Battlefield 1943 - first opinions?

[Kukakkau]

Okay just finished watching the trailer for the upcoming Battlefield 1943 title:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTu5AgY03c0

According to the video "Players can prepare for action in Battlefield 1943?, an all-new multiplayer game available this summer via PlayStation®Store, Xbox LIVE? Marketplace and on the PC." It also goes on to say that it will support 24 multiplayer action - however there only appears to be three levels

I thought that it looks imilar to Battlefield 2 in gameplay elements and level design (well the chinese levels at least), but it looks petty good. It is even making use of the new frostbite engine used for Bad Company (just hope they have improved on it) which could make the experience kinda cool.

Although they seem to be making the same mistake as CoD by going back to WW2, which for most people is a hollowed out genre of shooter. I still think it looks like fun but i tend to find that WW2 weaponry makes combat too slow for me - I know it's realistic but I like my pace.

Personally I have only played Battlefield 2 (PC and modern combat) and Bad Company, so i haven't seen the supposed gem that is 1942

So what do you all think will it be unsuccessful or shadowed by other Battlefield titles.
Or are we seeing an impoved Battfield 1942 worth buying?

 

[spyrewolf]

It first sounded really good but now i'm not interested because they have really cut it down from 1942. Also the games is appears to be suffer from consolitis from what was reported at the New York Comic Con with the game having only 24 players, unlimited ammo and regen health. So no medics class then... cunts. Nice way to kill some team work.

not necessarily, bad company had some elements of regen health, like the life-2 and the medipack, they better not get rid of the medics thats the class i play

 

[shaboinkin]

bigger teams

I liked bf2142 due to the 32vs32 games. You had so much crap going on around you at one time.

 

[Ronwue]

Not another world war 2 game... /sigh.... That's my first impression.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I looked at the wikipedia page, and it gave this as one of the features:

"Ability to level up, but won't give you weapons or abilities"

Seriously, what's the point in it then?

I'm not so sure. I absolutely LOVED BF1942, and a new-gen remake seems amazing, but considering how watered down it is (other than with graphics and some gameplay improvements) I don't think it'll have a lot of potential to it.

 

[the jellyman]

I'm kind of surprised to learn that it's only set in the pacific. Part of the appeal of Battlefield 1942 is the way that you can do all kinds of different battles in lots of different settings, not just slogging away at yet another sun-drenched holiday resort at yet more japanese. I hope you can still drive battleships (they make great dodgems).



In any case, I think they should redo battlefield vietnam. That wasn't a game, just a griefing stimulator. and the AI was crap.

 

[Inquisitor Slayde]

I have little to no interest in this game. I really enjoyed BF2142. I enjoy that style of game, but when you go back to the rapidly drying well that is the WW2 shooter and pull up a shallow bucket, I'm not exactly falling over myself to get at it.

An update of 2142 would perk my interest, a bimbo version of 1942 does not.

 

[The_Prophet]

I WILL NOT BUY A WW2 GAME AGAIN!

 

[curlycrouton]

I'll just stick with Battlefield 2 thanks.

Unless it turns out to be ground-breakingly popular, the developers seem to be variating the game too much from the original Battlefield formula, which made it great.

I mean, come on, no medic class? Unlimited ammo? What are they thinking?

I'd much prefer an updated Battlefield 2, as opposed to Battlefield: 1943, which looks set to be completely different.

At least it has Wake Island, and destructible trees.

 

[spyrewolf]

...aaah! so it more likey vehicular based combat, planes, boats ect, thats not too bad if they take this route, large naval battles could be fun, (i haven't watched the vid yet works computers block the tube)

 

[Matsamu]

It does seem like an amped up version of 1942, in that the missions seem similar but it's more hardcore, and more difficult in general...It doesn't seem like a bad game, however, and i quite enjoy playing 1942 whenever i get the chance. I'd say that i'm looking forward to it.

 

[gigastrike]

Not looking foreward to it.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

I'm worried by the multi-platform aspect; there may be a loss of depth due to control limitations. Apart from that, the prospect of BF'42 with better graphics and the various BF2 enhancements sounds pretty dang good.
I hope we finally get a 1939 scenario of some sort.

 

[Kukakkau]

It first sounded really good but now i'm not interested because they have really cut it down from 1942. Also the games is appears to be suffer from consolitis from what was reported at the New York Comic Con with the game having only 24 players, unlimited ammo and regen health. So no medics class then... cunts. Nice way to kill some team work.

Really? Well there goes the whole teamwork element that set it apart from most other shooters that focus on kills.

 

[edinflames]

It first sounded really good but now i'm not interested because they have really cut it down from 1942. Also the games is appears to be suffer from consolitis from what was reported at the New York Comic Con with the game having only 24 players, unlimited ammo and regen health. So no medics class then... cunts. Nice way to kill some team work.

If all this is true then i'm staying well clear. 1942 was a genre defining classic, BF2 was also brilliant (though the aircraft/choppers were harshly overpowered), but it looks like DICE have gone retarded and made Halo:1943.

God damn the lucrative market of console players and the success of Halo that drives all these FPS games to clone its gameplay mechanics and thus ruin themselves. Just to be clear i think Halo is good, but nearly all games that copy the mechanics are rubbish; to quote Mac from Sunny in Philly: "that sounds boring and shit".

Im sure the Xbox360 version will be enjoyable, but the PC version will have lost the crucial gameplay element that differentiated the Battlefield games from virtually every other FPS, namely: purposeful and productive teamwork being the necessary key to victory. Now it just looks like killcount = victory. Might as well play Day of Defeat, at least the relative weakness of individual players forces teamwork as does well designed maps and balanced weaponry.

 

[mokes310]

My opinions might be changing slightly. I'm not psyched about the WWII setting, but the game looks like it might be a good time.

 

[Fraught]

Come on, they had a game named Battlefield 1942. Now they're making 1943.

How can you seriously take this game seriously?