New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

[Rambo]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

the problem is the game is not supposed to take 10 years to develop and skip generations,its just lazy and stupid to avoid that market!

[DontKnockIt225]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

That's really a half-arsed reason, I'm sorry to say. It would make sense if all the guns had sights or none of the guns (except sniper of course) had sights, but to have some with and some without just makes no sense to me. The SMGs in BF2 had ironsights, the SMGs in BF2142 had ironsights, even in older games like MoH:PA, COD, and VietCong the SMGs had ironsights. It just boggles the mind, really. :hmm:

Many games have shown that its not down to stuff like this which makes the game good or brilliant. Left4dead has no iron sights, no prone, the crouch is slow like CS and the feel is that it is a mere copy of counter strike which is outdated.

But this game is brilliant for the content involved.

Cry all you like about a gun not having iron sight, Dice have shown that if something really doesnt work they will change it. Thus you can be assured that it wont be outragiously bad.

Anyway this thread shows the majority of you are sheep lol. First page = game sucks, 2nd +3rd page = gives the game a chance. You guys read the post above and just agree with it lol. Terrible absolutely terrible.

[Hairstylist]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

does Iwo Jima have the underground tunnelsystems ?

[Dronetek]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

Most of the things said around here dont hold much weight.

If you judge something from a stat then you miss the whole point of having fun in a game.

Oh ya, when I play I count the other players to see how many there are.

If you think that you know 24 isnt enough, then your wrong.
I see just as much action in BC as I did in 42... especially in DC

Granted unlimited ammo and such sucks... but most people die before they run out anyway LOL

Its laughable how bad some Dice addicts need a new game but how unwilling they are to spend afew pennies to give something new a try... and support the team that will give them the best chance for it because no other dev team even tries to be this good.

Have you ever played a BF game? Do you know what makes them so special? I don't think you do, because you sound like you've been through a DICE indoctrination course.

Shouldnt be too bad ? Listen to yourself, that game has no content, gameplay dumbed down to 0. Its not worth 15 Euro/dolars or whatever. Oh wait you can destroy buildings oh the joy ...
Compared to battlefield 1942(7 years old game)
-40 players
-maps
-classes
-vehicles
-weapons
-different buildings (wake is full of 3different buildings copied X times)
-mod support

+Brand new "cutting edge" physics and graphics engine.

1942 was 64 player.

QFT.

This isn't for those self proclaimed "hardcore fans", it's for the majority market. There are more casual gamers than "hardcore gamers", therefore it's their demands that come first and generate the most profit.

For the love of god, stop saying its just like 1942 than. So many of you guys keep pushing this idea that its 1942 with frostbite and it clearly is a completely different game.

The amount of negative posts here makes me sad.

But the Battlefield theme in the trailer cheered me up.

You're 17. I seriously doubt you were playing 1942 and BFV the way many of us were. 1943 signals an end to what he loved about the game.

[Simo Glock]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

Have you ever played a BF game? Do you know what makes them so special? I don't think you do, because you sound like you've been through a DICE indoctrination course.

What makes BF special is different for each person.

I've played the 1942 demo thru BFBC and every mod in between, which is more battlefield than most here because most of the PC only guys havent even played Bad Company..
They just complain about it because of the stats.

So you tell me, what makes it so special? Large battles? Vehicles?
Have you seen the size of the maps like End of the line?

No planes now? 1943 has them again because it makes since, Slow planes
Jets have always been retarded in every BF, All of the maps are to small for jets... Try playing a flight sim first, jets dont fly in circles..
Lack of parachutes? Or should I say Noob transport Ditch apparatus's.

So what is it? Rock Paper Scissors gameplay? Still there in BC

Yeah, the complaints here dont hold water..
Most of them only center around the PC vs Console Yawn! oh so tired argument.

1943 is a mini release..
With the possiblity of extra content..

Dice once said they would love to have a major patch but the lack of a harddrive stopped that...

Well now you must have a harddrive to play 1943 so the idea they can add maps is within reach for there money maker.

Yeah, I've seen the prone spamming... the hackuzations... The jets flying in circles raping the spawn points.. The lack of teamwork on a 64 map match..
The map so big half the guys just sneak cap flags and the whole game is an unorganized cluster F***

Just face it, Every gamer and DICE fanboy doesnt agree with the whiners that its not Battlefield and its not good enough..

Some of us like BC, we like more infantry but still have tanks and Helis.
We like the destruction.. We like that tanks run over trees.. We like better Graphics.. We like the Gold Rush mode that focuses the battle.. Much like Trauma Did with Frontlines..

Some of us are thankful Dice didnt go under and we still have a shooter worth playing.
So dont tell me.. Im one of the true Dice supporters that loves their games and spends his money even if its not the best of their releases. Helping make it possible for the future of BF.

I hope you get your BF3.. I'll be there too, with the gloves off.

PS. Nothing is going to feel the way it did in 1942.. When something is NEW its a rush unlike any other.. BF hasnt changed that much.. You have tho..

[Swatpll]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

OMG not for pc?

[iQue]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

OMG not for pc?

It's for PC but released a bit later. Think it was 3 months.

Hopefully they'll actually take advantage of that time and do something epic.

[Leopardi]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

Im one of the true Dice supporters that loves their games and spends his money even if its not the best of their releases. Helping make it possible for the future of BF.

You're doing it wrong man. By buying bad products you only encourage them to make even worse products, because that's what sells. If you don't buy bad products, they make good products.

[DontKnockIt225]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

You're doing it wrong man. By buying bad products you only encourage them to make even worse products, because that's what sells. If you don't buy bad products, they make good products.

of which of DICE's released are bad products?

[DeadlyMACD]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

Don't make it more complicated than it is. Dice has gone in a new direction and no one knows how this will effect the development of BF3. I've seen videos of Heroes and 1943 and I don't like what I see. Some of you do.

[Webs961]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

Whoa, hold the phones. Watch the personal attacks here guys; they're completely unnecessary.

Cool your jets.

[CptainCrunch]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

What I am looking forward to is if/when they release CS:S2 how much the CS:S people will gripe and hate it and say its not CS:S.

Its the same dogma that comes with any newer version of a game. You have the die hard fans in all the games with huge fan bases say the version they were on was IT.

I dont think people should change their favorite game just for the sake of change, but it seems people forget that this is NOT 1942. If it was, the title would be 1942.2 or PATCH FOR 1942.

Yes, I know its watered down and there are less classes and regen health and unlimted ammo and (enter whatever else here). The point is that it is a different game. Its not going to be like 1942 and thats OK, because you can go play 1942 if you want.

The truth is everyone wants BF3, but when it comes out, many of you are going to say its not BF2 and are going to hate it for whatever reason.

Crunch

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

Many games have shown that its not down to stuff like this which makes the game good or brilliant. Left4dead has no iron sights, no prone, the crouch is slow like CS and the feel is that it is a mere copy of counter strike which is outdated.

I'm not saying it has to have ironsights, I'm simply saying it makes no sense that some guns do and some guns don't. Why be inconsistant? Why make some with ironsights and some without? There's no reason for half of the game to be one way and half of it to be another. I can see shotguns not having ironsights because in BF history they've never had ironsights, but SMGs? Why not?

But this game is brilliant for the content involved.

We've gone over this before but apparently it bears repeating; You can't in one sentence tell everyone to shut up about the game being bad because they haven't played it, and then in the next say that the game's going to be awesome because you haven't played it, either. Dig?

[DontKnockIt225]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

I'm not saying it has to have ironsights, I'm simply saying it makes no sense that some guns do and some guns don't. Why be inconsistant? Why make some with ironsights and some without? There's no reason for half of the game to be one way and half of it to be another. I can see shotguns not having ironsights because in BF history they've never had ironsights, but SMGs? Why not?



We've gone over this before but apparently it bears repeating; You can't in one sentence tell everyone to shut up about the game being bad because they haven't played it, and then in the next say that the game's going to be awesome because you haven't played it, either. Dig?

As i stated above, if it does not work, people will complain and it will be changed. However SMG is meant to be similar to a shotgun. An extremely close range weapon. Surly it is arguable to say that both guns are for very close range, and thus neither need iron sights?
BF2 is a terrible example of how SMG's should be, because the SMGs on there are simply appauling.


Also i was stating Left4dead, despite its backwardness in some aspects, it is a brilliant game. I was using this as a reference to show that a game which is seemling lacking in some aspects, can still be brilliant. This may happen for BF1943

[Kodakk]

Re: New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

So, many of you guys bash the "negative" people, but why, because they don't share your optimism? Well, why is it that we don't share that optimism? Maybe it's because of the lack of support for BF2, for all the problems that were promised to be fixed. Maybe it's because we want to see that innovation that came with the early Battlefield games, not this new mass-market crap. Again, it may not be crap in your eyes, but compared to the glory that BF2 and 1942 held, these new games can't even compare.

The thing is, I won't buy another "good" game, I want a great game, a damn amazing game. Go ahead and spend your money to test the simplified gameplay just to prove it's OK - or on par - but I won't. I refuse to spend my money to pickup something with easy gameplay, limited maps, just because it has a more casual [larger] community - because where will that community be when the next game comes around? Hell, if EA continues this trend they might as well release a BF: Vietnam with 3 maps, crap gameplay, and destructible environments - and when that is released, who will remember 1943? Nobody.

I'm not a pessimist, I'm just one of the [apparently] few people left who have high expectations, and want something that's innovative.