| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (109)

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:06PM Look At This Suit said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:09PM BloodShotRobot said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Way to read the whole post before commenting.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:12PM StormEagle said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Pfft. More like "Look at this Shit...."

What Robot said.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
"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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:45PM Jono said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even Battlefield 1942 had problems. This doesn't surprise me.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:47PM DericLee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:49PM BigDaddyBooth said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@ 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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ 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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"your an idiot"

"You're" grammar teacher is rolling in her grave...
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 10:24PM darkandlong said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 19th 2009 9:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Even Battlefield 1942 had problems."
Yeah, but many (most?) people were still on 56k for its multiplayer demo.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:07PM trent steel said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:07PM copa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like the netcode was written in 1943, amirite?
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:11PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, in Morse code!
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:12PM Wiizer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:14PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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!
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:57PM Aperture said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Aw yeah, Punch Cards!
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I bought it on day 1 and haven't had any problems yet.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:15PM Wiizer said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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?
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It works most of the time but still some lag and wired graphical glitches here and there. I thought this would be more polished.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:34PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:10PM BloodShotRobot said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Bad Company 1 > 1943 IMO
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:43PM NeilNaS said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Thank god it's your opinion.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:07PM Johnny Locke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:37PM Johnny Locke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
1943 does work now.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 4:36PM Jerk Face said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 5:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 18th 2009 3:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Are you comparing a pricy 60 dollar game to a cheap 15 dollar game?
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:10PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:11PM Lov3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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!
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:16PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 6:48PM superklye said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Storm Eagle

You meant "nay." "Nigh" means "near."
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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...
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Get a decent internet connection, there is no lag
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 4:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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...
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:16PM dreadnought1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:22PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:26PM Assmar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:33PM dreadnought1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:41PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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....
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:50PM stoneNboneCDXX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:55PM dreadnought1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:01PM StormEagle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Aww, don't be mad because he owned you, Storm Beagle.

:)
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 3:39PM TheyDidItFirst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 4:13PM mahouneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@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.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 6:49PM superklye said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@mahouneko

Be that as it may, the count to 43,000,000 started at THE SAME TIME on THE SAME DAY for both consoles.
Reply

Posted: Jul 16th 2009 2:16PM Burritoclock said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Prepare for the onslaught of:

"All online game launch this way"

"They will fix it, give them time JEEZ!"

"It sold better than they expected and they got overloaded"

and any number of excuses that no one would make for a company outside the videogame world.

It's a fun game (if you already like battlefield, if you don't there is nothing to see here), but man they really dropped the ball.

Having said all that, the only problems now are the weird graphical glitches that pop up occasionally and the weak splash damage for explosives, which are a design/balance decision.

All and all it is more fun than a lot of $60 games, when it works properly.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Shank 2 review: Refined brutality

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45AM

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW