5

I entered the Battlefield universe with Battlefield 3, but since then I read and heard that Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 were largely similar to the Bad Company series, specifically that DICE "should go back to Bad Company" - implying they like it much more than the Battlefield main series.

Seeing how people clearly feel the Bad Company series is superior, I'm curious as to what are the main differences between these series, what has been changed from one to the other in terms of, say, mechanics or setting? Is this just a personal preference or were there really some big changes made?

  • 3
    At least bother to leave a comment why you think this is an invalid question. – anar khalilov Jan 8 '14 at 18:26
  • 3
    well I was in the middle of answering before it closed but whatever... ill just comment it: The destruction mechanics are different. in Bad company 2 you could essentially level an entire map, which Dice now wants to avoid (don't know why, probably has to do with flow of battle) so only certain things are destructible in the latest battlefield games. Another thing is that the bad company series was a side project for the game developers while work on the new frostbite engine was being done. – Rapitor Jan 8 '14 at 18:40
  • 3
    ran out of comment characters but had more: Also classes worked differently. Support class did not exist. Medics were a seperate class from assault had the LMGs while assault had assault rifles, C4, and ammo packs. Recons also had C4 as well has the ability to call in mortars. Engineers got the rocket launchers. – Rapitor Jan 8 '14 at 18:44
  • 6
    thats the thing, though. its not 2 different series. they are both developed by the same company and the same exact style of game. For example, World at War and Black Ops(both Treyarch, of the call of duty series) are different games, but can still be easily compared and differentiated. If he asked the difference between CoD and Battlefiled then yeah, too broad as they ARE drastically different games. – Rapitor Jan 8 '14 at 18:53
  • 2
    Yes, I would, because it's not too broad at all. – 3ventic Jan 8 '14 at 19:02
8

The destruction mechanics are different. In Bad Company 2 you could essentially level an entire map, which Dice now wants to avoid (don't know why, probably has to do with flow of battle) so only certain things are destructible in the latest Battlefield games.

Also classes worked differently. Support class did not exist. Medics were a separate class from assault and had the LMGs while assault had assault rifles, C4, and ammo packs. Recons also had C4 as well and the ability to call in mortars. Engineers got the rocket launchers.

Another thing is that the Bad Company series was a side project for the game developers while work on the new frostbite engine was being done. So it is essentially still a Battlefield game, but the developers had more freedom (as most of the team was busy with frostbite)

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Bad Company also has a different tone for the single player. Whereas Battlefield 3/4 is more like COD: Modern Warfare in terms of being serious, Bad Company has comedy (as well as destruction, as you have mentioned). The cover art for Bad Company 1 pretty tells you what you are getting - a grenade with a smiley face. – user101016 Feb 26 '15 at 23:37
  • @camelCase mentions a very important part being the tone. You know as soon as you start up BC1 that you're in for a treat... – Broots Waymb Feb 4 '16 at 17:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.