Three Reasons Why We Want Battlefield: Bad Company 3, Not Battlefield 4

Congratulations. You just destroyed a super-weapon and saved not only the United States of America, but quite possibly the world. You’re ready to retire and relax after a strenuous mission around the globe to stop the Russians. Sadly, before you can even celebrate, you’re informed the Russians haven’t given up. Yes, gentlemen, your crew is needed in Alaska.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 ended on a cliffhanger. Years later, I still remember the ending and to this day I want to see what happens next. Battlefield 3 was announced and sure, I was excited, but I wanted more Bad Company. Battlefield 3 didn’t disappoint me with it’s multiplayer, but wow was that campaign terrible.

The single player portion of Battlefield 3 had a few shiny moments of awesome. However, the rest of it left a lot to be desired. The linear approach forced players into dramatic sequences, and often times led to an aggravating quick-time event. Unlike the Bad Company series, Battlefield 3 became just another corridor shooter.

NO NO NO!!! That is supposed to say “Battlefield: Bad Company 3”!!! D:<

But let’s back up to Bad Company 2 and see what made it such a genuine experience.

1. Less linear, open areas

This is quite easily the biggest part of the equation. If there was one thing Battlefield 4 should take from the Bad Company sub-series it’s the open, epic areas. Bad Company 2 felt more realistic because you could plan your point of attack from various directions. It had more scripted events than Bad Company 1, sure, but it was a beautiful mix of the two that could tell an interesting story with scripting and still give you freedom.

Battlefield 4 needs to ditch the “let’s compete with Call of Duty (note: I’m not saying one is better than the other…)” attitude and go back to its roots, so to speak. The first few Battlefield games didn’t have a story. Bad Company started this trend for consoles, and had great success with it. Battlefield 3 was a big step back, and Bad Company 3 would be their chance to recover.

2. Story

Bad Company 2 had a memorable story for many reasons. The Russians created a mega-powerful-ultra-super-weapon (MPUSW for short) and was going to use it against the US-of-A. Anytime the USA is under attack, it’s compelling to us America (unless you tell a bland story like Homefront…but that’s neither here nor there). You also can’t deny the chemistry between the four-man squad. The comic banter before the four of them at any given time was always enjoyable.

To be completely honest, I don’t remember a single thing about the campaign in Battlefield 3. I only remember it kept bouncing around between people and places, much like another shooter series. The quick time events broke the pacing of the game to me. I only played as far as I did (which was about 4/5 of the way through) because I was reviewing it. It was not broken like Medal of Honor was, but it certainly didn’t have anything of value to offer players.

3. Destruction

Remember all of those times you cleared a window in Bad Company 2 by launching a rocket at it? Watching things crumble in Bad Company 2 was a treat on many levels. Making whole buildings collapse on enemies left me satisfied and smiling. There wasn’t a whole lot of destruction in the campaign of Battlefield 3.

Bad Company 3, assuming it resembled the Bad Company 2 model, would have offered more destruction on a grand scale. I fully believe we haven’t seen the full potential of the Frostbite 2 engine. We certainly haven’t seen how it can properly handle destruction. With wide-open areas and plenty of buildings to destroy, Bad Company 3 would be a mess of fun to run around in with a rocket launcher in tow.

We don’t need another linear shooter trying to compete with the likes of the blockbuster series, Call of Duty. We need more mini-sandbox shooters like Battlefield: Bad Company 2. We also need a conclusion to the cliffhanger DICE left us with a few years ago. Bring back Bad Company: it’s what gamers really want.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
Author: Don Parsons View all posts by
Starting out as a founding member of Gamingcore Podcast, Don ventured on to start Gameciety; which began as a podcast, and ended as a blog. Don now handles's PR work, is part of the reviews staff and has various other little projects he does for the site.
  • oldassgamer

    BFBC2, to me, was much better than BF3–campaign and multi-player. I still play BFBC2 MP because it is so much fun. I think in the end it’s about the destruction, which is lacking in BF3. I’ve said it before, when you play BFBC2 MP you feel like you are in a battle with all of the destruction. BF3 just feels too sanitized. Sure BF3 may have better visuals, but something is missing. I would love to see another BC game.

  • Chris Scott

    Agreed, destruction added so much personality to the game that I think BF3 was lacking.

  • You realise that the ending of Bad Company 2 leads into the multiplayer right? You know, fighting russians in all those snowy levels?

  • Sp1tfire-US

    This is a terrible fucking review, and I would be surprised if the writer even played battlefield games before BC2. The first thing this article does is complain about linear level design. Bad Company maps are literally designed with “linear” in mind. The maps were heavily rush oriented, which by gameplay definition is “linear”. Battlefield 3 maps, many of which are larger than even the largest “heavy metal” map on BC2, are designed around conquest. Bad Company/2 was an all around shitty addition to the series, removing the focus from vehicles and placing more on infantry. I think the writer should be ashamed of himself for not realizing that BF3 is an actual progression from BC2, not some compete-with-COD-clone (albeit close quarters… yeah).

  • 1) Not a review. An opinion-editorial. 🙂

    2) I’ve played every Battlefield game released. But thank you for assuming. 🙂

    3) I was talking strictly about the single-player portion of the game, with the exception of the lack of destruction in BF3 MP maps.

  • To be honest, I never made that correlation. It does make sense now, but I’d still like to see some sort of narrative given to it. 🙂

  • If they make BF4 like BC2 what’s the point in having 2 different games?And Battlefield has never been about singleplayer,only the bad company series has put more emphasis on singleplayer.

  • Recon

    battlefield 2 was most epic game… 6 people squad, and all about teamplay, 7 various kits, less camping and COMMANDER

  • That’s a terrible business decision. They need to make two separate and distinct games. It’s better for them and it’s better for us. Options are always a good thing.

  • HAns

    I want a Bad Company 3 with the Gameplay in Multiplayer as in part 2! I really freaked this game. Battlefield 3 is okay, but not my style…

  • Pasquale Sergi

    Bad Company 2 is definitely my favorite shooter. Battlefield 3 is a nice game, but, as he said, the campaign was forgettable. The characters were devoid of any personality. The multiplayer for both games were about equal.

  • jay

    hjruth i would like to see bfbc3 be made so the tanks the helos and all other vec. cannot shoot all the time. they would have to return to base to reload or have some one reload them just like ground people do

  • We, russian gamers, reposted it.
    Give BC3 to us, pleeaase :C

  • If anything, I think BF3 has created a more infantry-focused mindset among Battlefield fans than Bad Company 2 ever did.

  • terrell tyson

    nah yo BFBC2 Multiplayer is not better than BF3’s. But the Campaign is ill tell u that.

  • Arnold Layne

    I agree but it is not BC3 time.Visit

  • Rob Harlan

    dude you dont know shit

  • Rob Harlan

    i think bf4 is the most horrible fps ive ever seen