Rumour: Next Battlefield game to be Bad Company 3

[Since1984]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/12/bad-co...sider-7152604/

Whether you have insider information or not, Bad Company 3 is still the obvious guess for what the next Battlefield is going to be. Even though it’s been seven years since the last one, the sub-series is still one of the most popular with fans. A new sequel would presumably involve a return to the modern era, and a refocus on the sort of destruction effects the franchise used to be famous for. And according to YouTuber AlmightyDaq, that’s more or less what is happening. He claims that Bad Company 3 won’t actually be modern day though, but set between the Vietnam War and the end of the Cold War. Although apparently the game is not concerned with historical accuracy, in its story at least.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/12/bad-co...4/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Hopefully another home run in the Battlefield family!

[cDnStealth]

Bad Company 2 is probably the best Battlefield game DICE has produced. Rush mode was amazing, the maps were fantastic and the level of destruction was unmatched by any BF since then. That being said, after BF1 and Battlefront 1&2 I don't have a lot of faith that DICE can make the game I want to play.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

Bad Company 2 is probably the best Battlefield game DICE has produced. Rush mode was amazing, the maps were fantastic and the level of destruction was unmatched by any BF since then. That being said, after BF1 and Battlefront 1&2 I don't have a lot of faith that DICE can make the game I want to play.

BF 1 is an excellent game, the multiplayer and story mode are top notch. What didn't you like about it?

[burn_this_city]

BC2 was amazing, some of my fondest video game memories are sniping down the apache/hind with the abrams from long range.

[OutOfTheCube]

I'm sure this won't be loaded up with loot boxes and pay to win mechanics. Right...?

[codynw]

I'd be excited if it wasn't an EA game.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by codynw

I'd be excited if it wasn't an EA game.

Go play Battlefield 1, come back and detail your issues with that game.

Also, now that the Battlefront 2 microtransacations have been disabled, I have 0 issues with that game. It is outstanding.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Go play Battlefield 1, come back and detail your issues with that game.

Also, now that the Battlefront 2 microtransacations have been disabled, I have 0 issues with that game. It is outstanding.

That's no fun, can't we continue the dog pile?

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I'm sure this won't be loaded up with loot boxes and pay to win mechanics. Right...?

It may have similar battlepacks as BF4 and BF1, both of which hardly effected gameplay and were far from "pay to win".

Maybe if people just stopped complaining and actually tried the games, perhaps many of you would change the way you feel?

Unless of course, you prefer to play the blame game instead of testing the actual product out yourself.

[OutOfTheCube]

Don't buy the game: "Why don't you buy the game and try it out for yourself instead of not playing it and complaining?"

Do buy the game: "You can't complain, should've voted with your wallet!"

Can't win.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Go play Battlefield 1, come back and detail your issues with that game.

Also, now that the Battlefront 2 microtransacations have been disabled, I have 0 issues with that game. It is outstanding.

Quick note that Battlefront II microtransactions were temporarily disabled, but definitely will be re-enabled in January.

Battlefield 1 was good. There are some sort of loot crates that award you different skins on your guns? WTF, who cares about that stuff? I played 60 hours in that game and I don't think I ever applied a skin to a gun. This is the type of loot crate that I don't care one bit about. Sure, let the company cash in on those who want a fancy looking gun or whatever, but if the gameplay isn't affected, I've got no problem.

I actually also don't have a problem with the 'shortcut kits' they sell. Let people buy all the unlocks that you could otherwise acquire through in-game progression. The progression system is such that you can target an item/weapon by playing that class, and it probably takes at most 10 hours of play time to unlock all items for a class.

The key thing that makes this work is that the weapons and equipment are balanced so that someone starting the game today isn't at a huge disadvantage compared to someone who spent 100 hours (or an extra $100) to get all the upgrades. Sure, the newbie will likely still suck, but mostly because of lack of familiarity with the controls, mechanics, maps—not because they haven't unlocked the best upgrades yet.

There were many issues with the roll out of the progression system for Battlefront II. But one of the biggest problems I see is that people can have strictly better equipment than others. I don't want to jump in to a game where some people take 30% less damage than I do, only because they have played/paid more than me. Maybe the effect isn't dramatic, and maybe some don't care because of the more 'arcadey' nature of Battlefront. But I'm just saying those type of unlocks are a deal breaker for me.

I have never played one of the Bad Company games, but would consider it after playing a lot of BF3, BF4, BF1. However, the growing loot box/microtransactions trend would make me extra cautious about any future games by EA/DICE. It seems they took a few too many steps with Battlefront II. I think the backlash has made that clear. We have an anchor on what 'unacceptably greedy' looks like. So does that mean anything less than this point will be accepted by gamers?

[Max Cow Disease]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Go play Battlefield 1, come back and detail your issues with that game.

Also, now that the Battlefront 2 microtransacations have been disabled, I have 0 issues with that game. It is outstanding.

EA's come to deserve some backlash with regards to recent decisions on progression systems/microtransactions, but there's still a lot of quality to be had in their library. All of the Battlefield games have been absolutely great, and although I haven't played a Bad Company title before, I'm intrigued to give it a try.

I don't understand anyone on this earth who doesn't like Battlefield 1 (unless the genre just totally isn't your thing). Visuals, sound design, amazing maps, good campaign, and rich with historical tidbits in an attempt to shine some light on the conflict.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Go play Battlefield 1, come back and detail your issues with that game.

Also, now that the Battlefront 2 microtransacations have been disabled, I have 0 issues with that game. It is outstanding.

EA probably regrets not putting micro transactions in Battlefield 1 and they are coming back into Battlefront 2 next year. Battlefront 2 progression was built on loot boxes. Even if you can't currently pay for them it's a terrible way to do progression.

It's pretty much a guaranteed you will have some sort of micro transactions in the next Battlefield game. Hopefully it will just be cosmetic.

[Igotnothing]

I enjoyed BC2 and thougth BF1 was alright. The gameplay was really well done, but I really really didn't enjoy the guns. Further, not having a single base gun you could kit out and instead having to unlock variants with scopes, red dot equivalents and such really bothered me. It didn't take me long to fall away from that game after spending 300 hours on BF4. I was really hoping they'd go back to WW2 for BF. Bring back some of the original magic from BF1942. I think at this point they could go back and it'd be alright. In fact I was hoping BF1 was going to be a return to WW2. But not that CoD has gone back i'm sure people would moan about BF following or being tired of WW2.

It's highly likely I'd get BC3 because while I dnd't love BC as much as BF4 I still enjoyed it enough to give it another go.