StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yes, I know it's a heavily gimped version of the PC's games. Yes, I know they simplified the game by adding permanent HQ's and taking out two classes, in addition to regenerating health!

However, this game is a blast for 15 dollars, and I'm glad it's raising awareness on a great series.

So, wondering if anyone is playing it, what are your thoughts?

Also, if you are playing it, invert your plane axis and change to lefty southpaw for a pretty close control scheme to ace combat. Planes are hard at first, phew.

**Did not see a topic on this, if there is one, I apologize.

Wikipedia wrote:Unlike Battlefield 1942 this game takes place only in the Pacific Theater of Operations of World War II.

WHAT THE FUCK?!

Oh, you can bet your sweet bippy that they'll be releasing a map pack for europe here within the next 6 months.

I like it quite a bit. the semi-destructible buildins are pretty nice, no more of bf2's bulshit where a guy with a bazooka can hide from a tank insideof a metal shack.

It's been that way since Bad Company. BF1943 doesn't really advertise the destruction system though. Certainly because their aren't many buildings on these islands as it is. I still think the enviornments are too fragile, but 1943 isn't as "serious" as BC was anyway.

Also, I am very very sad they did not bring back ships. Who else remembers playing bumper cars with Yamato on Midway?

LordOskuro wrote: I AM ANGRY RAWR

They'll probably release a Europe map pack soon enough. For whatever reason, the K98 is already in the game as Japan's "sniper rifle".

Yeah, I got it for the 360. My box has trouble reading disk now-a-days so it's nice to have a FPS. Although I would like to have someone on my team that I can trust, I get stuck with the dumbasses that just wait on the boat for the plane to respawn instead of trying to take the points.

But the game it fairly solid for an arcade game.

CaptHawkeye wrote:

LordOskuro wrote: I AM ANGRY RAWR

They'll probably release a Europe map pack soon enough. For whatever reason, the K98 is already in the game as Japan's "sniper rifle".

I feel a disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices cried out "EXPANSION!" and were suddenly silenced...

It's not out for the PC yet, so I'll reserve my judgement for the time being, but a lack of ships does suck. How else can smacktards prove their worth if they can't drive the team's carrier and only spawnpoint off the map?

The engine looks slick, though, with those sexy smoke plumes left after bombing. And I agree with the class-selection aesthethics.

Who all plays this on 360?

I'm probably going to be alone on this, but unlimited ammunition does not appeal to me in a multiplayer game(let alone a SP).

tim31 wrote:I'm probably going to be alone on this, but unlimited ammunition does not appeal to me in a multiplayer game(let alone a SP).

I'll second this, along with my complaint that it seems to take an assload of hits to down your opponent. I might have had lag though, so a second opinion is in order.

This has become standard in the Battlefield series. In 1942 it was possible to two shot an enemy with a rifle. Three or four hits with an SMG or heavy weapon. In Vietnam there were all sorts of instant kill traps and grenades which were slowly nerfed until even the knife took three swings to kill someone. In BF2 it took three or four chest shots to kill even unarmed snipers and five or six to kill classes with body-armor. Grenades however still killed in one, leading to Vanilla BF2 and Vanilla Battlefield Vietnam being grenade spam fests. And don't even get me started on the GI Joe level damage the BF2142 Vanillia weapons do. Better to bring a pointed stick the battlefield then shoot people with the pretty laser guns.

The fact that it takes heaps of damage does not Surprise me as DICE has been going in this trend more and more. They never looked back and wondered for a second why Desert Combat and Forgotten Hope where the most popular two mods for the game by far and both featured much damaging infantry weapons. The most popular BF2 mod is another realism mod named Project Reality with is still very popular and it features the most punishing damage system of them all with even an arm shot able to bleed you to death if you don't have the bandages or medic nearby to stop it.

Speaking of Medics, the shock paddles do more damage than an AK-47 round to the face in BF2. And the less said about Battlefield Heroes the better.

I'm not surprised to hear that they have still not learned their lesson with BF1943. It's popular now because Console games never had the goodness that is combined arms fun. Even if it is flawed it's something so new at just the right price to get lots of interest. But if they had a sixty dollar game with East and West Europe, the Pacific and North Africa(ALA-BF 1942) they be selling tons more. And if they brought back Naval combat, oh and AA guns that don't fucking suck!

Speaking of which is that fixed in BF-1943? AA guns that have less range then your side-arm?

Losonti Tokash wrote:Who all plays this on 360?

I am.

Also, the new map is a bit crazy. Only aircraft? It's pretty fun although controling them is still a bit hard.

Speaking of which is that fixed in BF-1943? AA guns that have less range then your side-arm?

Thank god they do. AA guns are so easy to use. So much so that people run to them when their score is low. You can then watch their score explode like they won a virtual lottery or some shit. The AA guns set the range on the fuzes themselves and you can tell exactly where you need to lead because convenient flak spots tell you how you're shooting.

Ultimately this is typical of the direction DICE is taking. They're not interested in developing games with scale like 1942 anymore because their fanbase is thoroughly permeated with slack jawed Counter Strike titheads. An age's worth of whiny, twinkie encrusted nerds on EA's forums have finally gotten their way. Saying things like "My attention span is too short to walk 10 seconds to the nearest flag!" and "i'm too fucking fat and stupid to use a rocket launcher against a tank! Nerf the vehicles!"

Yeah, I'm having like zero of these problems. I drop people in 1-2 hits, tanks are sufficiently invulnerable to small arms, and it's just all around the most fun I've had playing a BF game period.

I'm disappointed that they seem to be shrinking the scope of the game, I remember when it seemed like Battlefield was going to be king of the biggest-player game for PC and they were still talking about a 128-player mode for BF2... then that got cut, and last I heard even the 64-player servers are pretty rare. Is there really no market for a game with 32 or more players per side? It seems like that's where you could really start having fun with combined arms and big maps, but I guess nobody's willing to put any resources into making that sort of thing happen.

Uraniun235 wrote:I'm disappointed that they seem to be shrinking the scope of the game, I remember when it seemed like Battlefield was going to be king of the biggest-player game for PC and they were still talking about a 128-player mode for BF2... then that got cut, and last I heard even the 64-player servers are pretty rare. Is there really no market for a game with 32 or more players per side? It seems like that's where you could really start having fun with combined arms and big maps, but I guess nobody's willing to put any resources into making that sort of thing happen.

128 Player exists for BF2 it works fine on a sufficiently powerful server unlike say TF2 where you can run three servers of the same mid range server easy. However 128 player support exists only for Mods like Project Reality not for the Vanilla Game.

Seeing the slow decline of Battlefield games really makes me hope MAG will come out as a huge success and revive the wide scale warfare genre.

That depends on what your definition of "decline" is. BF1943 is a pretty limited game, but let's not ignore the fact that it's $15 USD here. I would only expect a glorified demo for that kind of money. I don't think 1943 is a new policy...as much as it is an experiment on EA's part. They want to know if it's feasible to make money on what is essentialy their own brand of Episodic Content.

Of course, if even if 1943 had been a full game, it's pretty within reason to expect the scope would still be SMALLER than 1942 as every game of the series has been since. That's been the trend with the series for years. It's sad, but you can't really blame them for going where the money is. In this case, the money is where the post 90s fanboys who cum at the mention of "headshot" are.

Well I played BF2 for a while, still got it installed, but I remember playing a couple of rounds in Karkand and it was a farce. Both sides were saturated with bunny hopping grenade spammers, yet these were the same guys that if you planted a claymore called you 'cheap'.