Snap Judgment: Battlefield 1943

Actually, Snapped Judgment would be more applicable to my personal experience with this game over the past week. My first day was spent Googling various iterations of "EA connection problems" and scouring forum threads for solutions to why I couldn't get beyond the initial connection to the EA server (never mind a secondary game server). Logging into EA's website, my Gamertag was clearly linked to my EA account -- no problem there. Attempting to connect through several other EA games (which had worked fine in the past), though, revealed that my problem had become console-wide.
After following several red herrings -- deleting, re-downloading, searching for the elusive FaceBreaker demo -- I did finally succeed at connecting to the EA server and thereby gained "permission" to attempt to connect to a Battlefield match. Guess how?
Gallery: Battlefield 1943
Game: Battlefield 1943 (XBLA*)
Time spent: Approx. 2 (playable) hours
My enlistment began after I unplugged the power supply and Ethernet cord, let things stand for a minute, plugged everything back in, and turned on the Xbox 360. My EA server connection issue, of course, was now solved. Up to this point, I had heard plenty about the Battlefield title screen's so-called "minigame" -- you know, where you furiously pound "A" until you join a match -- and I was curiously looking forward to this challenge as I read the ominous warnings on the updates ticker. To my surprise, I joined a match on my first try, and it was relief that now swept over me.
Not so fast, Ransom-Wiley. I was up against tremendous lag. It was two steps forward, one step backward, as if I was constantly pushing through folds in time. And push I did. It was the itch that drove me. Conceptually, I had built up a lot of enthusiasm for Battlefield 1943. Here was a proven gameplay formula, pared down and packaged for digital distribution. And its timing was perfect. It served as a summer lead-in to the big-budget first-person shooters to come. Whether or not it lasted beyond those titles didn't matter. This was a cheap thrill.
The catch is the concept can't be separated from the connection. Offline, you can level a lone island as its sole inhabitant (a "tutorial" mode), but Battlefield is -- with no exception -- an online-only multiplayer game. When it's working, it's wonderful. I've managed to play in a-half-dozen or so flawless matches and was easily entrenched in the engaging territorial tug of war. The game looks as good as most you'd be loading from a full-priced retail disc, and the vibrant colors add a lively accent to the otherwise horrific death and destruction that abound. (Some players have gotten really good, really fast with those planes.)
I imagine, as with any team-based game, that working in a four-player squad adds more depth and greater re-playability to Battlefield, which is limited to three maps (and a fourth, air-only challenge). Unfortunately, I've been unable to test that theory as all of my buddy-up trials to date have been marred by connection issues and dropped chat channels. But, opponents fighting in coordinated units have certainly worked me over good.
Where frustration cuts the deepest -- where I snap -- is in knowing that I'm part of shrinking population of players with connection problems. (Perhaps, too, I've taken for granted how well my online gaming has performed in the past.) While it's inexcusable how universally broken the game was for the first few days after launch (and equally questionable that the admission of said issues doubled as EA patting itself on the back for strong initial sales), I know that the game is now working for many players. Other Joystiq editors are surprised when I recount my ongoing struggle to enjoy Battlefield without lingering anxiety about its stability. They've been playing with only occasional, minor hiccups.
So, is Battlefield 1943 working for you? I hope so -- because it can be a satisfying experience and stands alone with what if offers at its $15 price. But, if you've yet to purchase, definitely test your connection using the 30-minute demo. Good luck.
*This review is based on the Xbox Live Arcade (Xbox 360) version of Battlefield 1943; also available on PlayStation Network (PS3).
Time spent: Approx. 2 (playable) hours
My enlistment began after I unplugged the power supply and Ethernet cord, let things stand for a minute, plugged everything back in, and turned on the Xbox 360. My EA server connection issue, of course, was now solved. Up to this point, I had heard plenty about the Battlefield title screen's so-called "minigame" -- you know, where you furiously pound "A" until you join a match -- and I was curiously looking forward to this challenge as I read the ominous warnings on the updates ticker. To my surprise, I joined a match on my first try, and it was relief that now swept over me.
Not so fast, Ransom-Wiley. I was up against tremendous lag. It was two steps forward, one step backward, as if I was constantly pushing through folds in time. And push I did. It was the itch that drove me. Conceptually, I had built up a lot of enthusiasm for Battlefield 1943. Here was a proven gameplay formula, pared down and packaged for digital distribution. And its timing was perfect. It served as a summer lead-in to the big-budget first-person shooters to come. Whether or not it lasted beyond those titles didn't matter. This was a cheap thrill.
The catch is the concept can't be separated from the connection. Offline, you can level a lone island as its sole inhabitant (a "tutorial" mode), but Battlefield is -- with no exception -- an online-only multiplayer game. When it's working, it's wonderful. I've managed to play in a-half-dozen or so flawless matches and was easily entrenched in the engaging territorial tug of war. The game looks as good as most you'd be loading from a full-priced retail disc, and the vibrant colors add a lively accent to the otherwise horrific death and destruction that abound. (Some players have gotten really good, really fast with those planes.)
I imagine, as with any team-based game, that working in a four-player squad adds more depth and greater re-playability to Battlefield, which is limited to three maps (and a fourth, air-only challenge). Unfortunately, I've been unable to test that theory as all of my buddy-up trials to date have been marred by connection issues and dropped chat channels. But, opponents fighting in coordinated units have certainly worked me over good.
Where frustration cuts the deepest -- where I snap -- is in knowing that I'm part of shrinking population of players with connection problems. (Perhaps, too, I've taken for granted how well my online gaming has performed in the past.) While it's inexcusable how universally broken the game was for the first few days after launch (and equally questionable that the admission of said issues doubled as EA patting itself on the back for strong initial sales), I know that the game is now working for many players. Other Joystiq editors are surprised when I recount my ongoing struggle to enjoy Battlefield without lingering anxiety about its stability. They've been playing with only occasional, minor hiccups.
So, is Battlefield 1943 working for you? I hope so -- because it can be a satisfying experience and stands alone with what if offers at its $15 price. But, if you've yet to purchase, definitely test your connection using the 30-minute demo. Good luck.
*This review is based on the Xbox Live Arcade (Xbox 360) version of Battlefield 1943; also available on PlayStation Network (PS3).













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Look At This Suit @ Jul 16th 2009 2:06PM
Was this review not written recently? Ever since DICE stated that they had completed fixes joining friends and the like has been working perfectly for me.
BloodShot Robot @ Jul 16th 2009 2:09PM
Way to read the whole post before commenting.
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:12PM
Pfft. More like "Look at this Shit...."
What Robot said.
Freedom Town @ Jul 16th 2009 2:36PM
"While it's inexcusable how universally broken the game was for the first few days after launch "
Inexcusable? Really? Play many popular MP games on release?
I got it on day 1, and played it on day 1, and have been since. It wasn't immediate to get in a game the first couple days, but it wasn't "inexcusable" either, maybe a 5 minute wait sometimes.
One I was in, it was lag free.
Sucks for you I guess, and anyone else that had problems, but its not inexcusable for a game company to not ensure you are 100% satisfied with unrealistic expectations.
Jono @ Jul 16th 2009 2:45PM
Even Battlefield 1942 had problems. This doesn't surprise me.
Deric Lee @ Jul 16th 2009 2:47PM
Your an idiot.
Selling a game that is Multiplayer Only, and not having the multiplayer work for over 90% of the consumers who purchased it should be inexcusable.
If the type of dumb ass consumer who like to take it up the ass, then great, but most of us expect to get at least what we payed for when we payed for it.
Moron.
BigDaddyBooth @ Jul 16th 2009 2:49PM
@ Freedom Town
It's not "unrealistic expectations" to believe that you will be able to get into a multiplayer match online...in an online multiplayer game. What a ridiculous comment to make.
That's like saying that it is unrealistic to expect your tv to turn on when you hit the power button.
txshurricane @ Jul 16th 2009 3:24PM
@ Deric Lee -
You're an idiot for buying a non-refundable product before reading what other people had to say about it. I waited five days and have no problems playing.
Tunasam @ Jul 16th 2009 3:32PM
"your an idiot"
"You're" grammar teacher is rolling in her grave...
darkandlong @ Jul 16th 2009 10:24PM
Funny how BF1943 gets knocked for connectivity issues but people trip over themselves to kiss Castle Crasher's virtual ass even though the game was unplayable for months online. Sure you could play local MP but for most of us basement trolls MP is the only community we get.
FierceDeityLink1 @ Jul 19th 2009 9:00AM
"Even Battlefield 1942 had problems."
Yeah, but many (most?) people were still on 56k for its multiplayer demo.
fantastic dan @ Jul 16th 2009 2:07PM
save for a couple of failed attempts every now and then it has worked fine for me since i picked it up (for 360) on the second day. no real lag issues either. i guess i'm one of the lucky ones.
copa @ Jul 16th 2009 2:07PM
Sounds like the netcode was written in 1943, amirite?
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:11PM
Yeah, in Morse code!
Wiizer (Michael Pachter MUST DIE.. Professionally) @ Jul 16th 2009 2:12PM
Seriously.
There is no excuse for bad netcode on an ONLINE ONLY GAME!
BlazBlue, as an example, is the way to do netcode. Synchronizing connections slowly before the match starts, and allowing time to compensate for a lag free match BEFORE the match begins, is the ideal way to handle full online servers.
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:14PM
Amen to that Wiizer. I've never seen a game connect two players as well as BlazBlue. It starts up, it looks like it's going to be a total lag-fest, and then "Rebel 1...ACTION!" and you're fighting in a completely lag-free game. It's amazing!
Naota @ Jul 16th 2009 2:57PM
Aw yeah, Punch Cards!
The Dark Wang @ Jul 16th 2009 3:08PM
I bought it on day 1 and haven't had any problems yet.
Wiizer (Michael Pachter MUST DIE.. Professionally) @ Jul 16th 2009 3:15PM
I BOUGHT IT ON DAY ONE AND HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS I BOUGHT IT ON DAY ONE AND HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS I BOUGHT IT ON DAY ONE AND HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS I BOUGHT IT ON DAY ONE AND HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS
Gets annoying and misses the point entirely, doesn't it?
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ Jul 16th 2009 3:27PM
Both Wiizer and Copa get the daily seal of awesomeness.
For me it was different,it worked on day 1 but by day 3 it played like ass.Coral challenge is unplayable for me.
Good for all you guys that can play it but we are not speaking about you there is still people that can't play it you know.
mike @ Jul 16th 2009 2:09PM
It works most of the time but still some lag and wired graphical glitches here and there. I thought this would be more polished.
Duke @ Jul 16th 2009 3:34PM
Yup, I have those same issues here and there. Sometimes the screen gets full of glitched images as I am playing. Also, the lag can get pretty obnoxious. Otherwise, its a blast to play.
BloodShot Robot @ Jul 16th 2009 2:10PM
Bad Company 1 > 1943 IMO
NeilNaS @ Jul 16th 2009 2:43PM
Thank god it's your opinion.
Damian @ Jul 16th 2009 3:07PM
Bad company 1 is better,it has more maps,weapons.
That being said, it is a different game,1943 has old weapons,bad company has newer better weapons.
But 1943 wins in price,and even though bad company is better, i am having more fun with 1943.
Manly Mcbeefington (Mr. ESC) @ Jul 16th 2009 3:21PM
NeilNaS you must be the guy I killed 23 times in a row lol.
J/K
Well Bad Company is at 30$ now it includes a lot of maps, weapons and modes, the campaign is plain awesome and the destruction you can cause is just fun. I spent 1 hour in the campaign demolishing a whole town with my power drill.
Bad Company for me was the best Multiplayer game I have played after Team Fortress 2 which is pretty much the pinnacle of competitive online gaming.
1943 would be great,if it worked...
Damian @ Jul 16th 2009 3:37PM
1943 does work now.
Jerk Face @ Jul 16th 2009 4:36PM
As far as Bad Company vs. 1943.. I'll agree they're different games, but only kind of different.. you're a dude, who shoots dudes, and gets in vehicles to shoot dudes and other vehicles. There's points to capture. The same engine is used.. it's pretty damned similar.
Now as for which is better, kind of a tough call. I think I like Bad Company better, but only because the maps aren't as wide open and the weapon selection is better. 1943, when it fucking works, is a good value; but so is Bad Company. Both are good games, but in different ways.
Cr4sh Dummy @ Jul 16th 2009 5:10PM
@NeilNaS I concur!
Seriously though, Bad Company is a great game and I can't wait for BF:BC 2 (perhaps more so than MW 2) but I like 1943 a little bit more because it has the nostalgia factor for me. I loved 1942 and this game brings back a lot of memories that I love to reminisce about. However that shouldn't be seen as a disparaging remark at Bad Company and I'm not trying to detract from the game in the series. But 1943 feels more like a traditional Battlefield game than Bad Company. From the videos that I've seen of BF:BC 2, I think I can correctly ascertain that the game is returning to the more traditional feel (akin to Battlefield 2). There are numerous reasons for this: first, the medic class is returning (shock pads in trailer). Secondly, transport helicopters (Blackhawks) are returning, with the possibility that fighters might be integrated into the game. Finally, DICE is taking a more "realistic" approach, which gives Battlefield a more authentic feel.
Elmhurst676 @ Jul 18th 2009 3:12PM
Are you comparing a pricy 60 dollar game to a cheap 15 dollar game?
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:10PM
Then there's the viral freezing issue that seems to be plaguing 360 and PS3 owners alike. That's always fun.
Though I will agree that, when the game works, it's undoubtedly fun. The 'Air Superiority' mode, I can't say the same for. Aside from the fact that I am unable to fly the planes with any skill whatsoever, there is the issue of having to stand on the carrier waiting, what seems like, forever for another plane to spawn. Then, it's mad-fucking rush to be the first to jump into the thing.
Lov3 @ Jul 16th 2009 2:11PM
Why don't EA use the service which works, is fast, and Microsoft provides for free? Does anyone know? Why go out of your way to make something that just isn't as good as something that already works perfectly well?
The mind boggles!
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:16PM
Becuase EA wants, nigh...NEEDS to have control over all of their IP's. Just look at the shitstorm they've created with C&C 4.
sc00by_y00 @ Jul 16th 2009 2:48PM
Firstly Lov3 its a multiplat game so how will that work exactly ?
Secondly Microsoft do not provide dedicated servers, Live doesn't do anything of the sort.. If they want to have dedicated servers they have to provide their own dedicated service, I don't think you understand exactly what live does and that is sweet FA for online games.
superklye @ Jul 16th 2009 6:48PM
@Storm Eagle
You meant "nay." "Nigh" means "near."
BJ is Gooder @ Jul 16th 2009 2:11PM
Ugh. This game depresses me. I was so excited when I heard about it..
Unfortunately, the lag kills me. I downloaded BF the first day and couldn't get into a game. I waited a day and everything was so laggy I couldn't stand it. Last time I played it was two nights ago and it was still relatively laggy. I know it's not my connection since GTA and CoD are working just fine for me.
Eff you, EA. I will never buy another one of your games. What a waste...
Freedom Town @ Jul 16th 2009 2:39PM
Get a decent internet connection, there is no lag
BJ is Gooder @ Jul 16th 2009 3:20PM
Don't be a d-bag.
Last time I speed checked my connection it was at 22 mbps - if that's not fast enough then I'll have wait for fios.
James @ Jul 16th 2009 4:14PM
Yes Freedom town, there were no issues. All those complaints were just coincidence. It's just that almost everyone who bought the game on day one had a bad internet connection that magically got better. It's all a conspiracy, Shigeru Miyamoto WAS on that grassy knoll...
dreadnought1 @ Jul 16th 2009 2:16PM
Follow these directions.
Turns on PS3, launches Battlefield 1943....ea connection issues solved. Writes snap judgement on Joystiq blog for BF1943 with playstation tag instead of xbox tag. Snap judgements lists zero problems with getting into game.
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:22PM
The PS3 version isn't without it's problems either. Some people are experiencing issues all the time, some aren't experiencing them at all. You can't generalize these things.
Jose @ Jul 16th 2009 2:26PM
Your snap judgment is a week late. He was eagerly anticipating this game, and wanted to get in there as soon as they gave the green flag. It really does suck that more companies don't meticulously play-test their games (like Valve) so that they are providing a functional game, let alone "fun," at launch.
This reminds me a bit of my experiences with Demigod, and of course it gets better. But in the mean time, there are quality games being released even at this time of year, and he might just be compelled to move on.
dreadnought1 @ Jul 16th 2009 2:33PM
The PS3 version has had zero connections issues, or players unable to get into games since launch, which is what is being discussed in the above review. The only reported PS3 problem is the squad chat dropping in and out on the game. I have played about 10 hours on both versions and can attest to this. A seperate "snap judgment" should have been done on the PS3.
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 2:41PM
Hey dreadnought
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/264811.page
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/259511.page#2497158
there's several people in that thread who are on the PS3.
Yeah, looks like the PS3 version is doing JUST fine....
Mike @ Jul 16th 2009 2:50PM
Yeah, I bought a copy of this on PSN as well, Since the first match on the trail version the only problem I have had was the voice chat dropping in and out. And I just got over 30 matches in last night. :-) almost 100% on them trophies only like 70 more matches to go.
dreadnought1 @ Jul 16th 2009 2:55PM
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/264811.page
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/259511.page#2497158
My god, that's a full blown epidemic. There are like an entire 5 PS3 owners complaining about freezing issues in those two threads. Sounds like an overheating issue to me anyway.
Storm Eagle::The Blood Edge @ Jul 16th 2009 3:01PM
Whatever you think dude. You're impossible, even when confronted with evidence that the PS3 version has it's flaws your fanboy-ism manages to power through.
I hope it feels good.
lolJoystiq @ Jul 16th 2009 3:38PM
Aww, don't be mad because he owned you, Storm Beagle.
:)
ifalldownstairs @ Jul 16th 2009 3:39PM
You do realize why this happened, right? The number of copies sold on PS3 was far, far smaller - if you visited the forums you would have seen DICE saying the were attempting to add servers with a large focus on the 360. This explains why, despite the massive issues, the 360 community reached 43 million kills when the PS3 community had 20 million more to go
mahouneko @ Jul 16th 2009 4:13PM
@ifalldownstairs:
I believe that the PS3 version was released a day later than the Xbox 360 version:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/02/battlefield-1943-declares-war-next-week-starting-july-8/
That's basically the annoying part about a multi-platform release especially when it comes to the other platform some time later.