New BF 1943 Shows That Iwo Jima Never Looked So Good

[Simo Glock]

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

I can see shotguns not having ironsights because in BF history they've never had ironsights, but SMGs? Why not?

He tells you in the vid.. Same reason I used common sense to figure out one of my thousands of posts ago...

Its the spray and pray class.. you know made just for the people that dont use iron sights even if they exist.. If you use them, then there is a weapon for you in game..

Seems most of these problems stem from people not being able to separate a game from real life.. So you love smgs IRL.. you want to use the same uzi you own in the game but you use iron sights..

The game is just abunch of numbers and skins.. why should the smgs be the exact same thing as the assault?

They shouldnt, the smgs are for the people that want a slight zoom but never use iron sights..

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.

Give it 10 more years, you'll learn that high expectations will get you no where but disappointed.. If you dont learn by then.. Good luck with the whole happy thing.

[Kodakk]

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

Either you're being bribed by EA, have never played a good Battlefield game, or are so willing to play crappy, mass-marketed games that you have become blind to true innovation or quality.

Excuse the personal attack, but before you start criticizing my opinion as if it were immature I suggest you try to not buy everything EA shoves down your throught.

Throat* - itouch won't let me edit the post.

[Augustus]

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

Gotta love the battlefield theme.

That's exactly what got me about this trailer. I never get sick of the classic theme.

[WolfAlmighty]

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

That's exactly what got me about this trailer. I never get sick of the classic theme.

I still get chills watching the 1942 intro.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb8PQXPOkCc[/media]

[imported_antihero]

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.

Either you're being bribed by EA, have never played a good Battlefield game, or are so willing to play crappy, mass-marketed games that you have become blind to true innovation or quality.

Excuse the personal attack, but before you start criticizing my opinion as if it were immature I suggest you try to not buy everything EA shoves down your throught.

Throat* - itouch won't let me edit the post.

Some of us are sick of these irrational attacks and assumptions like you made in this post. Nothing you say has any facts or tangible value attached to it. And tell me, what did they promise about fixing in BF2 and didn't since it released when you were 14, what was so amazing to you feature wise of BF1942 when you were 11, and what did you play before BF1942 that you compare it's innovation while from the ages 0-11?

How is BF1943 casual, because it changed a design from fake Health Lockers & ammo crates, fake health & ammo packs to a health that regens if you take cover and don't get shot and a replenish ammo system that possibly removes spamming? I must admit running around with health pack to regen your health and spamming ammo packs to refill your ammo and spam endless explosives is extreme strategy and so harcore!

It has been stated the designs for this game is unique with still being Battlefield and an experiment to attract more FPS to try Battlefield. The franchise is big enough to try this without it being defined as the one true path.

I could have wrote this on my iPhone without needing a wireless connection, but why would I?

[DontKnockIt225]

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

Just to add DEFEKT, you are not a minority with this short sighted view. You should have seen the up roar, the insults, the accusations of being bribed by dice, I recieved for supporting such an abomination of a game.

lol. However some people have woken up, or followed the trend like sheep, and have seen this is not as bad as everyone would like to think.

[Kodakk]

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

Some of us are sick of these irrational attacks and assumptions like you made in this post. Nothing you say has any facts or tangible value attached to it. And tell me, what did they promise about fixing in BF2 and didn't since it released when you were 14, what was so amazing to you feature wise of BF1942 when you were 11, and what did you play before BF1942 that you compare it's innovation while from the ages 0-11?

How is BF1943 casual, because it changed a design from fake Health Lockers & ammo crates, fake health & ammo packs to a health that regens if you take cover and don't get shot and a replenish ammo system that possibly removes spamming? I must admit running around with health pack to regen your health and spamming ammo packs to refill your ammo and spam endless explosives is extreme strategy and so harcore!

It has been stated the designs for this game is unique with still being Battlefield and an experiment to attract more FPS to try Battlefield. The franchise is big enough to try this without it being defined as the one true path.

I could have wrote this on my iPhone without needing a wireless connection, but why would I?

How is it casual?

-Three maps
-Absolutely no innovation
-20 player cap

The list goes on, but all of these completely contradict what the Battlefield series is known for. Battlefield games are known for massive battles over large maps, for the map variety, and for the innovative gameplay, not for some gimmick features like "blow up everything!" which lasts but a couple of minutes.

You're right that it's designed to attract more players, but that's the problem, its not focusing on appeasing the fan base that it gained from making the successful Battlefield games (i.e. 1942 and BF2). About my age, what does it matter if I was 11-12 when 1942 was released? I was still very into gaming and was very well aware of what innovation was and what it meant to have truly amazing gameplay. My argument is far from irrational, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean my logic is flawed.

I could play a game with damn near every feature possible (blow up buildings, fly everything, etc.) but it would not be fun unless it had great, well-thought out gameplay. Having new (or in this case just copied from BC) features by no means makes a game great, nonetheless playable, and this - in my opinion - is one of those games.

For somebody of your age, I'd expect a more logical approach whereas you basically just attempted to nullify my opinion by making a point of my age and my disagreeing with your opinion.

[rebel444]

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

Well I guess if you like FPS that are basically run & gun or games that are nothing more than a spam fest of bombs, nades and spray-pray go buy the game. Reminds me of COD: WW which I played less than 20 hours then retired it to my dead pile. If DICE wanted to develop a game about one event in WW 2 then why did'nt they use the battle of Kursk the largest tank event of the 2nd WW. This engagement had a little of everything in it but guess it would have been to much of a challenge for them. Instead they offer this BS to their BF fan base. They are taking the path of least resistance and doing it on the cheap!

[Simo Glock]

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

If your going to base the gameplay off a stat.

At least try and get that part right.. Its 24 players, not 20

Whatever happened to "Play a game and then judge if its any fun"

not for some gimmick features like "blow up everything!" which lasts but a couple of minutes.

You obviously havent played frostbite for more than a couple of minutes.

Once you get past the its a gimmick stage, lets just try to blow things up!
It becomes a feature that would be hard to play without.
It makes the world seem so much more alive.
Good players actually try not to blow up all the cover. Accept to expose a crate.

Not to mention the fact that you can enter all the buildings.
Maps are going to get smaller once you add interiors, and bigger at the same time.. thats more usable space within the map.

Im starting to think its jealously of no Frostbite for us, thats driving all this Dice hate mail.
Yes the "PC only" guys are getting a Mod of Badcompany at this time.
Deal with the sad truth.
When BF3 runs on frostbite, we wont see all this bitching about how good the engine is.

Dice have fixed so many "arcade" problems with BF gameplay.

Ill name 2 big ones:
Movement Evasion and Noob Tubes

If they work on randomized base spawn points they might soon get it perfect.

I myself would do away with trackable health points.. One life per life only!

Well I guess if you like FPS that are basically run & gun or games that are nothing more than a spam fest of bombs, nades and spray-pray go buy the game. Reminds me of COD: WW which I played less than 20 hours then retired it to my dead pile. If DICE wanted to develop a game about one event in WW 2 then why did'nt they use the battle of Kursk the largest tank event of the 2nd WW. This engagement had a little of everything in it but guess it would have been to much of a challenge for them. Instead they offer this BS to their BF fan base. They are taking the path of least resistance and doing it on the cheap!

Well thats exactly right.. There wasnt any real dev time, most of the content was already there.. Just make new models and rinse and repeat..

Thats why the team only had 3 people most of the time..
1943 is a mod for BFBC!

Please dont whine about 15 dollars, thats going to make you look about 15 years old.


Until you drive a tank thru a wall killing the guy who was moments earlier trying to lay land mines infront of you but you drove over them because they fell to the bottom of a crater as he ran for cover.
You havent witnessed the thrill of frostbite.

[imported_antihero]

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

How is it casual?

-Three maps
-Absolutely no innovation
-20 player cap

The list goes on, but all of these completely contradict what the Battlefield series is known for. Battlefield games are known for massive battles over large maps, for the map variety, and for the innovative gameplay, not for some gimmick features like "blow up everything!" which lasts but a couple of minutes.

You're right that it's designed to attract more players, but that's the problem, its not focusing on appeasing the fan base that it gained from making the successful Battlefield games (i.e. 1942 and BF2). About my age, what does it matter if I was 11-12 when 1942 was released? I was still very into gaming and was very well aware of what innovation was and what it meant to have truly amazing gameplay. My argument is far from irrational, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean my logic is flawed.

I could play a game with damn near every feature possible (blow up buildings, fly everything, etc.) but it would not be fun unless it had great, well-thought out gameplay. Having new (or in this case just copied from BC) features by no means makes a game great, nonetheless playable, and this - in my opinion - is one of those games.

For somebody of your age, I'd expect a more logical approach whereas you basically just attempted to nullify my opinion by making a point of my age and my disagreeing with your opinion.

You don't have enough knowledge to debate with and clearly show no grasp of game design. :shakehead:

[Kodakk]

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

Are you going to backup that statement? Oh, right, you can't because it has no basis. Sorry man, can't insult somebody with no content - nice try, but a pretty pathetic attempt for a 30+ year old.

I've supported each one of my arguments, while you have just countered with a personal attack and no data/evidence to support your side of the debate. Hell, you should work for EA!

[imported_antihero]

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

Are you going to backup that statement? Oh, right, you can't because it has no basis. Sorry man, can't insult somebody with no content - nice try, but a pretty pathetic attempt for a 30+ year old.

I've supported each one of my arguments, while you have just countered with a personal attack and no data/evidence to support your side of the debate. Hell, you should work for EA!

You need to say something that is correct and makes sense to discuss with first and without making factual errors. If you think having 3 maps, no innovation (It seems to have some to me), and 24 players makes it casual this does have nothing to do with age and more the fact you're an idiot. And I never insulted your age, but it's a fact that compared to us older players you have less to go on at 11 to judge a games features and innovation (Don'tKnockIt is an exception from what I've seen). Calling you an idiot wasn't an insult either since based on your comments it's shown to be a true statement.

Say something that is relevant and not an ignorant opinion towards the game and video then we can debate, until then if you keep repeating what you've heard other ignorant hate for hates sake people around here say you'll keep sounding as ignorant as them.

I'd love to work for EA, better than no job at all during these times that many people I know have to deal with, but with how you act I doubt you get that either!

[Iwantcable]

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

I'd like to hear the argument for 1943 being hardcore.

[Wizrdwarts]

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

1943's not hardcore Battlefield. It was never meant to be either.

[imported_antihero]

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

I'd like to hear the argument for 1943 being hardcore.

No one made that claim, so no one needs to! And calling something Hardcore or Casual is retarded to begin with.