Battlefield 1942 was a groundbreaking multiplayer shooter, but we played the demo considerably more than the main game. The generous one-map multiplayer trial became an internet sensation almost overnight, with the full scale and infinitely-repayable formula of DICE's war spectacle available for all at its most purist.
As soon as the main game arrived, we lost interest; 15-odd maps and umpteen sides seemed only to dilute the experience of the wonderfully pure and expertly designed Wake Island demo map. Strangely, it seems we weren't alone either - purchases of the full retail release were considerably smaller than demo takeups, DICE producer Patrick Liu tells us.
In a way this makes the studio's next venture, Battlefield 1943: Pacific the perfect series instalment. Like the internet-shattering 1942 multiplayer demo, it's a no-fuss, download-only Battlefield classics pack; three maps hand-picked by fans, streamlined classes and gameplay, and all the next-gen tricks of the gorgeous Bad Company engine.
Planned for release on XBLA, PSN and PC this summer, 1943 will support play for up to 24 players and feature three of the series' best maps: Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal and the ever-popular Wake Island itself. All of that for between £10 and £15.
The setup is the same us before; Conquest, the only game mode planned for release, has the US and Japanese battling for six control points scattered across the gigantic tropical map. As soon as one team gains majority control of the territory, the losing team's 'spawn ticker' will start to reduce. Once it reaches zero, no more squadies will be enlisted onto the frontline - simple.
This is the original big-battle shooter in its purist form. It's smaller in scope than previous full retail releases, but like the 1942 multiplayer demo DICE hopes gamers will enjoy the more streamlined, excess-free experience.
The update looks lush. If we hadn't been briefed beforehand you could've easily misled us into believing that 1943 was a full retail release. While not quite as dazzling as big brother Bad Company, 1943 easily matches the standards set by modern day shooters in the looks department - and it's inherited the fully-destructible environments of its relative as well.
Upgraded visuals aside though, the most important thing about the new game is that it feels like the original game. Moments into our private multiplayer session with DICE and we're back queuing on the aircraft carrier for planes to spawn, dropping bombs on the nearby American scum-ran capture point and crashing spectacularly into a tree. It's like we never left.
The spirit of 1942's straight-faced realism mixed with absurd Humvee air stunts and laughs has been brilliantly captured in the update - the Japanese even carry samurai swords in the new version, though the comedy's never obvious or flaunted anywhere near Team Fortress 2-levels.
The slow-ish pace of Battlefield means the transition from mouse and keyboard to console controller is smooth, and we had no problem sniping, piloting and taking a humvee off a cliff on the 360 version.
The sheer scale of the unfolding skirmish is still impressive; as a scout you can snipe frog-marching Japanese on the other side of the map and the views from the air are just as epic. One addition has players who capture the airport radar building calling in airstrikes, though they'll have to recharge every few minutes.
Character classes have been streamlined since the first game, with the original five cut down to just three; Infantry, Rifleman and Scout. The Infantry class inherits the old engineer's wrench ability, while the medic isn't needed at all thanks to a new and welcome Call of Duty-style regenerative health system. More controversial is the addition of regenerative ammo which cuts the need to run half way across the map to top up (we'll leave that one for the forum users to fight over...)
Even more internet-shattering is the addition of "no griefing zones" on the aircraft carriers, which if you ask us should be renamed just "griefing zones". Remember when you'd queue for ages for a plane to spawn, only to have some cheeky bugger jump in the cockpit before you? Blue-on-blue combat would naturally ensue, but DICE has tried to address this by taking away any point increases in these special zones. While we experienced no problems in our game, we can only see this as a green light to anyone who fancies shooting up their mate to get to the planes first.
Despite these initial niggles, DICE is keen to point out to us in our session that 1943 is still a hardcore game. It's not Battlefield Heroes (which is running on a very different model, it says) and it's not for casual players. A good team will still destroy a rookie one and the developer's even introducing private game and clan options - a highly requested pair of features in the original Bad Company.
And we're excited. Unlike most updates 1943 seems to have nailed the feel and spirit of the original - and we always believed the infinitely-replayable, Sandbox-esque formula of the series' brilliant battles owed itself to a more focused design. Fingers crossed the small adjustments that have been made don't put a spanner in the works...
I don't mind a small map count so much, there was only a few 1942 maps that got played regularly, but cutting down the classes is a horrible decision. It's removing the need for support classes and teamwork - apart from infinite health and ammo, the Kotaku article on it also mentioned that all the classes will have anti-tank ability. Why bother with a class system at all with so little to differentiate between them? I also hear it will be 24 players max, this sounds far too small for a decent Battlefield game.
You'd have to be seriously defective to only play the 1942 demo and not the game and how on earth can BF be described as having a slow pace? The stats mentioned in the article about uptake are rubbish since Battlefield 1942 sold millions of copies. It seems to me that the writer of the article is desperately trying to convince us that a mini BF game is better than a full BF game. I couldn't disagree more. (and BTW I reckon I could easily take 50 fools with joypad with my mouse and keyboard). This game would be perfect if it included 5 extra maps: Berlin, Bocage, Kharkov, Market garden and Omaha beach. It also needs a max player count of 60 like BF2. I'd gladly pay full price for the above, but the minimalist aspect to this game may render it a small flash in the pan. Shame as I've been really hoping a PC next gen BF3 would be released.
Lads. The "slower pace" and demo uptake stats were noted to me by the dice producer, and I agree on the former (it's not quake 3 is it?)
As for the health regen, well I mentioned the fact that in 1942 getting hit by a cheeky sniper shot from the other side of the map (which happens often) then having to abandon your course, turn around and limp half way across the gigantic map to the nearest health pack ISNT fun.
Class shuffling and ammo is controversial, however...
AndyR, the fact that the "slower pace and uptake stats" were noted to you by the producer simply reinforces my feeling that the piece was a promotional article rather than an independent knowledgeable opinion. Fabz
First, unlimited ammo means a sniper with a good spot will win every round. If you can see almost all the way across the map, they have no reason to ever move and can rack up the kills from the safety of their own base (nearly).
Secondly, no punishment for TKs. Yes, getting offed while waiting for a vehicle was a low point in previous BF games (although it never happened as much in Vietnam as it did in BF2) and removing any punishment gives these punks free reign. Blue Zones will be good for stopping enemies spawn camping, but won't help with same-team asshats.
AndyR, the fact that the "slower pace and uptake stats" were noted to you by the producer simply reinforces my feeling that the piece was a promotional article rather than an independent knowledgeable opinion. Fabz
After I independently noted them myself. Battlefield has a slower pace than Battlefront, Unreal Tournament etc – thus “slowER” pace, not “SLOW pace”.
This is written by CVG, not DICE or EA. I’ve brought up plenty of concerns in there…
AndyR, I read "The slow-ish pace of Battlefield" and presumed you meant SLOW, not slowER than Unreal Tournament. You did bring up concerns and they seem game-busting to me yet you seem quite positive. We'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO this game is a turd in the making. Good for newbies and players that only liked the 1942 demo. Real BF1942 fans are still uncatered for and that's the real disappointment.
Bad Company, Mirror's Edge and now this. These guys really are churning our those games!
This makes me feel the same disdain I feel when you hear teenage girls say how they love some cover of an old song and are completely oblivious to the fact that it's not a new song at all.
Why is everyone getting so p**sy about this? It's a cheap-ass stop gap game simplified to get new players into the whole BF thang before they hit us with BFBC2 in the winter (yay for PC version hopefully filling the gap left by BF3 so far...).
If you love BF then you still have BF2 on PC (still an awesome game) and BFBC on consoles!
p.s. Can someone at CVG go over to see DICE and sit on there chests and threaten to spit in their face if they don't stop with all the "BF3 is just a rumour... But we definitely haven't forgotten about all you core BF gamers on PC" bolox and just admit it is coming in 2011 or something?
However, I totally and utterly refuse to purchase the game on moral principles if it forces me to click the left stick in to run. I detest this controller-shredding necessity and after going through several PS3 pads I vowed I would never buy another game that required me to do so.
Never had a probs playing UT3, Drake, GTA4, Warhawk, Tekken, etc, etc, etc, but one month with COD4 and my lovely tight controller was buggered to the point where I couldn't even snipe in UT3 because my character would run off high ledges due to the stick getting wedged in the forwards position. Dunno why they can't just use the R6V2 method of holding the left trigger to run.
Part of the reason I swapped my PS3 for a 360 was the fact that it would've costed me £60-70 to replace both controllers - only for them to get buggered again in due course. In the end I just put in the extra £100 it costed me to p/x for an Elite so I suppose you could kind of blame whoever implemented the control scheme for the fact that I now can't play LBP or even Killzone 2.
I don't think anyone is getting p**sy, that fact is BF2 was one of the biggest selling games on the PC, I believe it's sold in excess of 17 Million units (please correct that if it's wrong) and it came out almost 4 years ago! It's about time we got a true and compelling sequel for the PC. 1943 looks like nothing more than the other BF2 booster packs we have had already - Euro Force and Armored Fury (which nobody plays any longer and servers won't host because it kicks all the players who don't have it). They each had three maps and new weapons etc. and comparatively it looks like 1943 is being dumbed down somewhat because it's cross platform.
BF3 is what people want, and I don't understand why DICE are giving us 1943! I know it's probably a nice cheap game to develop and pump out, but it's hardly rewarding the loyal BF2 vets, who have been expecting a new game for at least 2 years now.
However, I totally and utterly refuse to purchase the game on moral principles if it forces me to click the left stick in to run. I detest this controller-shredding necessity and after going through several PS3 pads I vowed I would never buy another game that required me to do so.
Never had a probs playing UT3, Drake, GTA4, Warhawk, Tekken, etc, etc, etc, but one month with COD4 and my lovely tight controller was buggered to the point where I couldn't even snipe in UT3 because my character would run off high ledges due to the stick getting wedged in the forwards position. Dunno why they can't just use the R6V2 method of holding the left trigger to run.
Part of the reason I swapped my PS3 for a 360 was the fact that it would've costed me £60-70 to replace both controllers - only for them to get buggered again in due course. In the end I just put in the extra £100 it costed me to p/x for an Elite so I suppose you could kind of blame whoever implemented the control scheme for the fact that I now can't play LBP or even Killzone 2.
Good to know im not the only one to hate that control scheme as well.
I'm glad plenty of people are p**sy about this game. Dice is famous for making the needed changes, keep ranting peeps!
While it sounds like it's still going to be fun, when comapred to the original, it seems like they are fixing old problems but adding new ones, obvious ones.
Like someone pointed out, Snipers will have a freaking field day with unlimited ammo. This alone is a major farce, as is the limited weapon classes. Call Of duty WAW is a blast because of the crazy custom class options. Couple that with the unlocks/level-ups, and you can see why people are hooked on the recent COD games.
Pretty graphics, vehicles and the ever-fun conquest won't sell this game alone. It's not 2001 anymore Dice, get with the times.
I think a lot of people are reacting to 1 element of the game before thinking about the game as a whole.
Personally, im 100% behind the regenerating health system. It makes gameplay a lot faster and close and takes away from the whole 'trudge-to-the-other-side-of-the-map' style gameplay..
Now think about it. With the regenerating health system, there will be no need for a medic/healer. Yes, this does take away an option for the variety of classes, but this does mean that everyone can get stuck in to fighting rather than running round bleeding across the map. And the fact that you dont need a healer also means that you will need less people in a squad (a scout, heavy weaponry, sniper, and a couple of riflemen will make an ideal squad for a small map)
As well as this, with this health system, you will need to think more about cover in a firefight as instead of just running away to get a plaster, you will have to hunker down behind a rock and heal while giving covering fire. This cover-while-you-heal system also means that a lot of covering fire will be needed as you advance/heal.
This brings me on to the whole infinite-ammo situation. Yes, i do LOVE the idea of not having to run across the map to get more ammo, however i don't think that infinite-ammo was the way to get around this. Personally, i would have made it so that you have to pick up your enemies weapons.
Think about it this way. You're going to be using your gun to kill the enemies. These enemies will drop the remaining ammo that they didnt get to use, and you can pick it up. This adds to the gameplay as it means you cant just go shooting your gun off at anything that moves, you will have to choose your shots carefully. However, with infinite-ammo, the player can simply walk across the map firing constantly until he gets mown down by an opposing player. The only time they are vulnerable is when they are reloading.
So DICE, i can see what you are doing and trying to achieve. Just maybe tweak is slightly if possible ?
It doesn't matter if you have unlimited ammo, but to be honest how much times have you ever run out of bullets. But the problem is having people shooting bazookas at you over and over since you wont run out.
Regenerating is fine if you don't regenerate ever 2 seconds because if sniper someone and they don't completely die when your getting your sniper ready for the next shot they already have full life again. Which goes the same thing for the other weapons.
If your partners don't get hurt after you shoot them that makes things and sometimes bad. When i play battlefield (in general) I will see a bad guy and right as i shoot him one of my partners get in the way and I end up losing a bunch of points. So I would feel pretty happy that I don't have to worry about that. These games are supposed to be realistic, in real life you don't shoot a soldier on your side because that just means you have less people to help win the war with you.
If the game only has three maps to choose from it could get boring running around the same place over and over. And when I heard that these maps are really similar to the ones in battlefield 1942 which makes the game lack originality.
With 12 players on each side and the maps are really large means you'll probably be killing one guy ever three minutes which would make it boring. There are some games with a small map and a lot of players which make it more intence and fun.
please comment on what i wrote if i said something wrong or if you didn't understand what I was saying.
AndyR - I couldn't disagree more about your comments on the full BF1942 game being less popular than the demos. In my opinion, what sold the game was the freedom to do what you wanted (run, fly, drive, pilot) and the diversity of the maps - for once it wasn't just Americans vs Germans.
If this is the start of some "micro-updates" and more theatres will be catered for later, that is fine. I play CoD so I don't mind the regenerating health (as long as the weapon damage/accuracy is increased from BF1942 and the regeneration isn't rapid). I do think that unlimited ammo is a big mistake and that limiting the game mode to conquest and the number of players to 12 per team is also a mistake. These aspects demonstrate that it is plainly geared to console users and PCs are only included as an after thought.
Even making the maps 32 or 36 players would be better and including additional game modes should be a must.
Sorry, but this really does seem to be DICE abandoning the PC players in favour of a dumbed-down console lite version of BF.
Maybe as a games journalist you should take the opportunity to ask "why?" more during interviews with games developers, rather than just accepting the bull they feed you. Sorry, I don't mean to be critical, but where you say you are aware certain features will be controversial it would be nice to see evidence that you are asking the questions that your readers will want asked.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Dear oh dear.
