Battlefield Community Forums • View topic - BC2 is not BF then why they put BF in title?

berdkiller · **Joined:** Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:55 am **Posts:** 65

Reading the issues for and againts BC2, most say it is not supposed to be a version of BF. If this is so, why then did they name it "Battlefield bad company" and not just "bad company"? I am sure most thought it would be liken to BF2, with the BF in title.

bipsylalapo · **Joined:** Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:25 pm **Posts:** 163

Easy : When Battlefield Bad Company 1 came out, it was a new game, totally unknown to most players (as the majority of them do not read game previews/reviews/whatever) while the Battlefield franchise was already famous and respected thanks to BF1942. So by using the Battlefield name for BC1, they ensured that their game would not be totally estranged anymore ("ooooh a new Battlefield, the previous one was so cool, this one must rock as well"). And well, for BC2, they just stuck to the original name which included BF.
That's my 2cents.

RaRaAvIs · **Posted:** Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:58 am

Really if people thought it would be like Bf2, then they are being foolish and not thinking it thru.
It had a 2 in the title for starters, which means it has to follow-on from the first title (bad company), so even if it was the next battlefield why would it need a 2 in it's title? Wouldnt it need a 3.

Also Battlefield is the fanchise name, and with all the games before (has there been 7 or 8?) using the battlefield title, it's makes it a huge selling point.
Think about Call Of Duty, if they dropped the CoD bit, sales would suffer badly, not becuase the game is any different, but people know the CoD bit, them that like CoD respsect that bit in the title. If they released their next game only as "Black ops" rather than "Call Of Duty: Black Ops", it would prolly make less sales than the first ever Call of Duty.

AlexNL · **Posted:** Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:12 pm

RaRaAvIs wrote:

Really if people thought it would be like Bf2, then they are being foolish and not thinking it thru.
It had a 2 in the title for starters, which means it has to follow-on from the first title (bad company), so even if it was the next battlefield why would it need a 2 in it's title? Wouldnt it need a 3.

Also Battlefield is the fanchise name, and with all the games before (has there been 7 or 8?) using the battlefield title, it's makes it a huge selling point.
Think about Call Of Duty, if they dropped the CoD bit, sales would suffer badly, not becuase the game is any different, but people know the CoD bit, them that like CoD respsect that bit in the title. If they released their next game only as "Black ops" rather than "Call Of Duty: Black Ops", it would prolly make less sales than the first ever Call of Duty.

Great information! I totally agree with this post.

Impulsive*Play3r · **Joined:** Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:45 pm **Posts:** 1165

RaRaAvIs wrote:

Really if people thought it would be like Bf2, then they are being foolish and not thinking it thru.
It had a 2 in the title for starters, which means it has to follow-on from the first title (bad company), so even if it was the next battlefield why would it need a 2 in it's title? Wouldnt it need a 3.

Also Battlefield is the fanchise name, and with all the games before (has there been 7 or 8?) using the battlefield title, it's makes it a huge selling point.
Think about Call Of Duty, if they dropped the CoD bit, sales would suffer badly, not becuase the game is any different, but people know the CoD bit, them that like CoD respsect that bit in the title. If they released their next game only as "Black ops" rather than "Call Of Duty: Black Ops", it would prolly make less sales than the first ever Call of Duty.

yay, im glad some people have their head screwed on, i was going to say my part what i have said to so many people.

thank you for explaining it, you put is spot on.