Battlefield 1943 Still Headed Towards PC Gamers

Status
Not open for further replies.

ScoobyJooby-Jew

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2010
178
1
18,690
2
bf 1943 was the best game I ever bought on the playstation. I have spent more time playing that than COD 6. I wish I could just download a copy onto my pc for free, since i already paid for the game last year. Sigh, i suppose its like buying vhs, and then rebuying on dvd, and then on bluray
 

brizzelsprout

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2009
56
0
18,630
0
@giovanni86:

Sure they have made console ports out of BF1943 and BFBC2 (kind of) but other than that Dice and EA have put out great games for the PC. Not only was BF1942 a trend setter. BF2 and the expantions were one of the best muliplayer FPS on the PC for their time. They carried on with BF2142 and its expantions and delivered again. Just because they made BF1943 and BFBC2 for consoles first dosen't mean much. BFBC2 is a fantastic game, different than other PC BF games but fantastic none the less.
 

cappster

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2007
359
0
18,790
3
As long as its cheap I will pick it up and check it out. It kind of seems like EA will be competing with itself (BC2) when they release this title. I will wait and see what they want to try and get me for before I decide whether or not I will purchase this game. I already get to play with the M1 so hopefully that pick it full of weapons.
 

yamagiru

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
77
0
18,630
0
Over the years consoles have changed, only PCs have remained constant.

Just another same-ole-same-old from a has been, EA...........
 

Brent_NC

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2010
74
0
18,630
0
Why the hell would I want to buy a one year old console port? It's bad enough DICE/EA pulled the Bad Company crap, now this?
 
G

Guest

Guest
If they released it free to people who owned BCBC2 then im sure they're sales would skyrocket.
 
Knowing EA, it'll probably be:
1. a poorly coded console port
2. invasive DRM/invasive security software
3. requires a constant-connection to the internet to play
4. Glitchy and buggy when first released
5. Charge $15 for a map DLC a month after the game is released
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
Why would you want to play this garbage shooter? As a PC shooter its rather subpar. It doesn't have many positive traits over a shooter released 8 years ago. Even the graphics are subpar considering its a console port. They could atleast add more players into a match, but that also hasn't changed much.
 

hihiman1

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2009
31
0
18,530
0
I'm not going to get this game just for the purpose to teach the developers to stay loyal to their PC fans. PC gamers is what made Battlefield big.
 

raised_fist

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
Battlefield Bad Company 2 look really good but still asking 60$ for it's a joke. 30$ should be the max since the game is Half a battlefield. Small maps, 32 players ,no planes, no general, artillery and "UAV" for every recon, respawn on any squad member, no stamina, auto health and so on.

I would have skipped BBC2 ans 1943 for a real Bf3.
 

7hemy7h

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2010
3
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]raised_fist[/nom]Battlefield Bad Company 2 look really good but still asking 60$ for it's a joke. 30$ should be the max since the game is Half a battlefield. Small maps, 32 players ,no planes, no general, artillery and "UAV" for every recon, respawn on any squad member, no stamina, auto health and so on. I would have skipped BBC2 ans 1943 for a real Bf3.[/citation]

So in your eyes the number of players it supports should be proportionate to it's price? Seriously, go try the game at least. It's not classic Battlefield by any means, but that doesn't make it bad. I am glad DICE is doing more than just recycling the same formula over and over again.
 

Ryric

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2009
65
0
18,630
0
If this had been released between MW2 and BFBC2 it would have sold. Simple fact is that Loyal EA/Battlefield fans already have a new game and don't need another so soon. Poor work on EA's end
 
[citation][nom]kami3k[/nom]Poorly coded console port? All ports I can think of are the complete opposite.invasive DRM/invasive security software? You mean the type that EA has stopped using for over a year, or is it two by now?"requires a constant-connection to the internet to play." Well no , it IS A ONLINE GAME!"Glitchy and buggy when first released." All programs have bugs. And I have yet to encounter any game from EA in years that is horrible in that aspect."Charge $15 for a map DLC a month after the game is released" No clue where that is from but sounds a like CoD MW2 is doing right now.I love all this EA hate, I swear is Activision and Ubisoft paying people to bash EA now? Seriously it's old now.[/citation]

Wow, do you work for EA's marketing department? Yes, Ubisoft and Activision is almost sucking as much as EA these days.

1. You've never heard of GTA4 by Activision? The piece of crap port that requires a quad core to get good fps yet looks 10x worse than Crysis, which only needs a dual core? EA has its own share of console ports where controls and gameplay are dumbed down for the consoles...ie. BC2 2. It's a great game and perhaps the best console port out there, but the PC version would've been better if they didn't dumb everything down just like in MW2.

2. You mean besides releasing shallow and repetative games that didn't live up to their hype whatsoever?

3. EA gave up invasive DRM? Don't make me laugh! C&C4 anyone? http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=7818

"The DRM mechanism baked into Command & Conquer 4 is very similar to that used by Ubisoft uses in the PC games Assassin’s Creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5 in that it requires an always-on connection to the DRM servers"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS