Battlefield 3/Heroes/1943/Bad Company 2

Yes, it's BF2. Ain't got nuttin' else.

So many battles, so little time. EA/Dice already seem busy alternately delighting and outraging their fanbase with the much-delayed casual shooter Battlefield Heroes and sorta-remake Battlefield 1943, so dropping an apparent Battlefield 3 into the mix seems like a special kind of madness. Then again, perhaps a full sequel, expanding rather than simplifying or repeating the remit, is the way to win back men’s love. I have precisely zero information beyond EA CEO John Pleasants (he’s not a pheasant plucker, he’s a pheasant plucker’s son) dropping a sly “I’ve had the luxury of looking at Battlefield 3 over at DICE in Sweden and was highly impressed by the way the team is working on that product“, so every word of this post I write is essentially killing time until it looks long enough to publish. Oh, there we go.

BF3 then: whadda we want?


  1. GuiSim says:

    Wait, what ? I’m not going to buy BF: BadCompany 2 if a BF:3 is around the corner !

  2. Psychopomp says:


    Have they gone stark raving mad?

  3. Paradukes says:

    @Psychopomp: This is EA/Dice we’re talking about. Sanity has never exactly been their strong-point…

  4. Captain Bland says:

    I was saddened that we didn’t get to see Bad Company on PC. I think it looked splendid. The building destruction was to my knowledge (apart from Crysis) unparalelled and from the marketing Dice seemed to have created some likeable (if a little stereotypical) characters for the single player. It’s a little nonsensical that they then proceeded to make (or at least market) Bad Company 2 focused on Multiplayer. But then everything about the way they have revealed the multiple Battlefield sequels is nonsensical.


    I just want my BF2142 patch… Please?

    People are still playing 2142 so surely they can’t abandon that franchise, surely.

    I wouldn’t mind Bad Company on PC though.

  6. Andrew Dunn says:

    Misleading screenshot. :(

  7. Heliocentric says:

    Heroes stands alone as the “idea of battlefield” where bad company can be a campaign and 3 the multiplayer, but i fear the dilution of features and the termination of support with so many sku’s. Hell, its ea, the support is going to be turd anyway, patches as expansion packs and expansion packs as sequels etc. But maybe they’ll realise they are pissing away a legacy and share resources between bad company and bf3 and just have them as one title, not that bad company was any good, dice don’t do good ai, let alone with dynamic environments.

    I hope arma 2 has an “arcade” mode/mod. Because i like tank battles being managed over multiple hits and zapping people with shock paddles to save them, sure bf2 destroys the concept of suppersive fire but hell, its fun.

    What a want is bf3 to be mod friendly, or i’m not buying it, simple as, project reality have gone through such hassle and limitation dodging to produce a mod which will result in increased sales of bf2, but ea would rather sell crap expansions.

  8. autogunner says:

    at friendlyunit

    a developer, abandon a game to make its sequel, never!

  9. Gap Gen says:

    I think BF3 should have regenerating health and fewer classes.

  10. Pendragon says:

    BF:Heroes, BF:1943 even BadBoz:Whatever can all go hang. I don’t give a flying (insert bad word here)

    What I want is BF:3 I can tell you that I’m not alone. BF:2 is on any given night is the fourth most played MP FPS game. Last Saturday over seven and a half thousand people were online fraging each other. There is a truly massive player base for this game. If they get it right they could have a monster on their hands. All they have to do is get it right, and there lies the nub, the kernel of my doubts and fears. EA have a proven track record of screwing the pooch on big name franchises when it comes to MP. We all know that BF is all about the MP game, without it it will be yet another coaster for my coffee cup…

  11. Lars BR says:

    Maybe it’s just a CEO being clueless about his own company’s products, and mistaking BFBC2 for BF3?

    But gods, I’m looking forward to 1943/BFBC2 – I miss me some Battlefield.

    Heroes is a decent diversion, but hardly something I’ll be pouring as many hours into as I did 1942, BFV, BF2, BF2:SF, and BF2142…

    Doesn’t seem to be in BC2, but BF3 needs to add Halo-style vehicle seat-switching. I’ve abused my share of teleporting-out-of-a-tank-to-ambush-nearby-infantery, but would much rather entering or leaving a vehicle was slow and vulnerable.

  12. Fat says:

    I’ve always been a fan of the BF games, and i think sticking to the same formula would be sound. Modern warfare mind, i didn’t much like BF2142… regular vehicles seemed so much more fun than all the stuff in that game.

    So basically, more of the same for me. Maybe larger scale? And give us some potential for LOOOOONG range firefights aswell as close quarter scuffles. I haven’t had a REALLY good 1000m+ sniper fight since the days of Delta Force Landwarrior, PLZ GIVF.

  13. Krondonian says:

    I was deliberating about buying Battlefield 2: Complete Edition for around £5. It seems great value, but with 4(!) new games on the horizon I’m wondering whether to just skip it.

    Advice would be appreciated :).

  14. Chris Evans says:

    BF2 is still amazing, have been playing it again recently and it still rocks my socks.

    What do I want from BF3? More of the same of what we had in BF2, just make it better :)

  15. Devan says:

    It may be just a typo and is in any case trivial, but John Pleasants is the Chief Operating Officer, while John Riccitiello is the CEO. Although I’m not high enough on the EA food chain to tell what the difference is.

  16. distended says:

    Wow, I’m so happy to hear this :)

    BF2 is one of my favourite games of all time, so there’s not much I want that’s not already there.

    The only thing that needed desperate improvement was the server browser, and some of the plane combat could be tweaked, but BF2 got a lot right and there hasn’t been a large-scale online FPS to touch it since.

    “More of the same, but better” is a outcome I can get behind.

  17. Thranx says:

    @Krondonian well worth it bro. An excellent game, especially at that price.

    It just doesn’t get better than BF2 imo. I think it had some excellent balance. I played a few seasons worth of tournies and just had lots of repeated fun with friends playing Karkand, or rolling in the chopper @ Sharqi (chopper=OP on Sharqi). It was just a great game.

    What I want out of BF3? BF2, graphical update, maybe another tier of unlockables for each class, and more players per server. DON’T break a good thing. Go with what you know. The recipie worked, don’t try to make a great thing better… you’re more likely to break it.

  18. Inanimotion says:

    @ Krondonian:

    If you’ve never played it, buy it.
    If you’ve never owned it, buy it.

    That help? :D

  19. ZIGS says:

    Talk about milking a franchise… soon they’ll release Battlefield Party for the Wii

  20. CryingTheAnnualKingo says:


    I was thinking the same thing. I can’t see how a regular BF game could exist simultaneously with a new BC game. The multiplayer experiences are so similar…

  21. Hypocee says:

    1. Small-numbers skirmish bots that work, or have tools exposed so that they can be made to work by the modders who have created the best Battlefield games.
    2. No weapon unlock MMO bullshit.

    The two things I want from any Battlefield that will never again appear in any Battlefield.

  22. Paradoxish says:

    Big maps, lots of players, vehicles that have the same weighty feel and retarded physics, class variety, and equipment variety.

    That’s it. That’s all I want, so Bad Company 2 and 1943 are just pure disappointment for me. The ability to throw 128 players on some really huge maps would be fantastic.

    And proper balance between air and ground vehicles, but I’m realistic here.

  23. Walter says:

    BF3, AA3, ARMAII, OpFP2, MW2…

    Something for everyone!

  24. Aorawn says:

    I played Bad Company and found it on the shady side of unsatisfying. Multiplayer was very laggy, and single player was basically go to point X and blow stuff up, then go to point y and blow stuff up, and so on. I would love a real BF3.

  25. IvanHoeHo says:

    I bought BF2 for 15 bucks for the sole purpose of playing Project Reality, and along with the 5-second delay menus, various key re-mapping nightmares, and dodgy net code, it was barely worth the money.

    But yeah, PR is like a slightly more accessible version of Flaspoint, which is all I ever really wanted in life; and my purchase of any future Battlefield product depands entirely on Team PR’s ability and willingness to port it over.

  26. Clippit says:

    What do I want in another Battlefield? First, an entirely new engine that can actually sort of handle the maximum player count, without losing the wide open spaces.

    Second, no involvement whatsoever by EA. I know they’ve become slightly more respectable in the last couple of years, but I still would rather not see their logo and feel their corporate influence in the form of some horrible account system or in-game ads.

    Third, and probably least importantly, about half of what constitutes the Project Reality mod – good stuff like asymmetrical teams, a better spawn system and sensible limits on medic abilities and weapon and vehicle use.

    While I know none of this is ever going to happen, fortunately there are also these new Flashpoint and “Armour” games to watch :)

  27. Gamblor says:

    I don’t have the time or wallet to balance OPF2- BF3 – ArmA2 (in order of interest). Why doesn’t UBI release the R6 + GR + SC MMO already and post my face on a milk carton while their at it.

  28. SwiftRanger says:

    Nice to see another confirmation, hopefully PC is the lead platform during development.

    BF3 Wishlist:

    – better server browser (can’t get any worse than the BF2 one)
    – better weapon feel
    – better performance (engine just wasn’t that good, never felt fluid enough, too many irritating out-of-control pauses, loading and such was absolutely awful)
    – bigger battlefields, higher player count coupled to a persistent online war (with metamap) with persistent stat tracking and non-overpowered unlocks, the ability for clans to make their own base of sorts, the perfect middle ground between PlanetSide and BF2, in other words: the thing online PC FPS gamers have been craving for since years.
    – keep the community together if you release addons or booster packs
    – no more 1GB+ patches you have to find on other sites, get a standard auto-downloading service, preferably Steam if you can get Valve some better servers.

    I loved BF2 but it wasn’t exactly perfect.

  29. Larington says:

    Hmm, maybe I should play whichever is least buggy.


    I’m feeling ascerbic today, I’d better keep my distance from comment systems for a bit.

  30. g says:

    pc exclusivity.

  31. Rob Lang says:

    I want Battlefield Vietnam 2 and I won’t be happy until I get it.

  32. [21CW] 2000AD says:

    1 – More class customisation, ala CoD4 / CoD:WaW. Maybe not do away with classes all together, but a bit more to choose than one gun or another. Though I would accept a straight clone of Cod4’s class system, combine that with the scale and vehicular combat of BF2 and I reckon it’s a winner.

    2 – No noob tube. Yes it is realistic to have an underslung grenade launcher, but given how much grief people get for using it there’s no point. Or at least make it an unlock right at the end of the unlock chain, so that only people who work for it will get it.

    3 – More game modes. Standard is ok, but a bit of variety is allways welcome. Maybe something like UT’s assault mode when one side has to complete a set of objectives while the other side has to stop them (then flip and see if the other team can do better). Forgotten Hope 2 mod already as something simular.

    4 – Tap up 21CW players for Beta Testers *nudge nudge wink wink*

  33. Steve says:

    BF2 is a great game…..I really hope they cut out the bunnies /nade spammers/ dolphin divers and cheats with AIM bots with BF3.

    please remove jumping 6foot in the air…just cut out jumping and have a key to climb over a wall

  34. cHeal says:

    I want BF3 so bad it hurts :(

  35. rupert says:

    i would buy bf3 on the spot the other ones their currently making can all go die in a fire i want bf3 !!!

  36. ketch says:

    No more of this modern setting crap please! Call of Duty do it way better so can we please have another one in Vietnam? This time they should consider making it good.

  37. Markoff Chaney says:

    BF2 seemed so broken (and no bot support?) on Day 1 I haven’t ever picked it back up since that first week of release. Maybe I should reinstall it. Y’all seem to think it matured well. I think 1942 and DC just spoiled us so much, nothing seemed as good to our fragging group.

  38. TheLordHimself says:

    @Markoff Chaney

    BF2 has bots for single player 16 man maps.

    As for features, I agree with everything Swift Ranger said. Battlefield 2 is one of the most fun games I have ever played, I loved it, and this is with it being a complete POS. The server browser was dire, the infantry combat was a bit buggy and broken and oh my god the keymapping, why, why, why could you never bind Shift to crouch without editing the file manually?!

    I also hope (and know they almost certainly will) keep the stats system. Looking at mine on BF2S was always funny, I’ve spent over 2 hours in a parachute! Think of all that time wasted…

  39. Jim says:

    I would love a proper remake of 1942 myself (fook off 1943, you’re not fit to have the suggestive sequel year for a name). I know everyone hates the WWII setting and any game that uses it now will be shunned by you internet tarts, but come on modern warfare is crap! All the guns are accurate, the tanks hit where you aim. At least in BF42 you had to use some guess work/experience when firing a tank, it was fantastic.

    I really hope BF3 isn’t dumbed down, guess that’ll only happen if it’s not multi-platform tho.

  40. Markoff Chaney says:

    Aye. It was great for testing the maps, but no Co-Op or Conquest with bots (at least at launch)? That’s how we played 1942 and DC for hours on end, with the same 6-8 of us together. Anti-social social gaming if you will. It was especially enjoyable when a human would have a bot as a nemesis. You’d hear your friend cry out in anguish as the same bot killed him over and over and couldn’t stop laughing… Great times.

  41. Edgar the Peaceful says:

    BF2 is the nuts…. when you’re actually logged into a server.

    Unfortunately up to 50% of your time is spent trying to get on a server, being disconnected once you think the map has finally loaded, etc.

    And punkbuster is buggy as hell.

    They sorted this out with BF2142 but it isn’t as good.

  42. JonFitt says:

    I eventually got sick of BF2 after hundreds of hours because I could no longer stand the childish fights over the completely rudonkulously over powered OpFor jets.

    I moved to BF2142 for quite a while, but it didn’t hold my attention quite as long.

    The fundamental things I’ll be looking for BF3 to address are:
    -Assignment of vehicles.
    -How much of an overruling factor airpower is.
    -The server browser and patching functions.
    -Teamkilling *

    *Claymores and C4 lead to huge numbers of teamkills when they were operating normally, but playing with FF Off feels stupid and leads to unrealistic behaviours.

    I don’t know how many of these flaws are fixable.

  43. Nick says:

    Hmm, I’d like BF3 to be BF2 with crack jumping/bunnyhopping made impossible.. nade spamming by one person impossible also, claymores done like the mines in 2142 at the very least, aircraft with actual counters.. and then it would be about pefect, anything else would be gravy.

  44. JonFitt says:

    The problem I see with Dice and aircraft is that they want them to be the uber weapons of the battlefield.
    The argument goes that aircraft are huge killing machines in the real world. The problem is the way in which they’re implemented in BF with mid-air reloads, short takeoffs, low airspeeds, and perfect radar means that they’re just annoying unless you’re in one.
    Once you get over the really simple learning hump you can just rocket to the top of the boards without participating in the team game at all.
    Every time I’ve heard Dice comment about this they say that they want a good pilot to dominate.
    Personally I’d like to see them take a back seat in the next BF game.

  45. Krondonian says:

    Thanks folks. I was actually just thinking about it again after reading Chris’ Reticule article, and it does sound interesting.

    Might install 1942 for the first time in the mean time to get a flavour.

  46. Rich_P says:

    As Fitt said, modern airpower has logistical limitations not present in Battlefield 2. So yeah, fighter jets are absurdly powerful, but it takes a lot of effort to even deploy them. This trade-off could be best-modeled in an FPSMMO where you could actually have full airfields, refueling requirements, larger maps that permit a faster flight speed, etc.

    DC’s air power balance was perfect. A truly skilled pilot could dominate, but a newbie jackass would probably get shot down by the (awesome) mobile AA units. The skill curve wasn’t binary, so to speak.

    In any event, I hope DICE totally revamps the vehicle spawn system. Maybe individual vehicle timers like PlanetSide? That would totally eliminate vehicle camping.

    I also have zero tolerance for bloated and buggy online games. With so many studios getting it right for years (Valve), it’s sad when an otherwise decent game is marred by a laughably-deficient server browser and rampant exploits. So more polish this time around, DICE.

  47. Snuffy (the Evil) says:

    An announcement that all previous titles will be able to be activated and downloaded off of Steam. It fixes the issue with having to manually download 1 gig patches, anyway. Besides, BF:V and 1942 need some more players.

  48. Walter says:

    Some suggestions for nerfing jets:
    – Land to rearm and refuel
    – Special pilot class (limited to number of aircrat)
    – Bombing targets have to be painted by spec ops and/or commander

    IMO the above changes would make the jets more of teamplayer and would still retain their air superiority.

  49. Heliocentric says:

    @walter so project reality mod by default then?

  50. Walter says:

    I wouldn’t know.