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

  • 128 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by -ArchAngeL-777- (3786 posts) -

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.

#102 Posted by RR360DD (11766 posts) -

[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

All you do in COD is walk too. At least in Battlefield you can jump in a vehicle.

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.

#103 Posted by ClassicRockFTW (994 posts) -

I agree completely bro, here have a beer

#104 Posted by danish-death (5314 posts) -

[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

All you do in COD is walk too. At least in Battlefield you can jump in a vehicle.

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.

Too much BS. It appears to be common for you lately.
#105 Posted by danish-death (5314 posts) -

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.

#106 Posted by -ArchAngeL-777- (3786 posts) -

[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.

#107 Posted by danish-death (5314 posts) -
You should've worded it better then. Large vehicle maps are IMO maps such as Daqing Oilfields, Dragon Valley, Operation Clean Sweep and other similar maps where you'd be screwed without a vehicle. Anyway ultimately I think we're saying the same thing, which is also why I'd prefer the next BF game to be BC3. BF4 will be another odd mix of maps.
#108 Posted by Rockman999 (7232 posts) -
[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
What's with the elitism, huh? BF3 will be supports with DLC for quite some time and by the time EA is done milking it there should be enough content to satisfy people like you for a couple of years. Would it really hurt to have two different variations of BF? Oh and MoH was fun for like.. 10 hours or so. Don't give me that BS.

Right leave the BF fans with the same game for 4 years meanwhile the BC console muppets get a new game every two years. :roll: Get the fvck out of here with that bullsh!t man. BF3 is the better overall game, the sales and support prove this. BF fans don't want BC(unless it was BC1 which is ok), they want BF
#109 Posted by Gibsonsg527 (3313 posts) -

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

#110 Posted by danish-death (5314 posts) -
[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
What's with the elitism, huh? BF3 will be supports with DLC for quite some time and by the time EA is done milking it there should be enough content to satisfy people like you for a couple of years. Would it really hurt to have two different variations of BF? Oh and MoH was fun for like.. 10 hours or so. Don't give me that BS.

Right leave the BF fans with the same game for 4 years meanwhile the BC console muppets get a new game every two years. :roll: Get the fvck out of here with that bullsh!t man. BF3 is the better overall game, the sales and support prove this. BF fans don't want BC(unless it was BC1 which is ok), they want BF

BC2 sold 12 million units with less adverticement, BF3 had more advertisement and is the sequal to one of the most beloved FPS games and "only "sold 15 million. I'd say BC2 is/was a popular game and this was wasn't only due to the "console moppets". Besides there's nothing unfair with what I'm saying. BF3 has received extensive DLC support and will receive more in the future, meanwhile BC2 fans will now have to wait at least 5-6 years before the next game and you complain about having to wait 4 years with a game that has seen heavy support from the developers. I never once stated BC2 should be released every two year and somehow you forgot that BC2 released in March 2010.
#111 Posted by mstrchf12 (246 posts) -
Bad Company 2 was simply awesome. In terms of gameplay and overall fun, it was leagues beyond BF3. BF3 nailed it with the graphics and presentation but had a horrible and unenjoyable story. Either you make it all multiplayer or put in a good campaign along with it. Bad Company 3 should be made before BF4.....and i also hope for Mirror's Edge 2 to be made soon too.
#112 Posted by lamprey263 (23488 posts) -
On the thought that they ever do decide to go back and make a Bad Company game, I hope they decide to write BFBC2 off as something like a dream that either Sweetwater or Haggad had, because my biggest problem with BFBC2 is they totally changed the tone of what Bad Company was, originally it was a disciplinary unit composed of troublemakers and screw-ups, then BFBC2 comes along and suddenly they're entrusted with a save the country top secret mission, it just didn't transition well between games at all. Also, there's four of them, they really should design it as a 4-player co-op campaign kind of game, I realize that most of the emphasis probably goes toward competitive MP as the BF games make for one hell of an competitive MP experience, but at least the first Bad Company had a pretty good SP campaign and I'd hope if they do make a BFBC3 they should focus on having a good SP/co-op campaign, otherwise if competitive MP is the focus they can just make a Battlefield 4, save BFBC for later.
#113 Posted by Drasonak (1509 posts) -
Are the maps in Battlefield 3 bigger on the PC? If not, that must be one big cluster****.
#114 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -

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-
Not true. I use C4 all the time to blow up walls and what not.
#115 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -
Are the maps in Battlefield 3 bigger on the PC? If not, that must be one big cluster****.Drasonak
They are much bigger, yes. We get 7 flags for the bigger maps.
#116 Posted by Timstuff (26823 posts) -

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.

#117 Posted by eo_the_shaman (1800 posts) -

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

#118 Posted by ziggyww (835 posts) -
I want BFBC3 before BF4. I loved playing playing BFBC2 and PS3 and when BF3 came out I was like YEAH!!! then I got it and thought, its alright not as good as BFBC2 but atleast it looks pretty and had jets and everyone was playing it. THEN THEY DID THE RENT SERVERS WHICH KILLED IT. well for me atleast nothing like ruining a good multiplayer game by sticking petty admin severs who kick you if you have a higher kill count then them of killed them. I do think its a good game still but i choose not to play it because of the Admin issue with consoles version atleast. I would rather see BFBC3 more then BF4 same as nearly everyone so i don't think they are listening to the fans all that well but either way if it uses the current rented server scheme not a chance in hell im buying it. Tried it the other day just to see if its changed and normally I would search for rush mode all maps 20+ people and get about 9 pages worth now it never seems to go on to the 2nd page, which i feel is a direct result of other players getting frustrated with all you petty admins...THANKS FOR KILLING IT FOR CONSOLES ASS'S
#119 Posted by MBirdy88 (8019 posts) -

I'd rather see 2143.

gameofthering
This.
#120 Posted by KungfuKitten (20963 posts) -

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.

#121 Posted by ziggyww (835 posts) -

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
Yeah my thoughts aswell but the Fifa comment put it across well. the time between BF2 and BF3 was huge and now they are just going to release the next one. its not going to be good that much is known
#122 Posted by LustForSoul (5859 posts) -

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.

#123 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

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

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

#124 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

^^

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!

#125 Posted by UnknownSniper65 (9206 posts) -

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.

#126 Posted by -ArchAngeL-777- (3786 posts) -

[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

Not true. I use C4 all the time to blow up walls and what not.

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.

#127 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6222 posts) -
BF3 PC >>>>> Bad Company 1 and 2. However, the SPs in all games sucked imo
#128 Posted by Lu-Kang (1010 posts) -

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.