Battlefield 1943, a.k.a. Maybe it actually works now, awesome.
 

Battlefield 1943 is a download title - heading to XBLA, PSN and PC - due out in the summer and likely to be priced somewhere in the $15/£15 area.

Some things we now know about the game:

• Based on the Frostbite engine that powered Bad Company.
• Will include destructible environments, and buildings can apparently be completely obliterated now.
• 3 player classes: Infantry, Rifleman, Scout
  • Infantry - A close-combat specialist that packs an SMG, hand grenades, an anti-tank rifle and a wrench.
  • Rifleman - A mid-range class that carries a semi-automatic rifle, a rifle grenade, hand grenades and a knife
  • Scout - The sniper class, is kitted out with a bolt-action sniper rifle, C4, a pistol and a sword
• 24 player limit.
• Conquest mode only.
• It will feature three of the series' best maps: Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal and Wake Island.
• No health or ammo packs, both automatically replenish.
• There will be support for private matches.
• There will be player ranks and levels, but no unlockable weapons/perks.

Turns out the game is a little bit of an accident in ways:
Taken from sources, mainly the hands-on from VideoGamer.com: [ source ]

JoyStiq have a hands on with Battlefield 1943:

[ source ]

I'm definitely going to be keeping an eye on this one, as it sounds rather promising.

It doesn't seem as fully featured as BC's multiplayer (obviously), but there are definitely some changes that seem for the better (private matches for sure is something BC needed). Normally I'd be disappointed by a game just having one mode to play, but Conquest is so goddamn fun that it's forgivable. This is definitely gonna be a first day download for me.

And in fairness Conquest is all BF2 had too, so Battlefield players shouldn't be too surprised by it.

As I said in the general news thread, I'll certainly be interested to see if this turns out better than BF:BC was. If it's just another deathmatch game masquerading as a squad game I'll give it a miss though.

Not to change subjects but I heard that BF:BC is considered a horrible FPS. Umm...why? What exactly makes it horrible? Ive always found it to be a good shooter with a gritty and thick GFX engine.

The problem is two-fold. In single player, the balancing is ridiculous, it almost feels like you're supposed to die a lot of the time and you're essentially just charging in, killing a couple of guys, getting killed, respawning and repeating ad infinitum. There's no depth of tactics to it at all, just outright blasting shit.

Multiplayer, for all the tactical play there could be, it just plays like a massive deathmatch. There's no incentive for tactical play and in fact, the way the bases are laid out often encourages you to piss off on your own and avoid the main fighting to sneak a capture.

It's not a terrible game, it's just not as good as Frontlines and barely an improvement on Modern Combat. Frontlines' technical limitations actuially made it a better game to play in a round about way. They wanted 25 a side but that much voice chat would have lagged the shit out of everyone so you can only communicate with four people at once. Whilst this would at first suggest that nobody talks to each other, what actually happened is that players quickly realised that a four man unit is incredibly effective in the game and everyone who squadded up was butchering hordes of death-matchers. Also, by only having bases on the frontline capturable, the fighting is hugely focused in a small area so despite the huge maps, there's always something going on. You get a bunch more points for a base capture than a kill and points mean upgraded secondary weapons each battle so people actually capture bases and make an effort to win the damn game rather than the tendency in Battlefield for half the players to be camping as snipers.

Shin: Are you talking about the Battlefield thing that was on the 360 way back when? Because that was hardly anything like BF2. I loved the shit out of BF2 but hated that version when I tried playing it. Or is this Bad Company we're talking about?

Bad Company, although the criticism of it just being a huge deathmatch holds for the whole series on consoles to date.

Like I say, it's not a terrible game but there are better deathmatch games if I want to play that and better tactical games if I want that, it's just stuck in the middle and a bit nothingy as a result.

Dunno about on the 360, but in BF2 voice chat would only function between yourself and your squadmates. I believe the leader of the squad's commands would also go through to the commander, so the commander only had to listen to a handful of people at a time. When you had most of the people on your team actually using voice chat it could make for some really effective times. I do wish they had it so only the front point or two were capturable for the PC version, though.

BF2 on the Xbox had global voice chat but then it was only 16 a side. Still, you had to use the mute button quite a lot. Wasn't it Kaos who developed the PC version anyway? I think Dice took over the series from the console versions. Could be wrong though. The last Frontlines patch made it so squad leaders can all talk to each other and you can talk to anyone you're sharing a vehicle with which is dead handy as a vehicle with only one person in is a really easy target.

I think Dice did the PC version...I remember them doing BF1 and don't remember ever seeing a splash screen for anything called Kaos, but I also haven't touched the game in at least three years.

Dice did all the battlefield games, Kaos only did mod for battlefield like desert combat and they were soon hired by dice himself after that and together they made battlefield 2.

Actually I think we're both right. Kaos Studios was formed by a bunch of people who left Dice after making the PC version of Battlefield 2. They're essentially all the old people from Trauma Studios who made the Battlefield 1942 desert mod thing who were then bought by DICE, who sold Trauma Studios after the PC version of BF2 came out, at which point they formed Kaos, hence Frontlines being a lot more like 1942.

Edit: Darn, beaten to it.

Eurogamer have a new hands-on up for 1943, and it sounds somewhat promising: Battlefield 1943 Preview - Page 1 // Xbox 360 /// Eurogamer - Games Reviews, News and More

So in a twist that no-one everyone saw coming, Battlefield 1943 will be 1200 points/$15, and will be hitting the 360 and PS3 in June (PC players apparently need to wait until September).

[ source ]

Sounds like a fair price, and a bit cheaper than the $20 some people were predicting. Even at that price though, I hope they still manage to add some free extra content later on (like they did with Bad Company).

Given it's three maps and some stripped down gameplay, I don't know, I don't see why that should be 1200 rather than 800. True it could be worse at the $20 mark, but just thinking about it this is one of those things that'd be a no-brainer must purchase at 800, but becomes a 'question mark, must try the demo, relies on people I know getting it', purchase.

Another thing I didn't even realize was that a new copy of Bad Company only cost $20. Even though it isn't the exact same game, it runs on the same engine and has the same mode in it, along with over double the number of maps and a single player campaign to boot, all for just $5 more. I'm still interested in 1943 because I actually like WWII shooters and I wouldn't mind some variety after playing tons of BC, but if someone hasn't played BC I'd say maybe they should invest in it rather than 1943 unless it somehow turns out to be drastically different.

Don't know if this has been mention, but given the lack of activity on this thread I'm guessing not, but BF1943 is hitting next week on both XBLA and PSN:

[ source ]

So, anyone thinking of picking this up?

I was a huge fan of 1942 when it first came out, and I'm interested to see what this ends up as. However, the fact that its an "edited" edition makes me a little warry. I'll wait for reviews from friends before taking the plunge.

Or just, you know, downloading the demo if there is one.

Since it's XBLA I believe there has to be a trial mode, though what that will consist of will be interesting, since this is a purely online venture.

Bad Company had an online demo, which only let you go up to rank 4 (I forget if your stats carried over to the full game or not) and only consisted of one map. My guess is that they'd do something similar to that.

Anyway, I've still been strongly considering picking this one up. The price is still a bit iffy, and I think it's kind of stupid that they're holding a map back, but the change of setting from BC appeals to me. I guess I could still go either way at this point.

At least the achievements/trophies are pretty easy to get, if that's your thing.

I purchased it tonight. It's pretty much exactly what I always liked about the battlefield games. Simple, and fun. The only downside I can see so far is that they removed prone, but I'm sure it's because they want to keep gameplay fast.

Just downloaded the demo because of an impromptu party invite by omagnus and devo, lets hope a successful game comes of it!