Was the "Bad Company" spinoff good for the development of the main series?

#1 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -
#2 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -

It pussy-fied the series, held up development, and canceled 1943 for PC.

#3 Posted by Mikemcn (6955 posts) -

Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did. 

#4 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -

Did you think that the "Bad Company" series were good for the main franchise, as opposed to developing Battlefield 3 sooner?

#5 Edited by EuanDewar (4755 posts) -

 Regardless of the quality of the games the BC titles did manage to keep the series a popular name whilst they seretley worked behind the scenes on BF3.

#6 Posted by FreakAche (2949 posts) -

I was never a huge Battlefield fan, but to me it seems like it used to be something unique and cool, that I could sort of respect even if I wasn't really into it. Now it just seems to have devolved into a CoD knock-off. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm really an outsider to the series. This is simply what I have observed.

#7 Posted by mano521 (1215 posts) -

i thoroughly enjoyed bad company 1 and 2. yes the story was a little lack luster, but that is not why people play battlefield. they definitely mastered sound and from the trailer lighting and animation as well. so i think it did them some good

#9 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -
@FreakAche said:
" I was never a huge Battlefield fan, but to me it seems like it used to be something unique and cool, that I could sort of respect even if I wasn't really into it. Now it just seems to have devolved into a CoD knock-off. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm really an outsider to the series. This is simply what I have observed. "
Not quite. Although, I suppose one could make the argument when looking at the reduced player numbers in the multiplayer as well as the addition of many unlocks and perks.
#10 Posted by Nasar7 (2602 posts) -

I'm not sure BF3 would be coming out at all if not for BC 1 and 2.

#11 Posted by FreakAche (2949 posts) -
@FrankCanada97 said:
" @FreakAche said:
" I was never a huge Battlefield fan, but to me it seems like it used to be something unique and cool, that I could sort of respect even if I wasn't really into it. Now it just seems to have devolved into a CoD knock-off. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm really an outsider to the series. This is simply what I have observed. "
Not quite. Although, I suppose one could make the argument when looking at the reduced player numbers in the multiplayer as well as the addition of many unlocks and perks. "
Okay. I should probably try Bad Company 2 at some point, because I enjoy CoD casually, and a more strategic, larger scale version of that sounds at least promising.
#12 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

in this interview, the DICE dude clarified that the reason Bad Company existed was to 'experiment' with the then-new 1.5 frostbite version on consoles before making a real PC-worthy numbered title 
 im not hating on consoles, thats what he said. they were experimental console spin-offs to have it ready for a real Battlefield - a PC Battlefield. 
 
 
So yes, i'm glad the Bad Company spin-offs exist and that they werent very PC based, because they helped make Battlefield 3 the groundbreaking PC titan its going to be !

#13 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4909 posts) -

I liked the console adaptation of the Battlefield series, both Bad Company 1 & 2 did a good job at giving us a solid multiplayer experience. Single player was pretty horrible in BC1, but i felt it was a good enough experience in BC2. But who really buys a Battlefield game for the single player, i would hope no one. 
 
If anything the Bad Company series have put the brand on the map for the people who didn't know the series very well before.

#14 Edited by JustinSane311 (335 posts) -

First off both Bad Company games were great in terms of SP and Mp.  Also Bad Company 1&2 kept the Battlefield name current and in our minds and also introduced the Battlefield type of gameplay (on a smaller scale) to a bunch of new gamers.  So I can't see how anyone can feel that Bad Company could of harmed the Development of BF3 or the series

#15 Edited by B0nd07 (1697 posts) -

From a graphical and audio stand-point, yes.  The destruction and explosions look great and the sound design really wowed me (especially that first time I turned on the "war tapes" setting).
 
On the game-play side of things, they should leave as much Bad Company out of BF3 as they can - four kits, four-man squads, regenerating health; basically everything that's been consolized.  I don't want to run out of unlocks half-way up the rank ladder, or be a rambo-like one-man-army that can do almost anything by myself, or be against (or worse, with) squads and teams that are more concerned about their kill/death ratio than actually completing objectives and winning.
 
BC2 is fine for what it is, but PC Battlefield vets want something more.
 
 

@FreakAche

said:

" I was never a huge Battlefield fan, but to me it seems like it used to be something unique and cool, that I could sort of respect even if I wasn't really into it. Now it just seems to have devolved into a CoD knock-off. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm really an outsider to the series. This is simply what I have observed. "

When BC2 first came out, I described it to my friends as bridging the gap between BF2 and CoD.  So, yes, you're kinda right.
#16 Posted by Chris2KLee (2328 posts) -

I really enjoyed the Bad Company games, were they pure BF? No, but the destruction engine made the game really fun, and it had enough of the BF feel in it to still be crazy fun, and offer a kinda shooter that felt different from the typical run and gun style. I think Bad Company helped keep the BF name out front and alive while the team figured out how to make BF3 as ground breaking as BF2. I for one am very excited. Also, I look forward to a Bad Company 3 if they have the plans.

#17 Posted by Asurastrike (2160 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did.  "
I liked the SP in Bad Company 2, so I can't really understand where you're coming from.
#18 Posted by JoyfullOFrockets (1177 posts) -

I loved the way the first Bad Company presented it's story. The BC2 however, had a terrible campaign that took itself a bit too seriously. And from the looks of it BF3 is going that route too. Too bad.

#19 Posted by Mikemcn (6955 posts) -
@Asurastrike said:
" @Mikemcn said:
" Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did.  "
I liked the SP in Bad Company 2, so I can't really understand where you're coming from. "
It made me want to kill small furry animals. 
#20 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -
@Asurastrike said:
" @Mikemcn said:
" Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did.  "
I liked the SP in Bad Company 2, so I can't really understand where you're coming from. "
I thought the SP in BC2 was too linear compared to the first one. Most times, you could only approach a situation a certain way. Also it completely threw away the story of the first game as well as it's humour.
#21 Posted by Asurastrike (2160 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:
" @Asurastrike said:
" @Mikemcn said:
" Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did.  "
I liked the SP in Bad Company 2, so I can't really understand where you're coming from. "
It made me want to kill small furry animals.  "
If anything made you question DICE as a developer, it should have been Mirror's Edge. lol
#22 Posted by Nadafinga (957 posts) -
@pornstorestiffi said:
"If anything the Bad Company series have put the brand on the map for the people who didn't know the series very well before. "
 
This. My first Battlefield game was 1943, and I loved it, and was really excited to play BC2...which has become one of my most favorite MP games ever. I've put 350 hours into it. I've never played a game for that much time before, ever. Not even close. Say whatever you want about what Bad Company did to the franchise, it's a fantastic MP experience.
#23 Posted by Icemael (6312 posts) -
@FreakAche said:
" I was never a huge Battlefield fan, but to me it seems like it used to be something unique and cool, that I could sort of respect even if I wasn't really into it. Now it just seems to have devolved into a CoD knock-off. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm really an outsider to the series. This is simply what I have observed. "
It's a BF-CoD hybrid, not a CoD knockoff.
#24 Posted by Devil240Z (3267 posts) -

As far as I am concerned BF3 is the spinoff. Bad Company is the king now. 

#25 Posted by Aleryn (703 posts) -

It gave DICE a clean slate to learn how to properly make a good console version of Battlefield, allowing them retain financial stability in the face of consoles being dominant in game sales right now.  I call that a good thing overall. 
 
The singleplayer?  Yeah I like the characters in both of the games, but I'd rather they didn't even bother.  But then, it probably helped it's sales a lot.

#26 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

yes because many more people will recognize the Battlefield name. wayyyy more people are interested in it. and for good reason, these are great games

#27 Edited by Vonocourt (2116 posts) -
@FrankCanada97 said:

" @Asurastrike said:

" @Mikemcn said:

" Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did.  "
I liked the SP in Bad Company 2, so I can't really understand where you're coming from. "
I thought the SP in BC2 was too linear compared to the first one. Most times, you could only approach a situation a certain way. Also it completely threw away the story of the first game as well as it's humour. "
 It didn't throw away the humor. Hid it until you stood still for thirty seconds yes, but it was still there. I mean, they talked about Sarge fighting Hulk Hogan.
#28 Posted by Mikemcn (6955 posts) -
@Vonocourt said:
" @FrankCanada97 said:

" @Asurastrike said:

" @Mikemcn said:

" Singleplayer in 2 at least was SO BAD! It made me question DICE as a developer, even if singleplayer isn't their thing they should have at least pulled off something better than what they did.  "
I liked the SP in Bad Company 2, so I can't really understand where you're coming from. "
I thought the SP in BC2 was too linear compared to the first one. Most times, you could only approach a situation a certain way. Also it completely threw away the story of the first game as well as it's humour. "
 It didn't throw away the humor. Hid it until you stood still for thirty seconds yes, but it was still there. I mean, they talked about Sarge fighting Hulk Hogan. "
I hated the story, the shooting felt terrible, the guns were way too loose, which was fine in multiplayer where you had hit markers, the check pointing was annoying alot of the times, it just really rubbed me the wrong way.  Also, that one sand dune mission where you have to drive across this empty expanse of sand 3 times to get to the various mission objectives where the same exact thing went down each time, was really bad.  
#29 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

If gave them an opportunity to experiment with stuff on consoles, and have a solid tech foundation before undertaking BF3 so absolutely yes.

#30 Posted by Shakezula84 (443 posts) -

I went with yes. I played BF2 back in the day and it was a great game. It made Battlefield relevant to console gamers (the mass market?) and gave DICE the experience it needs to make a solid multiplayer game on consoles. BF3 will be a solid MP game on whatever system you buy it on.

Well see how SP stacks up. While I really enjoyed the concept, story, and writing on BC1, I do agree BC2 is a little disappointing considering the first one was a comedy and the second one isn't really (still has humor, but not a lot).

#31 Posted by jorbear (2517 posts) -

I think it helped DICE learn how to create decent singleplayer campaigns, interesting characters, and a focused structure. Whether or not it will make BF3 a better game is yet to be seen.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.