Sections

Will Battlefield: Bad Company 3 ever happen? “Wait and see,” says DICE

Tuesday, 24th June 2014 09:36 GMT By Dave Cook

Battlefield: Bad Company 3 is a frequently-requested game from shooter fans, but DICE boss Karl-Magnus Troedsson is having difficulty understanding why, exactly, fans feel the game is better than Battlefield 4.

bad

It follows Visceral Games’ lead multiplayer designer Thad Sesser explaining why Battlefield: Hardline is more than a Battlefield 4 expansion. Did you find his answer satisfactory?

Now, speaking with Eurogamer, Troedsson reflected on the Battlefield: Hardline reveal a few weeks ago, and the dismay felt by fans who were holding out for a Bad Company 3 announcement.

“We hear those comments as well and see them. There were some people who were saying, ‘why are you building Hardline? You should build Bad Company 3 instead.’”

It seem DICE is more than aware of fans who want a new Bad Company game, and Troedsson stressed that the team takes fan feedback into account when thinking about future series instalments. He added, “But there’s one thing that lingers with Bad Company that we’ve been asking ourselves: what is it that the people really liked about Bad Company?”

From this side of the fence, it’s clear many gamers like the Bad Company brand of humour, the open world nature of the first game’s maps, and the fact that in some multiplayer maps, almost every structure can be levelled by the end of a round.

“Some people say they found the multiplayer controls faster and more direct,” Troedsson went on. “Some people liked the single-player and the characters and the humour. People love different things about it. It’s starting to almost get to that place where, if we were to make a sequel to Bad Company, what would than even imply?”

“It’s scary to go back and try to remake an old fan favourite when actually no-one can really put their finger on what it is people love,” he admitted. “Bringing back the characters and creating a great single-player out of that, sure, I can understand that.

“But some people say this: the Bad Company 2 multiplayer is the best you’ve ever done. Okay, why is that? It’s hard for people to articulate what that is, which is actually hard for us. It would be hard to remake something like that. Can we do it? Of course. We have our theories when it comes to the multiplayer.”

Troedsson said that gamers will have to, “wait and see,” when asked if DICE will ever make another Bad Company title. He said that the “sub-brand” is held near to the studio’s heart and stressed that like any TV series movie or IP, the series isn’t truly dead, and can always be revived.

“It’s going to come down to, if people really want it and if a team inside my group really wants to build it, then sure,” he closed.

Do you want Battlefield: Bad Company 3 to happen? Let us know below.

Latest

18 Comments

  1. Erthazus

    No. It’s not. Battlefield 4 is better than any Bad Company game or any Battlefield game. It was rushed but it have incredible production values and future proof ideas that other devs will use all these years.

    Bad Company was just a side project for bigger games. In fact it was just a test-project for Frostbyte destruction.

    #1 3 months ago
  2. DiodeX

    MP maps, I loved the BC1+2 maps, maybe they just worked really well as Rush maps as that is all I used to play. BF3 + 4 have some good maps but they just don’t feel as good. Saying that, the “aftermath + close quarters” DLC maps were brilliant. They just need a greatest hit BF world Map pack, but no one would be 100% happy as we all like different thinks.

    #2 3 months ago
  3. polygem

    BFBC2 has been the last BF game i found enjoyable.
    BF3 and 4 try too much but never really deliver. Bad Company just focused on the essentials and was better because of that…in my opinion.

    #3 3 months ago
  4. harryBundles

    BFBC2 had my absolute favorite multi-player maps and gameplay. There were a lot of map variations (snow maps, city maps, night time maps…) which made each game feel fresh. The sound was amazing, too; you could hear the enemy sneaking up behind you which seems to have gotten lost in other Battlefield games. There were also a lot of great moments in the single player campaign that made me like the game.

    #4 3 months ago
  5. fengato

    Troedsson is right about fans not being able to put their fingers on it – for most of the BFBC3 cheersquad (typically of a certain age), BFBC2 was their first main FPS experience. Nostalgia is the name of the game here. Go back and play it now; it’s clunky (eg: you can’t turn properly whilst sprinting / long delay between trigger and firing) and feels old/obsolete. I play many older games that still hold up (SFIII 3S for example). BC2 is not one of them.

    Yes the game was “simpler” – but really, these fans are craving simpler times. ;-)

    #5 3 months ago
  6. OrbitMonkey

    What a prize pillock.

    Bad Company had a great cast, clearly following a Kellys Hero’s, Three Kings vibe and DICE don’t think about putting them into a game about robbing banks?!

    #6 3 months ago
  7. polygem

    i don´t think it´s good game design if you put more players into your game and let them fight things out on bigger maps, let some scyscrapers collapse here and there as well but do not refine the basic gameplay elements or even balance the game well.

    bf3 and 4 are pretty much luck based shooter games with a little bit of routine skill involved. i am not bad at them – think i have 200+ skill levels – but they just play like shit compared to halo or even cod if you look at it from a competitive side.
    bc2 was much better balanced.

    from a competitive perspective simpler games are often the more balanced games. bf3 and especially 4 are way too hectic and unbalanced. they try too much and do not deliver in anything. they might be more complex and demanding on paper but in fact they are only a big clusterfuck for marketing reasons.

    in fact they are much simpler than the other games i named. they only provide you with an ilusion of complexity. in the end it´s just run and shoot too but the run and shoot mechanics are horrible.

    to me it will always be: nail the gameplay first, make it feel right, then add the extra awesome. bc2 was on a good way to find a great formula…bf3 crushed it again . that´s why we need a bfbc3 – to fix this.

    #7 3 months ago
  8. fengato

    @polygem ^ The gun mechanics are top notch in 3/4 – unparalleled in my view. Also, if you don’t want a giant clusterfook, then play TDM, DOM or Obliteration. I don’t undertand why everybody feels that you have to play 64 man Conquest in BF3/4.

    #8 3 months ago
  9. Llewelyn_MT

    Things BC2 did better then either BF3 or BF4:
    * better class balance (ie. no 4 assault teams)
    * destruction
    * simpler unlock system that actually made sense
    * proper destruction
    * more skill-dependant combat
    * proper destruction of trees and most structures
    * better launchers
    * proper destruction of trees and most structures that allowed more tactical choices
    * no prone position sniper/LMG camping nonsense

    Did I mention destruction?

    The only progress that was made since seems to be the player movement.

    #9 3 months ago
  10. ENGCLM

    Until Battlefield 4, I never got into the Battlefield craze except with the Bad Company spin-offs which I liked their tongue in cheek / less serious approach.

    I’d like to see Bad Company 3, loved the destruction.

    #10 3 months ago
  11. BULArmy

    I am also bigger fan of BFBC2 than the 3/4 experience. I own BF3, play some get bored, but I constantly crave to get back to BC2. The stroy was ok, not as good as the one in the original as I heard(no consoles), but definitely better than BF3. BC2 as Llewelyn_MT said did destruction very well and this more or less changed gameplay during the round. Rush was much better because of this. The maps were also nice and the only thing missing were planes, which I still don’t know how to fly well, after years of various BF games so it is not a big problem for me. I don’t even care for 64 players, because it is just too much of a clusterfuck, even though enjoyable because of easier kills. Maybe I am imaging it, but teamplay was much better in BC2, or maybe now there are just more hardcore players left to play the game.

    #11 3 months ago
  12. ExLee

    Why is everyone so fond of Bad Company games ? I admit I quite enjoyed them for a while especially the tongue in cheek approach in story mode but they were basically just tech demos for frostbite engine made specifically for consoles…
    Two spin-offs that devolved rather than evolved in the series and with BC2 literally just being a copy-paste from BC1. Really simple Battlefields with really simple and dumbed down mechanics, zero complexity and really clunky movement and gun handling. Is that really what you want ?
    And how in the hell was the destruction the best thing EVAR if they were only like different 5 buildings shamelessly copy-pasted across maps that collapsed with VERY distinct sound that you could hear across the map when 75% of the walls were destroyed. Plus 5 other building that didn’t collapse at all… and some fences…
    I think DICE should just release BC3 as a downloadable Arcade title for XBL and PSN (like BF 1943) to quench your thirst for simplicity so they concentrate on making a proper PC sequel to BF2 and BF2142 that neither BF3 or BF4 had yet delivered.

    #12 3 months ago
  13. SlayerGT

    I can explain exactly why it’s better. Every action is faster; switching weapons, getting in and out of vehicles, etc. No prone. More recoil. And player movement was slower. You had to think more tactically. Plan ahead. And learn to handle the weapons. The medic also didn’t have assault rifles. My only complaint actually with BFBC2 was the circle strafing helos.

    #13 3 months ago
  14. Dog4life

    Bad Company 2 what a dream game ! best fun i ever had playing online, F A N T A S T I C

    Why is it better than any other bf game ?
    –> Awesome designed maps for RUSH.
    –> great destruction, complete building collapsing
    –>Awesome gadgets and well balanced classes
    –> gameplay is less realistic than bf4… but feel more fun and responsive
    –> did i mention the excellent Rush maps ???!!!

    In the end it’s just way more fun than any recent BF game.

    #14 3 months ago
  15. VTchitcherine

    I think the demands of Battlefield fans are actually very simple… if you fire a massive tank shell at a wall… it should be destroyed. From that very simple gameplay premise, a surprising amount follows. I actually greatly enjoyed the BF4 beta but the woeful launch impressions deterred me from purchasing the game.

    A game which successfully couples the gunplay, environmental interactivity and fidelity of BF4 and the simple destructive freedom of Bad Company 2 will be the best multiplayer PvP shooter ever made.

    #15 3 months ago
  16. wickedcricket

    every time I hear or read a reference to Bad Company 2, a simple quote comes instantly to my mind: **2 violin chords in the background** “A simple support mission, they said…”, then I have this urgent need to see and hear the Battlefield Bad Company 2 – Official Single Player Trailer. And then I watch it like 5 times and relive wonderful moments playing that game…

    #16 3 months ago
  17. sciophobiaranger

    @Dog4life #14, Battlefield 4 is more realistic? Do you know what realistic is? Have you ever experienced the real thing? No. You’ll realize the games aren’t realistic and they’re… games! Who would have thought! Do not speak on the realism of SHOOTERS if you’ve never experienced the real thing or that you do not know what the real thing is like. The games are meant to be fun, not to be simulating something you’ll wet your pants if you really experienced.

    #17 3 months ago
  18. h4wkrapt0r

    @sciophobiaranger http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Relative+term
    Think before you act (or type in this case).
    It is unlikely that any game in for foreseeable future will be unable to totally mimic real life situations (for a number of reasons, with Video game consoles and PC’s having a lack of processing power, chief among them), however they can emulate aspects of it.
    Is BF4 realistic? in comparison to real-life, no. In comparison to COD, yes it is, why? For one there is (some) bullet drop in BF4.

    FYI: Games are NOT always designed for “fun” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/game?q=games).

    #18 3 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.