originals\ Jul 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Five reasons why we need Battlefield: Bad Company 3 before Battlefield 4


Oh, sequels.  This game industry is full of them, even when they come at a time when we don’t necessarily ask for them.  We’re speaking primarily about Battlefield 4, which was confirmed by both Electronic Arts and DICE yesterday, in the form of a downloadable beta that you’ll be able to sign up for when you pick up Medal of Honor: Warfighter this October.

Though the sequel is a ways off (the beta won’t even start till fall 2013), we can’t help but think that EA is literally jumping the gun by announcing it so soon.  We haven’t even seen all of the expansions DICE is working on with Battlefield 3, even.

With that, one series is being sort of neglected here – Battlefield: Bad Company.  First introduced in 2008 for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 (and followed by a sequel in 2010), the off-shoot series introduced a quartet of likable heroes, fighting their way through battles as a team across various locations.  While DICE has stated interest in bringing about a Bad Company 3 sometime in the future, no plans have been officially unveiled yet.


And personally, I think that’s kind of a mistake.  While Battlefield 3 does introduce general thrills that are hard to deny, I can’t help but think that Bad Company 3 is the sequel that should come first.  And I’ve got five reasons why…

Better Story

Battlefield Bad Company 2

Let’s be honest, while Battlefield 3 set the stage for some remarkable action sequences, its story dwelled too much in military conspiracies, and ended on a rather flat note.  With that, I always felt the Bad Company games did better on story, with the sequel in particular delivering plenty of excitement surrounding a powerful weapon.  Bad Company 3 could easily continue that story in stride, with the team tackling yet another madman who’s hoarding a whole lot of gold – and a devastating plan to kill millions.

The Graphics Were Better

Battlefield Bad Company 2

This may be a huge dividing line with some fans, but looking back at Bad Company 2, I couldn’t help but notice there were slightly better graphics in there than there were in Battlefield 3.  Just take a look at the opening stage of Bad Company 2, with the gun battles and the cool wave effects, compared to the jumpy frame rate from BF3.  Granted, the PC versions are almost counterparts, but on console, you can spot the differences.  And you don’t have to worry about setting aside 2 GB of hard drive space for an upgrade, right?

Characters Are Better To Identify With

Battlefield Bad Company 2

I’ll be honest, there isn’t really a single character in Battlefield 3 I could relate to, no matter how much DICE tried to push the story.  But with Bad Company, each member of the squad resonated with some kind of personality, between smarmy dialogue and plenty of antics.  Haggard in particular, rushing down the mountain side and yelling, “There’s gold in them thar hills!”, is hilarious.  The other guys, Marlowe, Redford and Sweetwater, added their own specialty to each game as well.  That certainly did wonders with, um, those other soldiers in Battlefield 3.  The tone was a lot lighter too, even though the action didn’t let up.

1 2
About The Author
In This Article
From Around The Web
blog comments powered by Disqus