[Multiplatform] 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:

Quote:

Just after development on BC wrapped up, a few staffers thought they'd try to remake a 1942 map in the Frostbite engine, just for the laugh. The result was considered too good not to be released in some way. Hence, 1943, a game that was then squeezed into DICE's SKU count for 2009.

Taken from sources, mainly the hands-on from VideoGamer.com: [ source ]

JoyStiq have a hands on with Battlefield 1943:

Quote:

1943 is limited to Battlefield's now classic Conquest Mode, where teams must capture all the flagged territories around the map. Once captured, these territories become spawn points, with one designated as the "frontline," indicating where the most action is taking place. More calculating players can choose to spawn closer to home base (say, an aircraft carrier) and ride a boat to shore or hop in a fighter plane.

Calling to mind Warhawk (on PSN), 1943 features two layers of play: first-person shooting and air combat. Admittedly, our only flight ended in a quick, spiraling dive into the sea, but, theoretically, a squad of fighter planes could do some major damage to an opposing team. We stuck to the ground, though, sniping, rat-tat-tatting, or simply tanking through the enemy. You know the drill.

And that's 1943. A familiar kind of fun, served small -- an appetizer portion of a game. At $15-20 (we're told), 1943 will fall into the pricier tier of downloadable titles (on PSN, XBLA and PC), but justified by its inherent replayability -- supported by a "stamp and postcard" rewards system -- in addition to Trophies and Achievements. But the real draw is a social one. 1943 is team-based, and developer DICE promises to improve upon the squad system featured in Bad Company. In this sense, teams are split into three, four-player squads (24 total match players), surely a perfect opportunity for several friends to get together, if just for a few rounds. DICE is also focused on developing a functional "party" system, essential for any respectable team shooter; but that technology is not complete in this stage of development.

Still, Battlefield 1943 Pacific looks to be on track for its scheduled summer release. Not a blockbuster by any stretch of the imagination, but a solid featurette to enjoy before you launch whatever you have in your disc drive. Keep your radars locked.

[ source ]

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Rockgamer

Normally I'd be disappointed by a game just having one mode to play, but Conquest is so goddamn fun that it's forgivable.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate 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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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).

Quote:

Now, we're happy to report that the game will arrive on XBLA and PSN (1200/$15) sometime this June (PC gamers get it in September).

[ source ]

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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:

Quote:

EA has announced that Battlefield 1943 will be released on Xbox Live Arcade next Wednesday and PlayStation Network next Thursday.

Battlefield 1943, which costs 1200 MSP (GBP 10.20 / EUR 13.96) on Live and GBP 10 on PSN, re-imagines Battlefield 1942 - the game the entire series was built upon.

[ source ]

So, anyone thinking of picking this up?

FELIPE NO

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.

Most amazing jew boots

This is literally the best menu system I have ever played. 10/10

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Don't have an Xbox? Don't want to waste spend 1200 MS points until you know what the game is like to play? Well, now you can have the authentic Battlefield 1943 experience right here in your browser.

YouTube Video

There's nowhere I can't reach.

This game can seriously get fucked. After endless searching earlier I finally make it into a game, one which is horrifically unbalanced. "Oh well, the game moves the teams around" I think to myself remembering how Skills and I, having entered the game through the 'Play with a friend in a squad' function, had been split up after a round because we were doing too well. Nope, no dice, just unbalanced teams for a few rounds. Sod that.

Then later when I return to try again, the game has a new trick up its sleeve. It was letting me join games easily enough, though it decided that I was doing too well at certain points and froze my whole Xbox up. Five times.

The most frustrating part is when it's good, it's fucking fantastic. This is great fun when it's working. The problem is that that's fucking rare.

This is shoddy fucking work, and if I was part of the team responsible I'd be about ready to top myself from embarrassment.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Devo, Ultima and I: a fucking force to be reckoned with. Also, the only three people doing a damn thing on our team.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Ultima

Best Squad Award 15 times. Seriously though, fun times guys.

We definitely came the top squad most of the rounds we played, but I swear last time I checked the stats page I only had the badge x8. To be honest, I don't entirely trust EA's stats reporting, it seems far too flaky and unreliable (I know Skills mentioned it took ages for the game to acknowledge the Best Squad achievement he'd already earned).

I also wonder why the game doesn't give you actual stats to look at rather than that stupid awards page. If you know how many people I've killed, how many flags I've capped, etc, then why can't I see those numbers?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah, I'm still disappointed I didn't get my 1006% rank upgrade. Should have taken a picture of that, that was a really "WTF?!" moment.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Soldier profiles have apparently been disabled according to a news story on the site:

Quote:

Soldier profiles turned off

You guys just love us too much! The soldier profiles need to be optimized. We're estimating that it will be a few days, but we'll bring the profiles back to you as soon as we can.

So yeah, don't even bother.

Also, if I'm not mistaken (and the thing is actually working), apparently the Xbox kill count is already up to 27 million. Christ.

FELIPE NO

Reading some comments on a news bit about the BF1943 server issues, saw someone reply to another user who mentioned the issue with squads potentially being split on map change.

Apparently, provided there's room on your team, you can do the My Squad > Invite trick (that we found works in game to get a squad back together if something goes wrong) even if the people have been moved to the other team. No idea if it'll work, but could be worth bearing in mind if we encounter that issue again when playing.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Try teamswapping when you're dead. The "suicide when you want to change teams and still alive" has been a rule pretty much as long as I can remember for any team-based FPS game.

That's fine RR, except this isn't teamswapping in the sense that most FPS games punish you for. There's no menu option to teamswap, so you can only do it if you're friend is on the other team. And it only happens if the game has decided to split you and your friends (who were on the same team, in the same squad) onto opposing teams. It's the fact that the game is at fault for the need to swap that it's sort of a kicking whilst you're down thing to punish you for points because you're trying to correct the game's fuck up.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You get penalised in points and stats Shin. It's counted as a suicide, so you get -10 points, and do hurt the team you end up on.

How ya doing, buddy?

No, not worried about it, but it's still punishing you for the game fucking up. It's more about the principle that the actuality.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Game has been deleted. I feel better already.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The game may well be less annoying than it was, but it's still plenty frustrating, mostly now because of the sheer number of idiots populating the battlefield. I'd be very surprised if many people beyond the GFFer (and associates) filled squad were doing anything sensible, and the number of people I found just randomly camping useless locations. That coupled with issues where the game ignores damage sometimes, vehicles are random as shit (lol @ Devo's jeep image), and various other inconsistencies.

The game can be fun, but it's fun tinged with a lot of frustration and annoyance, and the rather irritation-free fun I've been having in Burnout Paradise reminds me that I don't need to put up with that kind of bullshit annoyance in games when I have so many better options available. Hell, I'd rather risk reload glitches in Call of Duty 4, as ultimately that's still a far better game in my book.

I was speaking idiomatically.

99% of the people I've encountered in Burnout online these days are interested in actually doing challenges, actually doing events or something else. It's not been difficult to get a good group of people together at all, and I'd be happy to host a session of races with you and other GFFers online sometimes.

Anyways, that's for another thread. I know you get dumb people in all sorts of games, I'm not arguing that point, but it's the number of idiots I encountered in BF1943 PLUS the various gameplay issues on the game's side that make it frustrating. When there's no perceivable lag why the hell should a clip of bullets to the back of someone's head, that the game tells me are hitting, not work? And then one shot at distance on the same dude later results in a kill?

But yes, the number of idiots I've run into is crazy. So many games I'd find it was just me and Devo (and bear in mind this was before all you guys decided to buy the game, so it was literally me and Devo, sometimes Ultima if the game would let him join us) would be the only people doing anything on our team. And with just two people it's hard work, and depressing when the second we'd stop defend a flag and go to take another the one we'd just left would start flashing as it was being claimed by the enemies. I did bloody well in BF1943, and at times it was a lot of fun, but the fun/frustration ratio was too heavily tilted in the annoyance camp for me to continue wasting time with it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

There's also the fact that DICE have previously put out Battlefield games capable of being played by less players that the entire map requires. I'm not sure about BF1942, but in BF2 nearly all maps could be played in various player number configurations, with the out-of-limits zone being changed (the whole "You are leaving the play area, return in XX seconds" stuff) and the number/location of bases shifting to better suit smaller numbers. Why not offer that sort of option as it'd be piss easy to do. Or hell, why not just let the players choose if they want to start a server with just two people? You can eliminate all stats gathering from private games, so people couldn't achievement whore or stats boost, simple.

I agree with you Shin, the game maps as is would be terrible with a handful of players, the odd time I ended up in a game that was only 6-8 people a side it felt pretty empty, but why not allow people to make that choice themselves?

P.S. I stuck up my review on Prime Gamer, so you can all go and post there about how you disagree with me - Prime Gamer Review: Battlefield 1943

FELIPE NO

I think you'll find - and feel free to point out any instances where this is not true - that I refer to all times of having connect issues in the past tense and point out that these are problems I experienced when playing the game during its first week and some. I acknowledge that things are now seemingly better (I say seemingly, because all I can go on are people's reports such as yours).

I'm reviewing a game based on my experiences with it, which largely consisted of issues trying to actually connect. Yes, I haven't played recently, but that's because the early experience annoyed me sufficiently to put me off playing (and not entirely to do with connection issues, but those were a big part of that).

I'm not quite sure what you expect me to do when reviewing the game, ignore all the shitty experiences I had? I'm pretty sure I point out that it's a good game underneath the crappy stuff I ran into. Plus I really don't go on about connection stuff too much (there's a block at the top, and it's referenced in the summary). Fair play if you disagree with me and I'm really pleased for you if you're having a good time with the game, but my experience with it was much different and the review reflects that.

Daravon, if you're game, I'd be interested to put up a counter-point review on the site if you'd be willing to write one (I don't mean just sit there slagging me off and saying I'm wrong, but present your own point of view as you clearly have a different experience with the game).

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Colonel Dicknigger

Only buying Crashers a week later would have solved nothing.

And, indeed, buying months after release still wouldn't have helped. You'd have had to waited, what was it 8 months or so before any issues to do with connections got fixed. So not really the same. Plus Behemoth is a 2 man team, EA/DICE is a pool of hundreds of experienced devs who should know better. Let's not start comparing apples and solar systems now.

As Skills said, it's clear that they've actually fixed a lot on the connection side of things and that's great. If you're having an excellent time with the game then brill, I really am pleased for you. However, for all the fun bits I encountered there was a lot of annoy stuff. Originally that was connection issues, but once those started to subside it was more the weird quirks that occurred far more often than I was willing to put up with.

For example, Shin, you mentioned putting C4 on a tank and it dropping right through. I had at least 2 times where I shot a tank at very close range with a rocket only to see the rocket fly straight through the tank. I had a couple of times where I threw C4 down and the C4 either fell through the map or didn't actually materialise properly. I've unloaded whole clips into people (with the hit indicator telling me I was hitting) to no effect. I've had people firing at me from about 2 foot away and no triangle appear over them or on the map (that one was happening a lot actually). I've been killed as I was exiting a bombing run shelter before I had any sort of control over my character. I've accidentally set of C4 when I was too close and killed myself, but not the enemy stood between me and the C4. Etc, etc, etc.

It is a good game. The Battlefield series has always been strong and well designed. It's just not a very well put together game.

Jam it back in, in the dark.