Battlefield 6 or Bad Company?

Avatar image for nfamouslegend
#1 Edited by NfamousLegend (365 posts) -

Would you rather DICE make Battlefield 6 or a new Bad Company as their next installment? Likely as a launch title for PS5 and Scarlett in 2020. I would prefer a new Bad Company game personally.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#2 Posted by lundy86_4 (53382 posts) -

BC.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#3 Posted by Gatygun (1528 posts) -

Bankruptcy

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#4 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25386 posts) -

I don't want to go back to 32 players. If it's 64 players BC, then that would be fine. Otherwise, I don't really care. Battlefield 4 was still one of the best Battlefields ever, although I do love the changes they made to Battlefield 5, just wish it were in the modern era.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#5 Edited by GoldenElementXL (3251 posts) -

I like how gaming forums pretend that BF is relevant. Sales threads year after year prove COD can be off and have a down year and still dominate. The problem is that now Battle Royale games also do really well. BF is getting squeezed out of the market. It turns out people don’t actually like playing historically accurate war games.

Niche forums gonna niche

Avatar image for Litchie
#6 Edited by Litchie (24040 posts) -

2143

But since that wont happen, I just hope they don't do any battle royale bullshit. That shitty thing Goldenelement advertises all the time.

Avatar image for mclarenmaster18
#7 Posted by MclarenMaster18 (1560 posts) -

I'd prefer to see Battlefield 6.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#8 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31215 posts) -
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

I don't want to go back to 32 players. If it's 64 players BC, then that would be fine. Otherwise, I don't really care. Battlefield 4 was still one of the best Battlefields ever, although I do love the changes they made to Battlefield 5, just wish it were in the modern era.

I wouldn't mind modern area as long as it's not filled with unbelievable bull****

Personally I would be up for another Vietnam era Battlefield. I freaking loved Bad Company's 2 expansion.

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#9 Posted by WitIsWisdom (5248 posts) -

Well BF1 and BF5 were and are absolutely terrible, so I'll go with Bad Company 3, as long as the gameplay matches up and doesn't feel as garbage as those two other abominations.

Avatar image for Litchie
#10 Posted by Litchie (24040 posts) -
@WitIsWisdom said:

Well BF1 and BF5 were and are absolutely terrible, so I'll go with Bad Company 3, as long as the gameplay matches up and doesn't feel as garbage as those two other abominations.

True. Despite BC2 being gimped in scale compared to earlier BF games, it was at least fun.

Avatar image for djoffer
#11 Posted by djoffer (1377 posts) -

Dice have been terrible for years, so could care less what yearly abomination they decide to release...

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#12 Posted by uninspiredcup (33714 posts) -

Personally, I enjoyed Bad Company 2 over the main entries post BF2.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#13 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25386 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

I don't want to go back to 32 players. If it's 64 players BC, then that would be fine. Otherwise, I don't really care. Battlefield 4 was still one of the best Battlefields ever, although I do love the changes they made to Battlefield 5, just wish it were in the modern era.

I wouldn't mind modern area as long as it's not filled with unbelievable bull****

Personally I would be up for another Vietnam era Battlefield. I freaking loved Bad Company's 2 expansion.

I agree with that. The OP tanks, helicopters and the mortars/drones behind spawn zones in BF4 were incredibly annoying.

I'm glad that they made tanks much harder to drive now in BF5, and don't have nearly as much annoying crap like constant mortars and drones. I do love the changes in BF5, so any Battlefield going forward, I would like them to bring the lower ammo caps, less health regen, and etc. that they've introduced.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#14 Posted by PC_Rocks (2502 posts) -

Well I heard DICE said they don't know what separates BC from BF.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#15 Posted by watercrack445 (1667 posts) -

BC is just like any fps game. I though people hate fps games. The combat is same as any other fps game. I guess it's the characters that the game is infamous for.

Avatar image for ajstyles
#16 Posted by AJStyles (920 posts) -

I don’t understand why the main entries have terrible campaigns and Bad Company has awesome campaigns.

Why can’t they make a great campaign in the main games? That’s all I want. A story and characters I care about in an epic war adventure.

Instead BF 1 and V are like....”Here’s a tank mission”....”Here’s an airplane mission”...

Yawn.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#17 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31215 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95: I hope so too, but see BF V was not the succes they had hoped. So they are slowly but surely aiming this at the casuals again. I don't know what the deal is with Battlefield keep wanting to attract the COD playerbase.

They toned down having to spot targets yourself, and minimap spotting and icons above heads is way to easy to get spammed now.

They are making big changes to attrition. With ammo boxes and health boxes

A lot of new weapons feel like they come with training wheels.

There was the change in TTK that was universally hated.

Damn, I loved the game's vision before launch. And I really liked where they were going with making this game more like Insurgency \ Rising storm where you can't just run around like a big idiot. But EA/DICE has this idea now that the hardcore nature scared away people... It's sad.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#18 Edited by DragonfireXZ95 (25386 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@DragonfireXZ95: I hope so too, but see BF V was not the succes they had hoped. So they are slowly but surely aiming this at the casuals again. I don't know what the deal is with Battlefield keep wanting to attract the COD playerbase.

They toned down having to spot targets yourself, and minimap spotting and icons above heads is way to easy to get spammed now.

They are making big changes to attrition. With ammo boxes and health boxes

A lot of new weapons feel like they come with training wheels.

There was the change in TTK that was universally hated.

Damn, I loved the game's vision before launch. And I really liked where they were going with making this game more like Insurgency \ Rising storm where you can't just run around like a big idiot. But EA/DICE has this idea now that the hardcore nature scared away people... It's sad.

That would be a shame. I actually prefer the original TTK with headshots meaning something. I wasn't a fan of Battlefield 1 and having to put 5 shots into an enemy's face to kill them.

Avatar image for Willy105
#19 Posted by Willy105 (24836 posts) -

@pc_rocks said:

Well I heard DICE said they don't know what separates BC from BF.

Yeah, since there really is no separation. Battlefield 3 was really Bad Company 3, as it was a straightforward continuation of the Bad Company games. BF4 is BC4, BF1 is BC1918, and BFV is BC5.

What people believe makes Bad Company is just their first experience with Battlefield, which was really a watered down version of it that was necessary since the full game couldn't run on those consoles.

Avatar image for warmblur
#20 Edited by warmblur (2538 posts) -

I just want the next game to have Battlefield 2 gameplay but it will never happen the masses wouldn't be able to handle the slower place with no health regen and no grenade indicators. The series is pretty much dead to me when they turned the gameplay casual.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
#21 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (13658 posts) -

Bad company.

Avatar image for Zero_epyon
#22 Posted by Zero_epyon (13293 posts) -

Bad Company. No doubt about it.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#23 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31215 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

That would be a shame. I actually prefer the original TTK with headshots meaning something. I wasn't a fan of Battlefield 1 and having to put 5 shots into an enemy's face to kill them.

Oh yeah, the TTK in Battlefield V was much better.

Don't worry man, the TTK has been reverted and is the same as it was on launch day :)

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#24 Edited by KungfuKitten (26654 posts) -

I don't know that they can do either. I'm hoping for a PlanetSide 2.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#25 Posted by lamprey263 (36143 posts) -

Bad Company if they include 4 player co-op for campaign.

Avatar image for vagrantsnow
#26 Posted by VagrantSnow (345 posts) -

Doesn't matter what they call it, it won't be what you're expecting under the current Dice Sweden developers.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#27 Posted by jg4xchamp (61621 posts) -

Bad Company would be a band-aid on a larger problem. It would characters to the series, but that's whatever to the multiplayer crowd which is where their bread is buttered. The reality is Battlefield's appeal lacks that wow factor now. NO one gives a ****, about how many players are on a map. It's not relevant, it's not a selling point, it's a nothing point.

Siege is the best tactical FPS on the market, bar none, no one else need apply and it's a 5v5 game with all sorts of wacky shens. Siege benefits from knowing its place in the market and knowing its unique selling point.

EA and Dice need to make peace with the following The big, bi-annual EA shooter. People play your game for fucking Conquest, maybe some Rush, but Conquest is the franchises BnB, so just because there is going to be one cluster **** map, just make sure there are a decent, reasonable amount of maps for Conquest. Beyond that start actually refining your formula, and not unlearn shit because you changed eras or keep trying to add more trinkets to unlock. Noooooooooo, just fix the core issue that your higher level play audience grasps.