Battlefield 1943 Review

Not another bloody WWII shooter. Seriously can we have something new please?

I've got the PS3 version. Have to agree the controls suck. Why couldn't they put the accelerate and brakes on L2 and R2 buttons like most other games instead of L1,R1. There is no ability to map the controls to you own preferences.

The graphics are crying out for 1080p. It certainly seems the Frostbite engine can handle it. Instead we get a crappy resolution with no anti-aliasing.

The sniper rifles hit detection sucks. How many times have I hit another player and it misses. The squad system is really dumbed down. Joining to squads system and squad orders and control is non-existant, they could of implemented something like BF2's system.

The aircraft handling feels very inept and awkward.

Enemy targets on foot are displayed as red triangles, then all of a sudden someone pops out from nowhere and kills you. So this system is also broken.

You gave it 7/10. I think you are being very generous.

For the PS3 version I would give it 4/10. A lot improvements could be done by EA but they are obviously very lazy.

Why the hell do EA/DICE not listen to the fanbase? They are sitting on their high and mighty pedistals.

They could get this game so right but they got it so WRONG.

The only good thing I can say is the price at £9.99.

Anyone want to comment on the Xbox360 version?

Originally Posted by bogie170
I've got the PS3 version. Have to agree the controls suck. Why couldn't they put the accelerate and brakes on L2 and R2 buttons like most other games instead of L1,R1. There is no ability to map the controls to you own preferences.

The graphics are crying out for 1080p. It certainly seems the Frostbite engine can handle it. Instead we get a crappy resolution with no anti-aliasing.

The sniper rifles hit detection sucks. How many times have I hit another player and it misses. The squad system is really dumbed down. Joining to squads system and squad orders and control is non-existant, they could of implemented something like BF2's system.

The aircraft handling feels very inept and awkward.

Enemy targets on foot are displayed as red triangles, then all of a sudden someone pops out from nowhere and kills you. So this system is also broken.

You gave it 7/10. I think you are being very generous.

For the PS3 version I would give it 4/10. A lot improvements could be done by EA but they are obviously very lazy.

Why the hell do EA/DICE not listen to the fanbase? They are sitting on their high and mighty pedistals.

They could get this game so right but they got it so WRONG.

The only good thing I can say is the price at £9.99.

Anyone want to comment on the Xbox360 version?

Enemy targets are only shown when someone shoots at that person and thus announces their position to everyone on your team - If you watch them long enough without them being shot at again you can see the triangle fade out. As far as I can tell, only your own team are constantly marked.

I agree that the aircraft handling sucks balls, but hell. It's an arcade game, to expect it to be top of the range flight sim (Or better than a swift kick in the balls) is a bit OTT.

As for the rest of the controls, well. They're a touch awkward, but once you get used to them, no more awkward than any other control scheme I've used.

As for the sniper hit detection, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Only times I've not killed with a sniper is when I've cocked it up and shot them in the leg or something. Sniper rifle is my favourite weapon, too (Ten of those.. four kills with a sniper rifle postage stamp.. things), so I spend a lot of time with it. Unless the bullet travel time is catching you out, I can't see where you're coming from. As far as I can tell there's no bullet drop, either. I can quite happily pop some heads on Wake Island from the aircraft carrier. No points, but hey. Kinda fun wondering if the player you just killed is cursing because they can't think where the shot came from.

Personally, I enjoy the game. Lots of fun (Unless you get to be on team retard that don't understand the nature of flag capping) with or without friends. Wake Island and Guadal Canal are probably my favourite maps, as they were in 1942.

Originally Posted by Rkiver
Not another bloody WWII shooter. Seriously can we have something new please?

Stop moaning about the setting, if a game is good enough the setting becomes pointless. It doesn't matter if you are battling in space, Iraq or storming the beaches. Most shooters have 0 story line, and if they do they are usually terrible (edit: missed my point out here), it is usually only WWII games that give a good sense of drama because you know real people did go through this **small disclaimer: MOH: airborne and its nazi storm troopers with a billion HP are not true of this.**. The only time you are sitting and thinking "I wish I had a gun with laser sights" is at about the same time you realise that either the game is crap, or you are.

Yes WWII has been done so much it is crazy, but there is a reason for that, it is a good setting.

Just to clarify my views have nothing to do with this game, merely the outright objection to WWII games.

bi-planes? Really?

Agreed that Battlefield style gameplay with less precise console controls is a tad bit frustrating.

I quite enjoy the game as a quick blast. I'm not sure if I can stomach more than an hour before I get frustrated.

People can say what they will about the WW2 setting, but it is properly one of the absolute best settings. I love the more rugget feel of the old veapons, the choise between the powerful long range bolt action rifle or the low powered low precition submachine gun.

Admittet, games have done a great deal of keeping the weapons diffrent, but in the end most are all full auto with a fast reload.

I like the feeling of going into a fight having to consider that there are ONLY 4 rounds in my mag and it takes 2 sek between each shot.

Originally Posted by Review
The most difficult part of writing this review is avoiding the temptation of talking about how utterly inadequate a console controller is for a fast-paced, multiplayer-only FPS such as Battlefield 1943.

Fixed that for you.

I can't believe Edge gave this a 9.

NINE! It's BF1942 with buttons.

wow, has anything changed since 1942? (the game..)

I like it .....

One thing I don't get is the people calling it cartoony? It doesn't look cartoony to me, sure it's got a lot of colour, but if it had been all brown then there would have been complaints about it being all brown.

Originally Posted by Sifter3000
I can't believe Edge gave this a 9.

NINE! It's BF1942 with buttons.

I cant believe you gave it a seven, your taking the piss.

Whats a keyboard if its not a load of buttons?

If you were not around 7-8 years ago and expereinced 1942 or even owened a pc back then, then this is new to you. If you were then its an updated version with less maps but only costs £10 so you get what you pay for. It is cheap when you consider that R-type and Braid costs the same. But there is more game and more gameplay for the same cost.

You got to remember that if you were around 10-20 years ago then yeah you may have played these games or seen them. But the new generations of gamers have not experienced or seen these older games, therefore remakes are a very good thing, because not many people are going to pick up a 20 year old game. (If you can get them to run in the editions of windows)

In addition its nver been available to console owners who are the most likey ones that won have expereinced such a great game 1942.

what year are you living in that bf1942 came out 10 years ago? and why does the dude in the picture on the front page have black holes where his eyes should be?? and why is anyone retarded enought to play an fps on a console anyway???

Originally Posted by mikeuk2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sifter3000
I can't believe Edge gave this a 9.

NINE! It's BF1942 with buttons.

I cant believe you gave it a seven, your taking the piss.

Whats a keyboard if its not a load of buttons?

If you were not around 7-8 years ago and expereinced 1942 or even owened a pc back then, then this is new to you. If you were then its an updated version with less maps but only costs £10 so you get what you pay for. It is cheap when you consider that R-type and Braid costs the same. But there is more game and more gameplay for the same cost.

You got to remember that if you were around 10-20 years ago then yeah you may have played these games or seen them. But the new generations of gamers have not experienced or seen these older games, therefore remakes are a very good thing, because not many people are going to pick up a 20 year old game. (If you can get them to run in the editions of windows)

In addition its nver been available to console owners who are the most likey ones that won have expereinced such a great game 1942.

however it appears that the industry is now only catering for those people, I dont know about you but im tired of sub standard games being the rage just because its a new audience! does this mean that when I hit 30 some decent FPS' *might* come around? todays gamers are rubbish gamers, health regen,autoaim,big ****ing huds and MASSIVE ARROWS TELLING YOU WHERE TO GO.

Im tempted on grabbing a 360 muppet boy who thinks hes **** hot away from COD4 and plonking him infront of quake.

ten quid says he shits himself and fails harder then Kim Jong Il

It was my understanding this was to be a hardcore release, perhaps even a competitive game? If feedback from genuine gamers in this thread is to be believed, it is non of those things. Another freaking disappointment. Great.

Originally Posted by Rkiver
Not another bloody WWII shooter. Seriously can we have something new please?

amen dude. Korea or Vietnam? anyone? WWI?

Originally Posted by iggy2k
and why is anyone retarded enought to play an fps on a console anyway???

Yes because there has never been a good FPS on consoles has there, oh wait.......

Seriously its this sort of attitude that is wrong with gaming today. If you don't like playing FPS games on a console then thats fair enough but take it a step further and call anyone who does enjoy playing FPS games on a console a retard... It just makes you look like a 12 year old who can't think of a decent argument and instead reverts to name-calling.

Despite being a dumbed down version of the classic 1942 (which was awesome), I will still get this game.

But not on a console.

I own a PS3 and a 360, but the style of gameplay here has PC written all over it. For those without a decent PC though, then I guess 1943 for the console will have to do. But seriously... if you are into gaming, then an investment in a decent PC will be more than worth the money. It will expose you to gaming you have never seen on a console. So just save your pennies !

So in the interim of BF3 being released (2010 probably) then we can either play BF2 (which is still good fun and kicks 1943 into the kerb on every level) or 1942 (now quite old, but probably runs amazingly on PC's of today). BF Vietnam, whilst good in my opinion probably doesnt have enough players.

Roll on the PC version then in September for some 'arcade' fun. One thing is for sure, EA/DICE are making a lot of money out of this, which just goes to show how easily pleased the console crowd are.

AS for people commenting about coming to this fresh and having a great time... Seriously... the wool has been pulled over your eyes, because there were much better FPS games on the PC than this in the 1990's ! 1942 for example was arguably better than this in its day. BF2 on the PC is 10x what this game is. So whilst there has been progress for the 'new audience' ... its simply not enough for anyone who has experienced PC gaming in the last few years.

Originally Posted by Gunsmith
however it appears that the industry is now only catering for those people, I dont know about you but im tired of sub standard games being the rage just because its a new audience! does this mean that when I hit 30 some decent FPS' *might* come around? todays gamers are rubbish gamers, health regen,autoaim,big ****ing huds and MASSIVE ARROWS TELLING YOU WHERE TO GO.

Im tempted on grabbing a 360 muppet boy who thinks hes **** hot away from COD4 and plonking him infront of quake.

ten quid says he shits himself and fails harder then Kim Jong Il

Haha, you're right. Oh so very right. That's why I much prefer PC games - You can accidentally the HUD. Can't do a damned thing about regen health. That's actually one of the most annoying things about 1943 - I miss being able to take steady shots at the enemy like in 1942. Ahwell. Single shot to the brain tends to solve that issue.

Originally Posted by OtakuHawk
amen dude. Korea or Vietnam? anyone? WWI?

Another decent Vietnam game would go down a treat. Not so sure about the forgotten war, though. I suspect it's too inconsistant for a solid game to be made out of it. It'd be nice to see a good one, but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

Originally Posted by xaser04
Yes because there has never been a good FPS on consoles has there, oh wait.......

Seriously its this sort of attitude that is wrong with gaming today. If you don't like playing FPS games on a console then thats fair enough but take it a step further and call anyone who does enjoy playing FPS games on a console a retard... It just makes you look like a 12 year old who can't think of a decent argument and instead reverts to name-calling.

QFMFT

This game is one of the worst games i have ever played..

Originally Posted by xaser04

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggy2k
and why is anyone retarded enought to play an fps on a console anyway???

Yes because there has never been a good FPS on consoles has there, oh wait.......

I would say that Killzone makes a good exsample of a great console FPS.

They may one day make a game based on the napoleon wars.. 6 rounds per min, small chance of hitting and so much smoke from the gun that you can't see the enemy anyway.

[QUOTE=lp1988
I would say that Killzone makes a good exsample of a great console FPS.
[/QUOTE]

it wasnt bad but as with all console FPS its seriously hindered by the fact its played with a joypad, face it. FPS on a joypad juyst does not work in comparrison to a keyboard/mouse.

The soldier in the pic looks like GI Jane

Originally Posted by Gunsmith
it wasnt bad but as with all console FPS its seriously hindered by the fact its played with a joypad, face it. FPS on a joypad juyst does not work in comparrison to a keyboard/mouse.

Console FPS games leave a hell of a lot to be desired, but Killzone 2 had intentional weapon lag - People bitch about it because they can't spin everything around and aim perfectly in three one hundredths of a second - But despite the fantasy setting, a lot of work went into the realism of the universe - Especially the guns. Even on the PC it'd respond 'slowly' by our current ideas for speed in games.