Is DICE better off without Battlefield?

Edwin:

Considerate pacing is one of the most basic principles of good campaign design - basic enough, even, that a braying ignoramus like me can summarise the ins and outs without once (OK, twice) reaching for Wikipedia. Is the player a buzzing, bloody mess of adrenaline, thumping his chest astride a pile of dismembered goblins? Throw the poor devil a match-3 minigame so he has a chance to calm down. Conversely, is the player teetering on the brink of catalepsy thanks to a surplus of walk-and-talk storytelling sequences? Quick, parachute in a Capra Demon.

[user9950279]

... is a rainbow better without green grass and puppies?

[fermcr]

Only thing I'm interested from DICE in the near future is Mirror's Edge Catalyst.

[user9950279]

Battlefield 5 will undoubtedly be the greatest game. Ever.

[venom06]

What kind of stupid, dumba#% EA/DICE hating BS is this?? Now let see if this same clown will ask the question is Infinity Ward or Sledgehammer Games or Treyarch better without CoD..... Dice is one of EAs better studios and Battlefield is a fantastic franchise....... Nothing to see her move along...

[-Foxtrot]

Or is Battlefield better off without DICE.

[Jalva]

That's like saying is GTA better off without Rockstar...

[slate91]

I can see why you would say that. But I think it should ask, "Is Battlefield better off without EA?"

[loopygames]

Not until they make another Bad Company game.

[Jalva]

Because Bad Company 3 would end up being a completely different game to what Battlefield 5 is going to be...

You remind me of those Demon's Souls 2 people lol

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed. Consider the changes done in BF3, where for the series and not just because a numbered BF.

Ie prone, limiting damage and destruction etc.

Though if they seek a full on destruction type like found in BF BC series, it will be based on that series, but it would raise the question, why limit BF5 based on Bad Company?

Its basically stating....is it a feature only for BFBC or the series in general?

If it is, would not going prone, full damage etc be seen as a bad thing if you consider it was taken out based on real reasons?

BF3 didn't have the same type of destruction based on leveling out the whole playing field though realistic, actually broke lots of the game's concept.

In BFBC2, I could almost level a while stage and on rush when defending, I would spend a large amount of time literally blowing trees, buildings etc around the target as to leave no area of cover around the objective.

Though it was fun, I always felt it was a bit cheap and unfair as the other team didn't have a slight chance in laying a charge. Clearly I wasn't the only one that felt this as DICE later stated remarks about such things actually hurting the game.

So why allow such a feature in one game even with the knowledge that it hurts the core concept of being balanced?

Nothing against the feature and hope to see more of it, merely the logic of them bring it back after what they've stated.

BF4 has parts of builds coming down, certain buildings can be take down, certain builds just have parts of it taken down, its just due to having it balanced and not having the whole map leveled out.

If they bring back full destruction, they could do it and still call it BF5 as you'd just be getting the same wants just with another name.

If they limit it again based on building type, location etc

I don't see them returning to a full everything goes type of destruction or even doing one that lets you level out the whole stage for fairness and competition reasons.

[user9950279]

Hipsters always swear by Bad Company because they cant stand up to the heat in multiplayer. Like clockwork.

I would MUCH rather that DICE do a full on remake of Battlefield1942 and stick in on console.

[Majin-vegeta]

I gotta agree with Jalva.The original BC writer is no longer there so the story would go sour.

[King-u-mad]

That's not always true. All 3 god of war games (The Trilogy excluding the prequels.) had different writers and directors. And that was fantastic story.

[King-u-mad]

Bad company 3 will be godlike if they follow how it's already laid out.

[crazychris4124]

No but they should take a break. Would like a Bad Company 3 in 2017 with a hilarious campaign like the 1st game, multiplayer with 64 people with destruction that rivals the 2nd game and co-op either in campaign or with dinosaurs that we have wanted for years.

[Pandamobile]

Yeah that game sounds awesome, but how realistic is it that DICE actually bends completely to the wishes of the internet.

[Neixus]

Even though it's unlikely that this would happen, DICE is after all making Mirror's Edge catalyst.

It had bad sales, so basically only because of the fans was the reason they're making it, gotta give credit where credit is due.

[Dudebro90]

Huh?

[wakeNbake]

Next One should take place during World War 2 or Nam.

[VerdicLinwe]

Been there done that - don't ever want to play it again.

[Allsystemgamer]

If love another world war 2 game. It's been too long. Everything's been modern or "slightly in the future" for too long. We have no variety anymore. I mean how many times can we shoot an m4?

[wakeNbake]

@Verdic
Modern warfare has been done to death, futuristic is starting to get old too so what, you want a civil war game? Anything before World War 2 would not make for a fun FPS given the technical limitations of the times.

[Aggesan]

@wakeNbake
How about Battlefield Steampunk? Akin to something like Bioshock.

[bondsmx]

Bf2143. Would love to see it. Titan mode and all.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

We still talking about campaigns in Battlefield?

[Ruegrong]

Dice is btter off without EA

[bixxel]

Dice is better with any online multiplayer game!

[ABBAJESUS]

WW2 game next please :)