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

Reader Comments (53)

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:33PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I enjoyed those 3 maps..../sarcasm

I don't think anyone could say that their 15 dollars was well spent on this game.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:37PM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I think my $15 was well spent. It did it's job at holding me over until MW2 came out.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:42PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sorry but 1943 was awesome. For an XBLA game the price, graphics, and gameplay dynamics were brilliant. Would have loved more support for this game but that's alright. Got BFBC2 now!
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:43PM itsjose said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Agreed! They were fun in their own respective manner, but they were TOO big for their own good.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:43PM BrianH said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
o yea man, 15 dollars for 3 maps and a full game, what a fcking rip off.

15 dollars for 3 maps and 2 old ones (same as the old ones) ? WHAT A DEAL.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:46PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So what's the complaint about 3 large maps? I can name a ton of other arcade games that offer much less for the price that people claim to be amazing wonders.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:58PM Crimsic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@xyanwx
Ha, both of your comments got grayed!

Yes. I did feel I got my money's worth in Battlefield 1943. I got a full FPS game with three maps, all three are huge in size, infact...I'm pretty sure the amount of in-game space in 1943 is twice as large if not three times as large as the space you'll get in the MW2 maps coming out for the same price.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 7:15PM Spike Spiegel Humble Bounty Hun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What I find funny about the 3 LARGE map complaints is that games like MW2 cost $60 + Tax and you get 16 maps. BFBC2 has 8, which is also $60. Both games have multiplayer mode. So figure MW2 is $15 per 4 maps, and BFBC2 is $15 per 2 maps. So there should be no fuss over maps.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 7:21PM Crimsic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, but Bad Company 2 maps are both destructable and quite large. Each experience on them is usually different, especially with 24 players and vehicular combat.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 8:04PM finnith said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
All this is just proving that $/map or $/hour valuations are useless. Value is a completely subjective thing.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 1:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agree with yawn, quite a disappointment. DLC would have given the game some life, now I'll probably just end up deleting it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 28th 2010 3:40PM End User said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You know if the game had actually worked properly, I might have felt I got my $15 worth, but with broken squads and broken voice chat, it was a total rip off. And gee, it only took them eight months after it was released to *talk* about an *incoming* fix for fundamental game elements? How considerate of them. Maybe if they had been on top of that a month or two after release, I would have considered BC2, but I've got enough conviction to not support a company that screws me over like that.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:34PM Captain Planet Planeteer Power said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
:sad face:
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:35PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I enjoyed those 3 maps... /sarcasm

Can anyone really say that their 15 dollars was well spent on this game?
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:38PM ahigee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, It provided more hours of fun then most other $15 titles do. I just wish I was as good at it as I am BFBC2.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:41PM itsjose said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. The maps were good, the only thing that bothered me was that they seemed ... EMPTY. They were too big for their own good.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:36PM ahigee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My guess: Battlefield Vietnam Redux when COD7(rumored to be a Vietnam -based title) comes out later this year. Now that DICE has little or no known projects in the works, it could use more staff to get it together in time. Yet simple, it could still take away alot of COD7's online players.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:42PM BrianH said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
pretty sure dice is working on medal of honor.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:46PM ahigee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They're working on the multiplayer side of the game since it is using it's Frostbite engine but EA LA is the main developer.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:59PM einhanderkiller said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Battlefield 3.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 10:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The person above me already said it but I will say it again - Battlefield 3
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 4:26AM glennc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BF3 will be their major focus
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
what a gigantic missed opportunity for EA/DICE. I spent over 100 hrs on those 3 maps, and its been one of the best arcade experiences on XBLA. Too bad...
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:44PM oboynesquick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
bf vietnam would b awesome in the 1943 format.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:45PM jah75157 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
won't be there.

1. the mic support on the ps3 never worked a full game.

2. i bought it thinking they would be supporting it with dlc.


i'm glad some people thought their 15 dollars was well spent, but a multiplayer only game with no mic support in my book = epic fail
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:45PM Miadaskate said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report

This game is great. $14.99 well spent. I still enjoy playing it every once in a while. I'm glad they are finally fixing the mic issues though.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:45PM VIDEOGAMES said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As much as I loved 1943, I can't see myself buying another one unless they include a few more maps, or promise a free update down the line.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:47PM Ballistic H said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Battlefield 1944? Multiplayer on the beaches of Normandy?
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:50PM MarkHawk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still want bigger battles in the future on consoles.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:54PM Crusty Magic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As good as I felt the game was, I'm glad I didn't buy it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 6:54PM Cap Morgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So another 1943, in the future?

Somebody call Doc Brown.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 7:32PM Kyogissun said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Battlefield 2143

Make it happen DICE.
Reply

Posted: Mar 28th 2010 2:56AM AOClaus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would like to see these maps ported over to BC2. And maybe have a mode that makes use of the weapons and vehicles too. They're already in game in the first level.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 7:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Could be a remake for 2142, something in a smaller scale. Can also be Vietnam. Who knows?
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 7:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Test
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 8:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As a Battlefield 1942 veteran from the old days of 2002, I was really wanting to see 1943 versions of the El Alamein and the Gazala maps. Those are probably still my most favorite multiplayer maps of all time! Flying a B2 Bomber was so much fun!

And like someone else said, Battlefield: Vietnam remake would be awesome! Operation Irving and Operation Flaming Dart remakes would rule!

Come on EA! Listen to what the people want! You got a cash cow here! Don't waist it!
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 8:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vietnam please! Battlefield Vietnam was really great, but unfortunately was always seen as a bastard child of the series! Resurrect it!

Of course there's no Vietnam without napalm!
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 8:28PM Maulok said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The game was terrific, even for online FPS dead meat like me. It was just plain fun! Too bad that it couldn't have a longer life span, but I squeezed a lot of fun out of that $15.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 8:58PM adeese said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, BF1943 still isn't out on PC? What's the pout now that Bad Company 3 is out, which is an improved version of 1953?
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 8:59PM Vanuslux said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got the game when it was on sale for $10 so I can't really complain too much, but I will say it's disappointing they won't be bringing any new maps to it. I'd have gladly paid $5-$10 for more but I can see how they wouldn't want to bother at this point since they pussyfooted and missed the opportunity to strike when the iron was hot.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 11:10PM ViciousBastard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So can I hope for a 2143...maybe???
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2010 11:33PM GamGams said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Screw you EA/DICE. You just set a precedent that makes me very wary of your future products.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 12:04AM Axcalibur said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I really enjoyed 1943, when it worked.

I'm extremely disappointed in the lack of post-release support this title hasn't received. The fact that DICE teased that there would be some additional content post release, and then to not deliever, is just stupid. Honestly, how hard is it to model one new island for this game? I'm no game designer, but I can't imagine it would have take a company like DICE that much effort. And the payoff could have been pretty good, if they released the map for $2-$3 bucks.

To add to this frusteration, I almost never get a lag-free game nowadays. And I'm not talking about the occasional hiccup that occurs in most games from time-to-time, I'm talking about entire matches with characters bouncing around and st-st-st-stuttering. Clearly they've shut down a few servers to accomodate newer games, but considering this game is maybe just over a year old, that's not very good.

Despite the initial quality and my enjoyment with this title, I consider this "experiment" a failure, because I, as a consumer, will not purchase another downloadable DICE title, at least not at full price when it is first released, because I know from experience that they don't offer the post-release quality that they should receive.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 2:54AM premiumdude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I thought BF'43 was a great purchase, if you bought it right when it came out (ok a week later, the server issues were a PITA.)

It was summer, not a whole lot going on. It was the same price as a DVD and I probably played about 30/hours. What's not to like?

I also don't remember them promising any sort of DLC. I could be wrong, but if anything I recall them giving a solid "maybe." Turns out it wasn't meant to be.

Sometimes games are like chewing gum, you get a burst of flavor and enjoyment while you chew for a while, then it gets stale and you move on. Anyone still bitching about no maps needs to spit out their gum.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 9:51AM kujospam2000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like this better than any battlefield game out for the last 5 years. It's really sad. I own all of them too. lol
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 7:32AM Angry Frank said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still don't get why Battlefield hasn't done a Korean War version yet. I know it can't be because the conflict's not officially "resolved," otherwise they wouldn't be doing things set in the modern day Middle East.
Reply

Posted: Mar 27th 2010 7:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This game was great for $15 bucks. I spent 4 days at it (The total time according to my stats)....

Pulled something like 4,000+ kills. I 've loved every minute of it and it cost about the same as a movie ticket. i don't know about those complaining, but to expect more than that for $15 bucks seems a bit much.

It's not like you can return to the cinema and watch the same film time and time again for a one off fee of $15, yet this game can still be played time and time again.....

So In my opinion it's arguably some of the best value floating about for XBL or PSN!

Simply nothing to moan about really....

Reply

Posted: Mar 28th 2010 10:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Im pissed becuase there basically saying there going to stop supporting it.Which means they will eventually drop servers.Its sad really i love this game and to see it fade away and not be there even if i paid 15 for it i paid for it i own it and it should work for me whenever i need it to.This is the reason alot of 360 games use players as hosts.10 years from now those titles are playable and games like this might not be.

It was a good deal but atleast support it and kepp it alive with a few packs dont turn your backs on the players.Sure you will release other games it doesnt mean everyone will like them.

I stopped playing battlefield after 1942 because everything after that sucked until now.
Reply

Posted: Mar 31st 2010 2:27AM M85021 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Mar 31st 2010 2:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"When additionally followed out to his car in the parking structure, Van Dyke remarked, 'What the #@$, dude? I can't give you any more information. Wait, what are you doing? HELP!'"
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW