Interview with the creator of the “Battlefield 1982” concept
BF4 Central
2 NOV 2015

We chat with the creator of the awesome Battlefield 1982 concept Chris of YouTube’s Battle(non)sense fame recently made an impressive concept for a future Battlefield game, called Battlefield 1982. The concept got quite a bit of buzz in the Battlefield community, and rightfully so.

We had a chat with him about his concept, his work, and what he thinks of the Battlefield franchise going forwards.

Check out our full interview below.

BF4Central: When did you first get the idea for Battlefield 1982, and how long did it take to realize it?

I have always been thinking about ways to improve the game and put forward suggestions. Some of these ideas were so massive that I never actually published them as they could not be added to the existing games.

Now that more and more people discuss what they want from the next Battlefield game, I felt that it is finally time to polish and release all of my concepts, which could only be done in a new game.

The reason why I called that project 1982 is that I want to go “back in time”. Not just in terms of the setting and military hardware, but also the design of the game.

BF4C: You state that Battlefield 1982 is the “true successor to Battlefield 2”. What was it about Battlefield 2 that was so different from BF4 and even BF3?

I could write a small novel explaining all the differences. But simply put, besides the name there is not much that these games actually have in common. The gameplay, map design mechanics and the target audience are very, very different.

BF4C: By choosing the year 1982, it seems that you’re aiming for a “simpler” battlefield and combat, without too much tech?

The military tech is indeed not as advanced – you see very few lock on or fire and forget weapons in my designs. The skill of the player is the defining factor. Yet the actual combat does not get simpler, it is more complex and has more depth because there are more variables to consider.

I did not specifically mention this yet, but as I said I want this to be the Battlefield 2 successor. As such the infantry has no autoheal, limited stamina and uses the mag pool. So you have to plan ahead when to sprint, when to engage an enemy and to reload your gun.

Similar is true for the jets and helicopters in my designs which have no autorepair ability and limited ammo just like in BF2. So if you get damage or run out of ammo you need to return to a helipad or airstrip controlled by your team for repairs and to rearm, which makes you conserve your ammo and plan ahead more but also gives the ground forces a break from your attacks.

So any engagement is a lot more challenging and tactical.

BF4C: Do you think the current fan-base would accept a more stripped-down, simpler version of Battlefield with 1982?

There is a rather big part of the community who is not happy with the shallow gameplay and the lack of teamwork offered in both Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4.

I have seen that a lot when I showed on my channel which kind of mechanics the old Battlefield games had – a lot of players are just baffled how DICE did not include those mechanics in today’s games. A good example is Battlefield 2’s fully localized communication system that consists out of ComRose Tac Rose, TacMap, textfeed and voice overs, which is still an incredible system by today’s standard and just puts Battlefield 3 and 4 to shame.

So while it’s clear that a game that is designed with the same goals as Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield 2 would sell less units than Battlefield 3 or 4, simply because of what kind of audience it appeals to, I am sure that it would sell at least as good as the Refractor Engine games did back then and build up a loyal fan base – especially if there was at least a Level Editor.

BF4C: I remember playing BF2 and how simple it was: very few unlocks, no gadgets, no customization. It was just about the gameplay and teamwork. Do you think the current series focuses too much on unlocks, gadgets, etc.?

I think the marketing of BF3 and BF4 shows pretty well what the series focuses on currently. Fast, instant and constant action, with the illusion of teamwork that happens occasionally. It’s really an “EGO” shooter.

The unlocks, progression and reward system in BF3 and BF4 is also a quite interesting topic. Obviously you want to have these things in your game because they can add something to it. But I feel that in BF3 and BF4 they went overboard with it when you consider that when you begin to play the game your classes and vehicles lack essential unlocks which means that your class or vehicle is not only unable to fulfill its role but are also outgunned.

The high amount of unlocks also affects the balance and some gadgets feel like they were just thrown into the game because they had to ship the DLC with a specific amount of new gadgets or because they were considered “cool”. Many of them do not feel like there is some clear design or master plan how they integrate into the rest of the game.

BF4C: You’re very knowledgeable about BF4, as evident by your in-depth videos. What is something that you would like to see changed in the current game?

Hmm… there is a lot that I would like to change in Battlefield 4, but there are limits to what is possible because you can’t just turn the game upside down completely. How the current playerbase (especially on console) responded to the removal of the 313 speedcontrol minigame [ed. a jet control scheme] is proof of that.

So if i could do one thing and one thing only. then I would add the Mission Log as that does not change the actual gamedesign but would have a significant impact on the gameplay on public servers.

BF4C: You seem very interested in going back to the roots of the series — do you believe the games have gotten worse after BF2?

Well. It’s not a game has to be like Battlefield 2 or otherwise I hate it. I loved Bad Company 1 for which I actually bought a Xbox 360. It was a very well crafted game, had a unique design and the singleplayer was just insanely funny.

Now did the core Battlefield series got worse after Battlefield 2? I think this depends on whom you ask. If you ask some of my co-workers who did not like Battlefield 2 at all because it was too slow paced, maps were too large, vehicles were too hard to use, you did not encounter enemies for minutes, etc. then they will tell you that Battlefield 3 made the series better because they actually like playing that game.

For me the Battlefield franchise lost its way when Battlefield 3 was released because compared to Battlefield 2 it was designed for a completely different kind of gamer – like my coworkers.

But what most people don’t know of have forgotten, is that Battlefield 3 literally was the final nail in the coffin of the original battlefield community on PC.

Battlefield had an extremely active, creative and productive community since 2002. We had thousands of communities and clans which organized tournaments and wars against other clans. We had modders, level designers and machinima directors who surprised us on a daily basis with their latest creations. Those of us who ran a community site back at the day, did struggle to keep up with everything because there were at least 3 news to publish per day.

There was just so much positive energy everywhere, and that’s also why the many issues that the games had – that negative aspect – never managed to be as prominent as it is today, where this makes most of the topics in forums..

When Battlefield 3 came out in 2011, 6 years after Battlefield 2, the remaining communities and clans had high hopes that after Bad Company 1 and 2 this would finally be the game they have been waiting for.

But as it turned out, Battlefield 3 was not the game we hoped for, and as a result the rest of the fan sites and clans vanished over the next year. Eventually even PlanetBattlefield [ed. a former, popular Battlefield fan site] closed its doors and what EA did with the ea.uk forums, which was the more or less official home of the Battlefield franchise, is a story of its own.

So the only significant Battlefield 2 presence left today after also the gamespy servers shut down is the mod Project Reality.

So with EAs decision to completely change the target audience of the core Battlefield franchise with Battlefield 3 and to not continue the mod support in their new Frostbite-engine Battlefield titles, they effectively killed the community that they built up between 2002 to 2011.

The confusing part is that with Bad Company they already had a strong, fresh and new IP that targeted this audience EA was after.

With the 3 IPs Medal of Honor, Bad Company and Battlefield they would have had a strong lineup of games that all cater to a different kind of audience and offers a lot of diversity.

Think of Medal Of Honor as a fast paced, infantry only arena style shooter, Bad Company as the smaller brother of Battlefield which is jam packed with action on slightly smaller scale maps without jets, and lastly the team based tactical shooter Battlefield.
I would honestly play all 3 of them as I really like that kind of variety

BF4C: I take it that BF2 is your favorite game in the series. Which game is your least-favorite, and why?

That is Battlefield 3, because while it was a really solid and fun shooter, it simply is not a Battlefield game. I could say similar about Battlefield 4 – but the reason why BF3 is my least favorite is because DICE and EA actively advertised Battlefield 3 as the “worthy Battlefield 2 successor”, while it did not even have many the basic features and mechanics seen in Battlefield 2 and 2142.

BF4C: If you could bring just one aspect / feature from your 1982 concept into Battlefield 5, which one would it be and why?

Hmm… the problem with this question is that the game I want to play only works when a lot of things come together. If you just take one, then it will not work the way it’s intended to.

But if I would have to pick the design that I think has the highest impact, then this would be the Class System because it fixes issues like players abusing jets and helicopters as taxis, and it gives every class a clearly distinct purpose/pros and cons which requires that the players look out for each other and complement each other.

BF4C: And conversely, what is one feature in the current game that you would like to see gone in the next Battlefield game?

Battlepickups, because they are mostly highly disruptive for the gameplay because they are literally overpowered and allow a single player to deal way too much damage.

BF4C: Finally, have you heard anything from DICE about your 1982 concept?

The awesome guys from DICE LA have seen it. But there is not much more to say about it at this time as you can imagine. :)

Many thanks for Chris for the interview.