Battlefield 1943 this September - Page 5

Memento-Mori · 03-09-2009, 04:51 PM

I don't care about the setting, but no revives, no healing kits, no ammo kits, no repair kits - these things will kill the game for TG. My only hope is that BFBC2 will be moddable and we can get a decent game out of it.

trekfan · 03-10-2009, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Memento-Mori

I don't care about the setting, but no revives, no healing kits, no ammo kits, no repair kits - these things will kill the game for TG. My only hope is that BFBC2 will be moddable and we can get a decent game out of it.

I second that. I never really was found of Bad Company to begin with.

I much prefer Battlefield as we all know, lots of people, lots of carnage, and great tactics and fun. If BF3 does hit shelves in November, that'd be cool, but until then I'm sticking with 2142.

Will they ever get here with BF3?

**TG Latina** · 03-10-2009, 03:38 AM

I'm not sure what will happen when Battlefield 1943 comes out. I know that I will certainly give it a try. I know that all the BF series were fun and would hope that once they release the game that it will evolve. I love BF2142 and I'm not quite burnt out by it....but I will continue to stick with this until they decide to make something that will rock BF2142 out the water

**pred011586** · 03-10-2009, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TG Latina

I'm not sure what will happen when Battlefield 1943 comes out. I know that I will certainly give it a try. I know that all the BF series were fun and would hope that once they release the game that it will evolve. I love BF2142 and I'm not quite burnt out by it....but I will continue to stick with this until they decide to make something that will rock BF2142 out the water

The bolded statement is not only so very true, but is quite surprising. Out of all the games I've played, none has captured my continuous attention and desire to play this one. Every other game I've played I've either quit, or grudgingly continued to play without actually enjoying the game as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that I would give BF1943 a try, at the very least, but it has a huge shoes to fill if I'm going to play it full time, let's see if DICE can deliver!

**Superfast** · 03-10-2009, 05:42 AM

It'll be fun for a while, but i don't think it will have for long-term playability for us.

**austforbeer** · 03-10-2009, 11:26 AM

I think that it's focus is more of a gateway for new players to become acquainted with the type of Battlefield style of game play.

When you think about all the newer weapons in Battlefield 2 let alone 2142 it's a different game. I don't think I'd want to play another WWII game anyway. I'll stick with 2142 until at least Battlefield 3. If anything I'm just disappointed that it's going to take longer for a Battlefield game that I want to play come out.

That's how I'm rationalizing it anyway...

**oniell121** · 03-10-2009, 12:31 PM

Same here. From the in-game play footage it looks to be exactly that aust. But if people can use it to learn how to play the others then come to TG, all will be good.

Pfeil22 · 03-10-2009, 03:49 PM

I don’t see Battlefield 1943 appealing to the PC gaming crowd here, but it looks like a fun title for console gamers. Xbox LIVE Arcade titles are geared more toward casual gamers and have strict size limitations to make them easy to download. It looks like DICE put something together to promote the franchise and simply get more people playing Battlefield. A stripped-down version of Battlefield 1942 could prove to be popular with console converts and a great introduction for gamers unfamiliar with the series.

On the other hand, Battlefield: Bad Company is a solid game and certainly worthy of the franchise tag. It does shift focus from epic battles involving large forces to small skirmishes between squads, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The Frostbite engine is fantastic and there really isn’t anything in Battlefield 2142 that compares to flushing out a sniper by blowing the roof off of the house he’s using to hide in.

The squad system isn’t as horrible as Exploding_Silver makes it out to be. You can form your own squad and join friends in other ones. Squad Leaders and objectives aren’t assigned by the game engine, but that shouldn’t be an issue for this community. Personally, I found respawning to be handled much better in BF: BC. You can either spawn at any Control Point owned by your team or any member of your squad. If your squad is wiped off the map, then the next member to respawn has to pick a Control Point. If anything, a lot of the changes force players to communicate more with each other to be successful and further promote teamwork.

Neither titles may prove to be popular among the BF2142 crowd within Tactical Gamer, but I’m not sure either has really been developed with that type of gamer in mind.

RogueTheory · 03-12-2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razcsak

Why do people say this? Its a good example of combined-arms warfare against an equally equipped foe. Almost all modern warfare games have to be asymmetric if they'd like to approximate realism, why not use a setting that doesn't?

edit: Fine, what setting would you like to see?

People say this because it's true.

There are countless WWII games out there, too many to even name. Where does it stop? Battlefield 1944? Battlefield 1945? To each his own, but frankly I'm quite tired of using weapons from over 6 decades ago. What's the point of adding to an oversaturated genre when you can be innovative and add something new to the scene?

Yes, you're right, WWII was an example of a symmetric situation, but noone said that to simulate realism you have to simulate current real life events. A little tweak to the story here and there, and there you go. Problem fixed.

I would rather see something either slightly more modern, or something truly futuristic to the point of sci-fi. I'm sure Battlefield 3 will not disappoint.

**PM07SNV** · 03-12-2009, 10:35 AM

We need another world war to base more games on....

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger · 03-12-2009, 09:32 PM

Careful what you wish for

**TrippyD** · 03-13-2009, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PM07SNV

We need another world war to base more games on....

Well 2142 is based on a made-up world war and it's better than the other games imo, so maybe we should stick with that formula lol

**Exploding_Silver** · 03-27-2009, 08:30 PM

http://www.totalgamingnetwork.com/ma...eply&p=2417460

more news, a really good 8 min video there where interesting info comes out

from video DICE senior dev "on pc version of battlefield we had pretty good squad system, in bad company 1 it was pretty basic, so now we implement proper squads"

"We have designed the levels now with 24 in mind, but that's not hard-coded. You can always squeeze in more players," Liu says when we ask about the PC version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ba...-1943-hands-on
"We have designed the levels now with 24 in mind, but that's not hard-coded. You can always squeeze in more players," Liu says when we ask about the PC version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ba...-1943-hands-on
There's also a squad command system, similar to Battlefield: Bad Company. Commands are context-sensitive, so if you're staring at an enemy flag and issue an instruction, your comrades are told to attack; if you're staring at your own flag, they're told to defend. You can also spawn next to anyone else in the squad, rather than just the squad leader, so if he's a sniper hiding out in the distance, you can pick someone closer to the action and materialise there.

**Exploding_Silver** · 03-29-2009, 09:19 AM

some new screenies

RogueTheory · 03-29-2009, 11:24 PM

http://gdc.gamespot.com/story/620692...opslot;title;2

More content for those of you looking forward to the game.