So apparently the next battlefield installment will be Bad Company 3, set in the cold war. Thoughts?

So apparently the next battlefield installment will be Bad Company 3, set in the cold war. Thoughts?

youtu.be/P_J37XWsVog

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Mk4wEAO07hM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Makes me want to die desu. Bad company games were trash.

I've been waiting for over a decade for BF2143. Fuck.

The battlefield series died with 4 so who cares

Who is this guy and why should I believe him?

Would have preferred WW2 on Frostbite 4. As long as the gameplay is fine and the game is free from EA jew shit I think we're fine.

He had insider details on BF1 months before they announced it, so that's something.

It's kind of concerning that DICE didn't know why people liked BC2, hopefully it won't be shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=Mk4wEAO07hM
i just want BF 2143

Cold war gone hot is the best military[\spoiler] fps setting, so it's got that going for it.

>It's concerning that DICE didn't know why people liked BC2
It is confusing because it was a shitty game and worse than Bad Company 1/BF3/BF4.

Though it's not surprising either because DICE LA fixed BF4 and then DICE ignored all those changes and fixes only to shit out BF1 like some amnesiac retard.

viet fucking nam

>cold war
>not calling it battlefield 1982

>THAT song starts playing

Literally nothing is worse than bf3

When do we get a Strangereal FPS. And no I don't mean specifically Ace Combat's Strangereal, but a strangereal world that the devloper makes themselves.

>Bf3
>Bad

Alright snowflake, want to tell us that you are a communist aswell?

it's the best game in the series.

I love how these bad console cod converts think they're being cool by spouting memes off of one of the more faithful battlefield games they heard years ago.

>call it Bad Company 3
>Its not

why not just call it BF cold war or something?

As long as it's not like BF1 with its power ups bullshit and no-cover maps then fuck yeah.

Bitch explain how BF4 is not just BF3 but better.

because it's BF3 but worse.

Bad Company 2 was the most fun i've ever had in a battlefield game.

Awesome destructability.

BF4 is literally just BF3 with more weapons, maps, and better destruction.

just remake Bf2, add mod tools and then fucking pay PR guys to make PR2 and FH guys FH2

This has to be bait.

>it's the best game in the series
It's one of worst big budget games I've ever played. The maps, weapons, vehicle balance, art design, UI design, etc... were garbage.

>one of the more faithful battlefield games
"It has 64 players, and therefore is a faithful sequel to battlefield 2"

>better maps
>better customisation
>better balance

sure it worse senpai

Nothing that was good about BC2 will make it into BC3. That should be pretty obvious at this point. It will basically just be a cheap imitation of BC2 but with tons of microtransactions. I have zero faith at this point in DICE and EA to churn out another decent game.

>memolution
>better destruction

the balance is horrible, nothing has recoil. the maps are all oversized, empty and uninteresting, it has loot boxes you can buy for real money and did you notice the shitstorm around the netcode or did that pass you by? even with all the patches it's still worse than BF3's was which was never that good to begin with. and everything is covered in a poop brown filter. the only decent thing the game has going for it is nicer looking water.

>battlefield 2
>good
no nigger, it wasn't. who cares about muh playercounts? BF3 with 24 players on console was a better battlefield than that shit.

>nothing has recoil
The guns do have recoil. It's just closer to what shooting guns is actually like, not like other fps like CS where the players all apparently shoot guns like women.

Bf3 Would be the best game if it had Locker along metro. Why?, well, because what you said is right ALL the Maps are oversized even for 64, 76 would have made a difference but it would be retarded to play 76 players

>babby can't learn spray control

Lol

They gonna put it on Switch? They got doom and new colossus on it so I know it is possible.

I can, shooting guns accurately is just more fun.

Yeah but will be like the CoD ver of Ds

Metro and Locker are literally the worst maps in the entire series.

>locker
>metro
consider suicide

laser guns break the balance

>the consolefag reveals himself
It's okay to like 24 player call of duty, just acknowledge that it's not a "faithful battlefield game" and that you have bottom of the barrel taste.

Yeah, I get a sense of achievement from things I don't have to work for as well.

>bad console player calls others call of duty players

Are you genuinely autistic? BC1 multiplayer was fucking awful

t.metro 24/7 player

I'm not going to watch this but cold war era games are kool so i'd be interested, lets go back to killing commies

What's different between Bad Company and "regular" BFs?

>2017
>EA in charge of not killing everything it touches

BC1 has the only good SP mode in any BF game ever
BC2 online play is the best BF has ever been.

"spray control" is the result of bad game design and is just a useless barrier to new players and a way to add randomness to fights. As soon as you learn it, it becomes the same as pointing and shooting. There's no "working" for kills because you burst fire instead of going full auto.

>cold war
I want to drive a BTR or a BMP.

no, metro was horrible. rush is horrible. try caspian, kharg, noshar, armored shield, epicenter, nu-karkand, alborz, BF3 had so many great maps. like actually well designed strategically interesting maps and not just a bunch of flags dotted randomly on a huge area.

one is console shit and one is good with good mods

>what is BFMC
>>BC2 online
>>good

can't wait for black tranny polyamorous soldiers woo

Bad Company is smaller in scale and much more fun than bf3 onward. Ironically, Bad Company kickstarted the downward spiral of the series, but still manages to be better than any of the games that succeeded it.

>expecting good games from EA
AHAHAHAHAHA OH NONONONONONO

>I never liked battlefield
>it's only good when it's not like battlefield and more like call of duty or halo

BF2 was shit. Bad Company and onward was when it actually started being able to somewhat compete with CoD.

>No 2143
the suffering continues

Who gives a fuck? video games are catered to normies/casuals
If you want to play a good FPS play Siege

if you want to play a good fps play battlefront
if you don't like battlefront you don't like fps to begin with

>the maps are all oversized, empty and uninteresting
Get the fuck out of here your ADHD codboy lol don't voice your opinion if you've shit taste and don't enjoy battlefield games to begin with

Siege is grindy and too slow.

>Siege
>not normalfag console twitch shooter aimed at console kiddies
jej. kill yourself faggot.

Are you talking about battlefront or nu-battlefront?

They aren't exactly good battlefield games (whatever that means at this point) but they work great as a spin-off series. The later games increased their scope and appear more like traditional battlefield games on the surface (large scale, emphasis on teamwork, combined arms) but in actuality are mediocre due to a wealth of retarded game design choices.

big maps are not automatically good. small maps are not automatically bad. grand bazaar CQ is one of the most interesting maps they ever made. every map in BF4 is just generic with no flow or thought put into it. it's just big for the sake of being big.

>whatever that means at this point
same as it's meant since 2002. large scale combined arms, strategic territory control deathmatch.

>Guns will have many attachments like BF4

FUCKING WHY!?!? I WANT TO GO BACK TO A VANILLA BATTLEFIELD WHERE THERE ARE BARELY ANY CUSTOMIZATION. WHAT MADE BAD COMPANY 2 SO GOOD WAS THAT THERE WAS BARELY ANY ATTACHMENTS. SCOPE OR MORE ARMOR FOR TANK. RED DOT OR MAGNUM ROUNDS FOR GUN. THERE WAS AN ACTUAL BALANCE

FUCKING DICE

Grand Bazaar was awful, like most of the maps in bf3 and 4.

t. rush player spending all his time in the middle corridor with a usas frag

>"tactical" fps, hero shooter with no respawns.

I'm still astonished people are playing this but then again I don't get pubg either.

Battlefield went to shit when they got rid of 7 classes except for 2142. and 2 seat jets

>THERE WAS AN ACTUAL BALANCE
No, there was no balance. Abakan was broken as fuck.

That's what I wanted to say (and kinda did in the second half of the post), but there's definitely been a design philosophy change since BC. Fewer and fewer choices are made by the DICE to force/encourage teamwork, and without extensive teamwork large scale combined arms doesn't work right.

Agree. We don't need 7, but we need to spread out class identity better. Also they need to drop spotting, 2d and 3d, entirely.

There rush maps were even worse than the conquest versions, so no. I did enjoy killing people with falling rubble in that corridor though.

>USAS frag
Another top tier balance decision from our swedish friends.

>set in the cold war
the cold war or The Cold War?

Although at this point I don't expect them to ever be able to recapture the greatness of 2142.

>bad company

No thank you, even worse than their more recent pieces of shit.

>BFMC
>good
Generic is the word you're looking for. Other than the ability to possess other soldiers when you died that game had nothing going for it

>Big open maps with good design and enough destruction
>Good vehicles, weapons, and gadgets
>Roles felt extremely specialized

Just needed to be on PC.

actually every game since BC2 has tried to force teamwork, which is why nobody does it. you get automatically put in a squad, you get squad spawning, you get extra points for following and giving orders, you get squad perks etc. etc.

problem is most people don't care about teamwork and just goal-optimize for highest score with squad actions, setting orders on what you were doing anyway, and using squads as just another spawn point and doing completely their own thing.

carrot on a stick approach doesn't work, and it only means that all squads are filled up with people who don't care about squads, so the people who do care about squad play are lost in the crowd unless you join as a whole squad from the beginning. you can bring the lone wolf to the trough but you cannot force him to work as a team.

BF1942 didn't even have squads, the main form of teamwork in that game was picking the right class, at the right time, at the right place. picking AT soldier to counter tanks, picking engineer to mine up roads and repairing friendly tanks, picking assault to lead the charge etc.

each class had a clear role and you had to balance the numbers for the situation. that was the "teamplay". BF2 tried more to be like rainbow six or something, which can be fun but not really is the same kind of thing. with customization every class can do everything, especially in BF4 where they all have the same kind of guns. BF1 kinda fixes it but then the cod kiddes complain about lack of guns and variety.

it was f*n, and it utilized the battlefield mechanics well.

>carrot on a stick approach doesn't work
Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. DICE seems to think this is enough to encourage consistent teamwork, when really the core mechanics are the driving force behind coordination in a combined arms game.

BF2 and 1942 had more (specific) classes, slower movement speed, and less accurate weapons, among other things. All of these serve to discourage lone wolf gameplay in an organic way. BF2 had squad spawning, but you could only spawn on the squad leader, so it was less likely for a squad to be completely spread out across the map acting individually. BC2 is guilty of many of the things BF3 and 4 are, but it works better because of the smaller scale.

The squad-based system works really good if you are playing with friends.

battlefront is a tps user

>Hurrr the cold war was just vietnam
If you want yet another fucking vietnam game, please die.

Could have went hot in '61 or '62. More probable with those years.

BF2142 was actually objectively bad and liking it is just nostalgiafags that don't play games anymore anyway.

60's is better anyway, 80's is almost too modern tech-wise.

70's is actually perfect.

But BC2 did encourage teamplay through gameplay and not abstract point rewards. Assaults kept the fight going with ammo but needed medics to heal and revive, recons reconned and engineers took out vehicles but needed a little help in infantry fighting.

This is why i hope that a BC3 will follow the same "rules" of BC2. Not a mere reskin. Hearing the game is set in the vietnam war and cold war makes me a bit worried though. BC2 ended on a cliffhanger and i want to see the trio again

This. The only people in Battlefield that correctly utilize the squad system are milsim larpers.

>smaller scale and linearity
This is why BC2 was "fun" not because of the shitty mechanics, not because stream lining everything, not because removing prone, not because shitty flat maps after 15 minutes it was fun because the linearity of the maps made people "work" together or at the very least be in the same place as other friendlies.

You can only force cooperation through map design.

>bf died with bf3
fixed for you

I have zero faith for anything new in the series. I expect BC2 to play exactly like anything since BF3 which is trash. Even though BC also was another downfall in the series, but still managed to be fun in it's own way.

>people never run out of ammo in this games
>medics have been in almost all BF games
>recons sucked and didn't do shit
>engineers where crap too that no body wanted to play

they retconned everything good about the first game with the second. why should I care

>watch
kek

I liked it more than BC2. You had a lot more health, which I felt worked better with the destruction mechanics. The class balance felt better too. I always felt like BC2 was casualized cause they reduced player health, vehicles were stronger (due to the decreased health), and made assault the “do it all” class

The only broken weapon now is the VSS, nothing more.

Not him but he's 100% right, open and flat fucking maps were the first thing that I noticed about 4 when I went through a reinstall of Battlefield 3, 4 and 1 recently.
That and the seemingly buffed vehicles and you've got yourself maps where if you're not playing engineer you're simply dying without any resistance.
Plus the game feels the need to insert water into every level, I can't for the life of me enjoy playing Paracel Storm because it's the epitome of the flat fucking wide map, but of course there also has to be water between every island, so you end up swimming for half the time you're alive; similarly, Flood Zone is absolutely ruined when water is released, and makes playing infantry a nightmare.
And that's just the base maps, every map from China Rising and Naval Strike do this exact 'flat + wide' shit to a T (Like who the fuck designed Silk Road?) as well as some choice maps from the others.
Just go back and play Battlefield 3 to see what I mean; where's 4's Damavand Peak equivalent?

Also btw BF3's gunplay is flat-out better, it feels tighter and shots matter more. The only thing I think BF3 slips up on compared to 4 is a lack of customization, but I really don't care if the rest of the game just feels better to play.