Battlefield 1943! Announced!

[ElephantGuts]

Dear Games Industry

Your continuing obsession with World War 2 is getting creepy.

Please stop it.

Much Love

nilcypher

I really don't see the problem people have with WW2 games. Yes, it's been done a lot, but does that make it bad? I agree that it becomes very repetitive when you're playing unintuitive WW2 FPSs again and again, but that shouldn't apply to ALL types of WW2 games, or the same type if it's done very well.

I don't think you should automatically hate a game and not even give it a chance to be good just because of the setting. WW2 is the perfect war to make games about, that's why it's done so much. Developers are right to want to use it so much, and as long as they're still diversifying when necessary (which they certainly are, COD4, World in Conflict, and Battlefield: Bad Company being excellent examples among others), there's nothing wrong with enjoying a WW2 game.

Also, I don't know if people are talking about it or if it's being overshadowed by this but DICE also announced Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Big day. Now we have Bad Company 2, 1943, and Heroes to look forward to. I love DICE. I just hope they don't try too hard and outdo themselves.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

WEll from the looks of the combat its way more acruate than COD, hopefully they have the Bad Company destruction physics.

 

[mokes310]

YAY, except for the fact that it's in WWII which means I couldn't care less!

 

[jahsol]

WEll from the looks of the combat its way more acruate than COD, hopefully they have the Bad Company destruction physics.

It utilizes the Frostbite engine. Midway trough the trailer it shows trees falling as war rages around them.

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

Oh my God.

Massive capture point WWII combat with prettier graphics and more weapons, equipment and vehicles? Fuck yes.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

WW2 is the perfect war to make games about, that's why it's done so much.

I'm curious about this point. What makes WW2 the perfect war to make games about?

 

[Harbinger_]

I know alot of people are excited about this and kudos to them for getting a new game to be excited over. From me though this is nothing more than a resounding "Meh".

 

[Avida]

Please put 1,9 and 4 back in the damn thread title, those games are waaaaaaay different

 

[jahsol]

Not sure if I would call it perfect.

Couple possible sources for it's continued usage:

1. Modern Media
a)Tom Hanks and his great on film/off film efforts memorializing it's veterans
b)Said movies and their depiction of the storming the beaches of Normandy which spawned games like MoH:AA and BF1942 fueling their popularity

2. The War(s) itself and fascination with them
a) reshaped the world as it was known
b) continues to have implications as a result

3. American/British Bravado
a) clear defined victory
b) North America/UK large consumer of games


On a personal note the theme of a shooter doesn't bother me as long as the game play is up to par. Plus I can't wait to strap myself back into a Spitfire. OK so I might be a fanboy of Battlefield games (-2142)at least I can admit it.

 

[Laughing Man]

Well the word arse comes to mind. 24 players is weak especially since I usually play 50+ servers in BF2 and find that once it drops below 30 the game seems to drag on a bit. Of course I can assume that smaller numbers means smaller maps so what's the chances of this becoming a nade fest like COD4 maps could often turn in to?

I imagine a lot of chopper pilots are gonna be pissed as well 1943 = no choppers and I was really hopping to get my hands on a wider range of more modern combat vehicles and aircrafts rather than old school prop planes.

Of course the fundimentals need to be sorted. The hit detection system needs sorting. Anyone who snipes and has had the bullet miss a stationary target at near point blank range or chopper pilots who have seen missiles go right through their target will know what I am going on about. They need to solve spawn raping issues Gulf Of Oman is a good example of how two guys in the F35Bs can pin the entire enemy air force to the ground all because they decided not to stick a couple of hangers in the end of the runway.

They also have to ensure that EA doesn't get DRM mad on the game's ass.

Finally regarding the video, is it me or does the game look seriously vehicle orientated? With 64 players on the server their was never enough vehicles to go round so you had a lot of on foot combat but with 24 players that's gonna cause an awful lot more vehicle to vehicle combat... also any notice that the map that was shown in that video looked a hell of a lot like Wake Island?

 

[Logan Westbrook]

WW2 is the perfect war to make games about, that's why it's done so much.

I'm curious about this point. What makes WW2 the perfect war to make games about?

Clear good and bad sides? Unlike every conflict afterwards.

That was my first thought as well, but the USSR being on the side of the Allies makes that a slightly harder argument to make. World War 2 saw some horrendous atrocities committed by the various factions, on both sides, which is largely ignored by developers.

Besides, what about the first Gulf War? That, at least superficially, and let's face it, that's as far as developers seem to be willing to go, had goodies and baddies.

 

[jahsol]

also any notice that the map that was shown in that video looked a hell of a lot like Wake Island?

Yes, the three maps are from the 1942 game Wake Island, Guadalcanal , and Iwo Jima. I wish it had Midway. I would love the improved naval battles. From what I gather their intentions behind the game are two fold:
Introduce console gamers to what PC gamers enjoyed about BF 1942, and for the PC gamers introduce them to the Frostbite engine (complete with destructible environments) that the console players have enjoyed.

Battlefield 1942 ( the game that 1943 is an update too)was always heavy vehicle oriented. That's what set it apart from the crowd.

That was my first thought as well, but the USSR being on the side of the Allies makes that a slightly harder argument to make. World War 2 saw some horrendous atrocities committed by the various factions, on both sides, which is largely ignored by developers.

Besides, what about the first Gulf War? That, at least superficially, and let's face it, that's as far as developers seem to be willing to go, had goodies and baddies.

I have to agree with you on this. I say it lays in the glorification of WWII by Hollywood as a direct cause to why the WWII games are still churned out. See "Enemy at the Gates" for your typical Red Army sniper persona, "Saving Private Ryan" for the good ol' American GI. Those two movies alone has been the steam behind this genre not to mention the addition of "Band of Brothers" to the mix (hugely popular amongst WWII enthusiast). They created the formula, and for years gamers have bought into it.

 

[Metonym]

Well the uncivilized atrocities in human history must of course be "relived" in digital form and played again again and again..

THIS is indeed good news!! A spaceshooter would´ve been far worse.



I think I´m going to reinstall BF2.

 

[ElephantGuts]

WW2 is the perfect war to make games about, that's why it's done so much.

I'm curious about this point. What makes WW2 the perfect war to make games about?

Lots of things. It was an extremely brutal, widespread, and overall massive conflict involving many different countries and cultures. It featured a wide variety of weapons, and also a very balanced selection of weapons (with everything from bolt action rifles to MGs, tanks, and flamethrower). I believe the type of warfare is also perfect for gaming, thanks to the many different types of weapons and tactics used. Modern warfare is less suited, to games, since it's more about Tomohawk missles fired from miles away, IEDs, and powerful rifles easily ripping through walls.

WW2 simply has the perfect combination of large numbers of soldiers and tanks, using varied and interesting tactics from covert missions to fighting in trenches to tank charges across open fields to urban combat, and lots of interesting and fun yet balanced and not overpowerful weapons to use.

It has the perfect balance of all these things that no other war or period manages to match.

 

[D_987]

According to OXM:

EA also mention Battlefield 1943, a multiplayer version of Battlefield that will be shrunk down for Xbox Live Arcade release this Spring. This has multiplayer for up to 24 players set on Wake Island, Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima.

EDIT: Didn't realise it had already been commented on.

 

[Zac_Dai]

I really don't think I'll enjoy this if its only 24 player servers for the PC, it will lose so much of the epic feeling.

 

[out0v0rder]

Just cant get excited about this. the market is so saturated with similar FPS titles, im bored with them by now.

how many other large scale, vehicluar based ww2 fps's have been released in the entire history of gaming? I count maybe 3.

WW2 is the perfect war to make games about, that's why it's done so much.

I'm curious about this point. What makes WW2 the perfect war to make games about?

The side that "lost" does not have anyone left in real life to get offended by it.

On a more serious note, it's easier to achieve "balance" when every single weapon does not have 100% accuracy, 100% blast radius, and 100% stopping power unlike modern themed games. You can program your weapons in the game to be a little more "loose" because you can say the weapons were made 60 years ago.

In a modern themed game, It's fun the first couple of times, but just pushing a button and sending a mini-nuke or having a chopper come in and kill everything in one hit gets kind of boring after a while.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

This looks very interesting and I think they will do WW2 very nicely

 

[Ruzzian Roulette]

Finally! This might finally give my father an excuse to get a new gaming comp!

 

[Laughing Man]

The more I read about this game the more I have to agree with the other folk over at BF forums. This game is not BF3.

3 maps
24 players per map
multi format release
no server browser
download only for PC

Uh maybe I have missed something but surely a sequel to something should improve on what came before? So if this is BF3 then surely it has to be better than BF2? Apart from the graphics and possibly the frostbite engine (which I am still not sure about, mainly because I don't know just how destructible the scenery is.) Anyway this certainly doesn't sound like an improvement on BF2 and it certainly doesn't sound like BF3.

I think it's about time DICE stopped faffing about with all these daft mini content, multi format games; BF BC, BF Heroes and now BF 1943 and next year BF BC2. Give us the game we have been waiting for, give us a proper sold and confirmed sequel to BF2, call it BF3 and make it a proper game not some daft mini game designed to bleed cash out of the average gamer via DLC.