Battlefield 1943 Comments by Tom Bramwell
Splatters from Iwo Jima.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-42 of 42 in total
Poster
|
AphoticCosmos
27/03/09 @ 13:37
0
Will get it simply for some BF love, but I really want BF3 kthx >:|
|
|
4thVariety
27/03/09 @ 13:43
0
Cheap throwaway multiplayer game, why not. Pay $15, play it for a few week, forget it ever happened. Six months later, same game new textures. It sure beats a $60 game nobody is going to play a single day longer than the cheap counterpart.
|
|
0
@dsmx
3 maps? even the bf hero's beta has 3 maps and when that launches it will be free. I'm struggling to see what the point in bf1943 is. I dare say it's an experiment: will we make enough money on smaller projects like this for them to be viable/more lucrative than spending loads more cash and time on bigger projects? Probably followed by: how much will people pay for extra maps? |
|
shamblemonkee
27/03/09 @ 14:25
+1
bagpuss, do you really need to spout off that shit in every thread about this game, including the video comments?
if you're not interested.. jog on. looks good to me i enjoyed the original and will take a peek at this. |
|
AphoticCosmos
27/03/09 @ 15:10
0
24 players isn't enough to really capture the feeling of an epic battle.
Fail! :P Y'know they said within the same paragraph that it's not a hard-coded limit ;) |
|
Jonny5Alive7
27/03/09 @ 19:49
0
I agree with Bagpuss at the top of the comments. I'm a huge Battlefield fan but going back to WW2 just feels like a step backwards. Battlefield 2 was awesome, I want a sequel to that which is even better. Plus I used to love 64 player servers, where sometimes it just went crazy because there was so much going on. I'd prefer this to 24 players only.
Also the maps they're doing are classics, but is it not a bit lazy just rehashing the same old maps and just changing the scenario slightly?
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 27/03/09 @ 19:50
|
|
0
@glaeken
@sneetch Yeah but aside from history helicopters were only in one of the expansions to 1942 that no-one ever played and did not feature on the Pacific maps nor have they featured in any of the media so far release for 1943. Ah. Fair enough so. I'm not sure whether they'll be all that good anyway, are they even armed, I wonder? |
|
Anthony_UK
27/03/09 @ 22:15
0
Didn't the console version of battlefield 2 also have a 12 player limit per team? That was perfectly fine.... I was worried about this, but after just watching an in game vid on gametrailers (sorry on my iPhone so can't link) I really can't wait! It'll keep me going till the main event of bad company 2! And modern warfare 2 and flashpoint 2......I just won't be leaving the house the later half of this year! :-)
|
|
hollowroom
27/03/09 @ 22:34
0
Bagpuss
BATTLEFIELD 3 ....... Not this time wasting crap.....i played Battlefield 1942 , 7 years ago ffs, i have no desire to play a version for 'console kiddies'. BATTLEFIELD 3 IS WHAT WE WANT DICE. This this and this again. |
|
RedSparrows
27/03/09 @ 23:08
+1
Naysayers, shut up. This is an interesting idea for XBLA/PSN, hopefully it will end up being yumz. I doubt you hardcore leet types are going to be ignored for ever.
|
|
metalangel
28/03/09 @ 08:57
0
Katanas!? Fuck off, seriously. Every map you'll be dealing with twats just charging at you and one hit killing you. They had them on ONE map in Forgotten Hope and it ruined it. Also, no explanation of how we will repair vehicles/heal teammates in the absence of the medic and engineer classes.
|
|
Tetsuo_Shima
28/03/09 @ 10:09
0
Three maps shouldnt be too big a problem since players of bf2:mc insisted on the 3-map b2f/backstab/hidden pass cycle anyway. This is a purchase for me, so long as it is 1200 points (or less).
|
|
PearOfAnguish
28/03/09 @ 13:58
0
Real Battlefield fans want a remake or follow-up to 1942, not more modern warfare gubbins.
|
|
BiffTanner
28/03/09 @ 14:47
0
"Real Battlefield fans want a remake or follow-up to 1942, not more modern warfare gubbins."
Couldnt agree more, which is why im psyched for 1943, just hope more maps are to follow. Its all well and good for another modern day BF at some point but since we have had modern day and future setting most recently a ww2 setting should be done first imo. |
|
Jonny5Alive7
28/03/09 @ 21:58
0
Why? Theres gazillions of WW2 shooters already, plus not that much changed between 1942 and 1943 :-)
|
|
0
should be good it will ease the wait of BF-BC2 but i have to agree i would love a BF-3 still 1943 and bf-bc 2 is a welcomed pair for me.
i find the BF games probably the best online FPS ever i love KZ2 and COD but BF just makes you feel in a epic battle on epic sized maps you really feel part of the frontline just love the series ! |
|
metalangel
29/03/09 @ 12:11
0
mrbozzey you might enjoy Frontlines, same guys who made the Desert Combat mod.
|
|
aphexstwin
30/03/09 @ 09:29
0
am i the only one who doesnt want destructable environments? some of the best fights in bf2mc are over well defended buildings and the barrels of doom thread on the forum was awesome. bfbc just doesnt have that same feeling of pure humour to it, nor a sense of easy gameplay. i love the look of the fb engine, just dont like its physics. and no ww2 backstab? no sale!
|
|
+1
I played the snow village demo of Battlefield 1942 against bots for about 3 years. Hours a day, day in day out. At the time I had a crap internet link and I never tired of that demo. After some months, I bought the game but it had higher system requirements than the demo and my PC was incapable of running it properly. I went back to the demo. Now I have a fat internet pipe and DICE are promising me a version that is sure to work on my 360. Will I be buying it? Oh my most indeedily doodily! In fact, I am expecting a life altering experience. In fact, I am getting quite pathological about the idea of land mines and C4. I am oiling up my looney laugh, I am. See you all in a couple of weeks. Bring your own matches.
|
Comments: 1-42 of 42 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
