Login | Signup

What did you love about Bad Company? Tell DICE, because they have no idea

Author:
Jonathan Lester
Category:
News
Tags:
DICE, EA, FPS

What did you love about Bad Company? Tell DICE, because they have no idea

Why haven't we seen another Battlefield: Bad Company game since the superb Bad Company 2? It turns out that DICE doesn't actually know what makes the series unique, or what gamers really want from a sequel.

"There's one thing that lingers with Bad Company that we've been asking ourselves," DICE boss Karl-Magnus Troedsson explained to Eurogamer at E3, "what is it that the people really liked about Bad Company?"

"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 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. 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."

It's an interesting question, though speaking personally, I "really liked" playing rock solid multiplayer accompanied by a bombastic solo campaign that stands out from the pack by not taking itself too seriously. It was a breath of fresh air with an irreverent tone and great characters, not another grim and po-faced military slog. But maybe that's just me?

What did you enjoy about Bad Company, and what would you like from any future sequel? Let us know... then more importantly, let DICE know.

Add a comment6 comments
Tsung  Jun. 24, 2014 at 13:42

Wasn't BC2 the last Battlefield game where you loaded the game, browsed for a server, selected server, played game?

None of this Loading stats page in a browser, installing 3rd party browser extensions, click join game, wait.. wait... wait.. , game loaded, play, crash, back to browsing for a server, click join game. wait.. wait.. wait.., game loaded, repeat.

Or maybe BFBC2 was the last BF game that didn't require Origin. Where life is made more complicated, having to have friends lists on Origin & Battlefield? (when all your friends were on Steam already).

El Siccse  Jun. 24, 2014 at 14:12

This +1 - Perfect response. It is the last time I remember really enjoying online multiplayer.



Wasn't BC2 the last Battlefield game where you loaded the game, browsed for a server, selected server, played game?

None of this Loading stats page in a browser, installing 3rd party browser extensions, click join game, wait.. wait... wait.. , game loaded, play, crash, back to browsing for a server, click join game. wait.. wait.. wait.., game loaded, repeat.

Or maybe BFBC2 was the last BF game that didn't require Origin. Where life is made more complicated, having to have friends lists on Origin & Battlefield? (when all your friends were on Steam already).



Last edited by El Siccse, Jun. 24, 2014 at 14:13
Zeipher  Jun. 24, 2014 at 15:00

Loved this game. The single player was decent for a start. Fun, slightly comical and therefore believable characters with distinct personalities, rather than generic grunt #1.

Battlefield 3 was just a little too money grabby... if that makes sense. With BC2, I felt as though I got an entire game, instead of a series of DLC.

El Siccse  Jun. 24, 2014 at 15:37

This also had the best implementation of destruction in a BF game so far. It genuinely effected gameplay.
None of this "Michael Bay" style levolution crap.
No premium club either. It had Urban/Snowy/Jungle maps.
In hindsight it is not difficult to say what made BC2 such a good game. I guess DICE are just asking the wrong people.

Tsung  Jun. 24, 2014 at 16:11

No DLC either thus no community split from the have's vs have-nots.(weapons/maps/ you name it). Additionally a proper expansion (Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam) where it was more than a few left over maps scabbed together. A lot of the modern DLC is just a few maps that didn't make it in the game because they aren't very good / playable. :p

imdurc  Jun. 25, 2014 at 03:49

I remember BC2 and did have fun for a while. But, it didn't last too long. Unfortunately, the first memory of multiplayer that comes to mind, was the destruction... As El Siccse claims, "the best implementation of destruction in a BF game so far. It genuinely effected gameplay."

Sorry, but, something tells me that rose-tinted glasses are present. It was bloody annoying! E.g. Instead of the enemy trying to capture a point, they'd blow up the building and move on. Or, if you were defending an area, the enemy would blow up the buildings around you, so you had very little cover. BFBC2's destruction was painful from a defensive play point of view. This is probably why it hasn't returned.

Saying that, BFBC2 was good. But I definitely don't think it was better than BF3. BFBC2 felt a little clunky at times. That may have been something to do with the Frostbite engine of the time. Not sure.

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.