By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 18 May 2009
Edit Thread
Akvod said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Akvod said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

This is the only game I know that has a chance of destroying the COD series.

-Flying Planes, riding in tanks and Jeeps.

-Multiple map spawn points.

-A larger list of classes

-New physics, including the ability to knock down trees.

OMG I cannot wait! COD is so overrated!

Isn't there only 3 classes? Knocking down trees was in BF: BC. There were Choppers, Tanks, and Jeeps in the BC. Yes, Planes are cool, but I don't really know how they're gonna do in such a small map (24 players). Multiple spawn points were always in BF.

I understand you're saying that COD doesn't have these features, but then why did BF: BC fail when it's at a higher bar than 1943? Clearly 1943 is setting the bar lower (for accesibility, low price point, easier and simpler).

I'm sorry, if you're a console BF fan then you should be looking at BC 2 or MAG.

-Yeah, theres only three classes...I just checked (Sucks).

-The fighter jets will be in the game just like last the last BF1942.

-There has to be 24 players because of console bandwidth limits. Most clan wars on Battlfield were 12 vs 12 anyway.

-The maps will be large enough for fighter jets to roam and bomb.

BF: BC did not set the bar higher than BF: 1942, Desert Combat nor 2. That was actually the worst game in the series. Mag will be nowhere near the splendor that was battlfield 1942. I was a PC BF fan, but I am playing with consoles now, more than ever. I don't have the time to be investing into PC gaming any longer.

 

 

It set the bar higher in terms of console BF's (Modern Combat on PS2 and Xbox), and as I said I'm a fan of the console BF's since I don't have a good computer, and that if you're like me you'll be looking at BC 2 or MAG.

I have to admit I never played 1942 on the PC, but are given what I know from these 2 games, I don't think that 1943 can even be considered an actual sequel to 1942. 1942, correct me if I'm wrong, could support 64 players on a given game (I play 4 vs 4 for clan matches on KZ2, but I still love to fight a chaotic 16 v 16 game in public servers). Battlefield 1942 had big maps. Battlefield 1942 had 5 classes. Battlefield 1942 had Jeeps, Planes, and Tanks.

If you're comparing the PC 1942 to the PC/360/PS3 1943, I say it's a MAJOR step down. They've really gimped the game and made it a casual (not necessarily less fun), smaller, simpler, ready to jump in game.

If you're comparing the Console BC to 1943, it's still a step down. Smaller maps, from what I know no destructible environments (save trees, which were in BC), less classes, and exchanging planes for choppers.

I'm confused, in my eyes 1943 seems extremely far away from the PC 1942, and it's closer to the console BF's (and is still a step down in that aspect as well).

 

A major step down in BF 1943 is still better than what COD series is offering. You are correct, the series has been gimped because of the bandwidth issues on consoles. Despite all that it will still be superior, because it offers so much.