DICE Struggling to Understand What People Loved About Battlefield: Bad Company

DICE Struggling to Understand What People Loved About Battlefield: Bad Company

28
Lee Bradley

People really enjoyed Battlefield: Bad Company and its sequel. It’s a series that loads of us would love to see return. Trouble is, DICE isn't sure what we liked about it.

Speaking to Eurogamer, CEO Karl-Magnus Troedsson has said that the team at DICE doesn’t really understand the core appeal of Battlefield: Bad Company, adding that it makes the development of a further sequel problematic.

"Some people say they found the multiplayer controls faster and more direct," said Troedsson. "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 that 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," he continued. "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."

So does all this mean that Battlefield: Bad Company 3 will never make it to shelves? Troedsson is non-committal.

"Well you'll have to wait and see," he said. "The Bad Company sub brand is something we hold very near and dear. We'll take that into account when we think about the future. It's never dead. 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.”

Comments
28
  • It was simple.
  • The humour and the singleplayer in general for me. I don't get why they don't just make a Bad Company 3 instead of Battlefield 3 and 4. With Bad Company you have at least a good SP and a good MP instead of a good (if it works) MP and a crappy SP. Saying they don't know what's good about it sounds like nonsense, maybe if they only made one game, but they made 2 so they should know...
  • Frankly Bad Company 3 is the only way I'll buy into Battlefield again, so I sure do hope that happens.
  • This was before EA got a bad reputation over microtransactions?
  • Although the campaign wasn't the greatest ever it was decent and had a cast that were endearing to a degree, something no battlefield game has managed since. I still have great memories of charging down the mountain in a jeep at the end against the clock, just like Arnie in Commando :p
  • I absolutely loved the Bad Company games. It was everything, the multiplayer and the solid single player with interesting characters and of course the birth of the Frostbite engine in the first Bad Company. Didn't really jump into BF3, and I liked BF4 a little more, but I would simply love to see a Bad Company 3 be announced.
  • When it came to multiplayer, Bad Company 2 was just that more entertaining because you could really end up flatting every map with destruction by the end of a match session. Battlefield 3-4 feels selective and restrictive with what can be destroyed.
  • That's why they call me, Bad company I won't deny, Bad, bad company Till the day I die. I LOVE this Spin OFF of the "Battlefield" series. Give me "BFBC 3" PLEASE..... :-)
  • It's rather simple. The maps. The were massive and here's the key, they were somewhat narrow meaning there was always an established front line. It meant we could fight side by side and not run around like headless chickens in BF3. The most popular big maps in BF3 were always the ones were people knew the flashpoint locations, eg Metro, Seine and Caspian Border. It's too chaotic in BF3/BF4. Also, destruction!...and no DICE, I mean proper destruction. Flatten the map levels of destruction. Squad camping in a house? RPG!!! Blow the hell out of it and collapse it. Fun times. I found weapon handling in BF3 a bit stiff, but overall was fine. You just sucked the life out of the multiplayer and made it look too realistic while sacrificing fun in the process.
  • Dice has fallen out of touch with there fan base and that has had a negative affect on the quality of there games , plus EA does not give them the time to talk to there fans , look at the feed back . Dice just needs to take a year off to gather there thoughts , gather feed back , take a good look at what worked in there older titles and what did not work , and just take the time to make a BADASS battlefield badcompany game , no cutting corners to make launch .
  • I loved it for the campaign, but MP was awesome too. Mainly the light hearted tone of story, if they could replicate that and give us option for 4 player co-op since you play in 4 ppl squad anyway. Make MP exactly same way, while maybe adding levolution and keeping how you can destroy everything not like in recent BF games, where only certain things can be destroyed... Take all those points into account and you have a winner=D
  • The campaign were fun and humorous plus it actually involved characters you could care about. The multiplayer is still my favorite of last gen and I still enjoy playing it more than the newer Battlefield's.
  • (For single player) 1) Large Maps, completely accessible from the start where death meant re-spawning as is. 2) Humour. Likeable characters. Tropes (while alittle stale) worked with the setting. 3) DAT THEME SONG. 4) There was nothing 'modern' about it. Just a story of 4 guys trying to get gold. No fearmongering, no real world war sim, just good times with none of the guilt.
  • BFBC2 was head and shoulders about any BF game since. As others have said, the multiplayer maps were expansive, but always with a well-defined frontline or, failing that, established flashpoints. You always knew where to go to get into a fight, and where to go if you wanted to try and be a bit more stealthy.
  • ...and this is why they've lost a large portion of their core fanbase. They've lost touch with the gamers and what they love about their GOOD games. The things I loved about the Bad Company series were the epic and hilarious single player campaign, but even more so the multiplayer and how BALANCED it was. Equipment that ACTUALLY WORKED. There were NO LOCK ON weapons aside from the tracer dart, which was VERY difficult to get on a consistent basis and didn't last very long even when you did. It actually was took time to develop SKILL to be good at Bad 1 & 2, unlike BF3 and BF4 where any knewb can jump in and retreat to sniping or camping with the mobile AA and put up decent numbers. As a long time Battlefield fan, I'm officially done with the series until DICE Stockholm can prove that they can make a great WELL balanced and WORKING Battlefield game again.
  • While they are struggling to find the reason why people loved the Bad Company games, why not do what every other Dev seems to be doing and release a combined "remastered" version on next gen with BC2 & BF3 games. Console players never got to experience the true Battlefield on last gen with the technical limitations. Up-ressed graphics, 64 players, more capture points on Conquest maps and all on a game engine that worked. EA love money & this would sell like hotcakes on PS4/XBO. There you go Dice, you can have that idea for free. Anyone else here like to revisit those games in this way?
  • I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. They don't know what people loved about it? Yet they made 2, and both are loved by fans. Hmm.... I think Dice need to TALK TO THEIR FANS for a bit. First, finish Mirror's Edge, then work on BC3. Boggles the mind.
  • 1. Low recoil weapons 2. Good iron sights 3. No suppression system 4. Rush & Conquest were more balanced than BF4/BF3 5. Online games had almost no lag 6. Spot on hit detection 7. Vehicles weren't as overpowered leading to more infantry based battles 8. You could blow up almost everything unlike BF4/BF3 9. Map design was on another level compared to BF4/BF3 10. Story had characters we cared about 11. Story had lots of good humor 12. BC1&2 had better singleplayer stories than BF4/BF3 think that's all i got for now
  • I loved Bad Company 2 so much. But thinking back I remember NOTHING from either single player campaign. I don't care about the story or the characters. I buy Battlefield for MP always. BC2 was the last time I REALLY have fun playing Battlefield. I still have memorable moments that stick out in my head.
  • I only want 1 THING from the next Battlefields.....BRIDGE TOO FAR!!!!! Please remake that awesome map. It's not big, it's not a bunch of city building falling, it's just simple and awesome.
  • Battlefield Bad Company 2 was brilliant. It's up there as one of the best multiplayer games I've ever had the pleasure of playing and the Vietnam add-on was probably one of the best pieces of DLC last generation. But it's true, it's difficult to put your finger on exactly what made it so great. I have to agree with what people have said so far, the maps were good and everything being destructible was excellent. The campaign and the characters were never very interesting to me however. I suppose calling the whole thing simpler is the easiest way of summing it up, and overall, it was fun, which is what was really missing from Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 for me when they actually worked. I think DICE has this ultimate war simulator in their minds, but unfortunately, I don't believe they're able to actually translate it into a competent gaming experience on a technical level. The entire thing has become too ambitious. Leveloution is nothing more than a buzzword worth laughing at now, and the embarrassing execution of Battlefield 4 has cost them a customer with me. I won't buy a game from them again, but I know others aren't ready to give up yet. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their game. Comments like this one stating that they don't know what made the game so great is just more evidence that they've lost touch with both their game and their fans and it doesn't inspire any sort of confidence going forward. This happens with developers though. It's quite possible that like the Infinity Ward's of the world, that DICE's best years are behind them. It might be time to shelve the franchise for awhile and get Star Wars Battlefront where that needs to be. Or risk walking the Medal of Honor plank.
  • @21 I'd totally forgotten about the Vietnam add-on, but you're right, that was amazing. Like a back-to-basics version of the main game. Had hours of fun running around the jungle in that.
  • @2 I don't think it matters if the game is battlefield bad company 3 or battlefield 5 dice is rushing there games out the door so the name of the game don't determine weather or not its going to be good
  • No class was too over powered imo. They all had a fighting chance, and their kits were matched up perfect too, imo. I think that while the maps ARE huge in BC2, they're not huge in the sense that the players are hidden. The struggle I had from going from BC2 to 3 as that it felt VERY open. Also, MP was funny to me. The physics of dead bodies, the lines the characters spoke. I loved every bit of it. I remember times where I sniped someone that was on a turret on Isla Innocents, and their body did a somersault in the air about 5 times before landing. It happened all the time.
  • Smh, this guy is the CEO of Dice wow.
  • Bc2 had the best line in a fps game - "They'll get a bunch of pussies with heartbeat sensors in to do the job". Loved that.
  • @18 but I will add more simplistic graphics. Sometimes more eye candy is a bad thing, it encourages camping. The graphics are Bad Company two were the perfect balance.
  • BFBC2 was the best because of: -Best story with enjoyable characters -Rush and Conquest are more fun to play as the map isn't that huge so it makes it more fast-paced. -The knife is playable not life Bf3 which takes 2 stabs, or Bf4 that counters -No prone Camping -You can hold grenades in your hand -World War 2 weapons -Blow up everything on these noobs that camps -Simple way to invite friends not like Bf4 Squad team crap -No Microtransactions and they give you free DLC -Tanks are more balanced -There is no Futuristic shit I just hate how Battlefield turned since Bf4, It was only made for Multiplayer. Give us back balancing and with a good Single Player
  • You need to register before being able to post comments

Game navigation