BF3blog.com -- the leading Battlefield 3 fan site, with news, updates, videos, screenshots, rumors, and more.
  
On February 8th, 2011 in News

BF3 commanderGoing through our latest issue of GameInformer, the question of Commander came up (the Commander feature was available on Battlefield 2, and gave a player command over his team). Here’s what we found in GameInformer:

Q: When I think about Battlefield 2, I always come back to the Commander position and the game within the game that arose from having Special Forces objectives. Are those returning in the proper sequel?

A: We could implement it, but the questions is “how do you get the threshold lower?” That’s not by making it more complicated. Our challenge is to make sure that anyone that just jumps into the game will get it. One of the biggest problems with Commander was that only two people could use it. Some people like it but most people didn’t care. They just cared that someone gave them an order or that their squad could play together having fun on their own more or less. Then the most hardcore people went into the Commander mode and learned how to use that. You could argue it was a great feature, but looking at the number you could also say that no one uses it. We tried in Bad Company 2 to give that t players, so you could issue orders to your squad, and you could use gadgets like the UAV that only the commander could use earlier — giving the power back to the players so everyone could use it. That made a big difference. More people could enjoy the game. We lowered the threshold for everyone because we gave it to everyone. We now know the boundaries are for keeping the strategic depth and complexity while lowering the threshold to get in.

The argument that only two players could be commander (each on his team) is valid, but that was the whole point: a commander would lead his team. The notion that the UAV in Bad Company 2 was more accessible is nonsense — there was only one UAV in Bad Company 2. So only one player could use it, as opposed to two commanders in BF2.

If you ask us, this is a textbook example of “dumbing things down”, what DICE calls “make the threshold lower” and we can’t help but feel disappointed that the Commander feature isn’t returning to Battlefield 3. It added a whole new level to the gameplay, which will now be missing in BF3.



193 COMMENTS & TRACKBACKS

  1. Luís
    February 9th, 2011 at 12:04 am
  2. dsi1
    February 9th, 2011 at 2:22 am

    BF3 confirmed for BC3.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
  3. MAGZine
    February 9th, 2011 at 2:41 am

    Couldn’t agree more.

    The removal of the Commander feature is really disappointing. This must be done only to please the BC2 (read: console) players.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
  4. Axel
    February 9th, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Really hope this game isn’t too dumbed down. So far, this is the only disappointing news, and let’s hope it stays this way. Maybe it wont affect the game too much! Great point about the UAV in BC2, btw.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. saint
    February 9th, 2011 at 7:03 am

    At least, something positive for BF3.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 21
    • LogiQue
      May 19th, 2011 at 11:15 am

      positive for noob cod kids like you.

      HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
      • vander steene anthony
        June 22nd, 2011 at 7:39 pm

        lol yeah cod su*** laern of bf3 BBBBBBBBFFFFFFFFFF3333333 RILZ sry bad english

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
  6. Vladimir
    February 9th, 2011 at 7:55 am

    And you even had the guts to put ” something ” on preorder like this ?? You are hoping people will get 40 euros from their pokets just because ” you are excited ” ??? Man … DICE are a fraud and if BF3 dont have all the good things from Bf2 nobody will buy it

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
    • Shut up
      July 29th, 2011 at 10:16 pm

      I’m getting it

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  7. saint
    February 9th, 2011 at 7:59 am

    I will!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  8. Gnomefather
    February 9th, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Looks like DICE want’s us to go lonewolf…

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  9. Mike_No_gonads
    February 9th, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Well, I can guarantee everyone out there that we at RGN will have many BF3 servers and fully support this game. It is everything we want and come to expect in a game. After RoHos flops, we really won’t have a choice. I’ve secured 7 racks of servers at Gameservers. I trust them & EA 100%, they are the future of PC Gaming.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  10. Milos
    February 9th, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    This is very, very disappointing!
    I WILL NOT buy game that looks like crappy Bad Company 2 or CoD!
    I WILL buy game that is step forward from BF2, with better graphics, sound AND, the most important of all, gameplay = teamplay!
    DO NOT let BF3 to be BC3!

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
    • LogiQue
      May 19th, 2011 at 1:07 pm

      Fuck Yeah!

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
      • TheEagle1337
        May 31st, 2011 at 7:49 am

        I agree!!

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
    • Moiz
      June 16th, 2011 at 8:28 pm

      amen

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
      • MrFunnyEgg
        July 5th, 2011 at 10:51 pm

        I have played EVERY battlefield since 1942 {including 2142} bc2 is the most well balanced of them all .If BF3 is BC3 that is the shiznit. Love, Your dad

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
    • Stormxau
      August 19th, 2011 at 6:12 am

      TESTIFY!

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • NORRIS.cz
      August 31st, 2011 at 4:16 pm

      Yes, Im with you!!!!! Commander is an magic feature!

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  11. sjampie
    February 9th, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    its so stupid you need at leased someone to take controle of the battlefield.

    In BC2 the squads didn’t work in my opinion because there was no squad leader that says what to do. now every one pings another direction.

    I think there should be a commander or squad leader to keep the squads together and give you bonus xp when follow a order.
    I think commands are nessesery to get squad teamplay propper organised.

    I hope they do something with it otherwise it gets very messy with 64 players doing there own thing.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
  12. IvanR
    February 9th, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Well the fact that only 2 players can be commander in one round is EXACTLY why ranking system made ANY sense in BF2 except for kids showing off. I believe that commanders were maybe the main factor of why I think BF2 is (and will remain indefinitely) the BEST war FPS we will ever see, and one of the best games of all times.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
  13. dexter442
    February 9th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    DICE, I strongly recommend that you go back on this decision, particularly for the PC version of the game.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
  14. JWCustom
    February 9th, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Thank god the commander part will be gone, now do something about AIR vehicles being way too dominant.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 27
    • Novacaine
      October 11th, 2011 at 7:05 pm

      seriously….. wow … i hate when people try to make games more like other less complicated games…. commander feature was a unique and sophisticated feature to BF… taking it out just makes it simple and like any other FPS out there. learn how to use these fetters rather than cry about it. And why do you want to nerf the vehicles… you need vehicles to take down vehicles and/or a good squad of rpgs

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  15. strangler317
    February 9th, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    i was dissappointed by DICE here. How hard would it be to implement a commander? ffs you could make it an option for the server browser so if BF3 is babies first fps they can play with commander disabled, and the veterans can have it enabled. That dissappoints nobody and shouldnt be too hard to program

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
    • RoHTo
      April 18th, 2011 at 3:45 am

      I don’t understand why having a commander can’t be something that is simply an option to play with on or off on a particular server.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • I'm with u
      July 29th, 2011 at 10:54 pm

      I never played battlefield 2,but the commander feature sounds good,and think that’s a good option to have. I would love to try the commander feature!

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  16. Derppy
    February 9th, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Bad choice.

    Was probably a mistake to get my hopes up so quickly, since it seems this game is going to be Bad Company 3, with some elements from original Battlefield-series.

    Lack of mod support and dumbed down gameplay clearly indicates DICE is using Battlefield-term as a marketing strategy towards PC gamers, rather than as the base for this “next Battlefield”.

    Might still be a good game, but not as good as previous Battlefields.

    Bothers me how DICE claims many of them have roots in PC-gaming and modding community and want to support them, but in the end they just piss on their roots and please the masses.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
    • ThatGuy
      July 31st, 2011 at 8:59 pm

      Just because they don’t have one stupid feature doesn’t mean the game is ruined. These guys do this for a living, they know what they’re doing.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7
      • rick
        September 28th, 2011 at 11:22 pm

        the fact that you called the commander feature stupid shows you’re a cod faggit so go find a hole to die in.

        Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
  17. Bort Bortison
    February 9th, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Wow. People need to calm down.

    DICE are professional game designers. They know what they are doing. Have some faith. It is in their interest to release the best game they can. If they feel it is best to remove a feature, there’s probably some very sound reasoning behind it.

    Relax. There’s only been scant details on BF3 so far. It will almost certainly be a tremendous game. Just look at their track record.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
  18. JW
    February 9th, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    I wouldn’t want to play where somone is giving me orders. Screw that, I want to play the way I want.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
    • YAW
      March 22nd, 2011 at 7:31 pm

      Did you ever play BF2?! Having a commander gives your team many tactical advantages. The commander didn’t so much tell you what to do, but was able to spot many players and vehicles on the map. He is also able to drop supplies and vehicles to players and drop mortars on targets.

      I would hope that they would implement the commander in BF3, but we will have to wait and see.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
      • LogiQue
        May 19th, 2011 at 11:21 am

        Amen!

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    • WILLIBOUNCE
      June 1st, 2011 at 2:06 am

      i really don’t see why a commander cant be in bf3 plus the only ones that are crying about not wanting a commander are the noobs not the veterans DICE have either commanders enable on/off or make sure you place the commander back in the field for sure is needed and team play depends on it!!!!!!!!!!

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  19. Vege
    February 9th, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Mortars and scans and constant commander spot spam were all annoying to the casual gamer.
    You can still give the same tools inside a base to some people, you just dont need to call him commander.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
  20. GruntUltra
    February 9th, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    I agree with most of you. I played BF2 from the moment it came out – for years. I wasn’t one of the kids who could play for 14 hours a day, and my learning curve was slower than most. But there is no team-oriented game that I’ve found to be more exciting than BF2 when you have a good commander. And even I took a crack at it and won a good number of rounds commanding for my team. It is a great dynamic that could really make (or break) a team. BC2 has been a disappointment for me (and so was BF2142 – but that’s another story). I have one friend who positively loves BC2, but I can’t help but compare it to BF2 and how great that game was/is. The Frostbite engine is all wonderful and fancy, but the gameplay has too many details flooding the screen, too many choke points for snipers to get you, and not enough of the teamworking element to enjoy. BC2 and BF3 are great for lone-wolfing and racking up a ton of individual points, rather than showcasing how to play, survive, and win as a team like BF2. Sorry EA/DICE, I’m sticking with the old BF2 and Left 4 Dead 2 for team gameplay.

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
    • LogiQue
      May 19th, 2011 at 11:23 am

      This is so TRUE!!!!

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  21. andrew eales
    February 9th, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    @ #17 Bort Bortison

    “Just look at their track record”

    2004 – 1942 – Great
    2005 – BF2 – Great
    2006 – 2142 – Good
    Since 2006 – WTF

    Not to sure about your statement.

    Also, they give the reason they removed it – its because it was to hard for people to figure out which is complete BS. They simply know it will be too hard for console players (2/3 of customers) to figure it out.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
  22. Wolliwonker
    February 9th, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    @BortBortison

    It is theire interest to make the most money and not to make the best game.
    Like somebody said: The only reason they removed the Commander is the Console
    No Commander and only 4 classes… Forget what they said about focussing on the PC part.
    I’m sure that it will simply be Bad Comany 3… I’ll buy it anyway, because I want at least to try out the game.
    But DICE wake up: The quest is to remove(not to say kick) Call of Duty from FPS-Throne and making Battlefield 3 like Bad Company isn’t the right way. This way you’ll fail hopefully Battlefield 4 will come back to it’s roots.
    I really hoped that Battlefield 3 will kick CoD’s ass, but now I’m sure it won’t remove it from FPS-Throne.

    DICE: I’m really really disappointed in removing such an awesome Feature and like strangler317 said you could have implemented this Feature so the Player would be able to choose, if he wants to play a Game with or withoud Commander-Feature.

    Wolliwonker

    HIGHLY RATED Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
  23. Flyguy 2000
    February 10th, 2011 at 2:03 am

    Sign the petition at the provided url to help the effort to bring back commander mode!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    • WILLIBOUNCE
      June 1st, 2011 at 2:12 am

      were do i go or we go to help bring the commander back to bf3????????!!!!!

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  24. Waz
    February 10th, 2011 at 2:53 am

    I agree with everything, other than the UAV comment.

    You mentioned that “there was only one UAV in Bad Company 2. So only one player could use it.” What you really should have said was that only one player could use it “at a time” (which means something very different).

    Unlike BF2 where the UAV was only available to two players, in BC2 it was available to everyone.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • jinxed
      April 23rd, 2011 at 12:48 am

      Once a UAV was “deployed”, the entire team it belonged to could look at their map and see it working.
      Honestly, I don’t think that just any player should be able to place a UAV, especially not one that literally EVERYONE can see, and that is the only UAV in a match. Doesn’t make a bit of sense.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • Dozer
        August 31st, 2011 at 3:43 pm

        Im not really sure what your trying to get at here. It sounds like you want to have a role thats completely disconnected from the shooter genre. To put in a role where a guy has control over supplies, UAVs and support for there team etc etc. sounds all well and good but for a game like battlefield 3 that has a scope on taking over the FPS shooter genre, putting in a role that completely removes the player from the battlefield, protecting him from bullets and death and giving him power over masses of equipment is just stupid and opens up too much room for abuse. Battlefield is a Strategic Vehicle based FPS. not a RTS game. It sounds to me like you just dont want a knife in your ass while your on the UAV, thats the risk you take when you wanna use those features. To say you want those features but you dont wanna be killed while you use them… which is basically what your saying… is just pussy. Case and point…whats the necessity for the commander role? any good reasons?

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8
  25. GreyWolf
    February 10th, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    DICE please include the commander feature in the hardcore mode!!! PLEASE!!!

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>