Bad Company 3 inbound?

[thisismyusername]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/rumor-battlefield-2018-to-be-battlefield-bad-company-3.10681/

While Battlefield 1 just had its latest expansion, Turning Tides, released today, franchise fans (like me) are already looking forward to what Battlefield 2018 will be.

Well, if this recent video is anything to go by, it’ll be none other than Battlefield: Bad Company 3! This info is courtesy of AlmightyDaq, who also leaked a ton of Battlefield 1 info that turned out to be legit. Here’s some of the info we’ve compiled from the video.

Various locations in the campaign will be “mid and post-Vietnam conflict” and not include the Cold War, and will not be “historically accurate.” Game modes confirmed to be in it are: Conquest, Rush, Operations, Domination, Team Deathmatch. There will be a 5v5-centric game mode similar to Squad Obliteration.

Maps will allegedly focus on “tighter gameplay” rather than “all-out warfare” and will be similar to Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 maps like Oasis Grand Bazaar, Harvest Day and so on.

Regarding gunplay, there will be Vietnam and Cold War era guns, and the gun customization will supposedly rival that of Battlefield 4, which means it’s going to be robust compared to the more simplistic approach of BF1. The character, gun and vehicle customization will also be improved (think: BF4 than BF1), which should be good news for lots of players who are into that.

When it comes to vehicles, players can expect modern tanks, LAVs, helicopters and the like to make a return, The kits (classes) in Bad Company 3 will be the Engineer, Support, Assault and Recon classes, which, if true, will be similar to BC2. Allegedly, the overall gameplay will be a “faster tempo” than BF1, and will have a higher skill gap.

Finally, microtransactions won’t be a thing (at least for now), and it won’t follow the same path as the highly controversial Star Wars Battlefront II! Let’s hope this is true, and that EA has learned a lesson or two from what happened to BFII.

AlmightyDaq mentions that we should expect a reveal at E3 2018, which is where EA typically announces their big games, and that a lot of YouTubers already know of BC3’s existence though aren’t talking about it for now.

You can watch the video below to hear it all firsthand, but remember: all of these things are rumors, until proven or debunked by EA and DICE. Even if Battlefield 2018 is indeed Bad Company 3, there’s a lot of things that can change which could make the info inaccurate. We’ve reached out to EA and will update the post if and when we get a statement about this.

After how NuFront ruined Battlefield 1, if they drop the Battlepickup/class system and bring some recoil back (I think they tried with BF1 but it's still nearly "laser"-y), I'm back on board.

[Rahxephon91]

Please no.

[thisismyusername]

Get out of my fucking thread, you. Bad Company 2 ruled and Battlefield hasn't touched that greatness since.

[Rahxephon91]

I don't understand why people like BC2. Do you like Rush? Because that's the only thing that makes sense is that you don't actually like BF and you dislike conquest because BC2 is garbage on that front. Awful level design for conquest. with control points basically being super close, all lined up in linear fashion, and out in the open lacking any level set pieces. If you like RUSH. I guess I could see why you'd like BC2. But RUSH is awful and pretty much the opposite of what Battlefield is, which you know is open world combat. Not focused on meat grinder level design. Hell this rumor basically says they are avoiding actual Battlefield type gameplay.

Battlefield 3 and 4 are so much better a actual Battlefield games. Yes, BC and BC2 is where the series gunplay started to actually get ok, but 3 and 4 have much improved on that.

[Himu]

what's the diff between bad company and other bf's

[mormapope]

Bad Company was a console centric Battlefield series that was competent, essentially. That wasnt a bad thing, but itll be interesting to see BC3 versus any other BF since 3.

[mormapope]

what's the diff between bad company and other bf's

Majority of maps are designed for the Rusg gmae mode. One side attacks, destroys an objective, move forward on the map, keeps going till the final objective is destroyed. Objectives are placed in destructible building areas, so destruction of the map can help or hurt either the attacking or defending side.

Vehicle combat was easier, much less of a learning curve with control and using a vehicle offensively. Destructible environments, much more so than any other Battlefield. Classes and unlocks were much simpler, but it was easy to play as a class the correct way, if that makes sense.

[thisismyusername]

what's the diff between bad company and other bf's

Nothing on the surface level. Everything on the gameplay-fun level.

Bad Company 1 focused on Rush which turned a bunch of fans off, but then introduced Conquest (with the "cap all flags? Game is over in a minute if the enemy doesn't cap one flag, no uncaps/spawn starting areas" gameplay design which I prefer Conquest to be) later.

Bad Company 2 focused on Rush primarily while Conquest suffered for it. However, the Rush gameplay was ACE A+++ in terms of map design (no maps that weren't unfun to play, compared to later entries where there was a lot of maps people didn't like/didn't want to play on). Did a small "DLC"/expansion that was Vietnam (where the maps were alright, but the gunplay/etc. hindered it but it has it's charm).

The biggest difference between Bad Company and the Battlefield main series is 1) No Jets/planes and 2) No prone. #2 had a bunch of folks STEAMED when it was announced, but after playing BF3/4/1/etc. with prone, there's a certain segment that have come around on the crouch being the only "go low" design.

Also while I'm writing things: There was no scope sway in BC1-2 (or BF1942, BF2) that BF3+ introduced. Plus no Sniper Glint that BF3 introduced to try to stop snipers from camping.

The major problem with BC2 is that the destruction was too much, helicopters (on consoles) could circle-strafe to death, and the map design had a few choke-points (weakening Conquest gameplay) due to the Rush-linear design, but gameplay wise?

A lot of fans consider it the high-point of the series. Older fans consider BF2 that point, but it really depends on what you're looking for. For me, the gameplay-first design (no numerous unlocks. There's like 20 max and you get them all within about 20-40 hours of gameplay, compared to BF3/4 where there is like 100 different unlocks no to mention the accessories are unlocks per gun compared to BC2 where they are ACOG/RED-DOT/4x(sniper)/16x(sniper) for all weapons once that "perk" was unlocked) was ACE and what made the series stand-out.

I could write a bunch but for me it's basically "It'sFuckingFUN,Man".gif

[Rahxephon91]

what's the diff between bad company and other bf's

Bad Company is super dumbed down with terrible and meat grinder focused map design. Other BF's(Save some BF3 maps) are not.

Gunplay was better on console then previous entries yes, but 3 and 4 have continued to build upon that and surpassed it.

But in general the level design of BC2 for Conquest was awful. Small maps with almost always three control points and almost always near each other. Meaning most of the map space was pointless empty and the game encouraged more meat grindy gameplay, not spread out battles like BF1-2. The conquest points were always close to each other, almost hilariously as if DICE was afraid players would not find the battle. Which is actually most likely true. The BC games also took out the flow of combat and how important conquest points where. Since you could no longer lose your home spawn and therefore lose the game, conquest points weren't as important and teams had less focus to actually think about control points. It was simply go to whichever one wasn't yours, often in a straight "rush" like way. Also in general the maps lacked interesting environments or unique control points. There wasn't a battle over a TV station with several ways to get to control point often leading to really intense stand offs on the roof and in the stairway almost at the same time. Most of the control points were simple plots on the map. Boring and unexciting. Even the big map with the most control points is rush like with all it's control points lined in a linear fashion.

Destruction was better, but it's lessened focus in BF3-4 doesn't take away from those games better maps and better conquest gameplay.

As an assault player in 3-4  guns feel unique. I often switch between the M-16 and the AUG, and the bulldog and so on. Plenty of guns I wouldn't use sure, but plenty feel different and I switch often. Same for the DRMs in 4.

I hate Metro and it's like in 3-4, but I dislike every conquest map in BC2 so it doesn't matter. The DLC for 3 was better than the base. 4's maps were all fantastic.

I doubt modern games will ever get to the dense and verticalality of BF2 maps. Thats not how games or done, but BC2's maps felt so lackluster. And the rumor here spells of a similar focus and as someone who likes big conquest and big maps, this sucks.

[thisismyusername]

No1curr bb, go somewhere else.

Meanwhile hopefully DICE doesn't introduce more modes than the ones they are (as of this writing) focusing on. Nobody plays those new modes for more than a week (if that) and then they die to never be played. It's so bad that DICE tried to introduce objectives as a perk unlock for them in BF1. "Play these modes 15 times, please!  :'(" 

Rush, Conquest, Team Deathmatch (for those that just want to shoot shit), Operations (but I could leave that), and Obliteration are all they need to focus on. Anything else is fools errands and hurts the map design (FAO Fortress is trying to be retrofitted for Frontlines in BF1 CTE, for instance. And it's clear the map was never made with that mode in mind)

[fistfulofmetal]

BC2 on PC brought me back to the Battlefield franchise. I played a lot of it, pretty much all Conquest. I would be interested assuming it's full 64 with the focus on destruction.

[TEEEPO]

bf2 was the series high point before bf4

everything inbetween was either heavily flawed or straight up sucked ass

[toku]

Slightly excited? I want more Bad Company but idk if anyone still working at DICE still has it in them.

[headwalk]

it's an odd title that marked (up until then) the series high point on console and the series low point on PC.

[toku]

BC2 was also great on PC

[benjipwns]

imo 2142 was the low point on PC or Heroes which was the next game, BC2 was a halfway step back.

And they did a "proper" PC port during that era where the ports were really bad, remember they held up the dedicated servers and various PC specific features against MW2's lack of same. Which says a lot about the state of things in those trying times.

I still prefer Bad Company's single player plotline to well, meeting realism halfway. Prefer instead of going most of the way and lowkey like MoH did before suddenly losing its mind with Warfighter. But BC is next least bad option.

I liked Conquest in BC2, those empty parts of the maps rewarded flanking for flankings sake, not just to capture another point. Especially as squads. Coming in the back side to trap from both sides often meant your team was legitimately there, not someone who parked a jeep for 30 seconds on the edges of the map before speeding off to the next one two seconds after you spawned. And rarely would teams go all the way back to their spawn point just to break your flank, because it generally meant they'd lose the center point. (Usually people did it to grab a vehicle and speed back to the chokepoints. Small man teams operating behind lines were often ignored until they began capping.)

Rush seemingly worked best when it didn't close off chunks of the maps. (Because they weren't actually one long map.) The one map that is a single map in all modes and only closed off the points had a modded variant that let you push the attackers back a point. Then it disappeared after a patch I think. That was great, as were the assaults on Rush maps where the final sections true grinder of death chokehold was the second to last. One of the maps has the spawn and points perfectly placed so that once you crack the grinder, you want to push past it immediately and take the hits from anyone behind you and let anyone who has to spawn back there clean them out, otherwise the goal is to put more troops into the field at the last point to overwhelm it as it can't truly be defended since the building can come down around it. And anyone harassing you back a point which they can't retake is just hurting their team.

BF3's Metro's mindless hell sorta lets up and crescendos in a similar point once you finally come up from the Subway. Where you siege the two buildings outside. The defenders generally have no hope of holding all points at that point, they literally have to kill you off until time ends because squad spawns can overwhelm into the buildings clearing them.

I'd rather BC3 than it be something like BF2:II:1944, and leave BF4 as the pinnacle regular style for now. Then come back around for BF5. As noted above, BF3's DLC and BF4 really seemed to better figure out what BF3 should have been. I'm assuming that a lot of this team will have worked on BF1, with BC3 as a second palette cleanser they'll have played around with some more ideas before going back to the main style BF. But then, I guess that didn't really work out all that well for 3. BF2 -> 2142 -> BC -> Heroes/1943 -> BC2 -> BF3 would be similar to a BF4 -> STAR WARZ -> BF1 -> STAR WARZ -> BC3 -> BF5. But that might have been the consoles fault too. Which I guess this would be again as PS4 and Xbone Classic would be hitting a very similar age with 5 on a 2019/2020 timeline.

[benjipwns]

I am however a confirmed and admitted sucker for BC2's destruction model. And discount others who dismiss it as not being a big deal during actual play, because I always make it an impactful and serious one.

Like my grapple in Titanfall 2.

[benjipwns]

It is funny on Rush though watching two attacking tanks pull up and spend all their time trying to shoot people who run between buildings, instead of fucking leveling all the goddamn cover in sight.

[HardcoreRetro]

bf2 was the series high point before bf4

everything inbetween was either heavily flawed or straight up sucked ass

I liked doing suicide bombings in 1942 as the japanese. Then have people complaining about me ruining a plane.

[benjipwns]

In every Battlefield I am an expert at being a kamikaze pilot.

That tree over there was a target right?

And you wanted me to clip the edge of that building and send the chopper crashing too right?

[toku]

Man I sank an astonishing amount of time into BF2 but I could never get the ridiculous love for it then and I don't really get it now. Terrible shooting, armor completely dominating, karkand 24/7. I don't miss it and when I try to remember good times all I can think about are long back and forth treks in Gulf of Oman, hiding in bamboo forests in China and the millions of hours I have as AT on Karkand. I had more fun in 2142 and I still remember when they had to patch titans moving out to increase server stability. Hell i had more fun in BF:V (04)

3 had problems but the moment to moment experience was a lot richer for me

Rating experiences BC2 is the best time I've had with BF on pc. 1943 being the best on consoles. Wasted summer 09 playing that with buddies on 360. Great times.

[thisismyusername]

Yep, Frostbite 1->2 was amazing for the time. Ever since 3, it's been slightly disappointing.

Like you, I don't get the love for BF2. Jets dominated the entire maps (sometimes one-player just hovering to wreck havoc before zooming off again), dolphin diving, etc. Bad Company 2 has it's problems (destruction being too strong, map design for conquest) but at least it's fun to play compared to BF2.

3's problems mostly stem from Map Design. Too many areas where you could "prone-clip" into the map (where players couldn't shoot your clipped body) and hold areas. Rush Bazaar first-set B being a key example. 4 tried to fix this with the "push away" system, but it has it's own issues (too many times in BF1 where I go prone on a stairs or near a corner and then try to "lean around" the corner by aiming somewhere and the entire character moves because the camera/body is tied together. Just... why? Why didn't they fix that? I could understand going prone facing "away" from the wall, but CoD4 in 2007 fixed that.

Also while I'm thinking of cons in the series: Premium has been a disaster. Playing on console along with PC: Nobody in the community plays the DLC maps for more than a week and then it's a waste of $15 outside of the guns. They should just drop it with Bad Company 3 and further entries in the series: Nobody besides die-hards buy into it and it's a waste of cash. Edit: I mentioned that earlier with new modes, but it bears repeating. Their DLC scheme has be a disaster. "VIP" was a con in Bad Company 2 (since the non-Vietnam stuff was already on disc) but at least you could get that stuff for free (outside of the initial "VIP" phase which sucked) and play them with everyone.

@Benji: Have you played/did you play Bad Company 1? The Rush mode there was way open (no linear) and the defense generally has to stick near the points to defend. It has it's issues (destruction being way quicker than arming) but I wish DICE would go back to that sort of "big map" gameplay for Rush to where a single-player could attempt to sneak up and the defense had to be paranoid and stick to the defending set instead of just rushing up to the starting spawn and camping.

[Rahxephon91]

Didn't experience of those problems in BF3 and 4.

[toku]

The CQC maps was the best time I've had with BF dlc, idk if there was a deal or something but a lot of ppl had it and ran CQC only servers for awhile.

I will s/o the BF2 dlc for trying new things something they slowed up on after 3. I remember the night vision spec ops one and then last one that was basically "oh you like armor here is a bunch of giant and almost purely armor oriented maps bless"

[Rahxephon91]

Yeah I played a lot of the DLC maps in both 3 and 4. Not sure I agree with the premise that people didn't buy them. Honestly everyone seemed to be Premium. It's only now does it seem to be harder, if only because the base game is discounted but digital stores never discount the DLC.

And I loved the DLC.

The DLC for 3 was amazing. Some of the best maps since BF2.  Most of them pretty big.

[thisismyusername]

The CQC maps was the best time I've had with BF dlc, idk if there was a deal or something but a lot of ppl had it and ran CQC only servers for awhile.

I will s/o the BF2 dlc for trying new things something they slowed up on after 3. I remember the night vision spec ops one and then last one that was basically "oh you like armor here is a bunch of giant and almost purely armor oriented maps bless"

Honestly, the CQC maps were pretty: But they aren't Battlefield. I absolutely hated them. The rest of the DLC for BF3 was alright. But Back 2 Karkand (the BF2 remade maps) were the best. It's funny that the BF4 version (Second Assault), minus Metro were good.

Wake Island 2012 wasn't that good though. I was hyped as hell for it given how well Wake played (still did) from 1942->1943, but the BF3 version had some issues (flanking, mostly) for me.

I think the Armored Kill pack is when DICE's art-department went wild. Alborz Mountain is probably the prettiest map BF3 had.

[TEEEPO]

yo, bf:v was legit after ten or so patches

[thisismyusername]

That's about the only one that got away from me in my collection given Origin never resold it before the Gamespy shutdown and I never found a physical disc.

[benjipwns]

I liked how, at least at launch, the whole point of hiding in the grass and shit was defeated by your username showing up when moused over.

[benjipwns]

I've assumed that Vietnam never turned up on Origin because of the soundtrack more than anything.

[Borealis]

I know it's mainly the product of DICE Sweden (as opposed to DICE LA), but I'm bloody amazed that BF1 carried very few of the gameplay and UI improvements made throughout BF4 post-CTE launch, or even elements like team-coloured grenade impacts from BFH. It's also taken quite some time for BF1's current devs (LA once again) to reintroduce previous features such as Classic Conquest rules and more extensive mini-map UI options.

Makes you think about WTF DICE Sweden are doing. They've got decent ideas but awful execution in terms of balance and QA.

I think the Frontlines game mode has been the only success story out of BF1. Bullshit like:

• Elite classes (were in damn TDM until a recent patch), behemoths in Conquest mode
• Vehicle entry and seat switching animations
• Even fucking longer knifing animations, especially if its some frontal kill
• Excessive gun muzzle smoke and fucking environmental fires
• and the total lack of counter-play options from infantry against air (LMGs ain't shit if the pilots remotely competent)

can simply fuck off. Prioritise a solid multiplayer experience DICE, not a fucking circus of gameplay mechanics designed to give new players a sense of "cinematic' feels.   

One more thing, DICE must be fucking beside themselves wondering why new players struggle to understand the team play mechanics required to win games. How about not dumping resources into poorly-paced singleplayer 'campaigns' with awful scripts? Perhaps a decent tutorial, with Bots for once (again)?? Hell, you can even glorify it with intro and ending cutscenes.

[hungrynoob]

Get out of my fucking thread, you. Bad Company 2 ruled and Battlefield hasn't touched that greatness since.

battlefield hasnt touched  greatness since modern combat on ps2 and xbox.

[thisismyusername]

I know it's mainly the product of DICE Sweden (as opposed to DICE LA), but I'm bloody amazed that BF1 carried very few of the gameplay and UI improvements made throughout BF4 post-CTE launch, or even elements like team-coloured grenade impacts from BFH. It's also taken quite some time for BF1's current devs (LA once again) to reintroduce previous features such as Classic Conquest rules and more extensive mini-map UI options.

https://twitter.com/_jjju_/status/938540171393253376

Take with a grain of salt as it's DICE-LA and they've been all over the place when it comes to "improving" the series. But it's hilarious how the tools and framework for Frostbite can't seem to move improvements to the next game in the series.

Get out of my fucking thread, you. Bad Company 2 ruled and Battlefield hasn't touched that greatness since.

battlefield hasnt touched  greatness since modern combat on ps2 and xbox.

Modern Combat was clunky as hell. The single-player wasn't even worth the time.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I had fun with it, but I came to it WAY after it died on 360. I wonder if the servers are even still up since the Gamespy shutdown.

[close]

[eleuin]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7jziwf/no_2018s_battlefield_game_isnt_bad_company_3/



seems to be WW2

[benjipwns]

hope they straight up call it Battlefield 2 again like they've done with the Battlefront games

[Samson Manhug]

I'd pay another $50 for another 4 DLCs in BF1, but will support any pre-jet era war. My favorite Battlefield moments are flying the Corsair/Zero in BF1942/1943 or the bi-planes in BF1. It's like Pilotwings except you get to strafe people on the ground and dive bomb.

[thisismyusername]

I'd pay another $50 for another 4 DLCs in BF1,

The community is damn near anemic on PC, and they pissed on my good-will by making a GotY version BEFORE all the DLC came out. I'm not paying another $60 for mediocre maps (Achi Baba is the only good map DICE-LA has made that isn't Amiens in the vanilla game).

[TEEEPO]

i won't touch bf1 until they introduce the classic ruleset as promised

[thisismyusername]

i won't touch bf1 until they introduce the classic ruleset as promised

You mean Friendly Fire on, no 3D spotting? That's already in the game under "custom" servers.

If you mean Conquest Classic, I thought that was already in the game?

"There are two games," he told me. "I'm aware that DICE Sweden is WW2. That's what my next video is about. The one I leaked is DICE LA." Bad Company 3 would not be 2018, after all.

DICE LA is the former Medal of Honor studio, previously named EA Los Angeles and then Danger Close. Its role on the Battlefield series has been to support the main DICE studio and make post-launch content. If DICE LA was leading development of a Battlefield game, it would be a first.

*record scratch, freeze-frame* Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering where all my hype suddenly went...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

DICE-LA has been a mixed bag for me, and I absolutely loathe them listening to shitty Youtubers over those of us that actually play the fucking minority modes (aka: non-Conquest modes) and could tell them what that sort of shit impacts.

Plus the CTE has been a shit show two games running where players don't know what they like/want. Right now the community is bitching between Hardline's "steal ammo/health" system and the aura-system DICE-LA tried/tested/wants to implement to try to solve the lack of team-work problem.

[close]

[TEEEPO]

you just described hardcore mode. a bf1 classic rule-set would look as such:

no behemoths
no elites
no 3d spotting
spawn on squad leader only
no auto repair/no health regen
100% dmg/health
no sweet spot sniping mechanic
reloads result in loss of mag
no third person vehicle cam
killcam disabled
friendly fire would be off by default
classic conquest (thankfully it's back in which is news to me)

the rule-set sits somewhere between normal and hardcore, with a stronger emphasis on team-work than either two. in classic mode, bf4 plays less like its console counterparts and plays more like bf2.

[thisismyusername]

no behemoths
no elites
spawn on squad leader only
no auto repair/no health regen
reloads result in loss of mag
no third person vehicle cam
killcam disabled
friendly fire would be off by default

That's gonna be custom servers. Which nobody besides you and like 20 others may play. They tried that on Battlefield 4, nobody wanted it. They wanted "normal" and the crazies wanted hard-core. There was very little in-between.

"Classic Conquest" is a rule-set, not those options.

I'd be all for dropping the Behemoth and Elites. But the rest probably wouldn't make it into a "normal" gamemode.

[Rahxephon91]

Get out of my fucking thread, you. Bad Company 2 ruled and Battlefield hasn't touched that greatness since.

battlefield hasnt touched  greatness since modern combat on ps2 and xbox.

Now there's a console focused BF that had some amazing maps and didn't have a shitty conquest mode.

It's really the only good console focused BF.