DICE Explains Why There's No Battlefield: Bad Company 3...Yet

Developer says it's aware the series is a fan-favorite, but admits it doesn't quite know how to move forward.

by

Battlefield series developer DICE knows some fans want the Swedish studio to return to the Battlefield: Bad Company series, but doing so is somewhat of a tricky task, according to studio head Karl-Magnus Troedsson. "There were some people who were saying, 'why are you building [Battlefield Hardline]? You should build Bad Company 3 instead," he told Eurogamer in a new interview.

The most recent entry in the Bad Company series--2010's Battlefield: Bad Company 2--sold nearly six million units. But despite this apparent success, Troedsson says DICE isn't quite sure what gamers really enjoyed about the game, which means making a sequel becomes difficult.

"We take all this into account when we think about the future, and do franchise strategy," Troedsson said. "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?'"

GameSpot praised both Battlefield: Bad Company (2008) and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2010), lauding the games for their excellent campaign and multiplayer modes. And we weren't alone. Both titles are currently scored at 80+ on GameSpot sister site Metacritic.

"It's scary to go back and try to remake an old fan favorite when actually no one can really put their finger on what it is people love" -- Karl-Magnus Troedsson

So why hasn't DICE turned around and made another entry in the series? Troedsson went back to what he said before, explaining that it's hard to say just what people enjoyed about the first games.

"Some people say they found the multiplayer controls faster and more direct," he said. "Some people liked the single-player and the characters and the humor. 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 favorite when actually no one can really put their finger on what it is people love," he added. "Bringing back the characters and creating a great single-player out of that, sure, I can understand that."

This is also true for the multiplayer mode, Troedsson said.

"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," he said. "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."

Finally, Troedsson made it clear that the Battlefield: Bad Company franchise is one that DICE holds "very near and dear." He went on to point out that just because we haven't seen the franchise in four years and there's no immediate plans about its return, that doesn't mean the franchise is going away forever.

"It's never dead," he said. "You can always revive it, as with any TV series, movie, or IP. 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."

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and you can follow him on Twitter @EddieMakuch
Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Discussion

156 comments
prozachary
prozachary

A very simple explanation for what is loved about BFBC

The characters weren't crazy "hoorah" military types which is more relatable to the average player. They were also very funny, made you like them and didn't have imaginary friends like in COD.

The single player missions were wildly over the top fire-fights, which is what the average player thinks war is like. Not about flanking and checking your corners, more about blowing up a buildings and running people over with tanks.

The Multiplayer controls were so tight too. When I play the new BF's I feel like I'm playing BFBC on small boat in the middle of the ocean. The camera is always shaking and just bobbing up and down. Not to mention I have to control my players breathing while also controlling my own breathing. I don't want to play a breathing simulator, I want to shoot fake people in the head.

All in all it's not a realistic war simulator, which is what a "game" is supposed to be. I don't want to feel like a monkey learning to be shot into space. I want have fun and not worry about being digitally court-martialed for insubordination!

whoopsjohn
whoopsjohn

Here is a simple solution if you don't want to make a new version of BC, just make....drum roll.... NEW MAPS!!!!! Wouldn't that be simple enough? Don't change a thing about the game, just give us new areas to play on multiplayer. It would be BEAUTIFUL. Seriously.

megantereon
megantereon

BC2 was good for many reasons, and some are listed in these comments. The developer seems out of touch if he can't figure it out..  Since it was so good we could all just start playing BC2 again until BC3 is released. it would be more fun than BF4 or COD in my opinion. We do not need hardline or any other rendition in the meantime. If we all started playing BC2 instead of BF4 they would have no choice but to make a sequel.

apestankz
apestankz

KINDA LONG SORRY

Bad Company 2 was the first FPS game i really got hooked on. I mean i had played the first modern warfare in small amounts and the old medal of honours on playstation 2 when online console play was starting to build up, but BC2 was just so perfect. The multiplayer was amazing, weapons, physics, loadouts, the spawning system. It all seemed to work better and be more spot on than in the newer generations of Battlefield. Map design was another key piece. The maps on BF4 and the limited amount i played on BF3, just seemed so flat and boring compared to BC2. BC2 maps had level variation and the environment was so varied, the maps felt like you could really take advantage of being the close quarters player and the distance player. I never felt like either team was really at an advantage, the games felt more even and less of a stomping ground as it seems to be more often in BF4 and BF3, obviously there were matches where teams got annihilated, but it seemed to be less frequent. And of course what i think is the best thing about the bad company series, as i did play BC1's story, was the campaign. As people below have stated, the characters actually felt real, the cut scenes were interesting, and it was fucking funny. It made you connect with the story that most FPS games don't now. The stories for BF3/4 just felt detached and i didn't really care about the story that much. It is the same formula of badguy country is causing trouble, goodguy country is gonna save the day, but wait there is betrayal by a thought to be good guy. It has just gotten too boring, where as Bad Company made it about the smaller and larger narrative and the brotherhood of the company and their friendships and interactions. They say that they don't know what people loved about bad company, just read these threads and you'll find out it was virtually everything they had to offer. Of course the newer franchises have tried to focus on making a seamless and amazing online experience which in some realms failed miserably, but if they are going to make a new bad company it better have a damn good story line to go with a revamped and polished online experience. God, I had no idea i would rant about that for so long.

ladyfromhell
ladyfromhell

Battlefield 3 was good, BF4 useless same with hardline, but bc2 is hands down the best. other than more guns, prone and lean BC2 was the perfect multiplayer. no need to jets, helicopers did fine. tanks felt like they had weight to them. dice needs to team up with tripwire if you read about what they are doing in kf2 you will see why. on a side note, STOP ASKING PEOPLE TO PAY $60 for crap dlc's ontop of the game. Seriously no game is worth that much.

volted01
volted01

All these comments, I can't take it, oh jesus this is bad. There are some people who have brains who are saying what DICE could do, and there are also people who have just gave up on everything Battlefield. I can't explain it, but over the past few months, the gaming community has gotten extremely gloomy. Everyone either hates every single game coming out, can't move on to new games in a series and complains about how awesome the old one's were and how shite the new one's are, and then there's retards who just straight out hate everything. Some people are KINDA smart and give reasons (dumb reasons mind you) as to why the game sucks, or don't fully hate it, but still criticize it, which is ALWAYS welcome, and then you have the rare as all hell people who enjoy the games for what they are. Games that took effort and are somewhat fresh and look fun. No one is overlooking flaws anymore, everyone's overlooking the good bits and concentrating on flaws. Gaming's not getting stale guys, it's the gamers. :/

Bigjoe275
Bigjoe275

How about this DICE I won't preorder or buy hardline until Bad company 3 is made. How about what we want now. Oh your group doesn't want to make the game. Then I guess the sales for hardline are going too tank and prides are going to be tested. Remember we don't need you you need us.

mmmdeeg
mmmdeeg

I will always remember Battlefail 4 as the game I suffered through playing.  If there were any other FPS games out, I would be playing that game instead.  I simply refuse to play COD, so my last hope is that they make Bad Company 3 since Hardline is nothing but Battlefail 4 re-skinned Michael Bay edition. 

ywntth
ywntth

Actually happy to see a developer consider what made previous games great and actually debate/critically think of how to move a franchise forward rather than carbon-copy the previous game and just tweak story-lines (I'm looking at you, CoD & your sub 6-hour campaign).

jmttdr
jmttdr

Bad company 2 was the best multiplayer game I've played to date. I was a COD addict but once I had adjusted to it, I stopped playing COD all together.


This game was original. The play style, pace and physics were spot on. Now I just find it all ridiculous. Over the top, the physics and controls are different. Maybe it is Frostbite 2 that ruined it for me, but Battlefield 3/4 feel like different franchises to me. 


I will have not bought any map packs for BF4 as they're a waste of money for me. I wont buy any future Battlefield games including BF Hardline, which for me, sucks.


I played BC2 in hardcore mode, and also BF4. It's more tactical and fun for myself. BF3/4 and hardline are for the COD kids. Anyone else who played BC2 hardcore will probably understand.


Either make a BC3 with the same engine as BC2. Or just make a next gen version of BC2. It's a classic. 

je_vois_tout
je_vois_tout

Reasons I loved the series:
-Large, seemingly open Campaign missions, with fun collectibles.

-Epic, long and short range firefights.

-Amazing sound quality

-Plenty of vehicle gameplay

-Loveable, relatable characters

-Bullet delay and drop compensation 

-Destruction

-Great graphics

I think most people liked these things about the game, but there are still things we can't put our fingers on. Get crackin', DICE!

duderdave
duderdave

I posted this after the video, but I still feel it is relevant to this article.




BFBC2 was a fun game. I agree with a lot of what he said in the video that made it so, such as:


- destructibility, generally quick load times, varied maps, a much better rush game mode experience


- fun campaign game, parachute spawning, and a great expansion game with BFBC2 Vietnam.



However, BFBC2 did have its drawbacks as well, such as:


- squads that were way too small - only 4, servers that were way to small - maxed out at 32


- probably the worst helicopter controls of any BF game I have played in (have played them all)


- possibly the worst and most unrealistic effects in hardcore - prime example: an $8.6 million modern tank that has worse vision restrictions than a WW1 Mark V. Hardcore or not, a modern army is not going to allow all of its tanks to run around getting blown up because they basically can't see. That is not hardcore mode; that is sabotage mode.


- ridiculous server settings, especially toward the end. It was like walking in a minefield at times due to all the written restrictions on what you could and could not do in different servers.


- even though there was a good variety of maps and modes, especially toward the end, the majority of the servers did not use them, preferring to run only their same old favorites, over and over and over and over again.


- even though BFBC2 Vietnam was a great expansion, not enough players bought it when it came out, so it was in some ways a missed opportunity. By the time the sale price dropped, it was almost too late. For me it was a no-brainer, but it came out at a time iirc when CoD MW2 was heavily pushing out its map packs, and unfortunately that was where a lot of the $$$ were going.

Bl1zz4rd-
Bl1zz4rd-

The solution, or at least part thereof, would be to put out a survey to the gaming community at large, asking them what they enjoyed. It could be both quantitative and qualitative, to cover all kinds of different answering styles, with DICE giving people sections to provide their own input and others to make choices from (suggested reasons for likind certain parts of the game), so that everything isn't left up to the gamers to form, helping with the expression problem mentioned.


It could be advertized and then analysed afterwards. That kind of thing would provide a great amount of knowledge to use in decision-making about a third Bad Company title.

thesandman52
thesandman52

As long as its nothing like battlefield 4 I think ill be good. But a few of the main reasons I enjoyed the bad company 2 multiplayer were


-Maps: Even though bf3 & 4 have big maps, the bc2 maps always felt more spacious and less cramped/clustered (Arica Harbor, Atacama desert,& Isla Inocentes to name a few)


-Rush: On bf3 and especially bf4, rush feels like it has been sized down. The available area at every m com point feel much smaller than they were in bc2 and that takes the strategy and ultimately the fun out of it. Rush used to be the main reason I played bc2, but nowadays it feels like an afterthought.


-Pace: Most people have noticed the large change of pace between bc2 and bf3/4. Taking an objective in the last 2 battlefield games always feels like a cluster of chaos where everyone just bum rushes in. Not sure what caused the change, but I think the abundance of snipers in the distance combined with the large open spaces of the maps forced people in bc2 to strategize their way to the objective. 

bkolarek
bkolarek

Bought the game few days ago and started playing multiplayer. Cant put the game away.

If I was DICE/EA i would put the game on latest frosbite and allow community to mode it / make new maps.



Things I like about the game:

No jets

Great pacing

Great maps - size/paths

Excellent classes - (assault plays forward and has ammo, medic suppress and heals)

No scope glint

Great colors

No unnecessary clutter - 10.000 weapon customizations and unused guns

Destruction - map slowly changes (levolution feels like gimmick and it has two stages on/off)

Intuitive

Fun/realism ratio

camp1301
camp1301

Bad Company one was the best of the two. The campaign was brilliant and reminiscent of Kelly's Heroes, the right amount of action and humor. BFBC2 was a poor imitation of the first with regards to campaign and its story.

SnakeEyesX80
SnakeEyesX80

Here's what I love: everyone here is acting like they can't play BFBC2 again. I still have it on PS3 (with Vietnam) and PC and there's still a few people playing. So if you all are so disillusioned with BF3-4 then come on back so we can play! The game is still there, just as you remember it, waiting.

phoenixo2o
phoenixo2o

BFBC and BFBC2 were epic. When I think about what I liked about them it comes down to a few things. First of all the environment always had a really warm feel to it. Rich colors gave the game a really crisp look which I feel also made it easier to distinguish where people were on the map. You were just happy to be there. Now that everything is all drowned out in this blueish tint in BF3 and BF4 everything just feels blahish. There are really dark areas and graphics which I understand were made so people can exploit the flashlight mechanic but honestly I feel like it isn't really utilized anyway. At times the inability to see anyone, sometimes directly in front of you, makes for very chaotic moments and cheap deaths. I rarely felt cheated playing BC or BC2.


The pacing of each battle was great in BC/BC2. I think this had a lot to do with the fact that you couldn't go prone. You could still camp and be sneaky but there were more moments where you just had to be constantly on the move. While I was playing it I was always hoping in BF3 we would be able to go prone but now I feel like with that ability more people are just laying in hallways or on a rock somewhere waiting for things to happen. 


The maps all had excellent design. If I remember correctly most of the maps were not super massive expanses of land that required a vehicle to traverse. As a matter of fact there were many games that I didn't even use the vehicles. They were there but with the way there were tons of buildings and cover choices your squad wasn't doomed by them. Outside of the guys who would circle in tight death loops with the helicopters I felt the vehicle presence in the game was really well balanced, maybe even toned down. 


I think overall the map design was just more creative. They had a flow to them. Like fighting through a town that was set on a hill side. This made for great sniping and rooftop play as well as fighting an uphill battle. How can you beat fighting on a golf course?? I guess everything just seemed more varied.


Personally I'd just be happy if they brought back the warm colors and no prone. I feel like those are what really sticks in my head when I imagine playing those games again. 






The-Lord
The-Lord

Bf2 and Bc gives me nostalgic feelings because of its sunny, warm/moody atmosphere it had, especially in Bf2. But Bf3+3.1 is too serious with its boring blue tints and dark themed graphics which makes me depressed. It also had poor destruction and unbalanced boring and repetitive maps. The thing what kept me playing on was the rewarding / ranking system which made me a egoist and a non-team based score addicted player who joined more and more Cod/close narrow maps to increase rank. I ended sad, I admit, tnx to Dice who turned this game into Codderfield.

themc_7
themc_7

hmm I never thought about it like that. I can't quite point my finger on what made it awesome, it just was. I thought SP was enjoyable and funny, and MP was great! MP had great weapons, maps and vehicles. It was never glitchy or broken, everything just seemed to work as it should. It also had an interesting visual style. Graphically beautiful, but not trying to be hyper realistic. I logged over 150 hours into MP alone. 

eze_sl89
eze_sl89

Battlefield bad company 2 just felt more solid. That game felt kind of bugless, comparing to the more massive and bigger BF3 or BF4.

Also, the maps in BFBC2 were more polished and balanced. 

The only specs i regret bad company 2 didnt have was proning to the ground and combat planes.

BFBC2 also had a really unique design, more "ARCADEish" but still fun and realistic enough.

BF3 and 4 were more realistic but they had some very ugly maps, boring as hell and every single match felt repetitive.


Of course BF3 had a lot of fun maps as well, BF4 not so much. And of course graphics are much more refined in the later releases as well.


I think that if they want people to really buy large quantities of the game, they should make a BFBC3 with balanced maps, an efficient engine with fluent graphics, LAN support !, a simplistic menu scheme (BF3 or BF4 were a complete mess), and PLEASE dont use the internet browser to play the game ! that suckks !

All the menues and servers should be used INSIDE the game.

Thats it.

Dav_id83
Dav_id83

BFBC2 was awesome everything was balanced and matches were fun hit detection was far better than BF3 and 4 it's a shame PS3 version isn't as big as it was tried playing last week but just got into games where people where base hording and just not as fun as it was before. BF3 had far to big maps for the amount of players you could have one PS3

Kingnova3000
Kingnova3000

BF: BC2 was/is a brilliant game. It had excellent single player and a amazingly fun and addictive multi. BF3 & BF4, although great fun games (excluding BF4's rough start), but they both lacked the charm BC2 had. I could play BC2's multiplayer for hours without getting tired of it, it was brilliant in every way. BF3 and BF4 just feel... cold and clinical... I guess that's a good enough word to describe them.

Johny_47
Johny_47

Yet? ah so it is on the way, good to know, those games are great, they're actually well worth buying and playing unlike the other piles of s*^t.

endouken
endouken

#1 reason bc2 rocked: destruction.

No one gives a monkeys about levelution. In bf3 + 4 hardly any of the buildings are completely destructible. In bc2 I was able to make my own tactical entry by going in through the roof of a house, or blowing out a wall, or destroy the building to blow up the mcom...the good days where the entire battlefield could be leveled to rubble.

#2 reason: it wasn't a broken game on release.

I still can't play bf4 campaign.

I could easily list 25-50 bugs in bf4 that are still present. Take your time and make a complete game and stop spending so much time on the graphics and more on the game play.

richwalker13
richwalker13

Bad Company 2 is still the greatest multiplayer experience I've ever had on consoles.

They need to limit the map sizes, reduce the amount of vehicular combat, and really focus on the balance.

Also the menu system in BF3 was confusing as hell. Is this new gun better? What actual effect will this new part have?

Arica Harbour forever.

BattleOverlord
BattleOverlord

Bullshit Trollson is like a politician. Blah blah blah and give me your money. DICE is no longer a game company it's a company and their only aim is money/profit.

Hunter1428
Hunter1428

I facepalm so hard to this!!!!! DICE this is your Job to make games, if you cannot figure out how to make a game or why people like it you really shouldn't be making them!

postalsam
postalsam

I'll give them a few reasons if they want, the single player was bearable, the destruction was better, it wasn't trying to compete with other FPS titles (that I noticed), the multiplayer wasn't that broken and the maps weren't poorly designed, no proper Battlelog (yes that's a good thing), it didn't take itself too seriously and it felt like more of what Battlefield should be like instead of the "levolution" and saturation of post process effects. Well that's what I liked about it anyway

eyelanderules
eyelanderules

At the end of Bad Company 2 you said china was invading through Alaska, there you got your SP story. Come on dice

Sarijon
Sarijon

Typical conglomerate, they forget that all the little (people) massed together make a whole. Now none of the original team (little people) work there, they have no one to ask/reflect with........it's us, the minions that made you, it's about time you remember that!

sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

Here are some -Don't have to run for 10 minutes to get somewhere only to get sniped by some scrub camping on a hill. Maps were the perfect size, full of hills and buildings to prevent that. Sniping was also fun because it worked fine. - You didn't have jets and helicopters owning you every seconds. They spawned slower and were easier to kill. Only thing OP was the dang tank, but even that was easy with a few C4. -Destruction was awesome, a few grenade rounds and that sniper campfest goes crashing down -No absurd leveling to get a decent gun.....

Gigas_Yuu
Gigas_Yuu

Love loved the UAV and how you could attack with it. A fun little gadget and even cooler counter play when you assassinated its operator. Things like that add charm to gameplay, and as long as DICE can nail those little "charms" they will make Bad Company the way it was.

Among these charms were truly destructible environments. I feel like the giant building falling apart at Shanghai is supposed to be the gigantic distraction that destruction really sucks in the new Frostbite engine. 

In Bad Company 2 it really felt like you could blow up near anything. Bullets and hit detection were better. Loved how hard the M95's bullet dropped in Bad Company 2. Just some really nasty, heavy hitting gun play in that game. The only thing I didn't like was the gun perspective, which was fixed in BF3/4.

  Other than that and nailing the action comedy campaign of Bad Company, I think they could make a great BC3. 

I want them to focus on Star Wars though. And take their sweet time. A quality Battlefront game made by such a high powered company only comes maybe twice in a lifetime. 

XxXDarkness0XxX
XxXDarkness0XxX

how about ASK the fans on what they love about it stupid fucks... here is a couple things. Hit detection worked, not loaded with lock on weapons everything was balanced 

NeoMortiny
NeoMortiny

Just shows how aloof they really are. They had something original with them, but they took the dudebro turn and don't even realise how they messed up.

They're such jokes!

omar_q
omar_q

The classes were balanced, the graphics had a unique element to them, destructibility of buildings, sniping was just better (and no I don't mean long range, short range sniping with a bolt action felt really satisfying).

You know what, just don't bother touching Bad Company 2. Battlefield 2 was a great game and the 'successors' are pure shit. 

AyatollaofRnR
AyatollaofRnR

Bad Company 2 was da Bomb! Just gives us more of that DICE. It's not rocket science.

jackmioph
jackmioph

 The best part of Bad Company 2 was that I could go around with C4, a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, really any explosive, and level an entire map. The destruction in the game just felt so satisfying, and that's just gone with Battlefield 3&4. Don't get me wrong, I still love those games, but the destruction isn't near as satisfying.

gastankkiller
gastankkiller

I've visited many gaming news websites today and all the comments are pretty much the same. And so is the over all disappointment in the comment made about DICE not really knowing what made the Bad Company series a fan favorite.

Does this mean that DICE has given up all together? Sure sounds like it, and that is truly disappointing. 

I still have copies of Bad Company 2 for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Why? Because it was that one game I was completely cool with paying twice for. I didn't want to miss out on playing with any of my friends regardless of platform.

So many thought I was crazy but I played the hell out of both platform copies. I even bought all the expansion on both systems. Crazy, Right! That's how I feel about the Bad Company series, and I would do it all over again.

Alucard1475
Alucard1475

They don't know what made the game fun? Go f****** play it and find for yourselves.

SnakeEyesX80
SnakeEyesX80

DICE isn't developing Hardline. So you're not really bothering them if you don't buy/play it.

I actually hope Visceral does good with Hardline.

kupluncksteve
kupluncksteve

@jmttdr exactly my thoughts if they cant think of a new game release a remake of BC2 with the Cry Engine i think everyone would love to see that imagine the building blowing up with the engine it would be amazing 

geekasauruswrex
geekasauruswrex

"It was never glitchy or broken, everything just seemed to work as it should."

You haven't played long then. Admittedly however, DICE did not take as long to fix the game the way they did BF3/4

Anachronizer
Anachronizer

@eze_sl89 Spot on there. With Fighter Jets and the ability to go prone and maybe a bit of the parkour ability from BF3 like vaulting over obstacles, Bad Company 2 would've been along with Battlefield 2 the best Battlefield games ever!!

quaker04
quaker04

@BattleOverlord So a game company shouldn't be able to profit? That doesn't make any sense.

brande77
brande77

@eyelanderules Everyone is too scared to make an IP with China as the enemy. That film remake, whatsitsname, was going to have China invading the USA (was Russia in the original), but they changed it mid production to North Korea instead. I don't think I can think of a single game, or other property where the Chinese are the bad guys.

emperiox
emperiox

@Alucard1475  The funny thing is...haven't they been saying that they are going to me more pro-consumer?

geekasauruswrex
geekasauruswrex

Typical logic of people with not even a slight of business acumen