EA Needs to Push Out a Battlefield 3 Remake to Win Back Gamers, and Wash Away Recent Disappointments

(Opinion): EA needs to release the Battlefield 3 Remake in order to win back gamers. after the disappointing reception of Battlefield 2042 & Battlefield V.

[MadLad]

I've been wanting to see this for a long time; though I don't trust DICE to handle even a remake of their own work at this point.

Give it to Respawn.
Literally the only major in house developer I actually trust from EA at this point.

[RaidenBlack]

End-execution result aside .... Isn't that what BF Portal set out to achieve?
BF3 MP(maps + weapons) in a new Frostbite engine?
Hate it or love it .... but that's what they did.
Call it a Remaster technically ... coz Remake would be changing the mechanics and that's wot BF4 did over BF3 at MP side (barring the single-player story, which obviously has to be different)

[SinisterMister]

Man, cannot agree with you more.

[chicken_in_the_corn]

Definitely not. They need to look at where they went wrong learn from it to make the next game as good as they possibly can instead of descending into the biggest problem with modern gaming and bowing to a hive-mind that is against new games

[MadLad]

Hive mind against new games? The hell are you on about? New games come out all the time. New IPs are coming out all the time.

Battlefield pretty much peaked with 3 and 4. Ever since then they either under delivered or simply released broken games.

[gamer9]

Naw they need to remaster bf3+bf4. I don't trust them to create new games anymore. I'll buy a remaster on new gen console, but i won't go near a new battlefield game again.

[Gardenia]

It's already known why it went wrong with Battlefield 2042. They didn't listen to feedback of their own creators, that's why so many of the people who worked on the older BF games left. And apparently they were working on a battle royal BF but changed their mind halfway, hence the huge empty maps. Also the time they had wasn't nearly enough to finish the game.

At least now people higher up have been replaced to fix the game. I assume they are not going to make this mistake again.

[Silly gameAr]

They need to stop with the live service bs, and make Battlefield games fun again. They're so worried about getting as much money as they can, that they forget that you have to make something that gamers actually want to play.

[JEECE]

Unfortunately I don't think a multiplayer game can succeed on a broad scale without being structured as a live service. People don't like the terms "live service" or "games as a service," but if you ever look at the complaints people have about games, it's clear that's what they actually want. Look at Halo Infinite; great gameplay, and a solid batch of maps; 15 years ago it would have been considered great, but now because they aren't churning trashy new maps in every few weeks, people are crying all over the internet about it. Look at BFV-it got new maps for a year a half, which is later than any BF game except 4, and people still cry about it being "abandoned" because they actually want a live service.

A remake of 3 would unfortunately not work unless they found some way to make it a live service because if they just released the game, people would be crying about the lack of new maps within a few weeks.

[ElCapitan006]

You hit the nail on the head! I can’t tell you how many hours I spent on the original Counter Strike, Wolf:ET, UT:99, Gears 1, etc. etc. Heck, going back even further GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. None of these were live services but damn did I spend a whole lot of time playing the same maps and loving them.

It always amazes me when I hear people say that without anything new to unlock, even if it is just stupid weapon skins, that they are bored with the game. As vocal as people are about hating live services, there sure seems to be a lot of people who only get enjoyment from the superficial additions from a live service.

[JEECE]

@ElCapitan006

It's nice to see that I'm not the only person who recognizes this. Unfortunately, except for some latent communities on older games, there aren't people who play a multiplayer game because the game is fun anymore. When I suggested on the battlefield subreddit that Battlefield shouldn't have a progression system at all (it didn't at first, of course) I was criticized because people would see no point in playing a game where they aren't "earning" something when they play. This was borne out by all the people refusing to play the objective in Halo: Infinite because they were more concerned with dumb weekly challenges. The sad reality is that, although devs are certainly part of the problem, a lot of bad choices in game design now are rendered necessary because an entire generation had their concept of what multiplayer should be entirely shaped by COD and FTP games.

[TravsVoid]

Personally I used to buy Call of Duty and Battlefield every year since 2010 but the past year I finally stopped. They are both definitely taking inspiration from Fortnite and I'm just not into it. The only reason it took so long for me to stop buying Call of Duty is the zombies mode but that's finally just so terrible I don't feel the need to buy just for it anymore.

[RosweeSon]

Have a couple of years off wouldnt hurt. People want what they can’t have. Distance makes the heart grow fonder and all that come back in a couple of years all next gen and fresh. Yearly churn is just too much don’t need a new one every single year the same thing could be achievable with a few free maps 6-9-12 months down the line not like they can’t afford to at that point they probably have off cuts of levels spruce em up a bit. Doesn’t need a full blown? New sequel every year if the games are that good they wouldn’t anyway 🤷🏻‍♂️✌🏻 ;

[jambola]

I don't see why a remake of am old game would win people over
Even if they made a phenomenal remake it wouldn't change how they make new games

[excaliburps]

Because loads of people think BF3 is the best-ever BF game, and EA re-releasing it means they are giving people what they have been asking for all these years. Plus, it's not like it'll cost them a ton

[JackBNimble]

So why a remake, why don't they just structure new games off BF3 formula or is this about nostalgia?

[gamer9]

Jack because they're too incompetent to do that. They need to learn to walk first before running. Try copy and pasting BF3, and if they don't royally F that up then maybe they could try a new game again lol. DICE has fallen so hard

[isarai]

They'd ruin it, just like they do everything these days

[GoodGuy09]

No theyd ruin the bf3 name. What they really need is talent, time, and passion instead of thinking of it as an easy and simple moneymaker.

[LordoftheCritics]

They will ruin its name.

I don't trust this team.

[gamer9]

DICE and the battlefield name need to fold at this point. I can't see how they can make another battlefield game and hope to have anything other than terrible sales at launch.

[aaronaton]

The quickest and dirtiest thing they could do is release the PC version of Bad Company 2 to PS5. I reckon it could be done in months.

[Yi-Long]

They just need to go back to basics, and drop all the BS.

So 10-12 proper mid-sized 5-flag Conquest maps, 4 balanced classes, 32 vs 32 teams, and that’s it. That’s all BF needs to have/be. No live-service, no MT’s, no ‘specialists’. Just a bunch of fun, gorgeous maps, nice gunplay, good dedicated servers, and go!

[JEECE]

I'd love this. The problem is, most people wouldn't. The community would be whining on Reddit within a few weeks about the "lack of support" because there aren't new maps or enough weekly challenges to keep them "engaged."

The sad reality is that people want their games to be a live service, they just don't like the term "live service."

[gamer9]

There are plenty of battlefield fans that would be happy with what Yi-Long just described. In fact all of the reviewers said Portal was BF2042 single shining point. Except yes it only had 2 maps from each game lol. The reason people complain is because these AAA games recently decided to release full games with 6 pvp maps. Of course people want more. But give them a FULL GAME up front and you have a completely different situation. COD used to always launch with SIXTEEN MAPS. BF i feel like it used to be TEN. And you are forgetting the old days used to have DLC packs with 4-5 maps released regularly. The only thing calling it "live service" has done is allowed them to cut 2/3rd of the launch content and release it slowly over the year. We are not ending up with any additional content at the end of year 1 with live service, in fact a lot of times we get less. Cod launch maps plus 3 DLC packs is WAY more than what they are currently doing.

[gamer9]

This is what a full map list looks like at launch, since a ton of people likely forgot:
http://www.themodernwarfare...

[annoyedgamer]

You wont get a BF3 for the same reason that you wont get MW2 MP remake. It would cannibalize their new MTX laden live service titles. Their new titles would have to crash and burn far worse than they are now for them to re-release their old crown jewels.

[badboyz09]

Servers still up

[metalgod88]

Unless they go back to what made the Battlefield games good, forget about it man. Even if they went all the way back to Bad Company, I don't have the confidence that they could actually build a continuation of a popular past game with the same quality they had back then.

[Deeeeznuuuts]

I would like a bad company collection too, that'd be awesome

[Bladesfist]

I'd prefer a Bad Company game to Battlefield 3, Bad Company 2 is my favourite in the series