Heads Up: Three New Battlefield 3 Expansions Incoming

Feeding time at the soldier zoo.
The handsome newshounds of Eurogamer are reporting that DICE have three new Battlefield 3 expansions in the pipeline, as announced at last night’s GDC event in San Francisco. The first one of these new expansions will be arriving in June is called “Close Quarters”. This will apparently focus on “indoor infantry combat with verticality to the map designs”. The new map with this pack is a glass tower block called Ziba Tower. The pack after that focuses on tank combat, while the final one – END GAME – is a big secret and DICE aren’t talking about it to anyone, not even Eurogamer. So there.


  1. PoulWrist says:

    Yay :D

  2. Moni says:

    Expansions, what are they? Some kind of new fangled DLC?

    • Hoaxfish says:

      When you fill something with hot air, it expands.. at least that’s my theory

    • RaytraceRat says:

      long, long time ago there was something called “community created maps”, now there are expansions and DLCs. Still, I don’t mind new maps, and BF3 is the only “brown men shooting each other on brown maps” game I play nowadays, so I will probably buy it.

  3. One Pigeon says:

    The Back To Karkand pack was good, in fact I prefer them to the majority of the old maps although I guess they were chosen because they worked so well in BF2.

    I only hope we don’t have to pay full price for each individual expansion and can buy them for a fairly reasonable price as a three pack.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      B2K really illustrated how crappy the stock maps are.

      The Close Quarters pack is going to be terrible for that reason – “more maps like Métro” is not what BF3 needs. Looking forward to the tank pack, though.

    • One Pigeon says:

      Yep, exactly this.

      If I wanted hallways I’d play MW3 or it’s ilk. I play BF3 for the open spaces and possibility of flanking/being a sneaky sod and taking a flag right in the enemy rear.
      I now just avoid any servers that have Metro in their maplist.

    • sneetch says:

      I think there’s room for both, sometimes I love Caspian Border, sometimes being blitzed by helicopter piloted by aces takes its toll and I feel like a game on Metro or Seine Crossing.

      Close Quarters will provide a welcome change of pace, I hope.

    • Brun says:

      To be fair, I wouldn’t put Seine Crossing in the same category as Metro. Seine is made up of mostly narrow spaces (alleyways, bridges), same as Metro. However, Metro is a highly linear map, whereas Seine is not.

      The real problem is that people are playing Metro as a Conquest map, when really it’s an Assault map. Metro on Conquest SUCKS, it’s clearly not designed for that game type. It’s much better on Assault.

    • jonfitt says:

      The problem with the traditional BF big open maps in BF3 is the lack of teamplay. Without built-in voice comms try as I might to work out wtf my teammates are up to, I find myself soloing capture points all the time on the larger maps. Especially ones with no obvious structure like Gulf of Oman.
      I can’t think of a single full sized BF3 map that ever really has any kind of coordination emerge. With the city maps, the structure forces some semblance of teamwork.

  4. Post-Internet Syndrome says:

    So one can still hope for 2143 then.

    • The Hammer says:

      “End-Game” sorta sounds likes it could be alluding to a near-future setting of depleted resources and submerged coastlines, eh?

      Probably not, but stillll.

      I’ll probably miss the first one of these, but tank gameplay is always a relentless hoot.

  5. Kdansky says:

    30$ for three maps?! Count me in!

    • Gundato says:

      Actually it looks like 4 maps, 10 guns, and new achievements and the like.
      link to eurogamer.net

      Of these, I have to admit, the close quarters one sounds the most fun. Don’t get me wrong, I like long-range too, but there is just something so fun about a 64-man rush in Metro. Assuming you get to the actual metro portion of it, it becomes pure chaos as all of the sound effects and particle efffects and ‘splosions pretty much make for fun.

      The armored one doesn’t really appeal to me, but I generally don’t actually LIKE the vehicles in Battlefield (well, I don’t like driving them. I love fighting them :p).

      But, I’ll be honest, I only really got into the series with BC2 (1942 and 2 were fun, but never grabbed me).

    • Kdansky says:

      TEN guns?! That’s nearly 10% of what TF2 added for free during the last few years! And we all know how much flak they got for adding stuff which was unnecessary and diluted the game. Arguably, less is more.

      More Achievements! Now that’s something amazing! Here, have a free one:

      “1-2-3-Punch: Kill three guy in melee without firing any shots in between.”

      I’m a cynic, but I’m still right.

    • Cim says:

      Kdansky, the difference there is that the weapons added to TF2 brings new gameplay options with them each and every time. In BF3 on the other hand, they are pretty much all the same with only *very* minor differences.

      I agree that it’s a poor way to design your game, with every weapon more or less being the same as any other, but at this point it does not really matter. The game was obviously designed with this approach in mind from the start so whatever they add now does not dilute anything if you ask me.

      Just look at the Strike at Karkand weapons, they did absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay. For better or worse, they gave you no advantage what so ever over the standard ones. I’m sure whatever comes next will be more of the same.

    • Gundato says:

      kdansky: I also am skeptical about the pricing. But, based upon your response, I suspect you would still be frothing at the mouth if this included 100 guns and 40 maps.

      But, end of the day: If you don’t think something is worth buying (and you actually play the game…), don’t buy it. It is that simple.

      I got karkand for free from a pre-order. I like it and found many of the achievements to actually be the good kind (encourage you to try new gameplay styles). How much would I pay for it? Probably less than 20, closer to 10 (USD).

      As far as this: The armored one sounds like one I might skip, but close quarters sounds like it is just up my alley. So I’ll have to see. The beautiful thing about an open mind: You don’t have to make all your decisions blindly :p

      And maybe “achievement” is the wrong word to use, since that has bad connotations (ironically, BECAUSE of how valve handled them for TF2). It is more like “Kill X people with a sniper rifle” or “Murder someone to death with a blowtorch”. Stuff that you will either do as you play that class or that is fun to try once or twice. But, outside of the blowtorch one (which was just fun), none of them encourage you to stop being a team player.

    • Wut The Melon says:

      @ Gundato Happy to hear some are enjoying op. Metro, on 64 players of all things even. For me, BF3 switch to twitchy shooting and chaos made it a major disappointment after BC2, which I enjoyed a lot as my first serious FPS.

  6. philbot says:

    I have put 230+ hours into BF3 and I don’t know what to think of this.

    EDIT: Apparently they will also have the biggest map ever in battlefield that is focussed on tank gameplay. WIN!

  7. shaydeeadi says:

    The wait for the vehicle pack will be torture! Why prioritise the lame indoors maps?
    Good news though :D

    • Elusiv3Pastry says:

      Yes, perhaps they should rename it to Battle Hallway 3.

    • Martha Stuart says:

      So because you don’t like indoor maps everyone else is wrong? that is a very arrogant way of thinking, but this is the internet so i guess ME ME ME style thinking is the norm.

      just an FYI, i personally enjoy the close quarters maps. The vehicle maps suck because if your team doesn’t have any competent pilots, it just tuns into a target range for the air vehicles (Thanks Dice for nerfing the Stinger, now infantry have absolutely no defense against air vehicles)

    • Elusiv3Pastry says:

      Indoor maps would be fine if they were more varied than just being a hallway, like Metro, Bazaar, and that other giant Tunnel. There’s no room to do anything other than spam rockets and grenades down to the other end of the hallway. Yay.

      They did it right with the Karkand maps; plenty of close quarters urban fighting but also lots of open area fighting.

  8. Dcode says:

    Heh I was pondering a skyscraper map focused on indoor vertical combat.

  9. Revisor says:

    I love close quarters combat so unlike some voices in the comments I’m very much looking forward to the first expansion.

    I also like tanks. :)

    • shaydeeadi says:

      My problem (and possibly others) is that we could play Crysis2, MoH, CS, CoD or many other titles for close quarters fighting, indoor maps (and according to the press release for the first pack: 2-16 players.) Battlefield should be about big maps, flanking, vehicles and general epic crazyness. EA seem to be so desperate to make BF appeal to every type of shooter fan, but they should just focus on making the game the best of it’s kind.

      I really like tanks as well.

    • sneetch says:


      You could play those games but I (and possibly others) prefer the gun-play in BF3 (and the squad based combat) and I like playing both large vehicle maps and indoor/close quarter maps.

    • jroger says:

      I personally like that BF3 is about variety, and not only about one thing.

    • shaydeeadi says:

      Just to be clear: I fucking despise Metro/Seine/Bazaar, I don’t want small multi storey office maps to play TDM on where the odd plaster wall falls down. I don’t play those games (except the odd CS round) and I want big vehicle maps for my Battlefield 3. The only reason I will buy this joke of a map pack is ‘maybe’ for some more guns to busy up the loadout screen.

      The EA page states that it is 2-16 players for this map pack. What the hell? Isn’t this what they relaunced MoH for?

    • sneetch says:

      The EA page states that it is 2-16 players for this map pack. What the hell? Isn’t this what they relaunced MoH for?

      That’s what I thought about MoH too. I suppose they want this to bridge the gap until the next MoH is brought out… (not sure if many people are still playing the last one).

      I’m surprised that the numbers are so low, that has definitely dampened my enthusiasm (I personally don’t like playing with less than 32 players) it does seem to suit Squad Death Match more than Conquest or Rush. I’m not crazy about that mode but I’m curious to see what they mean by “Play in new ways, mixing team play and instant action.”

      The SMAW and M320 spam on such small maps will be fun.

    • jonfitt says:

      I like Seine, Bazaar, Karkand, Sharqi, and to a certain extent Metro, anything without air vehicles, so this is good news.
      Without the number of TOW, and Igla sites found in BF2, the large vehicular maps just aren’t much fun if you’re not in a vehicle or playing Engineer, helicopters and tanks will just ruin all the fun.

  10. Cim says:

    This is pretty much exactly what I wanted to hear. Indoor combat with more verticality sounds really interesting and a map focused on tank combat should be a standard feature of any Battlefield game imho.

    They just need to get this out the door, the maps currently in the game is starting to get a bit stale.

  11. Clavus says:

    The infantry combat in BF3 is quite nice, so Close Quarters will be a fun pack if the devs at DICE just remind themselves that Operation Metro sucks.

    • LarsBR says:

      I wonder if they’ll bring back zip lines from BF2:SF for CQ.

  12. bear912 says:

    That hardly seems like an expansion to me.

    … and in the game.

    (Joking aside, am I understanding correctly that the “Close Quarters” thing consists of one map?)
    Edit: Ah, it seems as if it consists of four maps plus some weapons. That makes it more reasonable to call it an expansion, then.

  13. Paxmayne says:

    Wasn’t there an unreleased game type in the code that had something to do with detonating a nuclear bomb?
    I’d imagine that would have something to do with the new ‘End Game’ game-type/map?

  14. MagicShrooms says:

    Is this going to be free for the Limited Edition guys like Back to Karkand?

    • sneetch says:

      I doubt it… I think that Back to Karkand being free was just to get the pre-orders in, is basically just “project 10 dollar” under another name (and is of course $15 rather than $10)

  15. Brun says:

    Please, please, please let the last “super-secret” expansion focus on air-to-air combat with jets.

  16. SooSiaal says:

    close quarters in bf3…oh what fun the rpg and grenade launching guys will have….

  17. TwwIX says:

    “biggest map ever”

    As in, the illusion of big with poorly placed flags. This is why they delayed the patch with the commo rose overhaul? So, they can hype up more of their shitty cluster fuck maps? What a shocker!

    Go fuck yourself, EA!

  18. Wreckdum says:

    Biggest map ever in a Battlefield game? Anyone ever play Heavy Metal on BC2 and couldn’t find a vehicle? LOL Kill me now! Hoofin it 980 meters to an objective. rofl

    • Treymoney says:

      I don’t know why, but walking forever to get anywhere is my favorite part of Battlefield. I find it very relaxing.

  19. buzzmong says:

    Oh. First DLC is going to be more COD-like then?

    That’s not why I buy Battlefield games. It’s also why I think Metro is a horrible map and poorly designed, and why Damavan, Bazaar and Seine need some tweaking.

  20. Svant says:

    Close Quarters is fine they just need to have alterantive routes and less chokepoints retardedness that is metro and all the other standard infantry maps. Karkand showed how infantry combat should be. I.e. never know where the enemy bastards are hiding.

  21. Cytrom says:

    After months of whining for more battlefield-like, big maps, we get a CoD expansion. DICE really listens..

    Big maps don’t necessary mean vehicles only and bad infantry experience, the point is variety. Having room for all kinds of play-styles within one map – all out warfare. That was the point of battlefield… before EA wanted to get the CoD kids on board.

  22. MajorManiac says:

    I really like the sound of the Close Quarters expansion. I hope the maps play a little like Swat 4.

    Wouldn’t it be great if they added some extra game play modes that slowed the pace down a little and made it more tactical.

  23. Nethlem says:

    I would be totaly all over this if they finnaly would get around making the PC version of the game a proper PC game.

    Now hear me out before labeling me an “EA hater”, “elitist” or something similiar retarded: The game is great and all, but it suffers from very poor longterm replayability for people that do not play in coordinated groups.

    The reason for that are pretty simple: Lack of real ingame voice, lack of teamplay mechanics being intuitive and obvious to other players.

    The game has so many cool mechanics that reward cooperation and teamplay, but sadly many of these mechanics are designed/build in such an way that you can only make effective use of them if you activley coordinate with your teammates.

    Now try to activley coordinate with 31 teammates while not having any kind of voice chat or other tools to intuitivley communicate with your team. It just doesn’t work in an natural intuitive way…

    Sure you can text chat all you want, but that’s an retarded solution. You expect me to type out “Hey guy at C inside that tank, could you move to B and take out that AA vehicle there, to help me?” while flying an attack chopper?
    Even if you do that: It won’t help at all because text chat is something ignored by most people as most people usually only use it to flame and insult other players.

    Yes the “obvious” solution would be just to “get friends to play with”, but that’s an poor solution to an sympthom of an problem that’s much deeper rooted inside the games design. I also allready have enough “friends”, don’t expect me to convince them into the purchase of a game so they can play with me to make up for the games shortcommings.

    So it’s really sad that i will probably miss out on those packs, but right now i feel no desire at all to move back to playing BF3. After having unlocked all the “cool stuff” the only thing that makes the game worth playing is the actual gameplay. And the actual gameplay on 64 player conquest servers is akin to a giant round of team deathmatch with random spawns…

  24. ChainSOV says:

    They better fix the original game first, like Nethlem says.
    They won’t be seeing any of my money, until they bring the option for original voiceovers back, like it was in every other BF game.
    Russians with stupid accented english voiceovers are breaking my fun. If its also breaking yours, star this issue on getsatisfaction