While it’s been less than six months since Battlefield 2042 launched, it’s safe to say now that the game has failed to live up to expectations. When you add the fact that Battlefield V also failed to live up to fan expectations, then that makes it two Battlefield games in a row that “bombed.” Sure, BFV eventually got relaunched, but by then, most of the player base has moved on to other titles.

• Related Reading: Battlefield 3 10th Anniversary – Why It’s the Best Battlefield Game of All-Time (Opinion)

With Vince Zampella and other EA devs now corralled to bring the franchise back on track, EA has a (relatively) easy “win” button waiting for them to win back gamers, and some of their trust, and that’s to simply release a Battlefield 3 Remake.

While I know it’s not just a matter of porting the game to newer consoles, DICE and EA can simply choose to stick to the game’s core formula, and then jazz up the visuals a bit. Add in all the DLC map packs into the re-release, and voila! You have an instant winner in your hands. This will make franchise vets happy, and will let gamers who were too young then or just weren’t interested to get a taste of what a “peak” Battlefield experience felt like. This is an easy stop-gap while DICE, Ripple Effect and EA are regrouping to make sure the next Battlefield is a success.

For most Battlefield franchise veterans, Battlefield 3 or Bad Company 2 are considered the pinnacle of the franchise, and a Battlefield 3 Remake announcement would be met with universal applaud (I think).

BF3  is considered by many to be one of the best multiplayer shooters of all-time, and to be able to re-experience it once more, but with a fresh coat of paint, improved performance, and of course, some other quality of life improvements, it would be such an easy win for everyone.

The big question is: Will EA do it? While we can’t say for sure, the chances of this happening is better now compared to recent years. Not only has EA re-released the Mass Effect trilogy, but they gave BioWare the chance to make it as a full-on remaster. Now we’re getting that experience with the Dead Space franchise, too, though in a much grander scale. It’s logical to think that EA is doing this since the publisher wants not only make a quick buck on existing games, but also to put the gaming properties back into people’s minds for the eventual new entries that are being made. Surely this can work for Battlefield too, right? Re-release Battlefield 3, and then build on that goodwill and try to wash away the acrid taste of Battlefield 2042 (and even BFV).

It would also be an excellent way for EA and DICE to test the waters out. For some time now, it seems both the developers and the publishers have lost touch on what made Battlefield such a good multiplayer shooter to begin with. Perhaps a refresher is what they need, and if it’s received well enough, it could be exactly what is needed to open their eyes that gamers and fans simply want the same experience, but dialed up a notch (or two).

Here’s to hoping we do so it at one point, since I don’t think the Battlefield franchise can take one more failure as big as Battlefield 2042. Will that game be able to recover? Maybe, if DICE can pull at the right strings, but given how slow the turnaround things are for something as simple as a scoreboard, I’m honestly not expecting it.

• More Battlefield Reading: Battlefield 2042: 10 Things DICE Needs to Do in Order to Turn Things Around

IF EA does re-release BF3, players should expect skins and the like to be part of the package. As long as they are cosmetics-only, then I think that would be a fair compromise. Surely, with the amount of guns, maps and modes available in BF3 (and its DLCs), that should keep gamers busy for awhile. Heck, EA can even stagger the release of each map pack per season, and as long as they are released for free, I don’t see gamers getting too upset with it.

Do you want EA to re-release Battlefield 3? Or should they focus on an entirely new Battlefield game ASAP? Let us know your thoughts down in the comments.

Opinions expressed here are that solely of the author’s and does not represent the entirety of MP1st’s staff.