Shackpets | Available on iOS and Google Play Store

Battlefield 4 Second Assault DLC to have four fan-favorite BF3 maps

DICE has revealed that four fan-favorite maps from Battlefield 3 will be remade with the Frostbite 3 engine for Battlefield 4. These maps will be part of the Second Assault DLC, which will be coming first to Xbox One sometime after the new console launches.

31

DICE has revealed that four fan-favorite maps from Battlefield 3 will be remade with the Frostbite 3 engine for Battlefield 4. These maps will be part of the Second Assault DLC, which will be coming first to Xbox One as a timed exclusive sometime after the new console launches.

So far, Caspian Border and Operation Metro are "runaway favorites" for the pack, gameplay designer Alan Kertz said in a Reddit thread (via GameSpot). No hint was offered at what the leading candidates were for the final two maps. DICE did the same for Battlefield 3 when it recreated four popular BF2 maps in Frostbite 2.0 as the Back to Karkand DLC.

Of course, if this poll (via MP1st) is any indication, Grand Bazaar and Strike at Karkand have an edge for the final two slots, with the latter already having been part of the Karkand DLC. Seine Crossing would be the alternate for Karkand if DICE wants to stick purely with BF3 maps. Whatever maps get the treatment, expect them to be a lot more destructible in a big way.

Battlefield 4 is scheduled to launch on PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 on October 29. It will come to Xbox One and PS4 later. China Rising DLC is available to those that pre-order the game.

Contributing Editor
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 26, 2013 4:00 PM

    John Keefer posted a new article, Battlefield 4 Second Assault DLC to have four fan-favorite BF3 maps.

    DICE has revealed that four fan-favorite maps from Battlefield 3 will be remade with the Frostbite 3 engine for Battlefield 4. These maps will be part of the Second Assault DLC, which will be coming first to Xbox One sometime after the new console launches.

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 4:24 PM

      Not to provoke a flame war, but were there favorite BF3 maps? I thought the good ones were the ones that got ported from BF2.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 4:31 PM

        Going by all the 24/7 servers, people seemed to like the metro.

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 4:46 PM

          No... No... NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

          With more than 16 players that map is awful. The only reason there are so many 24/7 Metro maps is because you can level up super quick as a medic and spam grenades.

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 10:22 PM

          That is just because it was the fastest points maker, apart from 64 player TDM.

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 10:23 PM

          Only because it funneled people at each other making it easy to rank up on. That map is one of the worst of BF3 for conquest AND rush.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 4:48 PM

        There absolutely were. Caspian Border, Grand Bazaar, Tehran Highway, Markaz Monolith, Alborz Mountains, Operation Firestorm, Donya Fortress, Bandar Desert....

        I totally get not wanting to spend money for maps, but they made some truly amazing maps.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 5:04 PM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        June 27, 2013 5:36 AM

        Damavand Peak is pretty popular, I like Grand Bazaar too

      • reply
        June 27, 2013 8:33 AM

        They mostly suck or mediocre at best, same thing for metro but it can be nice for a quickie

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 4:41 PM

      Featuring the maps they ported from BF2!

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 5:34 PM

      6 months before release, and they're already talking about all the extras you will have to pay for. I know this is the new norm, but goddammit I miss the days when you could buy a game and enjoy it for years. Now it's all about hyping you up for all the DLC that you have to buy every month. I bought and loved every single Battlefield game from 1942 up through Bad Company 2. Now I see BF3 cranked out DLC after DLC, and went as far to create a "premium" subscription. Is it really worth it? If you paid over $120 over the life of the game, do you really feel like you got your money's worth?

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 5:52 PM

        Honestly though, the dollars/time argument always seems off to me. How do you decide what the baseline is? I put something like 250 hours into Skyrim and that game cost $60. I also paid $60 for Bioshock Infinite, beat it in 10 hours, and will probably never touch it again. Which is "the norm" ?

        I don't like the DLC model, but if you look at it from the dollars per hours played aspect, $120 doesn't seem that bad for the amount of time I personally would put into the multiplayer.

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 6:19 PM

          I think what irritates me is that there is no standard yet. Every year, the price to actively participate in AAA multiplayer games keeps going up and up. It's unchecked escalation.

          First, it was "buy a new iteration of the same old game for $60 every year."

          Then it was, "buy the new iteration for $60 + at least 3 DLC packs."

          Now it's, "buy the new game for $60 + Sign Up for Premium Service + Buy Microtransaction DLC"

          Sure, publishing is a business. These guys want to rake in as much revenue as possible for as little development cost as possible. But at what point will the madness stop? As long as enough customers keep throwing their cash into pre-ordering DLC for games that have barely been announced, then I suspect the escalation will continue :(

          • reply
            June 26, 2013 6:47 PM

            [deleted]

          • reply
            June 26, 2013 7:14 PM

            BF3 came out 2 years ago. And BF2 had full price expansion packs as well, only they were worse because they split the community. I bought premium for $35 the week it came out from GMG and only preordered BF3 Limited Edition for $42 from Amazon. Worth every penny. Microtransactions are only for weapons unlocks which you can get just by playing.

            • reply
              June 27, 2013 1:42 AM

              The BF3 map packs fragment the community too. I have Premium but my friend doesn't. He can't play most of the good maps with me.

          • reply
            June 26, 2013 9:34 PM

            It is like gasoline - until we all run around screaming waving our arms over our heads and stop buying/paying it is going to keep going up. Once it hits that point they'll back off a little and that will be the new norm.

          • reply
            June 27, 2013 6:02 AM

            Suggestion: Don't buy it.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 6:09 PM

        If they keep talking about upcoming DLC map packs so many months before release and only ship the game with 9 or less locations like BF3, then forget about value and hype and if it's worth it or not, that's just shitty all around. Definitely not going to support that and buy BF4 @ $60

        It's also kind of frustrating how they focus so much effort and resources on a worthless SP campaign that'll be one and done or never touched at all by fans of Battlefield, which is fans of the multiplayer who support these games the most and actually pay for the DLC.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 7:12 PM

        What was the last game you bought and enjoyed for years?

      • reply
        June 27, 2013 2:09 AM

        Straight up this.

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 5:59 PM

      So far, Caspian Border and Operation Metro are "runaway favorites" for the pack, gameplay designer Alan Kertz said in a Reddit thread

      Metro. lol what a joke. Worst map in the game and they'll willingly port it to the new one because idiots like to meatgrind ranks and unlocks so they consider it a favorite.

      At least it'll be easier to not buy that pack. I don't really see the point of wasting a DLC by bringing any BF3 maps over, it's not the leap or gap in time BF3 was to BF2 where you'd have some nostalgia. I'd rather have new maps rather played out ones, played out ones I can still play in a game that basically looks and plays the same.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 6:13 PM

        Yeah, I hate Metro. It was the map people used to level fast. I don't really know anyone that actually enjoys it though.

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 6:29 PM

          It's not playable at all with 64 people, it's not even playable with 32 people. It's the biggest joke of a conquest map there is. They'd have to rework so much of it wouldn't be the same map if they're actually going to be supporting 64 players by default in BF4 on all platforms.

          If they radically changed all of the old maps and made them new again that could be something, but honestly, I still don't see a point in bringing BF3 maps over at all. I don't care about any of them enough to want have to play them again in a slightly newer engine. Even if they gave them out for free it would only lead to me jumping servers every time one of them comes up in BF4. I wish DICE wouldn't have done this, not just announcing it so far in advance of the launch, but also pushing it so early in their DLC support cycle. Do it as a bonus expansion a year later or something. Shit. Hard enough to get me to pay for four new maps at 15 dollars, really have no desire to rebuy recent maps. The crazy fans will eat it up regardless :/

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 7:16 PM

          [deleted]

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 7:39 PM

          I can't stand Metro either for anything other than rush. It is a utter mess on 64 player conquest. If I had to guess the maps in the pack I would probably say Caspian Border, Firestorm, Kharg, and Metro. The reason being that most popular maps right now on BF3 happen to be the ones that have the most close quarters cheese or Jet spam.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 6:51 PM

        i loves metro in the beta though. for rush the map is fine. but its total shit for conquest

        • reply
          June 26, 2013 7:11 PM

          Exactly, it was fun in rush when the attacking team made it past the first point.

        • reply
          June 27, 2013 6:51 AM

          yah for Rush it's ok... granted with more than 32 players it just becomes a spam fest no matter what.

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 6:44 PM

      If they are going to rehash old maps as DLC, they'd damn well better have enough maps to keep it interesting at launch.

      Having said that, at $80 AU for standard and $90 AU for the deluxe edition, I'm of the opinion that EA can go fuck themselves with BF4 :(

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 8:58 PM

      I have been attempting to look into this but have not found an answer, had 64 players been confirmed for xbox1 and ps4 or is that just a pc thing again?

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 9:08 PM

      I am getting concerned about the lack of DLC for BF4. Only one DLC pack? Makes me think they don't believe in this game.

      • reply
        June 26, 2013 10:21 PM

        There will be more than one. Patrick Bach has already stated in an E3 interview that they have a "similar" DLC roadmap as BF3. Hopefully less fragmented in play styles.

      • reply
        June 27, 2013 6:34 AM

        Two packs announced so far. China Rising and Second Assault. They'll be released in that order.

        • reply
          June 27, 2013 11:40 AM

          So we'll get dragon valley and the awesome port map from bf2?? With the nuke plant? Loved both of those maps...

          Dalian plant??

    • reply
      June 26, 2013 10:19 PM

      Hold on. Wake Island has been in every BF game (on PC) since Vietnam (except 2142). You cannot break tradition now.

      Also, if they do Karkand again, they need to remake the BF2 original, NOT the BF3 re-envisioning. BF3's was great until you crossed the bridge, then it loses everything that made the first version great.

    • reply
      June 27, 2013 2:03 AM

      I would like a 2142 DLC for this. Similar to how they made Vietnam on BC2 possible.

      • reply
        June 27, 2013 5:29 AM

        Why dream small? Go big.
        How about they remake 2142 with the Frostbite 3 engine.

        • reply
          June 27, 2013 9:15 AM

          That would be amazing, I doubt it will happen though :(

    • reply
      June 27, 2013 6:49 AM

      Getting a big bad feeling that this iteration is going to be heavily consolized. Praying that I'm wrong.

    • reply
      June 27, 2013 7:09 AM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        June 27, 2013 2:18 PM

        I like variety. More guns = more fun, in my opinion.

    • reply
      June 27, 2013 8:53 AM

      I enjoy playing metro sometimes. I like big more Battlefield maps too but variety is nice. Some times I just wanna stand on that staircase blasting anyone who peaks around that corner.

Hello, Meet Lola