Battlefield 1943 Confirmed

By Jim Rossignol on February 5th, 2009 at 4:57 pm.


Oh my. VG247 have the news over here. “1943 features 24-player action over three locations; Wake Island, Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima.” There’s also a video (thanks Joystiq, love you!) which I’ve posted after the jump. I can see the “omg nerf bombers” forum headline from here. It does look like the game intends to revisit the World War II vehicular combat found in the first game with little change to the formula, and that’s a good thing. It will apparently arrive on PC “this summer”. Fantastic news.


, , .

100 Comments »

  1. Petethegoat says:

    Heh, I just saw this on Eurogamer. I wonder if this will have bots like the original? Nothing quite like getting a few friends round on lan and doing crazy commando strikes against the bots. Good times, looking forward to this.

  2. Hermit says:

    24 players seems a bit low for a Battlefield game, hopefully the PC version ups that a bit (Unless they mean 24 players per team). That said I still think 1942 was the highlight of the series so far, so here’s hoping they recapture the feel of the original.
    Bad Company 2 on the PC should also be interesting. The original was rather good, especially in multiplayer.

  3. Feet says:

    ENGAGE CYNICAL MODE

    It’s a BF2\2142 reskin. I’d rather reinstall 1942 tbh.

  4. DigitalSignalX says:

    Now with even more explosions!

  5. Butler` says:

    Still waiting on Battlefield 3.

    Basically 2142 without the futuristic crap, but with the great rank up / gear unlocks.

  6. Rich_P says:

    So let me get this straight: EA took one of the best online shooters and retroactively infected it with consolitis?

    24 players per server! Wow, thank god Battlefield 1942 didn’t have 64 player servers back in 2002! Oh. Wait.

    Only two armies? Three maps? No Desert Combat mod?

    So EA basically stripped down BF42 so it could work with the consoles and their ridiculous limitations. And people want to pay money for this because…?

    /angry PC elitist who’s been playing BF42 for the last seven years

  7. Doc MacRae says:

    At least it looks good.

  8. MetalCircus says:

    inb4 reskin etc.

    seriously though, EA really don’t give a shit anymore do they?

  9. Jim Rossignol says:

    Hmm, I was never convinced by the 64 player thing. Smaller could make for a better team game.

  10. Surgeon says:

    It looks nice, but also a little bit strange.

    Kind of like BF2 crossed with Battlefield Heroes.

  11. Carey says:

    We’re Taping Casualty!

  12. Flappybat says:

    I don’t know. I really don’t give a damn about WW2. Especially not a remake which I played plenty of only four years ago, hardly retro.

  13. ThIrD-EyE says:

    BF1943 will also be on Live (not sure if that’s just Live or Xbox Live) and PSN. That would explain why the max clients is only 24. Think of it as an Arcadish demo/ light version of a Battlefield game.

  14. Diogo Ribeiro says:

    I kind of agree with Jim on this. A smaller number of players always worked best for me in online games. Tighter teams, less chaos, more planning. With friends, it works even better. There’s nothing worse than joining a Q3 server and as soon as you materialize, it’s like Carrie all over again (y’know, with the blood almost drowning you).

    But without a larger number of enemies online at the same time, how can we make our e-penis grow by waving our PCs at console players?

  15. Nighthood says:

    Am I the only person in the world that hates fighting in japan and wants it to be back in france?

  16. Lavitz says:

    uh huh.. Is this a freeware ?

    Maybe they will surprise us and say *Gothca* and put out a trailer of BF 3.
    - Till then ill get some marshmallow ready, nothing like a marshmallow cooked by a flamer.

  17. Alex McLarty says:

    Looks good? Have you seen the models when they run up the beach? ROBOTS.

    Meh to the past. Woo hoo to the future.

  18. SwiftRanger says:

    Early April Fools joke? Jeezes, where the hell is Battlefield 3 for PC with a decent server browser for once? 1943 looks more like a budget release (which if it is, I’ll be interested).

    Apparently Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is heading to PC as well, hopefully that won’t be everything, right?

  19. Tei says:

    It sounds strange that a new version of a game have much less maps. And support less players.

    Is like “Counter-Strike Lite”, 4 man deathmachs, only cs_italy map. Or “Quake 1 Lite” with DM1 and DM5.
    Where is the el_alamein?

    Is the LHC active already?
    I think we have a apocalipsys of “strangelets”

  20. Skurmedel says:

    This is great… really. I’ve longed for BF 1942 for ages, but it’s just too ancient now. The vehicles in 1942 was always much more entertaining than the ones featured in the sequels, with maybe an exception for the helicopters.

    Also I think 24 players works well, that was a quite average player count on the servers when BF 1942 came out.

  21. jackflash says:

    Disagree with Jim on this one. The difference between a Battlefield server with 24 players and 64 players is huuuuge – with the latter being so much more fun, chaotic, and unpredictable. The best teamwork mechanism in the battlefield games is the squad unit, which works just as well in a large game as in a small one. Anyway, I hope this doesn’t suck – which basically means I hope it’s not also coming out on consoles.

  22. Nick says:

    32 players on 64 map sizes was ideal in BF2 imo. Or 48. The full 64 was always too crowded and chaotic in all but the hugest of BF2 maps at least.

    But 24? Fuck off, thanks.

  23. Premium User Badge

    Vandelay says:

    Agreed Alex McLarty. I’m sure I remember seeing videos of the Frostbite engine that looked much better than that, particularly the models. Being cynical as well, this looks just like they have run out of ideas but are desperate to make another Battlefield game.

    Having said that, I do have some agreement with Jim, bigger doesn’t always mean better. Just as long as the map sizes are catered for smaller numbers and you aren’t just running around aimlessly for hours not seeing anyone.

    I wish more straightforward FPSs would follow suit and have more maps designed for smaller games. I remember playing my brothers at various FPSs in my youth over our LAN. Medal of Honor, Quake and so on. Great fun. Trying to find a similar style of FPS that you can play with just 2 people now days is impossible.

    Edit: Jedi Knight 2 was also awesome for this. Nothing beats a good duel. More recently Left 4 Dead has managed something similar too. These games work so well because of the more personal battles you fight, which is a direct result of the fewer people.

  24. Lars BR says:

    First reaction: Best gaming news this year.

    Second reaction: That’s not a whole game, what’s the catch (bundled with BF3/BC2, lots of pricey DLC?)

    It’s certainly not a reskin of 2142, since it uses the BC engine, Frostbite.

    Still. very much looking forward to this.

  25. Springy says:

    @ Diogo:

    I disagree there, I don’t think that small numbers are the best in every situation. For the insane chaos of BF1942, it was nice to be a part of something bigger, even if it was a something that included some tit driving your aircraft carrier off the map.

  26. Turin Turambar says:

    64 players maps were so chaotic that were boring.

  27. Steelfists says:

    “Hmm, I was never convinced by the 64 player thing. Smaller could make for a better team game.”

    On a random server, its unlikely that there will be much teamplay, even with only 24 people. I just liked joining a small squad and seeing the huge mayhem all around.

    It was a really awesome feeling when you knew that you were only a part of a much larger, if not cohesive, whole.

    In fact, in BF2 at least, I always found that tactics on a grander scale usually worked themselves out, on Wake Island 2007 at least. Two squads would insert by boat, one by helicopter, snipers would set up on the small Island, and the jets and attack chopper would blow the shit out of everything.
    It wasn’t organised, it just worked because everyone liked and were good at different jobs.

    God I love BF2.

  28. Markoff Chaney says:

    I absolutely love BF42 and DC more than most things in life. Wake Island is one of the few maps I could play eternally. A big smile went across my face when I saw this. Then I saw the game, and more and more I got a little sad. Then I reread the announcement. 3 maps? They must mean for the demo, right? Well, if they do Wake again, that’s 1/3 of the game right there. That’s got to be the demo, right?

    My favorite way to kill was in a room with a handful of my best friends split in half, with bots to back us up and become our sometimes nemesis. I didn’t do too many of the huge skirmishes, but they were crazy fun. I prefer a bit more calculation.

    One of my best friends was always convinced of Air Superiority. Personally, I found the planes served best when I could ride one into a base, parachute out and crash it into the tank while capturing the point. Good Times. Such Good Times…

    Everything after, imo, in the Battlefield Franchise has been a pale imitation of a ghost of perfection at best. 3 maps? That’s got to be the demo, right?

  29. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    Three locations, hmm?

    That said, I know people who still play the first battlefield; I merely played wore out the demo, but that’s a great game. Interested to see how this’ll turn out.

  30. egg says:

    A bit more blowy and epic than I would have expected. But sure seems nice.

    DICE arguably let us down with Mirror’s Edge and BF Heroes (though I haven’t played neither yet :D), so it’s a good way of seeking redemption.

  31. Cedge says:

    Sounds terrific. Can’t wait to play this and Heroes.

    Since this is digital distribution only, I’m really pulling for a release on Steam, as I’m not a fan of EA’s digital store.

    MetalCircus:
    No, someone actually cried “reskin” before you posted. :)

  32. Tei says:

    It would have look like a interesting idea to add to the game a vehicle to build bridges (there are track vehicles that deploy bridges), and make so TNT or air bombs can destroy bridges. That way you add a strategy element to the game.
    Destructible enviroment looks like the next obvious step for a Battlefield game.

    Another bit could be “night/day” cycle, with the ability to use the night to paradrop in a fortified place. Maybe even a limited set of NPC’s that control some anti-air positions, or something, so games with 64 players feel like games with 256 soldiers.

  33. Obdicut says:

    As someone who worked in BF1942 (as just a lowly tester):

    This does look like a reskin of 42, but it’s hard to tell from that footage what under-the-hood stuff they’ve put in, or what RPG-ish stuff, or what.

    I’ll only be happy if you can still jeep-bomb.

  34. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    Tei: To be used by engineers, then, I reckon? Engineers coud be used for so much, really. Putting down and breaking up barbed wire, mines, making sandbag fortifications, etc.

    Now that sounds like fun.

  35. Tei says:

    @Hmm-Hmm: The engineer was a hella fun on B42… nothing like stop some tanks with well placed mines. Putting down deplayables could have make it epic. Anyway this sounds like something modable… There are a mod ( Sandbox ) to create anything with prefabs, so I suppose the engine’s support something like it. It only needs something like a menu, and counters to limit the number of deployables. Maybe make so the normal infantry can dig holes (not anywhere, but on special areas).

  36. cheeba says:

    @Tei: “Destructible enviroment looks like the next obvious step for a Battlefield game.”

    Didn’t Bad Company have that already?

  37. Zeh says:

    People judging solely by the number of players either didn’t play BF42 or don’t remember it very well. Because depending on how maps are designed, the number of players become almost irrelevant.

    BF42 with 12vs12 has always felt “more crowded” than, say, BF2 with 16vs16 for me. That simply because capture points were usually lesser and more linear. BF2 capturing was just random musical chairs.

    It’s BF42 with a new engine (and “destructible” environments), but I wholeheartedly applaud this move. I just hope they don’t split the community by releasing future optional map add-on packs, but somehow I doubt they’ll be this smart (and since there doesn’t seem to be any other way to monetize on a simple game).

  38. Heliocentric says:

    @hmm-hmm
    I’m sorry to be the perpetual project reality pimp but pr lets squad leaders deploy sand bags and barb wire are aa guns and firebases(a spawn point and a jeep spawn point).

    Also pr has destroyable buildings. Not with the detail which the frostbite engine allows maybe.

    24 players is not enough for a few reasons.

    Mainly? 32 is near enough, as long as the map suits it to allow you to pull away from the front and flank properly. But a larger number allows space for joining and leaving players and idlers. Add in a few noobs and suddenly 64 is just fine for a server.

    I’ll assume 24 is per side and remain unimpressed as i heard bf3 had 80 players on a press release.

  39. BooleanBob says:

    Battlefield 2 was one of my favourite games ever.

    The demo was, at least. Man, I played that with friends for hours. There were always just enough of us to fill a squad, all on vent; and being a cohesive, communicative unit meant we could really swing any battle if the rest of the team (and the commander) had any gumption about them at all. It was a game where you gladly followed any order, however inane, because you felt like you could contribute in doing so – and you genuinely wanted to help realise your commander’s designs. 24, 32, 48, 64 – no map size was unconditionally superior; each had strengths and weaknesses and it was always really about the people, not the numbers of people, that made each battle what it was. How each player’s preferences flavoured the class mix, the vehicles in use, or the overall aggressive/defensive proclivities of your side.

    That said, when we all bought the full game we couldn’t have played it regularly for more than a week. The server/lobby system was horribly borked, the client took an age to launch and made your PC handle like a space-shuttle on re-entry when you tried to quit (to paraphrase PA’s Tycho) – and that was if you had the luxury of it not choosing to quit for you with a jolly old bluescreen.

    But yeah, as Jim quite cynically pre-empted in the post, it was the bombers that really accelerated our collective disinterest. That they could be effectively operated solo, and that practise in the use of their dark arts only made them more deadly – well, between endless repeated bombing runs and artillery strikes on the maps’ (relatively few) spawn points, the game became an escape simulator than anything else – forget the point, forget the objective, for God’s sakes forget the bloody vehicles – the only chance you had at more than 10 seconds life on respawn was to pick a direction and run.

    Same reason I quit Tribes 2, though, which if anything was a title with more potential for rich strategic teamwork and hectic gunplay – certainly moreso than Team Fortress 2 could ever hope to be – but of course, with the scantest realistic hope of delivering on said potential because of the ease and proliferation of mortar and bomber spamming tactics.

    It was heart breaking in a way, because at the time there really wasn’t anything as fun as a Battlefield 2 game going well – it felt like a whole new future of multiplayer gaming. So while yes, I’m happy that DICE are bringing us more Battlefield, it’s inevitable that there’s going to be large AoE, spammable, instakill weapons – bombers, ship cannons, what have you. And therefore I doubt this one will have many legs for me + mein pals past the demo.

  40. Nick says:

    Plus BF2 you could blow up the larger concrete bridges with C4/bombs.

  41. Nick says:

    There wasn’t a 24 player map size in BF2, it was 16, 32, 64.

  42. Dreamhacker says:

    If I ever meet the man who came up with this idea, I will first shake his hand and then proceed to slap him.

    24 PLAYER TEAMS!? THREE ISLAND MAPS!?

    Angry internet-men, unite… or puke… or something…

  43. Hypocee says:

    Only interested if they have bots – compstomps were 99% of the fun I had with 42 and DC. I couldn’t believe it when they took coop skirmish out of BF2 and then claimed it as a ‘new feature’ in a press release for 2142. I’m not holding my breath.

  44. Obdicut says:

    Zeth hit a nail on a head.

    Berlin in 42, for example, 12 V 12 was almost overcrowded. BF42 scaled like a motherfucker.

  45. BooleanBob says:

    @Nick: Yes, but the player limit could be (and often was) changed server-side – you could have 24 players on a 32-size map, or 48 on a 64. I remember playing 4 v 4 on a 16 player map. It wasn’t great.

    Also, if a bridge was taken out, that was an immediate and compulsory challenge to try to clear the gap in a buggy. Doing so, if I remember correctly, automatically won you the round.

  46. Nick says:

    Yeah, I know, thats why I said 32 players on 64 maps and 48 players on 64 maps worked better than 64 on 64 =)

  47. Skittles the Horking Pirate says:

    You’re in luck, because you aren’t fighting in Japan.

  48. BooleanBob says:

    Eesh. Yes, ok. To pedantry, the spoils.

  49. Skittles the Horking Pirate says:

    That was @ Nightwood, btw.

    I miss the edit button.

  50. Jim Rossignol says:

    Logging into the forum allows you to edit, afaik. Best bodge we could come up with, I think. I actually can’t tell how it works due to admin powers.