The History of Battlefield
By Kyle Mann | August 26, 2011 | Features | 16 comments | Share
What’s to Come
That about wraps up our overview of the main titles in the Battlefield franchise. Battlefield 3 looms large in the distance, and it’s exciting to think what the next decade of the series holds for us. DICE, in just under ten years’ time, has gone from making casual pinball games to working for EA on one of the biggest shooter franchises in gaming history. The company has spread its wings from PC development to consoles without leaving its computer gaming roots entirely. Aside from the core games in the series, EA has pumped out spin-offs like Battlefield Heroes, Battlefield Play4Free, and the downloadable console-only Battlefield 1943.
Whether or not you are a fan of the Battlefield series, its far-reaching influence on the industry is simply undeniable. It seems every other modern shooter incorporates elements borrowed from the franchise into its multiplayer mode, whether it’s control point-based game modes or persistent stat and unlocks. While Battlefield wasn’t the first to do most of these features, it was the first series to bring everything together in a well-made package. Looking ahead, I find myself looking back to the magic of the first game, wondering how DICE will manage to re-capture that revolutionary gameplay in Battlefield 3 and beyond.
Let us know what the best Battlefield game is in the poll below, then sound off with your opinions on the franchise in the comments!
Loading ...
Great article !
I second to that!!!!.... *sigh* those were the days,BF series is a legendary game!!! hats off!
DAH DAH DAH...DAM DAM DAM!!!EPIC MUSIC!
@pieads - I still hum this tune around the house. Drives the wife nuts!
You forgot to include Battlefield 1943. DICE's cartooned version on PSN & XBLA was an instant classic! Just ask my 6 year old!!
@WickedHund - Six year old on Battlefield!!?! He could probably school me... We mentioned 1943 in the closing comments to the Bad Company section. We decided to leave out '43, Heroes, and Play4Free for now.
Apologies Kyle. I retract my previous statements. Kudo's for your attention to details. My 6 year old... I can only play after he's asleep so he doesn't talk smack for my lack of solid head-shot skills. ;o)
bf 1 for the campaign
THIS PROVES HOW OVERATTED BF SERIES ARE.
I am getting tired of people saying "cod is the same game and never changes and they dont do much improvements"
This article proves bf is not any better
The article has statements from diffirent sites that vietnam was basicly a 1942 mod with few features to worth 50 bucks (that years 60 bucks) it states that 2142 was to bf2 the same thing vietnam was to 1942.
At this point, they didnt make much of improvements, 4 games using the same engine, and same gamplay and no singleplayer.
Then bad company came and brought something new to the series, destruction ,great graphics a singleplayer campaign. Sadly as stated by the article it didnt have as much as the previous bf games, it had LESS.
Bad company 2 came out and as the improvements on graphics and gameplay mechanics are evident, the game "hardly" offers something new, the guns are the SAME from the first game, didnt even bother to make new ones and the singleplayer campaign sucked.
Is that the "Great sequel" or just a recycled bc1 with improvements?
In the end a great mp is fooling anyone into thinking the game is all "new" when it isnt.
Speaking of that, the blatant cod hate is stupid. BF3 has new graphics mostly because of the pc version since you cant do much on current dated consoles. But the rest of the game offers nothing new.
Us vs Russia, jets, 64 player maps, ALL done in bf2.
The guns? They are from bf2, bc1-bc2 and moh. The classes are from 2142 and the vehicles are the same as bf2, actually they are less since they are only 2 factions.
So what exactly IS new on bf3?
Bf3 is a brushed up bf2 with shooting mechanics from bc2 and weapon models from moh with streamiled 2142 classes and no commander.
Thats it, nothing essentially "new" people are just new to bf and are fooled by graphics.
Suprisingly bf series have grown more stale than cod.
There you go, now think what i said, you will see i am right.
@dakan45 - You clearly had really paid attention to what the article said. And you clearly never played Battlefield from the beginning.
The argument about "CoD is essentially the same game" is solid. This is because there are too little changes between games. CoD looks the same, plays the same, and the only "improvements" I've seen were small additions and tweaks. Though they might be significant from game to game, it essentially like serving the same meal although you make little changes to the recipe.
If you really analyze the differences between 1942 and Vietnam, they are so different. The mechanics of it are different, the physics of it are different, and gameplay went from a perfectly symmetrical conventional warfare to guerilla style fighting.
Speaking of 2142, DICE wanted to do something new. They reduce the number of classes from 7 in BF2 to just 4 in BF2142. However, they added a more dynamic customization system to equipment and weapons, and they based that system to the system in BC1 and so on.
Therefore, 50 to 60 bucks is kinda worth it for those two aforementioned games because they offer what their predecessors didn't.
Actually, BF1942 and Vietnam used Refractor 1 engine. They transitioned to the newer Refractor 2 engine for BF2 and BF2142. Different engines!
The "Bad Companies" as some would dub Bad Company and Bad Company 2 games really showed how DICE wanted to change the world of FPS games by adding destruction and a much better looking game engine. However, all that power in physics and visuals really takes down the scale that previous BF games offered. That, on the other hand, really offered a newer experience--as well as gathering a larger console fanbase after BF: Modern Combat. And it spawns an entirely new style of play. Is it "less?" Keep in mind that the Bad Companies are a spin-off, which is actually good for the franchise in general.
BC2 was sort of like a small leap for DICE, which is why it is a sequel to BC1 instead of a new game in the main franchise. Also, they release on PC as well instead of making it console exclusive to stay true to the Battlefield formula. If you ask me, it is a great sequel even if things are kept the same. Well, the weapons might be the same, but they aren't EXACTLY the same. And not just mechanics, but also the dynamics of the game changed as well.
Speaking of BC2's campaign, it only sucks if you don't like it. For me, it was a pretty epic storytelling; more personal and more of a narrative, as well as the story is what drives the plot and the action/gameplay as a way to tell it, instead of the other way around.
Well, they are sticking to the Battlefield formula, so the core things won't change. Even if there isn't anything "new," it will be "different," unlike CoD.
Well, BF3 just proves that DICE wanted to eliminate technical barriers by going for the PC. I mean, current generation consoles aren't "current" anymore.
By the way, there wasn't a "US vs Russia" in Battlefield 2. Jets and 64 players might have been done in BF2, but it's about time that they make a comeback.
The guns might be from those games, but the gunplay and gun dynamics are significantly different. The recoil in BF3 is more realistic and adds additional excitement to it. If you ever play BF2, the guns in that game feels so cheap.
The vehicles might be the same as in BF2, but again, differences in gameplay dynamics. Still, there is a variety of vehicles to choose from and what I saw so far it will be better than previous installments.
BF3 is not just brush up from BF2; it is a worthy sequel to it. Shooting mechanics are actually something new (more realistic recoil, tactical reloads). Classes are now more refined and players can expect a better teamplay dynamics, continuing the Battlefield formula for cooperative gameplay. Well, the Commander function sucks anyway and I'm glad it's gone.
As I said, if even there isn't anything "new," there will things that are "different."
And no, BF is not stale because the developers actually strive for improvements and doing things from scratch instead of just copying and pasting the gamecode from previous games.
I thought about what you said, and even if there are things that I agree with you, overall, you are wrong.
Excellent article, although you could have mentioned Dice's sometimes shoddy patching (but hey, at least they produce patches YEARS after the games have been released). You could have mentioned the persistent Plasma backend problems that have plagued BC2 since release. You could have mentioned the "lowering the complexity threshold" mantra that Dice constantly repeat in their efforts to rope in players of other shooters. You could have mentioned the frankly childish ongoing EA smacktalk war against Activision.
To sum up, factually accurate but reads more like a fanboy's output than critical game journalism.
Thanks though.
@Nw_Joolz - Hey, thanks for the feedback. Wasn't aware of the Plasma issues but I'll read up on it.
These are the core games, although quite a few were left out. Battlefield Play4Free, Battlefield: Online (Korean only version, basically an ALPHA mode of Battlefield 2), Battlefield 1943, the AF and EF boosters for BF2, and these arent PC/console versions, just stating em for fun, BC2 on the iOS platform and upcoming BF3 on the iOS platform
Good to see that there's still so much love for the classics. :)
What do you mean 2142 is the forgotten of the franchise? BF V is to me the forgotten.
@It 3 am - You make a fair point. If you look at the release window, 2142 is squished between BF2 and the big leap into the console market with BC1. It kinda got stuck in one of those "not sure if full sequel" limbo states that the 3DS seems to be in as well. But you could definitely make a case for Vietnam, especially since it sold less (I think?).