Battlefield 1943 *SEP-09*

[Dravin]

Nuff Said, right?

Battlefield 1943 - News, Previews, Videos, & Screenshots | Official Site

PS3/XBox - 6/09
PC - 9/09



April 23, 2009 - Today Electronic Arts announced its World War II multiplayer shooter, Battlefield 1943, will arrive on Xbox Live Arcade and the PlayStation Network in June for $15. This is a new game in the Battlefield franchise that allows for 24-player combat in maps inspired by Battlefield 1942. It will be utilizing the Frostbite engine, seen in Battlefield: Bad Company, for environmental destruction.

Three battle locations will be available: Wake Island, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima. Players can fight for either the U.S. Marines or Imperial Japanese Navy over land, sea, and air.

"Using the same Frostbite engine that we developed for Battlefield: Bad Company, we are able to take players back to WWII and return to the roots of the Battlefield franchise, but with a new twist – destruction," said Gordon Van Dyke, Producer on Battlefield 1943. "We want to offer gamers the most accessible online shooter experience and the best value found in any premium download title with Battlefield 1943."

[Ned]

I'm hoping a demo will be released!

[Bulgroz]

only 3 maps in the package, I doubt they'll release a demo?

[Drac]

So the consoles get a decent engine with destructible environments, along with Bad Company 1 & 2 while the PC gets Battlefield "PlaySchool" Heroes.

Yay...

[Jakob_Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Drac

So the consoles get a decent engine with destructible environments, along with Bad Company 1 & 2 while the PC gets Battlefield "PlaySchool" Heroes.

Yay...

No, unless I have been misunderstanding things......the PC will still get the "same" BF1943 game (but it looks like in August from Dravin's post).
BF:Heroes is a seperate game........I think.....

I must admit that I'll probably play both......but none of them give me a woody, like the thought of a BF3 does........

[Drac]

BF:1943 will be a September release for PC which is quite a ways behind the consoles. It highlights that DICE has shifted its focus away form that core PC FPS gamer demographic that got them where they are today.

And despite Mirror's Edge still being one of my favourite games, after playing BF:Heroes I have reservations about DICE's ideas and attempts to set trends in FPS gaming present and future.

They seem to be trying lots of new delivery methods and they're playing with the format and presentation a lot, but what deeply concerns me is that they seem to be content to let the actual gameplay stagnate. They're still re-making the same game over and over and have been doing so for the past 10 years, all that changes is the visual presentation or the platform. Maybe some people like that, but I got tired of it after the inital 1942.

[Spectre8]

I hear you Drac - and feel exactly the same way.

There are trend makers, and trend followers - DICE used to be one, and have become the other. Ironically, they seem to be following their own trends... go figure.

This team, possibly more than any other out there, have the true potential to create something beyond good, beyond the norm, and beyond everything thats out there now... but they can't/won't/aren't. I've no idea if they've been hamstrung by EA (highly likely) but dammit, where's the real innovation? Where's what real gamers really want??

Not here unfortunately.

[Bulgroz]

and where is a map pack that does NOT involve friggin wake island?

DICE fails just because they can't think of any other map besides wake.

[Jakob_Pavlov]

I was thinking about some of the comments in this thread earlier today and whilst I agree with some (especially when put in the context of "BF-lite" titles such as BF:Heroes and BF:1943) I do think that sometimes DICE are not given the credit they deserve.

Alright.....they haven't innovated that much since 1942 or BF2.....but on the other hand.....I cannot think of another game in all the years since those titles that has approached the scale and intergration of those titles. Large scale battles, coordinated using squad structures, decent infantry, seamless transition into vehiclular combat, fun to drive/fly vehicles, a useful (and vitally important) commander mode, BattleRecorder.
When I compare it to the game I have played most since (COD4), BF2 just seems so damn expansive that it puts COD4 to shame (and especially the botched introduction of vehicles into COD:W@W).
I'd pay good money for an updated BF2 right now.....in fact I am fairly sure I'd still be playing it right now if there was a decent community to game with over here.

Just my thoughts, not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking!

[Buttersoft]

Originally Posted by Drac

while the PC gets Battlefield "PlaySchool" Heroes.

The bad company titles weren't very good either. And 1943 looks even worse. Very console. The real BF games were always about tactics. Besides, the consoles can't compete with the mouse when it comes to FPS and everyone knows it

[see pavlovs post above. The integration, it's all about the integration But very true, real BF games (all four of them) deliver a much richer experience. There's still inf, even if not so seamless and brutal as CoD4, but if you really wanted brutal you'd be playing quakeworld still, cos there's never been anything faster or nastier]