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

Reader Comments (49)

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 7:36PM R Planteer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hm. Now that I think about it, I suppose thats what 1943 really did for me, was entertain me until BC2 came out.

Now that it is out, I doubt I'll be returning to 1943 again.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 9:00PM The angry pro consumer gaming ga said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Im quite the opposite 1943 was fun whether you played alone or in a squad, the same can't be said for BC2. To many people in vehicles and maps to large for the amount of players (24) especially when playing conquest. I'll be sending my copy of BC2 to goozex soon enough and can't wait for something as fun as 1943, in the mean time I'll just switch between FFXIII and MAG.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 3:30AM Hedgeson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On PC, with 32 players, the maps don't feel too large. There's usually plenty of action on the disputed capture points.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 5:08AM KiloTangoBrovo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@The angry gaming pro-consumer gamer, you make a great point, its hard to "have fun" when your squad isn't working together in BC2 and in 1943 it was always fun to run around by yourself.

As you said about the maps being to large for the amount of players more so in "Conquest" I would agree to an extent as compared to BC1 the maps are much better sized for the amount of carnage but, nothing would be better than more players on the map.

For this day in age its hard to see that only (24) "console" players in one game at a time the max. As many Playstation games have had 32-64 players in a game at one time.

Im not saying every game should have (256) players in one game, but it would for on crazy game of Rush and controller sales would see a spike. ;)
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 7:39PM Special Agent Steve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I loved Battlefield 1943. Except, no one plays anymore.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 5:35AM calgaryaltahotmailcom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They should add maps on their downtime in my opinion...I loved it playing 1943 for a while but then the maps got boring.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 6:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
me too!
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 2:05PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why would anyone still play? There are other games to be had and now EA can toss those servers without having to keep them running. Job done.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 7:41PM Acosta02 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Hey, a mention of Mirror's Edge. That's a rare one.



I'm so lonely in my Mirror's Edge fan club. One member and counting... up to one.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey, i love that game. Nailing those speed-runs was amazingly challenging, but so worth it. That's definitely the way the game is meant to be played
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I LOVED Mirrors Edge too!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 9:51PM TraceurRyuk Prepping for LBP2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Count me as one of those fans too.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:07PM Kyogissun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a fan too.

Quit acting like you're a loner. D
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:08PM Acosta02 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You're right, I guess! Look at us all! We're like one big happy family that plays a game everybody hates! Go us!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 7:42PM NickAVV said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I wish they made a Battlefield 2143 for PSN/Live Arcade. I want miniature future warfare damnit!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:04PM ShadowOp said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Minature 2143 :}
*drool*
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:05PM ShadowOp said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Miniature 2143 :}
*drool*
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:36PM Killface was here said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
He's drooling at double speed! Get a bucket!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:38PM NickAVV said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, if DICE just makes 2143 he can stop drooling. And we can pour the buckets of drool to fill up the ocean around Wake Island.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 7:44PM coolbho3000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As a long time Battlefield fan, Battlefield 1943 was an impulse buy for me, and ultimately, it turned out to be a disappointment. With regenerating health and the new spawn system (which I've learned to live with BC2), the game just felt way too dumbed down, and the map selection was quite weak. Maybe it was because it was my first console Battlefield game, and my standards were too high.

Oh well, it was only $15.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:12PM ShadowOp said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, I don't think Battlefield console can work like an original Battlefield pc game would... at least not yet. The cool thing about Battlefield on pc, is the sheer size of the maps and, IMO the squad system (talkin bf2 style). I'm really looking forward to seeing Battlefield 3. Hopefully it will be a straight up Battlefield game... that goes along with the hope that they don't implement everything from the Bad Company games into the regular Battlefield series.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 7:45PM abelpc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't play 43 anymore.. hard to find a good match..

BC 2 is much better than other shooters so I split between BC 2 and MAG (256 player matches are a blast).
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:06PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's too bad they don't have the staff to keep 1943 going. I haven't jumped on for awhile, sounds like a ghost town.


It's interesting that they got rid of medic and engineer classes, but they've since re-appeared for BC2.

Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:16PM MrAlex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the medic came back because of the new health system, whereby only small amounts of health can be regenerated, and the engineer because of increased vehicle dependancy. I think the changes were right for both games.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:18PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
^ you can still get full health if you sit around long enough, right? It's just that having the medpack gets you the instant health replenishment.

(I haven't had time to jump on the MP except for about 15 minutes).

Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Kentucky Fried,

No. Your screen will somewhat restore its original hue after a little while but that does NOT mean you are healed. You will need a medic to drop a health pack to restore any lost health.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I really don't understand why DICE/EA haven't yet come out with any additional content or map packs for Battlefield 1943. It makes no sense to me at all considering the popularity of the game.

If they would only release additional maps for Battlefield 1943, they would make an additional fortune, and it would only cost them a tiny fraction of what it costs to develop a full game. I would gladly fork over $2, $5, $10, or whatever for an additional map pack. Say El Alamein, Berlin, Stalingrad, Bocage, etc. Heck, I might even consider paying on a per-map basis. They could even tack on additional game modes like CTF and charge for that.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who would do this. Come on EA! We want to give you our money. Give us what we want!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:15PM NickAVV said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes please!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:17PM MrAlex said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's probably too late now, but yeah they would have cleaned up if they did it before BFBC2 came out.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:52PM DustoMan said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I also think this is a huge mistake on DICE/EA's part. BF1943 was the most played arcade game on XBL last year. To not keep the game going by making more DLC is a huge missed opportunity.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 9:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PSN should expands its store to other countries first so that game developers can believe they would add more income by DLC sales. Because current DLC sales are not as expected.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:17PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
So when Polyphony Digital releases a bite-sized game with GT5 Prologue, it is a payed demo, but when DICE releases a bite-sized downloadable games, it is considered "teh aweseomzzzz pew pew"

Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:48PM Killface was here said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
In WWII games it's picow picow rather than pew pew. Sometimes it badabadabadabadabafabadabada
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 9:49PM sho220 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
GT5 was supposed to be a ps3 launch title. so when people got part of a game (prologue) and were asked to pay for it, they understandably became upset. we're *finally* going to see the completed version late 2010. that's 4 years after it was supposed to come out.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:16PM Typicalgamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
battlefield psp version?!?!?!?!
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't get why they are bothering releasing 1943 on the PC any more with BC2 being out. If it had of hit its intended release date of September 2009 I'd of probably laid down the £9.99 for it. Now I'd rather just play BFBC2.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:27PM SmilinGoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would have been more impressed had they actually supported the game after launch. at least 1 extra map would have added a lot to it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 8:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I paid $15 for BF 1943 and totally got my moneys worth. I don't think I've gotten that much value out of ANY of my arcade games except Defense Grid.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 5:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They should release a redone Battlefield Vietnam and leave the planes and parachute drops in. And up the player limit to 36. Though they should bring back the artillery. That shit was awesome.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 10:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would like to see them TRY to follow the same model. It won't come close to the same amount of success.

* It was something new. A triple-A shooter in bite size form on XBLA at a budget price. Others that have taken their great success elsewhere and brought it to XBLA and PSN have seen great success. Worms XBLA, for example. But then Worms 2 came out, and nobody cared. They'll have to offer something MORE to bring the audience back at the same rate.

* It was a disaster. Most people dropped out of 1943 within 3 weeks of its release. There was too much frustration from the server crashes throughout the first five days, the bonus map was a disappointment, and the lack of any map DLC killed the longevity.

I'm sure I'll be scorned on here for so emphatically stating that a "1944" would not even be half as successful as 1943 if developed and released the same way . . . but that's okay, because I know I'll be proven right, eventually.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 5:17AM KiloTangoBrovo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yea, I have a better chance of DICE & EA writing my Business mid-term correctly and turing it in on time than them launching a Battlefield game without the servers crashing in the first week.

..... and on a second note, why the hell do I have to confirm every comment I post?
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 10:18PM ND said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Would be fun to have Battlefield Heroes on the Console (more than a port or not) from a profitable point of view.

Sell it at a low price 5 or 10 dollars/400 or 800 MS points. Add Achievements/Trophies (duh), make the Valor Points non-existent 'stead have sell the Permanent Armor/Weaps/Taunts/etc for 1-2 dollars each or within a pack still 1-2 dollars, I'd reckon they'd profit a lot from the DLC and the game itself. Something that they'd probably do would be sell map-packs as DLC, which I think should be kept free, as it'd be more of an incentive to buy a game that is constantly or periodically getting updated with maps and the like.

That's just my 2 cents with what would be an interesting way for DICE and EA to make a game for a little amount of money and make back that money and more (possibly way more if done right).

Still, I support their endeavor for making bite-sized/arcade games. Keep 'em fun and great and I'll keep buying and enjoying.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2010 10:46PM made2last said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with those saying the lack of DLC on BF1943 was ridiculous, even understanding they never thought it would be that big a game. But I haven't been able to play the game in a few weeks. I used to be able to get in games, with terrible lag, lately I haven't been able to connect at all. An online only game that won't let me play online? Thanks for taking my $15.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 12:17AM incubeezer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Same complaint here, bring it to the EA forums and you'll see everyones complaining and EA has had nothing to say about it. Very frustrating.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 7:36AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Weird. I've never had a problem getting in games, or had a game with lag. There are still plenty of games going on too.
I like the look of BC2 but my friend who would also buy is only on like once a week, and I hear it's no good if you're not running with a crew.
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 2:06PM BigD145 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd rather go back to 1942 than play some mini game like 43. They use the same maps and have at least as many people playing. Why pay extra for less?
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 7:05PM acme64 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
all i want is bf3, thats it. Make bf2 with better gfx and less bugs, and im happy. please DICE?
Reply

Posted: Mar 14th 2010 11:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
YES please! That's exactly what I want.

BF2 with BFBC2 graphics, less bugs and some of the nice new things they added in BFBC2.

PLEASE no noobing it down. BFBC1 and BFBC2 along with 1943 have all been aimed at the COD crowd, toned down and more noob friendly. These games really don't feel so great for those who spent so much time in BF2.

We want huge maps (BF2 size or bigger hopefully, although I'd settle for BF2 size) as well as tons of vehicles including a nice balance between air and ground.

Lot of annoying changes in BFBC2, probably made to suit the console limitations and COD crowd like smaller maps, easier (but ultimately less fun) chopper controls and a low ceiling height for flying (in BF2 and even BF1943 you could go extremely high, which could lead to some extremely cool "Battlefield Moments"

There aren't enough of those insanely ridiculous moments in BFBC2, and I think it's mainly due to the small map sizes, player counts, lack of vehicles and overall more noob-friendly appeal.

(not that I have something against noobs, having been one myself) it just sucks to be a fan and essentially get snubbed in favour of somebody with less invested in the series.
Reply

Posted: Mar 15th 2010 2:39PM Axcalibur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's ashame this company fails to support these games post-release. Mirrors Edge has some DLC, but it was exclusive to PS3 (and not very good). However, I'm more disappointed in Battlefield 1943. They've shut down far too many servers, the games damn near unplayable most days, which is a huge concern considering it's a multiplayer/online only game! They also teased at least one new map for us, but that never happened. Why they didn't think it was a good idea to release one new map for $3 bucks that could turn into 3 million bucks, I have no idea...
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

WoW

Massively

Big Download

Autoblog

Urlesque

Games.com Blog

UGO.com