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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I'm pretty sure that Battlefield 2 on the Xbox used to occasionally throw your mates onto the other team but I suppose there was no party system back then. The reason they do squad chat rather than general chat is that voip takes up a shit ton of bandwidth. Limiting people to only talking to their squad or anyone within 3 feet of you or in the same vehicle was the only way they could get smooth gameplay with 50 people online in Frontlines, having general chat would have made the whole thing unplayably slow.

I must say I'm finding the concept of having to kill yourself to change teams being a "punishment" quite a difficult one to get my head round. If you want to play on the other team you kill yourself and get invited over. Aside from letting down your current team by switching out, exactly how does this actually hurt you? It can't take that long to die and switch surely so you're not missing out on much of the match during transition are you?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ah, I didn't realise the negative points switched teams with you. Every other game like this I've played restarts you at zero points when you switch teams. I can see then how that would be annoying although again, the final score doesn't directly affect your enjoyment of playing the game one would hope.

I think as far as stats go though you know you've never killed yourself except to change teams so unless you're worried about impressing people with your awesome Battlefield stats or maintaining some spot of a leaderboard then that's not really a problem is it?

And if you are worried about those things then I think you really, really need to get out more.

FELIPE NO

So are you all going to get Worms instead or what?

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

I actually bought this yesterday on the insistence of Phong and Harvey and had a real blast playing it for a few hours. There are a few graphical glitches here and there and whilst the squad splitting can be annoying, it's easily remedied by everyone except the party leader quitting then getting re-invited. Takes about 20 seconds to fix, if that.

The game itself is pretty fun, although I imagine less so without a squad full of mates. That there's only three jobs makes for some balance issues and they really need to make the tanks suffer more damage from rockets although perhaps I'm just too used to Frontlines where any tank can be killed with three rockets and they're homing rockets. I'd prefer a layout of the maps that lead to a more definite attack and defence direction, all too often you capture a flag only to be shot in the back by people capturing the one behind you but again, that could just be too much Frontlines.

It's certainly worth a tenner though if you have some mates to play it with.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

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.

Ha ha, what? Burnout is your idea of frustration free online gaming? You mean you enjoy joining a game, suggesting someone actually starts a race, getting ignored while the host attempts all kinds of 8 man challenges, failing all of them because there's one person in the room just driving around in circles and ending up with everyone just driving up and down the bridge jumping into each other endlessly?

If you want to play team games with more than 4 a side with any sort of tactical sensibilty across the team then you need to start forming bigger parties or prepare yourself for a lifetime of dissapointment mate. There will always be idiots who are playing just to get their kill averages up or to get achievements or to fly the planes because everyone else is a jew nigger fag bitch noob and until they get rid of leaderboards and achievements or make the leaderboards based on highest number of base captures, that's here to stay in games like this. I think it's Frontlines where you get a single point for a kill and ten for a base capture and that encourages people to play it properly, capturing bases rather than dicking about as a sniper in a stupid spot but even then you get queues for the helicopters and people taking them without waiting for a co-pilot.

That doesn't mean you can't have fun though. A group of four or so should be enough to mount a reasonable assault on any flag, especially as you can spawn on your squadmates so can keep up the pressure and there will be the same number of idiots on the other team as on your own so the numbers are still balanced.

Different people get different things out of gaming. Some people like to be the highest scorer every time, some people like to be on the winning team, some like to scream insults down the mic at strangers and some just like to dick about with their mates. I'd never be so bold as to tell you what to play but I imagine you'd get a lot less frustrated with team games if instead of always playing the newest games (Which will attract a vast number of casual gamers just pissing about), you played something a bit older, meaning the try-it-for-a-bit-then-buy-something-shinier brigade will have moved on and the only people still playing will be those who really like the game and probably have a deeper understanding of the sensible tactics and what have you.

In my experience, you get much better matches in unpopular games, assuming you're the type to take your gaming seriously rather than just playing for a laugh.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Played more of this last night and I'm enjoying it more and more. It's slightly annoying that people hang around waiting for planes and leave the carrier in boats on their own but that also works in your favour. On Iwo Jima especially, rather than rushing straight for the shore, you're better off getting two gunners and driving a boat around the far side of the island. You can then pick off people in boats on their own very easily, kill any idiots waiting for a plane on the deck or using the flak guns then capture the nearest objective on the shore (The beach on the Jap side, can't remember the name on the other side) from behind the enemy. Leave a couple of people there to guard it (And if they're snipers keep picking off people on the carrier) then roll up all the bases from behind. You can then rely on people being idiots and coming ashore alone and keep picking them off as they come. I ended up in a squad with a couple of random guys for a couple of matches last night and we wreaked havoc like that with just the three of us. People's almost obsessive need to get loads of kills rather than ever defending bases means you can predict what they're going to do a lot of the time and attacking a base from behind is successful 90% of the time.

I also spent a while on the horseshoe shaped island, camping out with a sniper rifle halfway down the cliff in the middle of the island. You can see four of the bases from there and can't be seen from the nearest road. You can pick people off from range and when you see a tank coming, sneak back up the hill, wait for it to pass and then fuck it up with dynamite.

The more I play this, the more I'm enjoying the number of fucking idiots who play it. It's like none of them have ever played an objective based shooter like Battlefield before and just makes it far too easy and fun for those of us who have.

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

I guess as well people have realised that the planes aren't nearly as lethal as planes and helicopters can be in Battlefield 2 or Frontlines. With a decent pilot and co-pilot in a helicopter you could singlehandedly win a match of either of those. It's incredibly easy to shoot down planes in 1943 and their bombs aren't even that great.

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

You need enough people to populate the map to make it fun though. With too few people it'd just come down to who could run around capturing bases quickest that won, essentially the best jeep driver. I agree that losing a squad member to the other team can be frustrating but it's also kinda fun being able to kill them and then gloat about it down the mic.

As for planes vs AA guns, I've probably had more assists from hitting the plane once before the pilot stacks it into a hillside trying to get under my line of fire than I have had straight kills. I'm not saying they can't be powerful, I'm saying you need a modicum of skill to make them deadly whereas in previous games of this genre an average player can dominate a match just by launching massive barrages of rockets from a helicopter and keeping moving so the appeal of easy points is rather diminished.

Also, as with pretty much every game of this genre, there is still nothing much funnier than planting explosives on a parked plane and waiting for someone to try and fly off in it. Battlefield 2 on Xbox especially you could get monstrous amounts of points by sneaking into the main enemy base as a sniper and loading up the helicopter with C4, then getting to a safe distance and focussing your sights on the cockpit. Anytime someone climbed in you just pressed the trigger for an easy headshot and if they happened to get off the ground (If you were reloading or something), you just blew the C4. It's amazing how many people don't learn and just keep piling into the same chopper over and over getting killed the same way every time. BF2 even had the camera point at who killed you when you died and most people still wouldn't come to try and kill you.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Colonel Dicknigger

No, that would be bullshit. SOmetimes if you're the only person trying to cap a point on your team, sneaking in and wiping out the defenders in one go works pretty well.

You know what should be implemented though? A limit on how many times you can use the bombers in a round. Per player I mean. If you were the last one in there, you should not be allowed to be the next one in. It would, hopefully, cause less camping of that fucking shit, it's so aggrivating.

In Battlefield 2, on the maps with airstrikes you had to crouch in front of it, out in the open while you aimed it, meaning a semi-decent sniper could cover the thing and kill anyone trying to use it. That meant to use the air strike effectively, you had to sweep the area for snipers first and have a couple of people covering you while you used it, so in a game with semi-competent players it tied up three or more people to drop an airstrike and the console was generally miles away from any bases so they were out of action for a while getting there and back, often resulting in a lost base.

So essentially, the bombing raid bunker needs to have an open door so you can shoot the guy using it. If you're in a plane when someone on the other team launches an air strike though that's about the easiest 30 points you're likely to get in the game just for shooting down the bombers.

Like SD, I've not had any connection or lag issues at all since starting to play this last week so I guess it's fixed. In fact the only single moment of annoyance I've had with this was yesterday when I threw some C4 at a tank and it fell straight through it and didn't go off (And the tank driver noticed me behind him with predictable results). The moral of the story is the one I would have thought everyone had learned after Castle Crashers, buying an online only XBLA game in the week of release is a really dumb thing to do.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I think you're both kind of deliberately missing my point there. I was implying that one should wait a bit until other people have played a new game, reported the bugs and they've been fixed before buying it. Luckily for most of us here, we have you two to do that for us and as long as Skills keeps picking up those refunds it's not costing anyone anything anyway.

The best way to stop bombing run camping is to plot up somewhere suitably out of sight with a sniper rifle I find. Doesn't help much when the campers are on your team though. I'd have thought that C4 on or near the door wouldn't hurt either. If it doesn't kill the person inside, you can just wait for the bombs to be released and hit the trigger as only a real fuckwit would stay in the bunker after that point.

I think the thing to remember is that this is an XBLA game and cost a tenner, not a full £35 game so the odd glitch or lack of polish is perhaps fair enough. You could say that it's so cheap because there's only three maps but anyone who played BF2 online will tell you you only ever got to play three maps anyway. I think I've had £10 of enjoyment out of it already to be honest and I'll be playing it on and off until either Frontlines 2 comes out or BF:BC2 comes out and isn't a bit rubbish.

FELIPE NO

Fair enough mate. I'm quite into it mainly because I love games like these, nobody plays Frontlines online anymore and Bad Company was a real dissapointment so it's been a while since I've had some decent objective based squad FPS action.

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

Well there are still people playing it but whereas once you had a choice of several busy game rooms, there's generally just one 50 player game going on and a few smaller ones. Not necessarily a bad thing as the only people playing it now are those who play it properly and you can pick it up for about £7 second hand. I know a lot of people didn't like it though, mainly because the sniper rifle needs a lot of leading to hit properly, the game fogs out to hide redraw distance deficiencies and with 50 people in a room it occasionally lags a bit. £7 is worth it for the single player campaign though in my opinion which is the best of any game like this I've certainly ever played.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

God damn this game is hard using an SDTV. Our house got hit by lightning the other day and it took out the crappy old tv in the bedroom. As such, we moved the HDTV I have hooked up to my 360 in there and I'm having to play through the old SDTV in the front room. You can't tell what colour the little arrows are, the map is next to useless and sniping at distance is pure luck as you can't really tell where people's heads are. Hence I'm mainly playing Guitar Hero at the moment as all the other games I've been playing lately (This and Sacred 2 mainly) really need an HDTV to play properly. I'm going to try and pick up a crappy second hand tv for the bedroom this weekend so I can have my HD one back.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

With sniping in this you have to remember that the bullets dip over distance. Also you need to lead your target to allow for any lag in your connection. I find sniping from long range leads to a lot of assists rather than kills as a result, unless your target is standing still or running straight towards or away from you. Middle distance though you should be alright. Generally if you're shooting from one objective to the next nearest a sniper rifle is a better bet than the rifleman rifle I find. Much closer than that and you're better off with the rifle as you can crack off the shots that much quicker. A good place to practice is on the horseshoe shaped map. Stand about halfway up the hillside in the middle of the horseshoe and you can see all the bases on the arms but generally won't get spotted from the road. You can get some good long range sniping practice in and not get shot at too much although from there you aren't really helping the team effort much.

How ya doing, buddy?

I managed to get the second highest score in an Air Superiority match without ever actually getting in a plane, just pissing about in an AA gun (I was rolling a joint at the time).

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