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.

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

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Battlefield: Bad Company 2?

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Discussion

190 comments
joebananas89
joebananas89

the scores, the beefy sounds of war tapes, the background scenery & fire effects & sounds and launch of rockets  , the effects, the destruction, the voice over , the ambient sounds, the death animations , they explosion animations of vehicles, the badass russians, the particle effects, the guns sounds, the reloading sounds and the sounds of mechanisms moving, the dirty looking steel feeling heavy heavy guns, the dust, and wind blowing, the vietnam expansion, BC2 was the funnest fps i have ever played. now look at bf3/4.

kiranbvsn
kiranbvsn

BFBC2 is one perfect pack, it has everything in it.......look I will cover it how.


1. I literally felt the game, with good humor that connects the story line and sentiments with in the pack. (20%)


2. Graphics are so aligned with story line,maps and the missions  (20%)


3. Gameplay is so nice that you can feel that,you are not alone in the game (eventhough you are playing alone in some maps you can communicate to ur pack with humor). (20%)


4. This game is not about winning the war.........its about protecting each other to get out of it safely.. ryt time ryt help.. when your hopes are gone.....your team shows up and help you out of it.(its part of storyline though heheheh).....its team work.. that wins at the end of the game...( this even implies to enemies too lol when they are defending themselves). (20%).


5. Weapons,  vehicles and others..how cool they are... BTW.....ryt weapons on the ryt maps at the ryt situation....real time destruction exp. (20%)---- simply WOW.......


6. not to forget.....quick decisions, moves that you have to make to complete the missions at somepoint is sooo awesome. (10%)


7. soundtrack (10%)


I Gave 120%.......hope BFBC3 will rate more than that........


this time in BFBC3 add the following too

1. Stealth missions

2. getting into the war..not only day time but night times and mountains.. snipping.........(WOW)

3. Tankers, jets, boats........(never get old).

and much more...........



The fact is .... I am so addicted to this game that at the end I felt lyk... Y I've finished the game....I want some more..

ronin_1973
ronin_1973

I've been a gamer since the days of the Atari 2600.  That's about 36 years of gaming.  Bad Company 2 was a hit because it limited its focus and DICE concentrated on improving those areas it focused on.  I'd love to be on the development team as a product manager for Bad Company 3.  

oldtobie
oldtobie

"Troedsson says DICE isn't quite sure what gamers really enjoyed about the game, which means making a sequel becomes difficult."

We liked the tight controls, reliable hit detection, and "If you see it you can put a hole in it" destructibility.  BF3 was still good despite having some obvious problems with hit detection and very limited destruction.  BF4 was... well, I'm not going to get into that.  

Another thing people want is the end of Battlelog (On PC version).  Nobody wants it.  It makes getting into a game take forever and it's just unpleasant doing so.  Just make a basic fullscreen launcher that allows options adjustments, single player campaign start-up (I've accepted that single player isn't going away any time soon), and multiplayer server browsing and people would be a million times happier.

Micro-transactions are an abomination, and they make the game seem like a crappy F2P.  Having them around is just bad for the game and the community.

Finally, if EA insists on the 5 pre-made DLC system, at least make the DLC worth getting.  Bad Company DLC had UNIQUE maps, and the vehicle additions were actually different enough to justify calling them an addition.  Bring that back.

If they do all or most of these things, I will have no issue getting back into the Battlefield franchise.  As for now, I won't be getting Hardline or any successive releases.

gamersince78
gamersince78

Well, after reading that, I just kind of want to go play in traffic. I loved this game. This is quite depressing that the people that made the game cant understand what we liked about it. That is a freaking astounding comment, from the CEO, out of touch much?


I can go google BFBC2 and find forums full of things people love about this game.


But we can get him started...feel free to add to the list...maybe if this gets big enough, they will pay attention...


I will get it started:


1) Destruction Baby...


Example...nelson bay starts as a forested map...ends as a vast wasteland with not one tree left to be found...simply beautiful!


2) Sweetwater and Haggard...


Enough said.


3) Vehicles...


Perfectly balanced...tanks dealt out great destruction but were not indestructible (NO JETS!). And epic vehicle battles (Arica Harbor / Atacama / Etc)


4) The Community...


This was a big one for me...I met a ton of friends on that game...people I still game with today from all over the world


5) Bullets drop / Gun play / Movement:


To be fair, this is likely what dice means when they say they cant put their finger on it...as it is hard to relate why the gameplay felt so tight and well balanced...it just felt...right...anyone who played, will know what I mean I think, and by all means, feel free to elaborate.


6) Maps


I mean seriously, were there any maps that sucked? I know everyone might like more than others, but there were no truly awful maps really...harvest day and laguna would be the only ones I didn't enjoy thoroughly.



I am sure there is more to add to the list...make it a big one, and let's send this to dice with a big bow wrapped around it....GIMMMMMME MY BFBC 3 !!!!!!

AncientDozer
AncientDozer

First off, stop making super serious special effects campaigns. That's call of duty. It's what it does and it's no longer special and it's stupidly boring now.

Bad Company 1 and 2 succeeded because they were funny, witty, and not as serious (although Bad Company 2 toned down the comedy and started going into Call of Duty territory; it basically was a sign of what would become of Battlefield 3).

Bad Company 2 had a variety of maps. It had legitimate dark maps, heavily wooded areas, and wide open places, houses that could be dropped.

That's what made it great.

thehollowones
thehollowones

It's okay DICE, you don't have to be ashamed, you can just say you're allergic to money. You're not the only ones but I think there's pills for that that remind execs what this whole "Supply and Demand" thing is. So ya know, hop to it.

shiel44
shiel44

Bad company 2 was good. The first one sucked though. Both had issues with invisible barriers blocking bullets.

pmulrich
pmulrich

The top ten list that bartrams points to is awesome and definitive. Great work Gamespot. DICE should stop coming up with the same lame talking points about why BC3 is not in the works. The soulless suits at EA probably have them over a barrel about monetizing more bad games like BF4 and that poor excuse of an overpriced BF4 DLC (hardline-which can never be awesomer then BC2 Vietnam).


BC2 multiplayer was awesome. Not need to log into that buggy always on DRM prison Origin (seriously - last week was my fifth instance of getting cannot connect to EA online error since the BF4 beta); practically no load time between games; great multiplayer maps; better feel for multiplayer firefights with weapon effects and priority of fire; no Origin; better feel in vehicles than BF4; fewer weapons with no pay to play gimmicks (battlepacks? season passes?really? $60 of our blood is not enough?) and on, and on. Did I mention that BC2 didn't need to go go through Origin?

bigruss51
bigruss51

So I guess they don't listen to us otherwise they would know

EdAl2112
EdAl2112

Does DICE even play their own games? If you did, you wouldn't have to ask what was liked.... Never mind. Looking at Battlefield 4, DICE clearly don't play their own games. :/

bigcr47
bigcr47

Id love to see Battlefield 2143..... 2142 was my favorite!

elessarGObonzo
elessarGObonzo

Bad Company 2 = best Battlefield game out there, still

nikon133
nikon133

That's a bit lame excuse. If they don't know what people loved about the game - well, ask people. Waiting for ever is not going to enlighten them any more.

But in my book:

Story was good (much better than BF3)

Campaign was long (much longer than BF3)

Characters were well fleshed out (unlike BF3 characters)

There was enough humour in the game (unlike BF3 that tried too hard to be dramatic and ended up, well. So-so)

All the elements worked well from technical perspective (don't remember many issues even on release)

Game servers did not end up rented to kids who often spoiled MP to those who just wanted to play it without stupid limitations

And of course, game looked great, played great, destructibility was awesome.

I think major problem they have with the game is that it MUST have decent-length story/campaign, and well written one... on top of what every other multiplayer-only (or primarily) BF has. More work for them.

playniko69
playniko69

If you don't know what made Bad Company fun, then how in the world did you create it in the first place? Also, you guys have gajillions of dollars sitting in the bank, I'm sure you could figure something out. 

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!

donnydinlv
donnydinlv

Why was BF:BC2 so enjoyable? Because it was REAL! Not the plot, obviously, but the portrayals of the primary characters were dead on. I enjoyed the MP immensely, but I enjoyed the single player missions that much more. What made this sub-series so enjoyable was that the characters were true to life - the embittered NCO/SNCO who wants to finish his tour with no drama, but will do it all to save his men; the good to go, gung-ho squaddie that just loves to blow and shoot shit up; the smartassed know-it-all that made it through boot and SOI on a wing and a prayer, but is too damn smart to be enlisted (why the hell wasn't Sweetwater forced to go Green to Gold?!); and Marlowe, who lucked out in nearly every engagement, but still keeps his shit together... I served with Marines that were just like these guys, and I'm sure there's other 03/11 Bravo gamers out there that can relate. That's what made this game a total hit - at least for me.

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. 

AncientDozer
AncientDozer

Also, it was about a GOLD HEIST, the first game. You actually were fighting over crates of gold in the first game. That was AWESOME.

Rufus_the_rat
Rufus_the_rat

@shiel44 The first one was better in that it was more innovative whereas BC2 just slightly improved on things it had already done, such as making houses fully collapse in a scripted way. The single player in BC1 was much better because it was non-linear, had a better story with more humor and less seriousness, and the campaign was longer and had more collectibles rewarding exploration.

Don't hate on BC1 just because it was console only and you probably missed out on it.

bigruss51
bigruss51

@EdAl2112  BF4 is really good just had too many problems on release and there was no need to release it so early since a lot of people felt bf3 had more life in it.

djpetitte
djpetitte

@bigcr47  agreed, I think people who have played bf since 1942 and didn't just jump onto the bc bandwagon would agree that 2142 was the most original and extremely fun bf

AncientDozer
AncientDozer

@nikon133 I disagree. The story was the weak part of Bad Company 2.

They took out too much of the humor and comedy of Bad Company 1.

Bad Company 2 was solid but clearly the sign of things to come. They started being too much like Call of Duty with kill cams, a serious Michael Bay campaign. . .

Dinostrich
Dinostrich

@nikon133 I'd have to say I pretty much agree.  I defiantly feel BF3 (As far as consoles) had the best multiplayer experience.  BF4's campaign was a small improvement on BF3 but Bad Company still had a better story by far.  Plus I'm pretty sure DICE never had to do as much damage control on Bad Company as they did for BF4; because they probably actually took the time to make the game right!   Instead of rushing it out to beat COD.

bigruss51
bigruss51

@megantereon  Once they see hardline fail miserably I think they'll get a move on making bad company 3 real quick.


Rufus_the_rat
Rufus_the_rat

@volted01 It's because games aren't impressing or wowing like they used to. Most game genres are stagnant or actually getting worse in terms of gameplay and story, especially any military or shooter themed games.

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 

gamersince78
gamersince78

@duderdave  I have no idea what you are talking about...worst helicopter controls? are you nuts? They were the easiest by far...bc 3 and 4 introduced pitch and yaw which was just retarded, as they already perfected the flying in bfbc 2. Ridiculous server settings? Well, that is pc, we never had that issue on console.


Squads were perfect size for console...and besides...its not like being a part of a squad of 4 was all that important...it helps, but you could get along fine otherwise as well.


I will say this though...the fact that just reading a your post makes me angry in a fun way, and the fact that my reply is likely gonna tick you off a little too, is just a testament to the passion some of us had for this game.

nikon133
nikon133

@AncientDozer @nikon133  True. 1 was the best story of them all. 2 did compensate somehow with higher production, improved visuals etc. But even with drop in storytelling, it was still way better from what they served as story/campaign in BF3, I think. Which is probably why people remember it fondly - when they compare it to campaigns in later BFs.

bigruss51
bigruss51

@SnakeEyesX80  Too many fps games imo for most people to be interested in hardline although it is an interesting idea. I doubt i'll be buying any more shooters until they take it back to world war 1 or 2.

gamersince78
gamersince78

@jmttdr @kupluncksteve  I would totally buy a remastered bfbc2...and I hate the idea of rehashing old games, but this, I would make an exception as well