Re: New BF games announced
Posted: 2009-02-06 15:10
so they made bad company 2 and 1943, 2 mediocre games in hopes of earning twice the money instead of making a proper 64+ player game?



FA-37 > other assault rifles in 2142.Tirak wrote:Aim for the head, two shots and they're dead. Deviation while scoped in is nothing, it doesn't wobble and there's no recoil. Couldn't ask for a better gun, though the Lambert takes a close 2nd.
What We Saw
One multiplayer map on the New York Comic-Con show floor at the EA booth. Gordon Van Dyke, associate producer at Dice, was on hand to first show me through some of the new features for the game before I messed around with it.
How Far Along Is It?
The game is scheduled for release this summer with an expected price point between $15 to $20. The download size of the game will be around 350MB
What Needs Improvement
Unlike previous Battlefield games, Pacific only has three unit classes: Infantry, Riflemen, and Scout. Gone are the Medics and Heavy weapons classes. Van dyke explained they wanted every class to be able to fight in every situation. Every class has weapons to fight against the biggest tanks and armor. I would like to have seen more classes with varied abilities and risks.
Also, players have auto-health and unlimited ammo. I find auto-health to be too simple and easy and unlimited ammo means players will be firing without thinking. That will probably mean no more knife fights.
What Should Stay The Same
The destructible environments were a breath of fresh air for me. As someone who played a ton of the original 1942, nothing was more infuriating that driving into a tree and getting stuck. Now, I can run them all over and blow chunks of buildings away. Van Dyke said the game has about the same amount of destruction depth as Bad Company.
I also liked the upgraded graphics. While the original 1942 was fine graphically, 1943 Pacific adds more detail, physics, shadowing, and overall effects. It's very clean looking and stays true to the original maps.
Final Thoughts
I really had no idea what to expect from this game. I was presently surprised to see my favorite online game ever get a much-needed upgrade. The one concern I have is that this won't seem like a completely new, full Battlefield game. There won't be as many maps in the final game and the focus on casual play has me worried. Van Dyke wouldn't specify, but he said if this Battlefield gets a good reaction from fans, Dice might consider adding more and more content down the road.
Van dyke explained they wanted every class to be able to fight in every situation. Every class has weapons to fight against the biggest tanks and armor. I would like to have seen more classes with varied abilities and risks.

FAIL. FLAT OUT FAIL. EA/DICE needs to stop listening to noobs who say things like "tankz iz OP becuz icant open teh hatch an throw my nade in!"Unlike previous Battlefield games, Pacific only has three unit classes: Infantry, Riflemen, and Scout. Gone are the Medics and Heavy weapons classes. Van dyke explained they wanted every class to be able to fight in every situation. Every class has weapons to fight against the biggest tanks and armor. I would like to have seen more classes with varied abilities and risks.
Also, players have auto-health and unlimited ammo. I find auto-health to be too simple and easy and unlimited ammo means players will be firing without thinking. That will probably mean no more knife fights.
Wait whaaaaat? No kidding? I'll get it right now then heh[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:BF3 now on the Wii
Sorry to bust on your fail rant there, but it's actually quiet the EXACT OPPOSITE of a fail. In business terms, it is a win. There is a much smaller "hardcore" battlefield group of players out there. However, there are a lot more casual gamers. You see, these games are mainly being developed for the consoles as opposed to the PC. As I recall, Xboxes can't support 64 players in a single multiplayer game. Thus, the MP player limit is probably 24 players. EA is more concerned about money than the actual old school bf players.hiberNative wrote:so they made bad company 2 and 1943, 2 mediocre games in hopes of earning twice the money instead of making a proper 64+ player game?
google wrote:EA is more concerned about money than the actual old school bf players.

I agree 1943 isnt aimed at PR players - its seems to be a very accessible FPS, aimed at people who might not buy a full price FPS. In the same way that BF2 is a gateway to PR, BF1943 will act as a gateway to the BF series. I suspect it will be very successful, and I expect to see a few expansion packs on the back of this.google wrote:Sorry to bust on your fail rant there, but it's actually quiet the EXACT OPPOSITE of a fail. In business terms, it is a win. There is a much smaller "hardcore" battlefield group of players out there. However, there are a lot more casual gamers. You see, these games are mainly being developed for the consoles as opposed to the PC. As I recall, Xboxes can't support 64 players in a single multiplayer game. Thus, the MP player limit is probably 24 players. EA is more concerned about money than the actual old school bf players.
Sounds more like a gameplay thing to me. Players won't be happy if some guy in a tank or plane can just level the whole map to the ground, so they give you something that can still serve as cover even at the end of the game when all the houses and trees are destroyed.McLuv wrote:I love the : "We've built the bunkers sooo strong, that they're safe now and they won't get blown up"
Lazyness, pfff.![]()
Of course, the thing is, it's the EXACT same bunker from bf 2, so they probably just imported it. That in itself isn't bad, but claiming yourself to be genius for making it sooo strong it won't blow up is just stupid.Cobhris wrote:Sounds more like a gameplay thing to me. Players won't be happy if some guy in a tank or plane can just level the whole map to the ground, so they give you something that can still serve as cover even at the end of the game when all the houses and trees are destroyed.