Battlefield 1943: the next BF on PC?

Unfocused said:
As for the 24-player limit in BF1943 - it shows how consoles hinder the development of new games and gaming in general. Not that I like to play BF2 on 64-player maps - I don't like the spamming and general cluster**** that comes with it, but still 24 as a MAXIMUM is laughable.
Click to expand...

Frontlines Fuel of War had servers that held 50 players and it worked fine. This is DICE's decision, and that's pretty obvious seeing that the PC version will ship with the same when they could go larger. We haven't seen **** all on the game except for a quick one minute trailer - maybe there's a reason for 24 players?

I'd like more players, sure, but then I've also enjoyed all of my time in Bad Company with 24 players so either is fine for me. Maybe some folk should go and actually try 12 v 12 before commenting on the size on paper alone before they turn their back on the game.
 
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/battlefield1943/video/6204180/battlefield-1943-gameplay-movie-1

No mention of the PC version. Oh, how far you have fallen DICE.


I'd rather just go play the original game or Battlefield Vietnam: Redux.
Destructible Environment is not gimmicky enough for me to be impressed. Then you have the 24 player cap. Also, releasing a PC version of BC 2 without releasing the first game to the PC makes no ****ing sense. The PC version, once again, is merely an afterthought. Thx, but no thx.
 
So we've got what amounts to a press release mentioning 24 players and everyone's freaking out? Patience people.
 
Disappointed to see that this is a "slim" game in the sense that there are only 3 maps and it's MP only, but it'll be great anyway. 24 player cap doesn't bother me too much, the trailer got me pretty hyped up :)
 
MP only is the way I like my Battlefield. Also Coral Sea.
 
GD it where in the hell is BF3 on PC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im loosing faith that I will ever get to play that style of game (pc) again! :(
 
24 players on large maps is just going to feel empty.
 
custom1233846817377bf2jt8.jpg

custom1233846813147bf1sj5.jpg





if those swedfags don't release it on the PC I'm gonna go jihad on their ass
 
it's officially announced for PC, as is Bad Company 2 :)
 
I still sometimes hear the Battlefield 1942 menu music in my sleep.

Nostalgia ftw.
 
cool
but i seriously hope they reconsider the 24 player cap... at least for PC :P
 
Yeah check out the press release, it says PC too =]
 
Wowwww I never had the internet when playing 1942 so I missed out, but I seriously cant wait for this. I will probably get it for the 360 though so I can play it with my mates.
 
TheAntipop said:
Frontlines Fuel of War had servers that held 50 players and it worked fine. This is DICE's decision, and that's pretty obvious seeing that the PC version will ship with the same when they could go larger. We haven't seen **** all on the game except for a quick one minute trailer - maybe there's a reason for 24 players?

I'd like more players, sure, but then I've also enjoyed all of my time in Bad Company with 24 players so either is fine for me. Maybe some folk should go and actually try 12 v 12 before commenting on the size on paper alone before they turn their back on the game.
Click to expand...

Considering BF2 offered scalable 16, 32, 64 player maps... I'd say this is definitely a huge step backwards for DICE. Honestly, I don't see a positive reason for capping the maximum player limit to 24.

Certain games are fine with smaller players, but the BF series is basically built upon large-sale warfare and some of my best memories from BF2 are in huge servers with my screen littered with enemies. I know there are people who enjoy BF with fewer players but my gripe here is that they're not catering to us who like the large-scale assaults.
 
AiM said:
Considering BF2 offered scalable 16, 32, 64 player maps... I'd say this is definitely a huge step backwards for DICE. Honestly, I don't see a positive reason for capping the maximum player limit to 24.

Certain games are fine with smaller players, but the BF series is basically built upon large-sale warfare and some of my best memories from BF2 are in huge servers with my screen littered with enemies. I know there are people who enjoy BF with fewer players but my gripe here is that they're not catering to us who like the large-scale assaults.
Click to expand...

Agreed!!!!. I have zero interest in 1943 at this time. I look forward to BC2. finger crossed.
 
TwwIX said:
PC gamers are basically getting a Bad Company mod. Why don't they release Bad Company for us too? Ugh, this just further proves that developers don't give a shit about PC gamers anymore.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that part does kind of piss me off. They failed so hard with the patches on BF2, they refuse to make another main title on it. If they would have released Bad Company for the PC....man, I hate playing that game on the console. I want my Mouse/Keyboard.
 
Got hyped when i heard about it, but that was shot cold dead with the trailer. For 2009, i did not expect such low quality graphics :/ BF1942 was a milestone in multiplayer fps, but what helped it was also the great graphics it could support at the same time. I was expecting a continuation of that, Battlefield 1942 with bigger maps, better graphics that would stun us once again, and offer more players.

This is what i call the Console syndrome, once a company decides to make a few titles for consoles, it has to lower its full potential to fit the primitive gameplay mechanics and graphics of consoles, thus PC users has to suffer.
 
Ravioli said:
Got hyped when i heard about it, but that was shot cold dead with the trailer. For 2009, i did not expect such low quality graphics :/ BF1942 was a milestone in multiplayer fps, but what helped it was also the great graphics it could support at the same time. I was expecting a continuation of that, Battlefield 1942 with bigger maps, better graphics that would stun us once again, and offer more players.

This is what i call the Console syndrome, once a company decides to make a few titles for consoles, it has to lower its full potential to fit the primitive gameplay mechanics and graphics of consoles, thus PC users has to suffer.
Click to expand...
Oh you gotta be shitting me, this has nothing to do with consoles, heck even BF:Bad Company looks better than BF1943.

According to what I've heard from people working at DICE Stockholm they're basically just taking a bunch of resources from BF1942, updating it, and then releasing it as BF1943, apparently with a lot of pressure from the higher ups in EA since they want quick ways to make money now during the financial crisis seeing as it's putting pressure on'em.

And what better way than to simply reuse a bunch of old resources, retitle it to BF1943, and sell it 'cheaply' via XBL and PSN?

BF1943 doesn't look worse than any other such 'games' you can find that fit the same purpose etc.

End point: This has little to do with being on console, just look at how well-made CoD4 on the 360 and PS3 was. This is more related to the fact that all this is is a desperate attempt to up revenues by reusing old resources which costs a lot less money than making totally new ones. This was never intended as a remake of BF1942, or some form of sequel or such, but rather as a resource-cheap cashcow.
 
Dice can suck a dick.
24 players? 3 maps? What the ****?
 
I am for one am happy at 24 players,smaller battles are better i think then massive 64 player battles where it all goes to pot.
 
Indeed, the 64 player maps was just far too crowded usually and everyone just going off and doing their own things, the smaller scale maps you had more chance of squads forming and teamwork being used.
 
That is so dumb. It will lead to less squad and more everyone-for-themselves type of gameplay. Battlefield: Call of Duty
 
Also, if you prefer playing with a small amount of players, then there's no problem with that, and there's no one stopping you from joining a small server.

However, for a lot of people, the appeal of Battlefield comes from huge chaotic battles with many players killing each other with all kinds of weapons and vehicles. The fact that they're restricting us from such gameplay is what angers me, and without it I see no reason why to choose this over any other regular FPS, many of which probably do small-scale combat a lot better.
 
I have had farts that have sounded better than this. Seriously , this series has been going down hill since battlefield 2142 imo.
 
Looking at the trailer, it looks quite poor actually. 24 player maps? graphics worse than BF2? dumbed down for consoles by the looks.
 
Vectyr said:
Looking at the trailer, it looks quite poor actually. 24 player maps? graphics worse than BF2? dumbed down for consoles by the looks.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out that 24 players isn't the lowest the console can cater for as Frontlines ran 50 player servers just fine, so it's goddamn obviously a move by DICE for other reasons. I think Gargantou hit it on the head with his post, but I guess you haven't even been reading the rest of the thread.

Secondly, as Gargantou again said, explain why Battlefield Bad Company looked better than this when that was on a console, then? Not to mention it had fully destructable environments to boot alongside pretty damn good graphics.

EDITED; It was Gar for the second one, too.
 
I'm starting to think maybe they will limit which checkpoints you can capture to concentrate the battles in single areas? That's the only way I can see 24 players being acceptable and it might actually be a nice change to all the other bf series.
 
All classes have anti-armor? They all have combat rifles (presumably)? Already I'm going to hate this game. I don't even want to remember what the other bad parts were.
 
No Limit said:
I'm starting to think maybe they will limit which checkpoints you can capture to concentrate the battles in single areas? That's the only way I can see 24 players being acceptable and it might actually be a nice change to all the other bf series.
Click to expand...

That's how Bad Company's Gold Rush gamemode works. You start attacking one part of the battlefield that the enemy defends, and if you take that point, the enemy has to fall back to the second stage of the map which opens up. Take the second checkpoint, they fall back to a third, and depending on the size of a map, a fourth, fifth and maybe a sixth behind that. It's really fun and works pretty smoothly. Each stage is pretty big, too, though not as big as the map opens up to be at the end of the defenders tether, if the attackers manage to get that far.
 
TheAntipop said:
That's how Bad Company's Gold Rush gamemode works. You start attacking one part of the battlefield that the enemy defends, and if you take that point, the enemy has to fall back to the second stage of the map which opens up. Take the second checkpoint, they fall back to a third, and depending on the size of a map, a fourth, fifth and maybe a sixth behind that. It's really fun and works pretty smoothly. Each stage is pretty big, too, though not as big as the map opens up to be at the end of the defenders tether, if the attackers manage to get that far.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried any of the bad company games. Does that play better than the battlefield style where you can go cap whatever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hectic Glenn
UPDATED: Half-Life 3, Left 4 Dead 3, Source 2 + Much More Found on Valve Project Tracker
2 3
Replies
92
Views
391K
Stigmata
Stigmata
Sulkdodds
Chet on CS:GO, Part 2: "It's hard to accept change"
Replies
14
Views
4K
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
Chet on CS:GO Interview Part 1 - We won't change the rules of CS
Replies
17
Views
5K
DEATHMASTER
DEATHMASTER
Evo
Doug Lombardi on the PC
Replies
31
Views
3K
Mahalis
Mahalis
Crispy
HL2.net server recommendations
Replies
16
Views
2K
Crispy
Crispy
Back
Top