the original style of BC1 and we'll be good. Otherwise there's literally no point in making this game while continuing to make other Battlefield games other than to milk the cow dry.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42392200]okay that's true, black ops 1 was pretty good in its vietnam setting the story was enjoyable and i liked the twist at the end also it was a breath of fresh air[/QUOTE] I thought Black Ops was awesome, so much variation among the enviroments in the campaign.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;42395778]Okay, well I agree with you on that. The bullet spread was pretty absurd, but the way they have it now, basically has no recoil or spread even after shooting automatic for 20 rounds, when most AR's would start arcing in your hands, instead of being pinpoint accurate. I'm just talking about the specific factions, and the fun that BF2 was, when playing it. I mean, there were assholes and elitists that hogged the helicopters and jets at times, but when there isn't. It was pretty fun. You'd jump around, trying to get up to places, to kill camouflaged snipers, sitting in a bush. Waiting till they shot to know where they were. Setting up ambushes in a control point with C4 hiding it in areas, and blowing it up. It was fun as hell, and I miss that aspect. The horrible netcode and all that, I don't miss.[/QUOTE] More variety in the factions and such would be nice, and it seems BF4 is a step in the right direction for that with US/ RU/ CN being the factions used. And from the short time I spent in the beta, guns do feel a lot more, well, gun like. With a bit more recoil here and there. A lot of the stuff you mentioned is entirely possible in modern Battlefield games, and is no way restricted to BF2, other than the atrocious netcode which has been replaced with questionable client side hit detection :v: It's just harder to do some of the things mentioned due to the physics being a bit more accurate and the movement feeling a bit less floaty in a way.
Bad Company 2 had more of a BF and less of CoD feeling compared to BF3. IDK if it was due to maps or gunplay, but something, something, just felt much better in Bad Company 2.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42392112]vietnam in bc2 wasn't free but supposly it was really good but bc2 was really fun with just the stock maps blowing buildings up where snipers were in, only complaint was that it felt like you were slipping on ice in some of those environments[/QUOTE] Vietnam was fantastic. Absolutely worth the price on launch. I probably put more hours into vietnam than the base game.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;42392194]Fuck no 2142 :([/QUOTE] 2143, not 2142.
Considering both bf3 and bf4 are a downgrade to bc2 I have no hope in this one.
[QUOTE=spectator1;42397822]Considering both bf3 and bf4 are a downgrade to bc2 I have no hope in this one.[/QUOTE] Care to say why you feel this way?
Sarge is gonna be [I]real[/I] pissed when they pull him out of retirement for this. He's gettin' too old for this.
I just want a WW2 battlefield game again.
[QUOTE=asXas;42398977]Care to say why you feel this way?[/QUOTE] Well the first thing not on steam, the second thing dlc hogging, third thing less realism by adding pointless shit on top like the overbearing lens flare and blue tints, ducking that only makes snipers even more annoying. Like I said this comes from youtube vids that I watched I have the game on origin from humble bundle but without all the dlc its like getting 10% of the game and just screw origin. bf4 is already going downhill with day 1 dlc.
[quote]EA later said that it plans to rotate between Battlefield, Titanfall, and Star Wars: Battlefront as the publisher's main annual shooter.[/quote] Uh I don't like the fact that they plan to do this.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;42400369]Uh I don't like the fact that they plan to do this.[/QUOTE] Why? If they are rotating between the three that should give the games two to three years of development time hopefully (unless they intend to publish yearlies, in which case they would be making a mistake, even they would know that).
[QUOTE=hexpunK;42400411]Why? If they are rotating between the three that should give the games two to three years of development time hopefully (unless they intend to publish yearlies, in which case they would be making a mistake, even they would know that).[/QUOTE] Because instead of focusing on new IPs we will be getting the same 3 games every couple years.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;42400491]Because instead of focusing on new IPs we will be getting the same 3 games every couple years.[/QUOTE] Gotta have money to fund new IPs. Who's to say there won't be other things come up from other developers in that time? DICE aren't the only developer at EA after all.
I'm fairly sure EA has plenty of money to fund new IPs. They just don't want to risk it. The only risk they are taking is Titanfall and we all know that is going to make a killing already.
I have no complaints living in a world where a Battlefield or Star Wars Battlefront game comes out every other year.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;42400562]I have no complaints living in a world where a Battlefield or Star Wars Battlefront game comes out every other year.[/QUOTE] then clearly you care nothing for the quality of the games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.