Battlefield 1943

Comes out tomorrow on XBOX and a day later for PS3.
Personally I'm waiting for PC in SEPT. but if anyone plays on Console let us know how it is.


I loved b1942 (still play occasionally) and can't wait to relive the pacific missions in 1943.

 

Hmm, IMO there's a lack of good WWII pacific campaign FPS games.
I never played BF1942, but I've heard lots of good things. I will keep an eye out for this.

 

I love(d) BF1942, and play BF2 a lot to this day. But I'm not happy at all that BF1943 is consolized. We'll see how it pans out.

 

I'm so getting this! I love BF:BC, so combine it with WW2 and you have large amounts of win

 

Bf1943 will be released for PC this fall as well... they are taking "thier time and doing it right" so its not just a console port.

I will get it regardless... its only $20 bucks.

 

I'll get it on PC hopefully it will come out on steam. I do not play FPS on console so its out of the question for me to get it on XBLA.

 

if its the same engine as bad company 1 (which im almost sure is frostbyte) thats going to be totally consolized, even when you see the gameplay videos its a console game, and I dont think the pc version its going to be a lot different than its console counterparts, so I guess the next big GOOD bf game its going to be BF3, but well thats just my thoughts

 

$20 for 3 maps and 24 players. No thanks. I will just stick with 1942. These days you can find really good online shooters for $9.99 and they have much more content than 1943 ever will.

 

A WW2 FPS...How original.

 

its BF if its BF.

consolized doesn't really mean much anymore. tons of big name PC games come out on the consoles.

Fallout 3
Left 4 Dead
The Orange Box
Bioshock
Many Others

 

It means a lot when you look at the Battlefield series. BF1942 and BF2 and BF2142 are all about massive open maps with 64 players. Consoles reduce that to tiny maps with 24 players tops.

Enclosed single player environments (Fallout 3, Bioshock) or six year old game engines (Orange Box, Left 4 Dead) do not impress me when on a console. Fallout 3 IMHO could have been so much better were it developed exclusively for PC. Bioshock, I'll give kudos to though. Even though it was single player and enclosed, it was still a rock solid awesome game.

And the Source games were on PC first, then ported to console later. Plus Source is a game engine optimized for PC, and modified for consoles. Not the other way around.

 

i mean... that list is a short list. those are games that "should belong" to the PC that I am very familiar with because I have played them.

the major blockbuster games market is shifting towards the console space.

 

Your comment about "the major blockbuster games market is shifting towards the console space." is my concern period. Because they are developing for consoles exclusively absolutely means that we should be concerned for the PC.

I'm ok if the attention to detail is spent for the PC, but 90% of the time it is NOT. They take whatever they developed for the console and modify it just so it works on the PC, and frequently barely. This usually means poor mouse/keyboard controls, crappy performance too.

 

Do you really feel like crappy performance and poor mouse and keyboard controls is a good representation of blockbuster games that are out for both the PC and consoles?

maybe. I think GTA4 might be a great example of this, but in general i don't feel like this is the case. GTA4 is legitimately a console game ported to the PC. This process tends to be shoddy, I agree with that. Just the same, I feel like most games that are originally intended for and are developed for both the PC and Xbox turn out fine on the PC.

Again, I'm looking at Fallout 3, L4D, Bioshock... UT3 and other UE3 based games...

 

errr.... stop arguing you sound stupid.

anyway im getting this for PS3 but just to hold me over till it comes out on PC.

 

i don't think we are arguing at all. wingnut is just concerned that his PC won't be the game hub in a few more years. i'd also like to see a shift away from consoles and towards computers with good components.

still would be interested to know how BF 1943 turned out.

 

masterchef341 and I are on the same friggin page (or gaming device). It's just a matter of point of view. But I'll hold my further comments until I get to see both X360 version in action and PC version.

 

Downloaded the trail for my Xbox 360 and EA has done it again! Everytime I try to play the game I get the message "Failed to connect to EA server". I think I'll wait for the PC version, but I doubt my laptop will be able to handle it very well.

 

lol well, i don't know why i expected anything better than that. hah.

 

Yea, I can't stand when games are made for consoles and PC later.Fallout 3 could have had a 10 times bigger play area if it was a PC only.A modern Computer with modern RAM and Processor can handle that much play area.Just goes to show how consoles are reducing the quality of games.

I rest my case.

 

I dont like BF anymore!!

 

From looks of it, they have abadoned Battlefield for PC and have gone pro-console.How sad, as that was one game PC had over the consoles.

Dammit, why is every company going pro-console now?

 

You are not the only one Chesseman EVERYONE who downloaded this game on 360 is having this problem EZ says it'll take a couple of days to iron out. They claim they didnt realize that this many people would download.....what a lame excuse

 

seems like a standard excuse these days.

but then i guess the question really becomes: why invest in servers to handle opening day loads that you will only use opening day? it might be a big waste of money.

 

I know this is alot, but bear with me here:

Better potential sales, better piracy control. Though I can foresee PC gaming making a big leap again very soon, especially with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 being PC only for the time being. Command and Conquer 4 was just announced too, and it's only announced for PC. People are theorizing they are going all out with it as it's supposed to be the final one in the Tiberium timeline, so we could see crazy things like DX11 support, etc.

And as for DICE and the BF series, I really don't care for the console BFs, they are not what BF really is all about, though it's rumored BF3 is on the way, and I have faith that it is. Nice thing about BF3 is that piracy control shouldn't be too difficult since BF2 HAD TO log into an official EA server where stats and profiles were tracked before going into an individual game server for multiplayer. Using that model, DICE can pretty much easily set up an online verification system that doesn't impede on anyone's install experience, and it can be checked and updated every time a player logs on for multiplayer. BF3 would sell well anyways, so I'm not too worried about it, I'm just impatient, and we all want it now!

PC gaming is king in Europe where people are not as quick to spend money ona machine that only plays games like consoles. Computers are educational and useful as well as good gaming platforms. While piracy is an issue in Eastern Europe especially, it's been cracked down upon very hard, and publishers and devs there make alot of money plus they have lots of Soviet and pre Soviet Revolution history to work off of, like in STALKER and Cryostasis. So even if hardcore western PC development goes by the wayside for consoles only, we still have a very good source for games.

Piracy is also sensationalized by the media and is used as an excuse by many publishers. And while many DRM programs suck, Steam is an excellent system though it singles out those with crappy internet speeds and those without it. It's just an unfortunate issue, but to not have internet access of any form in many ways negates the reason to have a computer in the first place.

The sad thing about these publishers is they don't seem to mind having to pay royalty fees to MS, Sony, and Nintendo. While the state of Direct X is in a mess right now, and MS is pretty much trying to get everyone on the 360, DX11 has the potential to fix this problem altogether with proper legacy DX support and many new features that should be attractive to developers. I'm fairly confident PC as we know it can't really die, it's just the issue of getting watered down ports or real, make for PC type games that cater to us.

Finally I must express my disdain for the console system in how it's offering a highly controlled product and experience, and people are duped into it since it requires minimal effort on their part. I know people want to have fun, but do you really want to let your experience be fully defined by a control company? What social implications could this have, and how does it affect a younger person who has yet to enter the world of high spending consumerism? I like my PC, I feel freedom here. While it can be a bit of work getting something to work, I don't feel like something was just handed to me like I'm some idiot. I feel like I kinda earned it because I had to actually acquire the knowledge and know how even though basic computer usage isn't all that difficult.

But like I said, I see a huge resurgence of hardcore PC gaming coming, especially since the current console cycle is slated to be extended as much as another 5 years, since the current 360 is successful enough, and Sony needs to make money on their current PS3 product before moving on to something else. That gives the sheer system superiority of PCs a huge window of opportunity to have games that consoles could only get very watered down versions of to play or not even get at all, much like the PS1-N64 era. I know that sounds selfish, but I'd like to see that happen, people are bound to eventually become weary of the PS3s and 360s now subpar capabilities at some point.

Lastly, I'd like to discuss something positive in the multiplatforming arena:
and that is the what's becoming more common practice of actually developing the PC versions first. While the consoles will be a determining factor in how far the devs will go, it does give the dev to set a benchmark to aim for, and if the consoles can't reach it, they still have their data (if it's been optimized) for the PC version, while they can develop a 360 port directly off of with lowered graphics (since the 360 uses a DX9 superset) and can develop the PS3 version with already created graphics assets lowered much like porting to 360, except with the renderer and Cell BE conversion like with Far Cry 2. Lost Planet 2 is probably another very good example as the current builds of the game allowed to be played by the media are running on PCs! Basically the PC version is ready probably (would just need optimization and compatibility issues worked out I'm sure), they are just optimizing the build for 360, while they show off screenshots and video footage of the game running on PC because people don't think otherwise Capcom is using a PC to show off a game that might not run as smooth or nicely on the 360. Very funny.

There are actually alot of gaming capable PCs on a basic level, just many of the owners are not PC gamers like us. And upgrading while takes some knowledge isn't too expensive, since most PCs these days just need a proper videocard which if you want graphics capabilities equal to the consoles, wouldn't cost more than $60 from the right retailer/supplier, and even under $100 you could blow both the 360 and PS3 graphically out of the water.

:0=3 *Whew*

 

I played the trial on my PS3 last night it was pretty fun..... I wont like I SUCK at the controls for PS3 though. I am just used to mouse and keyboard. I think I may get it anyway because I only have like 2 games for PS3 which is kinda pathetic and this is cheap (at least its not $60)

Anyway it was decent, I need to get better at the controls. Especially flying... lol all I could do was go around in circles. Once its mastered I bet its pretty awesome tho.

Of course I'll still buy PC version and then prolly just play that.

 

Even a mid range PC cam rape a console.The 360 for example is only barely handling Call of Duty 4 at 30-40 fps, on a budget card like a 9800 GT(yes, 9800GT) I could get well over 60-70 fps maxed out.If only console users could see how consoles are reducing the quality of games(Like how Battlefield went from large maps with 64 players down to 24 players and smaller maps because of consoles) then consoles would die off.

Trying to put an RTS on a console is the worst of them all, RTS's just dont work on a controller, plus the consoles can't handle them.(Look at Supcom for the 360, can't even handle lots of units) and with HALO WARS the graphics weren't even that great and maps weren't even that big and I saw choppyness (further proving that consoles are barely get 30-40 fps at the most).Do you think a Console can handle Company of Heroes, maxed out, 4 on 4 players right in the middle of a full on battle?HA! Not with Company of Heroes graphics that have enough detail to be a First person shooter.

 

I used to hate on consoles too until I picked up a 360.

There's something to be said for turning it on and being up and running and on a server within a minute without any need to mince about with drivers, compatibility issues, and server browsers, etc.

Of course lack of keyboard and mouse is still evil though.

 

Lack of control over anything is evil.

 

Give Halo 3 a try.

 

in halo 3 you don't even get to pick what map you want to play hah. 0 control.

 

I have access to Halo 3 and a 360. I've played it a few times. Pretty terrible.
EDIT: "Have access to" = both are owned by a family member and in my living room, available at all times. But they're not mine, because I don't waste money on consoles.

 

I would rather play Counterstrike Source with all the various mods and things than play HALO 3.H3 is bullspit.

 

Actually cod4 runs at 60fps steady on the 360. its been said in quite a few reviews/interviews. However, i do agree with everything else you've been saying. Even though i have a 360 i don't like how outdated its becoming and how the developers have to cater to that. And yes, in terms of RTS's, they NEVER work on a console.

 

I really want this game for the PC, guess we'll have to wait two more months.

 

It's just my opinion, but I think that the vehicles in H3 make it one of the best MP games. Just my opinion.

 

Did you ever consider...creating a game? Every single variable is available for configuration.

I guess I'm just alone in judging the game rather than the platform, I own CoD 4 on PC and 360 and enjoy them both, they have their own place.

 

COD4 console = for bad players - less steep learning curve because there is a much lower skill ceiling
COD4 PC = for people who are actually good at games.

 

I can get top place on the board with Counter Strike:Source, and even though I'm not that good on a controller I STILL rape console guys on CoD4.I even play better than my friend Jerod who actually owns a 360 and plays it all the time..I was getting 10 times better scores than he was and I dont even own a console. lol

 

Im not so sure. I have a 3.5 k/d ratio on cod4 PC and only a 1.9 on 360. granted ive played a lot more on PC i still think its just as hard, if not harder, on 360.

 

My god Hep!. You are such an idiot fanboy. Get a life.

 

he is right about the skill ceiling. the skill curve for the consoles tends to be steep and have a low cap compared to the skill curve for a PC shooter. This is either by design or because of the input mechanism. CoD4 on the console with a mouse as your aiming device, were something like this possible, would make it a moot point. Game controllers just don't have the same type of pinpoint accuracy as a mouse. This isn't an issue, and there are benefits of controllers as well (couch) but he is still right.

it is why a pro at CoD4 in general will have a much lower KD ratio on the Xbox as he will on the PC. On the PC, a FPS pro will strive to be fully situationally aware and get head shots. On the console, you can't turn as fast... so you can't be as situationally aware, nor can you aim as quickly.

Sorry for the long post, and I'm not bashing consoles by any means, and I don't agree with Hep about CoD4 console being "for bad players" (that is ridiculous) but he is right about the skill ceiling.

 

I say its a different kind of skill. Its just very dickweed to say that console player are less skilled n stuff.

 

it isn't that the players are less skilled. it is the game itself that has less of an ability to bring out the differences in skill (a lot of people are basically "about as good as you can get" with a controller, whereas there is a wide variety of ability with a mouse, due to its higher precision)

the gamers can be very skilled, console games are not for "bad gamers", Hep is definitely somewhere passed the ridiculous line for making such statements. in fact, consoles today or in the future that ultimately adopt a more precise input device will negate that relatively minor difference anyway.

 

Well, on console, you can't aim nearly as good and have accuracy like a mouse.Plus, you can't turn as fast.I dont know how many times I've gotten knifed in Call of Duty because the turn rate is like 2 mph.Very annoying, especially when you are a sniper.which is why cross platform online games are pointless, as unless the PC gamer really sucks, PC gamers will rape Console Gamers in a deathmatch especially in a sniper duel.

As masterchef said, its not that console gamers are bad players, its just the controller is very limiting and the the console players can't really show off their skill that well.

 

Look at MLG. Skill ceiling is bs.

 

having a lower skill ceiling (there is still a lot of room for skill, i'm just comparing CoD4 PC to CoD4 console, more specifically a precise mouse versus the xbox controller) is not going to stop people from competing!

skill is not the same as performance!

 

Lolin at your posts. Masterchef got exactly what I was saying. There's a reason consoles are dominating over PCs, and that's because not everyone wants to spend 30 hours a week getting good at a PC game. It's much easier to pick up a console game, and the difference in skill between a really exceptionally good console player and a fairly bad console player is a much much much much much much smaller gap in performance than the gap between an exceptionally good PC player and a fairly bad PC player.

You take someone who plays COD4 on console 30 hours a week vs someone who plays 4 hours a week, it's obvious who is going to win. But even at that, the 4 hours a week guy is going to get some kills in.
You take someone who plays COD4 on PC 30 hours a week vs someone who plays on PC 4 hours a week, the person who plays 30 hours a week is going to MOP THE FLOOR with the other player.

I used to play COD2 in CAL-IM, and I could literally take on 7 casual gamer friends without a problem. Then we'd play Halo, a game I didn't own but they all did, and I'd still win about half the time.
Short learning curve. Low skill ceiling.

Consoles were DESIGNED this way to cater to BAD PLAYERS (yep, call me a dickweed, but I'm saying it again) because most people are casual gamers and do not have any interest in spending time to get good.

 

that last part is your mistake.

its not like there is no room for good players to excel in console games, or that CoD4 is for bad gamers...

such a far statement from talking about skill differences.

 

Will since the Xbox 360 trail wasn't working for me I went to a friend’s house and tried the trail game on his PS3. After a short demo which expired after a few matches, we ended up purchasing the full game, since it was pretty darn fun and kind of brought back memories of when we used to play Battlefield 1942. I definitely recommend the game for the fun factor and even though it runs under the Frostbite Engine much like Battlefield Bad Company the gameplay is much slower even with its rechargeable health and ammo. Plus you can’t go wrong with the games low price tag.