Rumor has it that next year’s Battlefield game will be Bad Company 3. Granted, this could be hear-say but it was enough to get me really excited. However, that excitement soon turned into skepticism. I find myself somewhat pessimistic, and thinking to myself: “Do we really need Battlefield: Bad Company 3?”
For me, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 has a special place in my heart. I bought my PS3 back in 2009 when I was just entering eighth grade. The first game I bought in 2010 was Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The game was gorgeous, had an engaging story with charismatic characters, and had an addictive multiplayer. Then Battlefield 3 came out two years later and while the multiplayer was great, the single player campaign was lacking. Fast forward to today and Battlefield games have a reputation of being excellent multiplayer experience but having poor single player components. Battlefield: Bad Company 3 has me excited because I hope that I would get the overall package.
It is important to not let excitement blind facts as we need to talk about Battlefield as a whole. DICE has done a great job with the Battlefield series, but it’s not them I worry about. EA are the one’s that give me cause for concern. If you are reading this, you’re probably aware of the PR nightmare surrounding Star Wars: Battlefront II. EA took what should have been the perfect recipe and instead of looking out for consumers, decided to grease out as much money as possible from gamers. People quite rightly showed EA their grievances. Unfortunately, this is not solving anything in the long run. Whether it is the incompleteness of Mass Effect: Andromeda, constant loot boxes in all of their games, or the closing of beloved development studios, EA does not have that good of a reputation at the moment.
When looking at EA, I want to be optimistic. Regardless of your thoughts on EA, we should always hope they succeed and provide video games we can all enjoy. Unfortunately, EA seems to have their minds set on how THEY want their games to work. If you want proof of this, just look at Visceral Games and their cancelled Star Wars game. On EA’s website, Patrick Söderlund discusses how EA took over development of the game, changing it from a linear, single-player game, to something that will “be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency.” Multiplayer, basically. With all of the usual loot boxes and whatnot. This shows EA’s philosophy of stepping away from linear single player campaigns and focusing more on the multiplayer component. To some this is great, but others are dismayed but this recent preference of EA’s. Regardless of where you stand, this new direction will surely start to divide EA’s fan base.
Fortunately, I do not think we have to worry about EA closing DICE. However, DICE games have certainly been changing and are much different now than they were ten years ago. Case in point: the Bad Company 3 rumors suggest that the game will take place during the Vietnam War. That is an interesting detail because the previous two Bad Company games took place in the present day. The fact that we are changing time periods has me a little worried. Regardless of what you think about Battlefield and Bad Company, they were separate entities that offered different experiences. If the Bad Company 3 rumors do turn out to be true, then the series is ditching the present-day setting and losing the charismatic leads from the first two games. Was this a creative decision from DICE? Or has EA imposed this variation in order to shoe-horn in some money-making tactic. Let’s at least hope that the characters in Bad Company 3 will be as charismatic or memorable as the Bad Company squad. But there is an even bigger question that should be addressed: what will the tone of the game be?
Sometimes, changing things up in a well-known series can actually help it. For example, people are very excited for the new God of War, yet it’s nothing like the previous games in the series. Making Bad Company 3 a more serious and somber experience like in the Battlefield games could mark the end for the Bad Company series. What will the difference be between Bad Company and the Battlefield series if both share the same tone and overall game mechanics? Battlefield: Bad Company 2 helped by laying down the ground work that the Battlefield series still uses to this day. With that said, the Bad Company is its own series and should be viewed as such.
Regardless of what we may think the tone of the game should be, I am still jumping back to the question asked earlier: Do we really need Battlefield: Bad Company 3? The answer of that is yes but not for our sake. We need Bad Company 3 for EA’s sake. Regardless if you support the publisher or not, it is clear that they are going through troubling times at the moment. The negativity surrounding Star Wars: Battlefront II has affected EA greatly. People are starting to doubt EA and question whether to buy their products. Is EA finished? Of course not, but if they do not do something, their future looks very dark. EA needs to prove that they do care about consumers and want to make quality content. Now how to do that? The Mass Effect series should just be left alone, and the Star Wars Battlefront franchise seems to be a lost cause. That is why Battlefield: Bad Company 3 needs to be made.
The Battlefield series has always been successful and the Bad Company series is no different. People want more Bad Company games, the series itself has sold over nine million copies. So of course we should have a new Bad Company game. Wherever the Battlefield series moves onto next is still a mystery, but EA should be given a chance to make a new Bad Company game. The Bad Company series should live on and hopefully EA can allow this to happen someday. For now, we can only rely on these simple rumors but hopefully these rumors become true and we can all enjoy Battlefield: Bad Company 3.