f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Gaming => Topic started by: Mrbloodworth on February 06, 2009, 08:16:50 AM



Title: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 06, 2009, 08:16:50 AM
Battlefield 1943 Debut Trailer  (http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/42347/PC/Battlefield-1943/Trailer/Battlefield-1943-Debut-Trailer)

Quote
However, that is not all coming from EA and DICE. Battlefield 1943 will be available for the PC, PSN, and Xbox Live Arcade and will offer multiplayer modes for up to 24 players with the “through-the-gun and vehicle warfare experience” DICE and the franchise are recognized for.

Yes, 24 not, 64, but take note of the buildings to the end of the video. (and trees)


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 06, 2009, 08:51:54 AM
Now...I dislike the direction DICE has gone for a while now....but that looks pretty wicked.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 06, 2009, 09:04:08 AM
Now...I dislike the direction DICE has gone for a while now....but that looks pretty wicked.

Its basically the bastard child of Battlefield, and Bad company.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Engels on February 06, 2009, 09:18:42 AM
I'm confused and sad. How is the trailer a herald of anything different at all?


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: TripleDES on February 06, 2009, 09:23:19 AM
Prettier BF1942...

What made the initial Battlefield game for me was the glitching. TNT jumping and all that shit.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: HaemishM on February 06, 2009, 09:31:45 AM
Lots of good Battlefield news yesterday. 1943 looks decent, though I'm not sure about the 24 player limit. Bad Company getting made for the PC - meh, I could take it or leave it.

But a new patch is coming for both Battlefield 2 and 2142, which will also have a new map for each. Yeah, I'm all over that. Hopefully it'll fix some of the rampant cheats in 2142.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 06, 2009, 09:44:23 AM
I'm confused and sad. How is the trailer a herald of anything different at all?

Its seems to be a collection of the most popular 42 maps, redone, with destructible environments, that means physics and all that across a network, like Bad Company.

I really liked Bad Company. I love the fact that ill be able to play it with mouse and keyboard. To me, they dropped the ball with B2, and 2142 was just a bad B2 re-skin that stole Borrowed to much from Plantside, with out realizing what made PS great.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 06, 2009, 10:12:57 AM
Slower planes, return of ships, great classic maps redone with modern tech, modern graphics...What's not to like? Herald of something different? I think you want to stick to MMO for that :)


Thanks to TripleDES for reminding me that exploiters will probably just ruin it for everyone and saving me the cost of buying it.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Samwise on February 06, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
 :drill:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 06, 2009, 10:32:02 AM
Slower planes, return of ships, great classic maps redone with modern tech, modern graphics...What's not to like? Herald of something different? I think you want to stick to MMO for that :)


Thanks to TripleDES for reminding me that exploiters will probably just ruin it for everyone and saving me the cost of buying it.

I'm in anyway.  Maybe we could open a private server so I can show off how terrible I am.  Damn I love WW2 era games.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 06, 2009, 10:37:33 AM
Well, it looks good. I'm not sure how badly DICE might will fuck it up, though.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: TripleDES on February 06, 2009, 11:09:15 AM
Thanks to TripleDES for reminding me that exploiters will probably just ruin it for everyone and saving me the cost of buying it.
Shitty physics while FF off isn't exploits.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: HaemishM on February 06, 2009, 11:15:50 AM
To me, they dropped the ball with B2, and 2142 was just a bad B2 re-skin that stole Borrowed to much from Plantside, with out realizing what made PS great.

You are on crack. I still play and love both B2 and 2142.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 06, 2009, 11:35:14 AM
To me, they dropped the ball with B2, and 2142 was just a bad B2 re-skin that stole Borrowed to much from Plantside, with out realizing what made PS great.

You are on crack. I still play and love both B2 and 2142.

To each his own. 2142 was terrible (Read: Buggy ass POS), and B2...well....yeah, just not my favorite in the line, and seemed to break from all the fun stuff of 42.  :oh_i_see:

I don't think less of you for liking them  :grin: I had good times in the too... Just not for long. 2142 had some really cool stuff like titan assaults. Something we had asked for in PS a long time ago. Shitt, i wonder if i can find the posting on the PS boards where the exact same mechanic was illustrated and pitched (CHARTS!). The conspiracy in me things someone at dice was a PS fan.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Prospero on February 06, 2009, 11:35:53 AM
Apparently they are trying to make 1943 casual friendly. I'll be curious to see how that turns out. As long as the planes are still awesome, I'm sold.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 06, 2009, 11:38:06 AM
Shitty physics while FF off isn't exploits.
Well, you can't really have FF on for a pub! Anyway, your post is contradicting itself. You were exploiting the shitty physics with FF off.

Part of the reason, probably the only reason, I loved 1942 so much was playing on private servers with a clan. FF on, no name tags, it was the way the game should've been experienced. Pubbing is so crappy, boring and pointless. Especially with DICE's abysmal server browser that seems to never get fixed game after game.

B2 was ok, but I hated the planes in it. The 1942 planes were so much more artful with their slower speeds allowing more surface-hugging and aerobatics, the slower bombs with their graceful arcs of death...but on pubs it was tard central trying to get into a plane, and forget a pub with FF on.

Nebu, a Bat Country 1943 server would rock. For two weeks  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 06, 2009, 11:40:14 AM
Nebu, a Bat Country 1943 server would rock. For two weeks  :oh_i_see:

Woot!


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: NiX on February 06, 2009, 11:48:39 AM
Well, it looks good. I'm not sure how badly DICE might will fuck it up, though.   :ye_gods:
You didn't play Bad Company, did you? If this is just WW2 Bad Company it's going to be awesome.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on February 06, 2009, 11:55:26 AM
24 people is plenty.  I am fucking down for Bat Country with this, assuming it works better than BF2.  I love that game, but goddamn it has problems.  And load times.

God the load times, they are a problem.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 06, 2009, 12:14:46 PM
Nebu, a Bat Country 1943 server would rock. For two weeks  :oh_i_see:

If it's like the usual Bat Country FPS, 2 weeks is long enough to remind me that I'm too old to be competitive in an FPS.  Still... good for a few laughs.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: TripleDES on February 06, 2009, 02:14:11 PM
Well, you can't really have FF on for a pub! Anyway, your post is contradicting itself. You were exploiting the shitty physics with FF off.
Almost all pubs I've played BF1942 and BF2 on had FF on. If you don't think sending tanks or jeeps across the maps is hilarious, you're a sad person.

And FYI, most FF off servers were stunt servers. Can't really be exploiting if it's desired gameplay.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on February 06, 2009, 03:53:52 PM
Concerning Friendly Fire: only noobs prefer to play with FF off.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Ingmar on February 06, 2009, 04:33:06 PM
Concerning Friendly Fire: only noobs prefer to play with FF off.

<----- noob


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 06, 2009, 04:38:00 PM
Well, it looks good. I'm not sure how badly DICE might will fuck it up, though.   :ye_gods:
You didn't play Bad Company, did you? If this is just WW2 Bad Company it's going to be awesome.

I played the demo. But console FPS controls and all that. You know what I'm talkin' bout.

Their biggest failing is always the browser and gametypes. Though I've played less of the game each iteration (except VN goes somewhere around 2142)


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on February 06, 2009, 06:03:38 PM
Concerning Friendly Fire: only noobs prefer to play with FF off.

<----- noob

Hey, it's all cool.  Everybody has to start somewhere.  Hell, even I used to prefer friendly fire off back when I was a noob.  Well, except for Doom2 LAN.  God that was some fun griefing.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Goreschach on February 06, 2009, 06:16:31 PM
I'm in the '42 was awesome, everything after sucked' camp. If this really is a return to the original gameplay style, I'd be up for it.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: NiX on February 06, 2009, 06:36:41 PM
You know what I'm talkin' bout.
Yeah, I do. Bad Company was really fun and I usually hate the level up and unlock guns deal. There was something about the accessibility that made BF:BC so much fun and you had moments where you felt useful over a sustained amount of time. Best example was me rigged as a sniper, breaking a window to a boarded up house, sneaking into the attic and picking off enemy soldiers as they tried to advance up the road.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Hindenburg on February 06, 2009, 07:06:07 PM
Concerning Friendly Fire: only noobs prefer to play with FF off.

Concerning Friendly Fire: only noobs care. Cool kids own faces either way.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on February 06, 2009, 07:44:48 PM
In theory, it shouldn't matter.  However, too often I've been to servers where the majority of players are using friendly fire being turned off as a crutch, and just blindly shooting at anything that moves, or shooting through their allies.  I won't stand for it!


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 06, 2009, 10:41:26 PM
BC was on my "games to buy when they're really super-cheap" list, because I liked it reasonably for a FPS. Does it have a 3rd-person option? For some reason I can do shooters in 3rd person on the consoles wheras 1st just doesn't work.



Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Falwell on February 07, 2009, 03:00:15 AM
Twenty four isn't enough. Considering that of your team of twelve, at LEAST three will be camping planes and killing the guy who "steals" theirs. At LEAST one will be practicing driving tanks on the bottom of the ocean. At LEAST four will be snipers with three kills in four hours, and at LEAST one will be griefing the other team by placing explosive charges on the enemies landing boats, no, it isn't enough.


Not to worry though, it'll take the better part of a day before you start seeing 32+ player games being hosted.



Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: AcidCat on February 07, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
If this really is a return to the original gameplay style, I'd be up for it.

I was pretty excited until I read about the gameplay changes  -  I can deal with less players, but cutting the classes down to 3, having regenerating health, unlimited ammo, and giving all classes anti-armor capability just totally changes the gameplay dynamic. I'll probably still pick it up but I don't know why they had to fuck with a great formula.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Jimbo on February 07, 2009, 09:17:38 AM
Ya!  More Battlefield!  So that means Bad Co will get a PC port, Hero's will come out  :nda: , & now this, plus the maps for 2142 & BF2!  Rock on, time to dig out and re-install both BF2 and 2142!

I've noticed some things, but CoD4 is better to play on Xbox live than on PC.  Something about only 9 people max per side and getting on a full server each game is more fun for me.  I liked Battlefield Modern combat for Xbox, but it never had the fun that BF2 or BF 2142 had, and I only played the beta for Battlefield Bad Co (was too busy with other games).  As long as I can drive a tank & blow people up it sounds good to me. 


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 07, 2009, 11:35:47 AM
I was pretty excited until I read about the gameplay changes  -  I can deal with less players, but cutting the classes down to 3, having regenerating health, unlimited ammo, and giving all classes anti-armor capability just totally changes the gameplay dynamic. I'll probably still pick it up but I don't know why they had to fuck with a great formula.

wait.

wat?


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on February 07, 2009, 01:05:24 PM
...

Please tell me you're talking about Battlefield Heroes.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Falwell on February 07, 2009, 01:58:02 PM
...

Please tell me you're talking about Battlefield Heroes.

He isn't unfortunately..

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/45233.html


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ashrik on February 07, 2009, 02:21:20 PM
...but why?


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 07, 2009, 04:03:32 PM
...but why?

Seems its not really a full blown game, its a Arcade/PSN down loadable.

To be honest, i am highly disappointed too.  :sad:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: AcidCat on February 07, 2009, 04:45:03 PM
Yeah, I don't get it. They already have Heroes in the works to satisfy the "casual" demographic, why this too? Doesn't make much sense.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: schild on February 07, 2009, 05:17:41 PM
...but why?

Seems its not really a full blown game, its a Arcade/PSN down loadable.

To be honest, i am highly disappointed too.  :sad:
Then you'll be super disappointed when the Arcade/PSN Call of Duty comes out.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Goreschach on February 07, 2009, 05:37:11 PM
Sometimes I think the entire industry is just trying to make me swear off buying anything not made by Blizzard.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 07, 2009, 05:50:00 PM
Looks like I really need to reinstall 1942 instead..



Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Phire on February 08, 2009, 06:48:03 AM
This has to be the most cynical gaming community I have ever seen. No one has even played the game or seen it outside of one trailer and you are all already swearing it off.

Good on you guys!


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Trippy on February 08, 2009, 07:42:37 AM
Cynical is our middle name! :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: NiX on February 08, 2009, 09:00:50 AM
This place would shut down in a day if someone complimented a significant change to an established franchise.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 08, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
This has to be the most cynical gaming community I have ever seen. No one has even played the game or seen it outside of one trailer and you are all already swearing it off.

Good on you guys!

(http://forums.f13.net/Themes/f13/images/f13logo.jpg)


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Phire on February 08, 2009, 03:25:39 PM
This has to be the most cynical gaming community I have ever seen. No one has even played the game or seen it outside of one trailer and you are all already swearing it off.

Good on you guys!

(http://forums.f13.net/Themes/f13/images/f13logo.jpg)

LOL how did I miss that?


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Samprimary on February 08, 2009, 04:27:24 PM
Cynicism is the appropriate and rational response to the world of gaming and gaming news.



Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 08, 2009, 04:28:39 PM
Um, I liked the things like having several distinct classes, not unlimited ammo, no regenerating health, etc. Sorry for not meeting these new developments with unbridled glee.
 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 08, 2009, 07:54:32 PM
Health regen = good.  As long as it's not too fast.

Unlimited ammo = Terrible.  That is an immersion killer for me.  Especially on maps like Berlin. 

Homogenized classes = bad. 


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Geki on February 09, 2009, 08:28:06 AM
Yeah, I do. Bad Company was really fun and I usually hate the level up and unlock guns deal. There was something about the accessibility that made BF:BC so much fun and you had moments where you felt useful over a sustained amount of time.

This is the problem with the BF games (pre BC I guess).  Especially in 2142.  Starting a new char if you weren't already playing the game from launch you are basically a Voss punching-bag with little hope to rank up because you spend 80% of the match looking at the sky.  Whoever came up with the brilliant idea to have to catass in a shooter should be nail gunned to his chair via scrotum lock.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Surlyboi on February 09, 2009, 11:05:16 AM
Yeah, I do. Bad Company was really fun and I usually hate the level up and unlock guns deal. There was something about the accessibility that made BF:BC so much fun and you had moments where you felt useful over a sustained amount of time.

This is the problem with the BF games (pre BC I guess).  Especially in 2142.  Starting a new char if you weren't already playing the game from launch you are basically a Voss punching-bag with little hope to rank up because you spend 80% of the match looking at the sky.  Whoever came up with the brilliant idea to have to catass in a shooter should be nail gunned to his chair via scrotum lock.

This.

Fuck yeah, Seaking.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Prospero on February 09, 2009, 11:20:54 AM
Yeah, I have no patience for that shit. I remember my friend telling me how he only had to play for like 20 hours to get the real sniper rifle in 2142.  :ye_gods: At the same time, I mostly enjoy the TF2 unlocks, because the weapons usually feel more like a sidegrade than an upgrade, and the achievements are fun to get.

I'd be very happy if they just made a shinier BF1942 with a usable server browser. Based on the few descriptions so far, this game is intended for the mythical casual FPS player, which is not I.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 09, 2009, 11:28:28 AM
This has to be the most cynical experienced gaming community I have ever seen. No one has even played the game or seen it outside of one trailer and you are all already swearing it off.

Good on you guys!
FIFY

Because those changes....they suck. DICE has been on the road to shitville for a long time, which is why there were people getting excited because it sounded for a minute like they were going back to the original formula for a release. Should've known better. Fuck DICE.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ashrik on February 09, 2009, 01:08:55 PM
Quote
I'd be very happy if they just made a shinier BF1942 with a usable server browser
Which is what makes this all so much more  :ye_gods: to me

It's so very close! Like a literal stones throw or a user-made mods distance away from what I think would be awesome.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 09, 2009, 02:25:46 PM
It's so very close! Like a literal stones throw or a user-made mods distance away from what I think would be awesome.

I agree, but I think I want a different direction than the rest of you.  Desert combat ruined the game for me.  I want something slower, more tactical, and more infantry oriented.  Seems all the mods were faster paced and more vehicle oriented. 



Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Prospero on February 09, 2009, 02:47:33 PM
i'd be cool with something more infantry oriented if they bumped the player count per server. I'm thinking  64 v 64 with the pacing and vehicles from BF 1942. I always hated hiking for days to get to find some other fucker to shoot at, which made the infantry game less fun in BF1942.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 09, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
i'd be cool with something more infantry oriented if they bumped the player count per server. I'm thinking  64 v 64 with the pacing and vehicles from BF 1942. I always hated hiking for days to get to find some other fucker to shoot at, which made the infantry game less fun in BF1942.

I thought the Berlin city map was a blast were it not for the tanks.  Lots of people in a small space with plent of places to hide. 


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Prospero on February 09, 2009, 03:05:25 PM
True, Berlin city was pretty decent. I'm a fan of the tanks myself though. it was trying to sneak by while they were dueling in the middle. Iwo Jima sucked for infantry though.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Azazel on February 09, 2009, 06:39:37 PM
i'd be cool with something more infantry oriented if they bumped the player count per server. I'm thinking  64 v 64 with the pacing and vehicles from BF 1942. I always hated hiking for days to get to find some other fucker to shoot at, which made the infantry game less fun in BF1942.

The vehicles are what made the BF series for me. Made them different to, you know, every other bloody MPFPS game out there. Also, I was awesome in armour and as anti-armour infantry and as an infantryman and even sniper in general in both 1942 and DC. The only thing I wasn't really good at was flying planes, where I was average, and choppers, where I was ok/decent. I was of course, less so at all of those things in BF2 and less again in 2142 which just had too much in the way of unlocks etc.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Triforcer on February 09, 2009, 06:47:55 PM
Stalingrad was the greatest map I have ever played in any FPS or PvP game, ever.  I was average on other maps, but on Stalingrad pubs I got the gold medal much more often than not.  Damn was that map fun...just go in the back door of the enemy building facing the middle flag, and shoot like four guys in the back...


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 09, 2009, 06:50:14 PM
Stalingrad was the greatest map I have ever played in any FPS or PvP game, ever.  I was average on other maps, but on Stalingrad pubs I got the gold medal much more often than not.  Damn was that map fun...just go in the back door of the enemy building facing the middle flag, and shoot like four guys in the back...

Love that map.  Stairwells and rooms.  Lots of places to snipe.  Beautiful.  More maps like that and Berlin and I'd be a happy man.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Le0 on February 10, 2009, 04:41:04 AM
If the Battlefield gameplay is kept intact this might be good.

I'll give it a try anyway but I'd prefer if they would evolve the franchise instead of re-warming old things.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 10, 2009, 06:55:35 AM
Desert combat ruined the game for me.  I want something slower, more tactical, and more infantry oriented.  Seems all the mods were faster paced and more vehicle oriented. 
I agree. As soon as I saw the popularity of DC, I knew bad things were in store for the franchise.
Quote
I always hated hiking for days to get to find some other fucker to shoot at, which made the infantry game less fun in BF1942.
Sure, if you're playing it like a traditional fps. But as a tactical shooter, the slower pace was great. It wasn't supposed to be about racking up kill counts, it was about winning rounds. In fact, that's one of the main places I think the game falls down on pubs.

I just had some Stalingrad flashbacks. God that was a sick map. Clearing buildings with a fire team was so much fun.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Prospero on February 10, 2009, 10:13:27 AM
Sure, if you're playing it like a traditional fps. But as a tactical shooter, the slower pace was great.

I'm all for slow and tactical, but I like to shoot things. If there's nothing to shoot, then I'm not shooting things, and that's bad. The smaller maps were good fun for infantry, but I can only think of two maps that fit that bill. On the other maps it was all about the planes.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: kildorn on February 10, 2009, 12:29:55 PM
Is.. is that wake island with a goddamned JUMP RAMP?

Christ, I'm done with this industry. Not everything needs to be xxxtreme.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 10, 2009, 12:50:35 PM
Actually, I'd be ok with a jump ramp. On pubs I often liked playing crazy taxi. Drive to a spawn point, yell "HOP IN!" load up and drive to the front. "GET OUT!" Then repeat. Playing chicken with tanks or making roadkill was just bonus material. Seeing how long you could drive an unarmored vehicle through a war zone was fun.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: WayAbvPar on February 10, 2009, 04:41:17 PM
1942 was damned fun, but I still think they hit the sweet spot with BF2. If they could tweak that and add a shitload more maps, I would be all over it for $60. I dug the unlocks- having macro goals made it even more fun.

24 players is not nearly enough, for the reasons stated earlier. With teams that small, it is way to easy to get fucked over by an afker or griefer or two. Also not enough targets with only 12 players to a side unless the maps and stupidly small. That was one of the things that made TF2 wear thin for me.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ShenMolo on February 13, 2009, 08:29:14 AM
No Engis?

No Medics?

Le sigh.....


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 13, 2009, 08:31:55 AM
No Engi's?

No Medic's?

Le sigh.....

Playing a medic sucked unless you were on a dedicated team.  Engineers were the class you played if you knew you would spend the whole game in a tank/vehicle.  I don't mind those going away.  I do wish that they'd create some different types of infantry though.  More weapon/explosives variety would help the game.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 13, 2009, 09:38:43 AM
Medics were friggin' great. In 1942, I played a medic as my preferred non-specialist class (I was an engineer/pilot). So I also disagree about your comments on engineers, they had a great rifle and could wtfpwn against just about everything in the game - infantry, tanks and aircraft.

More weapons and explosives would be great. Except they'd be mmotarded to be unlocks.

Some day the gaming world will homogenize to take the worst of mmo mechanics and console interfaces and hardware limitations to make a gajillion dollars.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: HaemishM on February 13, 2009, 10:12:32 AM
Are you kidding about the medic? BF2 and BF2142, medic was one of the easiest classes to work up unlocks in. All you had to do was heal and revive people and occasionally pop a cap in someone's ass and you get mad points. It was the perfect beginner class because it didn't require you to be a hard core shooter.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Nebu on February 13, 2009, 10:14:28 AM
Are you kidding about the medic?

Never played BF2 and BF2142, so I don't know about the class in those games. 


Edit: I also hope that they a) make it more of a penalty to shoot while running/strafing and b) do something about dolphin diving.  I really enjoyed the fact that you got aim bonuses for being crouched or prone and would love to see aiming tied to fatigue in some way. If you're running and jumping, you shouldn't be able to hit the broadside of a barn. 


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Prospero on February 13, 2009, 10:27:52 AM
I <3 medic in 1942, but I love playing medic in most games, so I could be biased. Teaming up with an engie in a tank was good fun.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Sky on February 13, 2009, 11:10:52 AM
I occasionally healed others as a medic, but I originally took up the class because as assault I'd have a close firefight and then die to the next guy I saw before I could get to a heal closet. So much easier to just duck behind a rock and heal to full. Hell, in some medium range fights you could just prone and heal up between clips. You did lose a bit of damage of the assault gun, but I think the accuracy was a bit better (been too long to remember details).

I also like the way 1942 rewarded positional aiming over bunny hopping. Shit like that and dolphin diving and what ever else these jackoffs come up with in these games, that's why I don't even bother with 'em anymore. That and the utter uselessness of non-clan play on pubs. And the interminable search for a good server, having good ping and players. Almost impossible, and with the server browser many times I just gave up after trying to find a server for a half-hour. I prefer a game where I can log in and play for a half-hour, not one where actually getting to the gameplay takes that long.

Srsly, when 1942 came out, it was my favorite game and I played it constantly. Even with my reductions in gaming time overall and lack of clan play, I still played a heck of a lot of Vietnam and BF2. They took a franchise I loved and instead of improving the faults in a product that was a damn nice change from traditional, they pushed it more in that fast-paced bunnytard direction and have kept doing so. I was on the fence with 2142, never bought it, tried the Heroes beta....just no more interest in DICE products.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ashrik on February 13, 2009, 03:47:35 PM
Well goddamn, I can't find my disks

BTW- The medic has always rocked in BF games. Much better than that useless-if-alone TF2 medic.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: stray on July 13, 2009, 12:48:00 AM
Anyone playing this? I suck (PS3 thumbsticks).  :oh_i_see:

Selling for the nice price of 14.99 though.. Can't beat that.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Jimbo on July 13, 2009, 06:40:26 AM
Back from the beach, we just downloaded it for Xbox 360, I have never played 1942 (played a ton of BF2, BF2142, & BF Heroes), so it is pretty cool.

No Dolphin diving or bunny hopping!  Well so far, they made it so you have to slow down to fire, so you can't run and shoot at the same time, kinda sucks that you can't run and gun, but better than the other crap I remember from BF2.  I still suck at flying a plane in BF (Heroes is the only easy to fly game), but the other vehicles are great fun.  Blowing up the terrain to get to a hidden player is fun too.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on July 13, 2009, 08:21:18 AM
I may be picking this up, for that price, ill just learn-2-use-thumbs. Well, until I get that nice mouse replacement =)


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: sigil on July 13, 2009, 08:48:03 AM
I picked it up.

I am enjoying it, but man do I suck.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: AcidCat on July 13, 2009, 09:57:24 AM
I've been having fun with it (since they fixed the server issues) - it brings back some good memories, but it's different enough to feel kinda new. Great for a quick FPS fix.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on July 14, 2009, 11:53:38 PM
Is anybody as surprised as I was at how well it controls with a controller?  It's battlefield, it's awesome, hit me up for a game on PSN.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: stray on July 15, 2009, 12:46:22 AM
Err, I still suck. I mean, like, I can't kill shit. I haven't put a lot of time in it, but... zero kills. I'm usually not one to complain about controllers, but I was halfway decent in '42.

I'm determined to get better though. Besides the controls, it is the same good ole Battlefield game... albeit with some welcome additions (spaciousness).


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Triforcer on July 15, 2009, 01:11:52 AM
When is the PC version coming out?  And when do we get Euro maps?  Why do these games keep releasing with 3 maps? 


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: stray on July 15, 2009, 01:16:58 AM
Why do these games keep releasing with 3 maps?  

To purposely release DLC, I'm sure :| Then again, I've only paid $15 so far, so I can't complain.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: HaemishM on July 15, 2009, 10:41:52 AM
When is the PC version coming out?  And when do we get Euro maps?  Why do these games keep releasing with 3 maps? 

The PC version is out in September (think it's $29.99) and will come with the Coral Sea map already unlocked.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: sigil on July 15, 2009, 02:44:07 PM
I think I might have provided a full tenth of a  decimal point to the total number of kills needed to unlock last night... oof, that was a rough Iwo Jima...


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Hawkbit on July 15, 2009, 03:45:33 PM
Had fun with the demo.  Seems fairly stripped down and more enjoyable for me. 

Will there be more maps than the three/four already released?  DLC only, I suppose?


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Gunzwei on July 15, 2009, 04:48:28 PM
Loved me some 2142 and looking forward to the new map.

The 24 player limit on 1943 kills the game immeditely for me. It's not Battlefield without 32-64 players.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on July 16, 2009, 06:20:01 AM
I picked this up last night, didn't get a change to play yet. (PS3)


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: jakonovski on July 16, 2009, 06:27:55 AM
Gods, this one is tempting. But I shall not succumb until all the server problems are dealt with! I made that mistake with Bad Company and I'd be an idiot to risk it again.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: stray on July 16, 2009, 06:42:54 AM
I haven't had any server issues, but I'm on PS3, not XBL. It could be different? (no one spaz out and shoot me for this plz.. )


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: ahoythematey on July 16, 2009, 01:09:32 PM
I've played this every day since downloading and I've not had a single problem, but then I'm playing it on PS3...


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: jakonovski on July 16, 2009, 01:14:23 PM
I haven't had any server issues, but I'm on PS3, not XBL. It could be different? (no one spaz out and shoot me for this plz.. )

Yeah, it's 360 specific.


Title: Re: Battlefield 1943
Post by: Mrbloodworth on July 17, 2009, 06:12:08 AM
People need to add Trucegore as a friend...