All Channels
Popular
110°

It's about time that DICE fixed Battlefield.

Sarcasticgamer.com asks: When is DICE going to fix Battlefield: Bad Company?

From the article: "Battlefield: Bad Company was released on June 23, 2008. It came with a nice update to the Battlefield series, with fully destructable environments and a great new multiplayer game type called gold rush. It also came with HUGE problems, such as no team, proximity or in-vehicle proximity chat, an arbitrary cap on knife kills, rampant team killing, obnoxious boosters and shoddy hit detection.

Almost three months later, I want to know, when is DICE gonna get off their duff and fix these problems?"

Read Full Story >>
sarcasticgamer.com
omni_atlas6506d ago

EA published. what did you expect?

perseus6506d ago

I love this game, but I do wish I could choose my server. I wish it had the BF2 lobby, basically. The lag sucks sometimes.

Close_Second6505d ago

...the lag sucks everytime. Try playing the game in New Zealand where we have no dedicated servers for on-line play. No longer play for this very reason.

jinxster6505d ago

1. A sniper can kill you in one shot, damn nearly across the map, with his PISTOL. But, you unload a .50 cal, or tank round on someone right by you and they don't even go down. Arghhh!!!

2. The sniper rifle can take down a helicopter with few rounds but a heavy machine gun can't.

3. Grenades cause very little damage to a tank.

Just some of the things that came into mind right away.

ASSASSYN 36o6505d ago (Edited 6505d ago )

Are you serious. They shouldn't cause ANY damage to a modern tank. Yes a Rocket propelled grenade should but not the standard issue fragmentation grenade that is in the game. The grenades in BF are an anti-personnel weapon not anit-tank. Throw a crap load of frag grenades together you might hurt armour though but one or even 20 on todays modern reactive armour...no!

There are Anti-armour hand grenads developed by russia and used in Iraq by insurgents but it is not in BF. You need to go look up what a fragmentation grenade capability is use google.

Idonthatejustcreate6505d ago (Edited 6505d ago )

"A sniper can kill you in one shot, damn nearly across the map, with his PISTOL. But, you unload a .50 cal, or tank round on someone right by you and they don't even go down. Arghhh!!!"

Umm no he can't because the pistol does have a range limit and if you complain that he kills you in CQC then there is something thats called "headshots".

"The sniper rifle can take down a helicopter with few rounds but a heavy machine gun can't."

This has never happned to me. It has to be a really ultra skilled sniper to take down a person inside a chopper thats flying past him at 100kmh. Even though the glass is still penetratable with a 50cal sniper round he has to kill the pilot if not the chopper is already at 3% health and on fire.

"Grenades cause very little damage to a tank."

Do you even know how thick the armor is on an M1A1 abrams? It has an armor thickness of 7.93m made out of depleted uranium armor and thats 1.7 times heavier than lead and it comes in weighing 61.4 tons in total.

So then I ask you, do you think an anti personel frag grenade can penetrate that?

sak5006505d ago

The only point i agree with jinx is about tank vs soldier. Man at more than few occasions ive fired couple of rounds at enemy soldier at maybe 5-10 feet and while he runs around enjoying the fireworks and ends up blowing me with c4 and killing himself. Also I hate the sniper's laser designator. I've tried both successfully and unsuccesfully to avoid the LGBs but it just frustrates that 1-2 snipers can take out few tanks from far away and then continue sniping the other enemies. Their designator shud atleast recharge very slowly, same with arty.

PureGamer6505d ago

assassyn 360 an RPG would not damage a tank either btw.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 6505d ago
JohnnyMann4206505d ago

..this is a videogame based on real life....not real life...duh.

Sometimes realism is implemented and adjusted to fit the games need...such as balancing issues.

Posting how stupid and unrealistic something is seems to be pointless when everything in this game is super exaggerated.

This isn't America's Army (thank god)

W1ldWolf6505d ago

Basically all reasons that I no longer play this game. Hope they fix it soon before more people leave for good.

Show all comments (25)
70°

The Argument for Battlefield: Bad Company Remakes

With the franchise’s mainline entries failing to find their footing in recent years, now is the perfect time for a Battlefield: Bad Company remake.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
thorstein913d ago

Of course there is no counter argument. This is what fans of the franchise have wanted for years. This and/or BF Bad Company 2.

When asked why there hasn't been another Bad Company:

“There's one thing that lingers with Bad Company that we've been asking ourselves: What is it that the people really liked about Bad Company?" DICE general manager Karl Magnus Troedsson told Eurogamer.

Troedsson says that he and his team can’t put their fingers on what it is that people loved about that branch of the brand. “It's hard for people to articulate what that is, which is actually hard for us,” he says. “It would be hard to remake something like that. Can we do it? Of course. We have our theories when it comes to the multiplayer."

(Source: Game Informer, June 24, 2014)

SonyStyled913d ago (Edited 913d ago )

I always activate the Black Weapon on BFV Solomon Islands for all the BC2 fans who hear/recognize it, thus starting the events of BC2 on BF5 :)

Derrrunnn. Derrrunnn.

RNTody912d ago (Edited 912d ago )

What is so hard to understand for them?

Bad Company 2 is one of the best and most memorable games in the series because:
- It was class-based (duh)
- Heavy focus on squads
- Substance over map size or gimmicks
- Fantastic and realistic gun play
- Well designed maps
- Destructible environments (why has this been minimised so hard in the series? You could demolish buildings in bad company 2 with some well placed C4
- Great progression system and variety in play
- No stupid CoD imitations or focus on the store over the game
- It was *drumroll* incredibly good fun?
- It was unmistakably BATTLEFIELD

INMATEofARKHAM912d ago

Probably should add a fun campaign to the list.

390°

Battlefield Legacy - Sunsetting Announcement

EA: "As we close in on 15 years since the release of Battlefield 1943, and Bad Company™ 1 & 2, we are announcing that their journey is coming to an end."

darthv721200d ago

This reminds me... I have ME on my PS3 hdd. Never really played it, but it was free.

XiNatsuDragnel1200d ago

Digital future ppl is good they say nope imo

Eidolon1200d ago

And it still says nothing about being able to downloaded even when it's off the storefront, that's a huge ouchie for some who somehow still have it in their backlog...

Shane Kim1200d ago

Dont make it an issue when it's not. If you haven't played it in 15 years, chances are you'll never play it.

isarai1200d ago

That all digital future sure looks great!

/s

zidane13411200d ago (Edited 1200d ago )

Online game servers shut off eventually all the time. Doesn’t matter if you have the disc or not. Even if you have the disc, it’ll be just paperweight unless the game lets you connect directly to a friend or LAN play.

isarai1200d ago (Edited 1200d ago )

Read the article bro. They are delisting the games, including mirrors edge which is an offline game. Online servers i can understand, not being able to buy/download the games anymore? Completely separate issue, especially seeing as how some these games had lengthy sp campaigns and not just mp.

zidane13411200d ago

@israrai, you can still buy the disc for less then 10$. Hardly a loss.

TheEnigma3131200d ago

You shouldn't have to buy the disc, that's the issue.

OhReginald1199d ago (Edited 1199d ago )

Some brilliant minds created servers to keep these old online games alive. A lot of ps2 and ps3 games that had there servers shut down a long time ago have been restored by fans to keep it going. Warhawk, killzone 2, socom 2/ confrontation, resident evil outbreak series, etc.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1199d ago
DankSinatra1199d ago

The disc still exist. I don’t understand the issue. You guys are upset about that “all digital future” yet these games are not “digital only”. Hell digital only is a minority in the gaming world and so far we haven’t moved into it, the only digital only games are games as a service or online only games, which end up failing in the end.

This is no different than a store that stops selling old games, just go and buy a copy somewhere else. So which is it, you hate all digital or you like it? Make up your mind.

isarai1199d ago

Talk about missing the point entirely. I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you, figure it out.

DankSinatra1199d ago

Talk about whining about something and not wanting to explain from an off handed sarcastic original comment.

I got the point just fine. You’re literally complaining about something that has an easy alternative to it.

ManMarmalade1199d ago

I don't think you got the point

DankSinatra1199d ago (Edited 1199d ago )

@ManMarmalade

No I got it, it has to do with the push towards a future of all digital and reprocussions of losing games. Something I already stayed that hasn’t happened nor is it large enough right now to cause any issues as the games that are all digital are online only to begin with or make up the minority of games

So I’ll say it again, the disc still exists for these games that are over a decade old and can still be played easily. You guys are contradicting the whole “we don’t want a digital only future” crying when the dude I originally responded to stated:

“Read the article bro. They are delisting the games, including mirrors edge which is an offline game. Online servers i can understand, not being able to buy/download the games anymore? Completely separate issue, especially seeing as how some these games had lengthy sp campaigns and not just mp.“

So again, which is it? Do you hate all digital or do you want it?

Inverno1200d ago

On PC I don't think it's much of a problem but I'm sad to see BF43 being shut down. I haven't played it in a while since it's stuck on PS3, but i preferred it way more over BF3. It was the lack of invisible barriers which made it better for me.

badz1491200d ago

BFBC2 was still the best overall package offered by the franchise so far IMO

porkChop1200d ago

Absolutely. BC2 was such a great game. It's a shame we never got BC3.

P_Bomb1199d ago

I had a great run on Bad Company 2. Pound for pound, as solid a BF package as there’s been.

InUrFoxHole1200d ago

Does anyone play the last BF anymore? I searched crossplay servers and it was 20 people the most on all the servers? Can never find a game

SonyStyled1200d ago

The last BC you mean? I was still able to find 10v10 on ps3 2 years ago on NA servers during the evenings. I have all the free and paid dlc installed, but there want any matches in the Vietnam dlc.

Show all comments (35)
230°

Battlefield 2042 Is More Than Enough To Prove We Need Bad Company 3

With this multiplayer experiment going every way but right, it's time for Battlefield to return to what made it so great - a fun single player mode coupled with classic multiplayer.

Read Full Story >>
thegamebutler.com
DaCajun1680d ago

Yes, because there is no way they could screw up a BFBC 3 like they just did the last 2 Battlefield games, right?. /s

They're not the same DICE devs they used to be they're just EA puppets. You will just keep getting COD/APEX/SEIGE BF games now, because idiots keep throwing money at EA for this garbage.

seanpitt231681d ago (Edited 1681d ago )

BF is dead especially after this abysmal release.. what have EA done to this beloved franchise.. it’s really upsetting they are so far disconnected from what the actual fans want from this series.. such a same

If they would of made BC3 and stuck to the same formula as BC2 but gave it the next gen treatment it would of been a massive hit

LucasRuinedChildhood1680d ago (Edited 1680d ago )

Tbh, I think BF 2042 was a battle royale, and then they changed direction mid-development and didn't have enough time to finish it properly before EA's deadline. Specialists make more sense in a br, for example.

Like Halo Infinite before its delay, it needed at least an extra year of development. When you think about it, Infinite had 6 years and BF 2042 had just 3 years. It seems that's just not enough time to make a high quality AAA game anymore.

LucasRuinedChildhood1680d ago (Edited 1680d ago )

Here's evidence for BF 2042 originally being a battle royale game, heavily influenced by Apex Legends:
https://gamerant.com/battle...

ChubbyBlade1680d ago

It did start as a battle royale. It’s pretty obvious. All the pieces are there.

isarai1680d ago

Thing is i dont think they're capable of capturing what made those fun/different anymore.

Fluke_Skywalker1680d ago

They actually admitted that in an interview a while back. They quite openly said they had no idea what made those games so popular and how to recapture it.
Maybe if they actually went and played BC2 they would find out.

RetroCaptainSteve1680d ago

I mean, if they can bring back fun Star Wars single player games, anything's possible, yeah?

Gardenia1680d ago (Edited 1680d ago )

I think that says more about the people working on games nowadays. They have no idea what they are doing and aren't true gamers themselves. Because gaming is a billion money industry they follow the orders of the business men and investors who only look at making maximum profit of games.

Look at the beta and the launch of Battlefield 2042 alone; how can you not see the negative reactions of the community coming? That alone tells us enough of the people involved in making the game.

Yppupdam1680d ago (Edited 1680d ago )

Really? They don't understand what made the Bad Company games popular, or they just don't want to admit what made them popular...That is most likely what the creatively bankrupt writers of the Disney made Star Wars films say about The original trilogy. They don't want to admit that the people before them were just better and that ALL the things that make the Bad company games great are the same things that they probably deem "problematic". Just think how they would destroy Haggard if they made a new game? Everything about his character makes modern game developers sob and run for the first safe space filled with teddys and the soothing voice if Anita Sarkeesian piped in from a speaker in the ceiling.

Sheppard21680d ago

Like Ubisoft and the recent Splinter Cell rumors, I don’t trust EA/DICE in its current form anymore. They’d find a way to ruin Bad Company 3.

Azurite1680d ago

Bad Company 2 was amazing but I'm afraid they'd mess it up with a new game.

Ninver1680d ago

Better yet remake with new engine and new coat of paint. Plus all the bells and whistles of next gen

badz1491680d ago

BFBC + BFBC2 remasters for next gen. skip last gen altogether. lower chance for them to screw it up rather than trusting them to make a new BFBC3

annoyedgamer1680d ago

EA knows players want BC3 the same way Activision knows players want MW2 back. They will not make it because the goal is to make games built around MTX and Battle Royale.

Ninver1680d ago

Very strong point. I see the light

Show all comments (34)