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.
05/02/2009 at 17:00 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:02 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:03 Feet says:
ENGAGE CYNICAL MODE
It’s a BF2\2142 reskin. I’d rather reinstall 1942 tbh.
05/02/2009 at 17:03 DigitalSignalX says:
Now with even more explosions!
05/02/2009 at 17:04 Butler` says:
Still waiting on Battlefield 3.
Basically 2142 without the futuristic crap, but with the great rank up / gear unlocks.
05/02/2009 at 17:05 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
05/02/2009 at 17:10 Doc MacRae says:
At least it looks good.
05/02/2009 at 17:11 MetalCircus says:
inb4 reskin etc.
seriously though, EA really don’t give a shit anymore do they?
05/02/2009 at 17:21 Jim Rossignol says:
Hmm, I was never convinced by the 64 player thing. Smaller could make for a better team game.
05/02/2009 at 17:22 Surgeon says:
It looks nice, but also a little bit strange.
Kind of like BF2 crossed with Battlefield Heroes.
05/02/2009 at 17:23 Carey says:
We’re Taping Casualty!
05/02/2009 at 17:23 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:26 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:28 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?
05/02/2009 at 17:29 Nighthood says:
Am I the only person in the world that hates fighting in japan and wants it to be back in france?
05/02/2009 at 17:33 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:41 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:43 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?
05/02/2009 at 17:43 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”
05/02/2009 at 17:44 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:46 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:48 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:53 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:54 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:56 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.
05/02/2009 at 17:58 Turin Turambar says:
64 players maps were so chaotic that were boring.
05/02/2009 at 18:00 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:03 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?
05/02/2009 at 18:03 Hmm-Hmm. says:
Three locations, hmm?
That said, I know people who still play the first battlefield; I merely
playedwore out the demo, but that’s a great game. Interested to see how this’ll turn out.05/02/2009 at 18:04 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:04 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. :)
05/02/2009 at 18:07 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:12 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:14 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:22 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).
05/02/2009 at 18:35 cheeba says:
@Tei: “Destructible enviroment looks like the next obvious step for a Battlefield game.”
Didn’t Bad Company have that already?
05/02/2009 at 18:43 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).
05/02/2009 at 18:44 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:44 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:45 Nick says:
Plus BF2 you could blow up the larger concrete bridges with C4/bombs.
05/02/2009 at 18:46 Nick says:
There wasn’t a 24 player map size in BF2, it was 16, 32, 64.
05/02/2009 at 18:47 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…
05/02/2009 at 18:49 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:49 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:54 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.
05/02/2009 at 18:58 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 =)
05/02/2009 at 19:02 Skittles the Horking Pirate says:
05/02/2009 at 19:02 BooleanBob says:
Eesh. Yes, ok. To pedantry, the spoils.
05/02/2009 at 19:03 Skittles the Horking Pirate says:
That was @ Nightwood, btw.
I miss the edit button.
05/02/2009 at 19:05 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.
05/02/2009 at 19:09 Stuk says:
Where was the amazing theme tune?!
Large failure.
05/02/2009 at 19:13 Heliocentric says:
Confirm: 12 vs 12 or is it 24 vs 24? 12 is a bloody sorry number for a battlefield game.
05/02/2009 at 19:17 Diogo Ribeiro says:
@Springy:
True to a degree; there’s something appealing to joining a large scale battle. There seems to be some momentum to our actions, and our orders being drowned by the surrounding chaos, along with never being able to predict how things turn ou, certainly evokes the tension of combat.
But it’s also the chaos that sometimes wears me down (after all, I was talking what works best for me), with waves of screaming deaths, annoying giblet showers and a higher rate of being fragged because you just respawned at the wrong place. I feel incredibly frustrated with the latter one; an enormous battle raging and all I’ve been doing is getting bazooka’d to death the last minute because there’s so much chaos I get caught in the crossfire without having a single chance of defense, retreat or counter-attacking.
05/02/2009 at 19:17 Markoff Chaney says:
Oh yes. Bots. Must have bots. BF2 was worthless without bots. We all bought it and fired it up and looked at each other with looks of shock, sadness, anger and disappointment, making BF2 into one of the worst initial gaming experiences I’ve shared with a group of gaming friends. I still can’t believe that game was released without bots. Yes, Please to bots.
05/02/2009 at 19:28 Heliocentric says:
Still. WTF are they thinking? A game known for its epic battles made smaller? A reissue of environments? No mention of new features any word on a console release?
05/02/2009 at 19:29 jonfitt says:
My excitement quickly turned to cynicism:
Looks sweet, but 24 player Battlefield? More like Battlegarden.
32 could be fun on some maps, but 64 was always the best hands down. You could get a group of people together and play cohesively within the battlefield knowing that there were other people doing what needed to be done. If you wanted to plan a long-way-round boat attack you could do that knowing that other people would be flying the planes, and defending the villages with tanks etc.
24 players on Wake Island would either have to be a cut down area of the map where planes dominate everything (more), or whack-a-mole chases back and forth defending cap points on the full map.
Also 3 maps? Gosh! Really? All for me? So generous.
I guess we get all the other old maps re-skinned in pay-for DLC!
05/02/2009 at 19:50 Dr. Quincy says:
It uses Frostbite so its a Bad Company reskin if its anything.
05/02/2009 at 20:29 Rei Onryou says:
I am now awaiting a news report stating that EA has been dissolved by a disillusioned lead director and the only quote available is from the Something Awful forums stating “CULTURAL VICTORY”.
Seriously, this can’t be real or right. Perhaps while Mirror’s Edge was been worked on they had a small group working on BF3 and this is all they could come up with. Since money is tight and ME didn’t do as well as they hoped, they’re just rebranding it BF43 and trying to make a quick buck.
Way to fail EA. Fire more staff than expected, get your share prices up, intend to focus on key franchises and then spoonfeed us this tripe. If this doesn’t come with some obscene form of SecuROM on all formats, I’ll be surprised.
05/02/2009 at 20:38 pepper says:
I agree Jim, i find the 24 servers in BF2 have the most balanced teamplay, instead of just a hughe frag fest.
Got to say, as a battlefield fanboy, that i already love this!! I hope its nothing like 2142, but more like 1942 mixed with the best from bf2. Especially BF2, not much on just pub, but it rocked when played with clanners. Oh how i long for the long evenings playing through all the addons, shouting at eachother over the teamspeak channel, hearing the frustration when your team mates are being blown to smitherseen by the bombs you just dropped on the flag they were capturing, and how they wished me the most horrible diseases…. Do i sound old now?..
05/02/2009 at 20:51 Rich_P says:
You need more than 24 players if you want epic combined arms battles. That’s where Battlefield 1942 excels. Every FPS and its brother has infantry combat, but only Battlefield, specifically ’42, has subs and bombers and battleships, controlled by players, all on the same map.
12 vs. 12 on Midway would suck; 1/3 of your team would be needed just to fully man a battleship.
In other words, large-scale battles with vehicles require lots of players.
If you want infantry combat, play DoD or any number of other FPS games. If you want combined arms warfare with huge battles, play Battlefield. That’s the series’ competitive advantage and EA just got rid of it.
I presented the same arguments years ago on the PlanetSide forums when it became evident that the devs were turning the game into a crappy Unreal knock-off through the introduction of insta-kill weapons. Why play PlanetSide if it doesn’t focus on the teamwork, command structure, and combined arms battles, things which are largely nonexistent in most FPS games. I haven’t played PS in 4 years, but I imagine the community never recovered from the BFR fiasco.
EA also has a sordid history of ruining franchises. Guess Battlefield can join the club.
05/02/2009 at 21:14 pepper says:
You got a point there, midway and guadalcanal had the kind of battles that ive never seen in any game after that. Which is a shame for i loved hunting carriers with a submarine, and launch cruisemissles from it in DC..
05/02/2009 at 21:14 clive dunn says:
i like the way the trees fall over
05/02/2009 at 21:24 TooNu says:
So, EA re-release a game most of us allready played to death a few years back. New graphics aside, I see no reason to buy this.
05/02/2009 at 21:59 Nick says:
No even a re-release, look up how many maps and players there were in the original =)
05/02/2009 at 22:00 Caleb says:
@ Stuk
The theme music is there using the Asian instruments. It’s more recognizable the drums/wind instrument being the only audio at the end of the trailer when they splash “1943″ up.
05/02/2009 at 22:00 Grandstone says:
You know what could make this really cool? A New Zero-style total darkness.
05/02/2009 at 22:02 Hypocee says:
Do you mean mods? I admit I lost what little interest I had, but I thought in terms of expansions there was only the Batrope-and-jetskis one. What are the awesome addons you played for BF2?
05/02/2009 at 22:31 Shiznit says:
I’ll forgive the 24 player cap if they let the PC version use dedicated servers, but I have a bad feeling the cap is there precisely because of their absence.
05/02/2009 at 22:38 Nick says:
They did release those godawful “booster packs” as well, though I can’t think of much fun to be had from them.
05/02/2009 at 22:45 Moss says:
Wait we buy this! I thought it would be free
05/02/2009 at 22:58 Nick says:
Biting satire!
06/02/2009 at 00:43 FRIENDLYUNIT says:
What!? Again?!
Can’t we have a new game or something?
06/02/2009 at 00:51 Don Wood says:
@Rich P
I absolutely agree. The large servers on BF42′s naval maps were great because they gave you the option to join up with a squad in an assault craft and teamplay to your heart’s content OR just hang out in a carrier AA gun, eat dinner and wait for the zeroes to come in OR solo your way to a point where you could snipe all the “If You Let Me Fly We Will Win” losers as they stood around three deep waiting for planes. There was nothing more fun than being on a smart, cooperative team, but the large numbers made it possible to find at least one or two guys who “got it” or, if that failed, have fun anyhow.
I also agree that the engineer could be the most fun. Mining the gate to the point, and manning/fixing the AA gun, once you got really good at throwing flak and jumping out of the gun just before the bombs got there…..one could become soooo hated, sooo fast….
I haven’t played for years now, I guess, but would totally pay for a reskin, as long as thats all they did. I have a hard time seeing smaller servers being the future for this type of PC game.
06/02/2009 at 01:23 Butler` says:
I’d agree with those prefering larger maps and player numbers. That’s what BF is about. If I wanted 12 aside I’d play CS or CoD4 etc etc.
06/02/2009 at 01:43 tackle says:
If we can’t play battle of the philipines it’s not worth it.
That map was just amazing escape from reality. In a good way
06/02/2009 at 02:02 chachachachachachaaaanges says:
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Damnit EA, why do you have to consolize and nerf all your games now?
We want a REAL, new, high quality Battlefield game that will shine on a modern high end PC.
06/02/2009 at 03:48 Fat says:
How anyone can complain about this release is beyond me, 1942 was such ownage and dragged me away EASILY from the clutches of Delta Force : Landwarrior and it’s crappy sequels.
Wasn’t too fond of 2042 or whatever the futuristic one was though, Vietnam was good though. Much prefer machineguns and tanks/planes to laz0r beamz and Robocop machines.
CAN’T WAIT. I wouldn’t even care if it was just a graphical/physics overhaul to be honest. Game was great as it was and as long as it got a new breath of life and popularity (IE – The servers got full again) then i wouldn’t mind at all. =D
06/02/2009 at 03:58 Nick says:
It won’t be hard for the servers to fill up AMIRITE?
06/02/2009 at 06:25 garin says:
People seem to be reading this news all wrong.
The point is to update the graphics and release (a portion of) Battlefield 1942 on the console download services. The PC version is pretty clearly an afterthought.. this is not Battlefield 3.
06/02/2009 at 09:38 Diogo Ribeiro says:
Everyone goes off on an AIM rampage, but everyone knows they will try it out regardless :)
06/02/2009 at 09:49 psyk says:
laz0r beamz in bf2142 dont remember them
06/02/2009 at 10:00 Quercus says:
I have been waiting for years for an updated version of BF1942 (yes, I am one of those that likes the WW2 setting as much as the modern day one) and I think it is a big disappointment if the new game is seriously one theatre, three maps (a quarter of that offered with BF1942) and only 24 players. At least make it a max of 32 players.
06/02/2009 at 11:42 po says:
Hopefully it’ll be as mod friendly as BF1942/2/2142, so at least people who care about the game can fix the POS that EA release. Never really cared for the original games half as much as Desert Combat and AIX.
06/02/2009 at 12:05 AbyssUK says:
Bah still not Codename Eagle 2….
06/02/2009 at 13:21 Dawlight says:
Yeah, this sure looks and feels like a Bad Company reskin.
And I’m refering to destroyable buildings and Frostbite.
06/02/2009 at 15:56 Hypocee says:
Your game is nothing compared to Codename Eagle 2!
06/02/2009 at 16:45 mrrobsa says:
Sign me up for the big battles please (64 players etc.).
Those epic wars are my best memories of Battlefield.
06/02/2009 at 17:56 dsmart says:
Yah, when publishers pull this crap, it is seemingly ok. When we – the elitists (ha!) do it, they accuse of us making the same damn game. Bastards.
This is the same damn 1942 game with a different skin. Typical EA. They must be hurting real bad to go digging this deep into the barrel.
07/02/2009 at 03:56 Nick says:
I hear it only has 3 classes, every class capable of doing everything (like anti tanking..), infinite ammo and recharging health.
So.. are we allowed to complain about it yet?
07/02/2009 at 04:07 MultiVaC says:
3 classes, health regen, infinite ammo… you’re joking right? I heard someone say that somewhere else, too. It can’t be true, can it?
07/02/2009 at 04:15 Aftershock says:
It is true. 3 classes, all can do all, infinite ammo, health regen.
It’s gone fucking insane. I’ll just sit here and wait for BF3, and in the mean time, play BF1942.
07/02/2009 at 05:25 Muzman says:
If everyone can do everything, what are the classes? Different “outfits”?
07/02/2009 at 07:26 Rich_Pq says:
If everyone can do everything, what are the classes? Different “outfits”?
No, you’ll have to pay $1 for unique outfits.
(I kid, I kid, but that’s totally what they’re doing with Heroes.)
07/02/2009 at 11:04 Toby says:
Theres something about their new engine (frostbite?) that I dont like visually, it might be that they need new explosion textures. It just looks like Bad Company. I’d prefer to play 1942. This doesn’t excite me at all, and i was a huge 1942 and BF2 player.
I’m waiting on Battlefield 3, hopefully on an improved engine :P
07/02/2009 at 13:01 Markoff Chaney says:
20$ for 3 maps, 3 classes, infinite health, infinite ammo?
Keep it, EA. I still have BF42 and DC installed. They are still fun and I can knife someone to death if I want to.
07/02/2009 at 13:10 Heliocentric says:
And in the game?
08/02/2009 at 23:34 Al3xand3r says:
Uh, a remake with a fraction of the players, only 3 maps, and it will go for full price? Doesn’t sound right to me.
15/02/2009 at 22:33 Lethal1 says:
Not full price but still expensive for only 3 maps….
Ok……….ANYBODY FEEL A BOYCOTT COMING ON!!@#@!#???
Seriously, if they want to release a game that was already good, why the hell would they take what was good out of that game ???? Only 3 classes?? regenerating health, unlimited ammo????
Are you sure this is a battlefield game? Cause this sounds like shit to me
19/02/2009 at 01:37 greenery says:
very lame. EA you have failed PC gamers again with your pathethic attempt at resurrecting what is for many, the best game ever made. Whos idea was bf heroes and this 3 map piece of crap? fire that Ahole.
19/02/2009 at 01:56 Rich_P says:
The $20 price point is ridiculous because you can buy BF1942, its expansions, and BF Nam for $10 at Best Buy or Amazon.com. Plus you get Desert Combat!