DICE doesn't rule out Bad Company 3, seeks feedback on Bad Company "magic"

It was awesome because you had sandbox levels which you could make 'doors' in rather than wait for them to be opened and witty, likeable characters to boot. And the location of south america for BC2 was lovely in the way it was fresh.

I loved this series, it took a FPS and made it fun, i love the jokes and banter, and the destruction was impressive. imagine it with the frost bite 2 engine, graphically it could be excellent!!

I loved this series, it took a FPS and made it fun, i love the jokes and banter, and the destruction was impressive. imagine it with the frost bite 2 engine, graphically it could be excellent!!

My biggest disappointment was them not doing this for BF3s single player, or even co-op.

The reason I liked Bad Company so much was that it was fun, even the MP! Something that alot of developers have seem to forgotten lately in their quest to "obtain" as much money as possible.

You can say what you will about BF3, but I found it to be one of the most boring games in recent memory, the single-player, co-op, multiplayer, basically every aspect of it was boring to me. The menu and UI (user interface) was an eyesore too, with it's neon blue bollocks.

Now Bad Company? The first one in particular had one the FPS campaign this generation for me. It didn't take itself seriously and I found the fact they dropped everything just to chase some gold bars quite entertaining. Bad Company 2 while still great wasn't as good in that department as it just seemed like a bad Call of Duty rip off, didn't even mention the gold either.

It's aslo would proabably help that it was my first Battlefield and modern warfare type game.

Not played BC1 but would argue BF3s multiplayer is the best, albeit with the maps more PC friendly - the gameplay though is the best, especially if you form a team and try to emulate a real life battle, ie not dying, suppression comes into fore, bipods become amazing, sniping an art form... sublime. Get Arica Harbour on BF3s map list along with Harvest(think) and best game ever award will be awarded - because the SP is moot in CoD and BF, whilst it is great in Bad company - it's the first time an actual PC designed BF game has had a campaign.

I would like to see a return of the spirit of Bad Company 1, not the second. The wackiness of the campaign rubbed off onto the multiplayer, with such maps as Haggard's Hazard, which has some of my fondest memories in gaming (along with the now dead Star Wars Battlefront 1 and 2). Driving across a golf course, in a golf buggy, being shot at by a tank, an attack helicopter and a LMG post, only to die when I crashed into a tree sums up the BFBC1's wackiness for my in one funny memory, and was a brilliant introduction to the Battlefront series and creating my own front door. It was a shame that DICE thought that the way forward was to be a CoD clone. While not too detrimental to BFBC2's campaign, it completely ruined BF3's campaign, even deciding to blow up Paris, which is what MW3 did a couple of weeks early. While it did not effect the multiplayer experience, I am one of those players that look to the single player campaign, not just multiplayer, as it gives the game its one distinctive feel, which BC had by the bucket load (just have to watch the trailers), while BF3 felt like a more beautiful, more poorly written CoD game. I just hope that DICE decides to try and find their own voice like they did with BC1, or my loyalty to the Battlefield series created by BC1 will be destroyed.

I've long had a resentful opinion on Battlefield 3 after the qualify of the Bad Company series, and since you asked it gives me an opportunity to rant, bare with me...

Bad Company 2 is miles ahead in quality of Battlefield 3, which shouldn't make sense considering BF3 was the latest entry in their core series, while BC2 came before it and was (at the time) by all accounts the home consoles equivalent.

BF3 for me was a huge disappointment, the maps in particular were and are the games biggest downfall in my opinion. The maps overall are split down middle; on the one side you have several maps which really shouldn't be found in a Battlefield game, and instead are akin to Call of Duty maps. Truth be told the whole CoD comparison has become a bit of a cliché, but the fact of the matter is DICE did include maps such as Operation Mètro intentionally to entice CoD's audience, with it being no coincidence that it was the map used for the beta for all to try. I completely understand alot of Battlefield fans requested close quarter maps for some time, meaning DICE were simply giving the community what they ask for, but that should have been left to being the Close Quarters map pack only so that it was optional, rather than having them in the base game straight out of the box. While alot of fans did want close quarter maps the majority didn't, so it just seems like it was really an excuse for DICE to appeal to an audience who are on the other side of the fence (CoD) to get more sales, altering the games mantra in the process which was unfair on the core fan base.

On the other side of the maps being a problem is the maps that are more traditionally sized; all of the maps just seem extremely uninspired and frankly boring. In BC2 the maps were aesthetically detailed, rich and there was variety; with snow, jungle, urban, desert with both day and night, and this is from a Battlefield game which isn't an entry in the core series. BF3 on the other hand has very few open maps which are all the same, the three maps that I would class as being open and large are Caspian Border, Kharg Island and Operation Firestorm, but while they are open, they are so empty and boring with only small areas and buildings scattered around. Grand Bazaar, Damavand Peak, Noshahar Canals and Tehran Highway are to say the least laughable 'Battlefield' maps, you feel like you are in a small corridor with no flanks or freedom, rather than the sandbox it should be. All of these maps as a whole have none of the variety I just mentioned in BC2, they are all urban war torn streets and deserts, with the upcoming map packs looking no different, it is just tiresome.

Maps aside, the other massive letdown of BF3 was the Frosbite 2 engine on consoles; sure it looks great on pc, but the transition of it being ported over made it look awful. BC2 which runs Frostbite 1.5 and is 2 years older looks better, in BF3 everything is out of focus and jagged, with a good television only making things worse, you feel like you have to squint to see details at a distance. With the visuals being so poor it really makes me wonder what the hell DICE were talking about when they said it is like a next gen game on current gen consoles. Not only is it the visuals that are inferior, there is next to no destruction in BF3, and when there is it looks like you are destroying plastacine models. In BC2 buildings have weight to them and collapse, you really get a sense of feedback, but BF3's just feels vacant.

Another letdown was BF3's Hardcore mode, in BC2 Hardcore mode was extremely high damage, zero HUD and no kill cams, so why in BF3 did they decide to leave the minimap on with enemy positions showing, as well as showing players position on a cam when they kill you. The Hardcore mode is not hardcore at all, and there was no reason to change BC2's formula for it. The game spoiling flaws don't end there; vehicles being 'disabled' before they blow up denying you a kill almost every time, and your position being given away by ridiculous sniper scope and flashlight glare are just two more things that make BF3 a disappointing step back from BC2.

Moral of the story? To me BF3 felt like a rushed, uninspired mess, DICE need to step away from making Battlefield a series that it's not. It's a shame BC2 is so quiet online now, because there really isn't an alternative that can match it's quality and enjoyment. If DICE make the right decision and release a worthy sequel in Bad Company 3, then my faith will be restored in the series. For now however I think there aren't enough people who agree with my opinion on the direction the series is going in order for DICE to take notice before it loses it's essence completely.

I just hope people speak - and they listen.

The title for the article says it for me battlefield magic imagine an alternate world war with rideable dragons fireballs and lighting bolts on the frostbite engine.

BC3 has GOT to happen, if EA decides to not bother making it in the end, I'll catapult small kittens at their office windows untill they change their minds .

As others have said could we make it a bit more BC1 than BC2? The first one had a tone and personality that made it unique in the FPS field and as a result felt like a breath of fresh air, whilst I thought the second was trying too hard to be mainstream and just blended into the background as a result.

KEEP IT THE SAME AS BFBC2!! just add things like doors and Vietnam DLC and maybe a bit of work on the single-player