Battlefield 1943 Pacific - The next BF game on PC?

[TheUnk]

24 players.

LOL!

 

[lupi]

Aw that sucks, flying an avenger or devastator and taking out the ships was fun (even dealing with some of the tards that wanted to either beach the carrier or drive it off the map)

 

[AzN]

That video from IGN. Looks like Wake Island but no jets with missiles. The plane looks weak. Flying jets to flying planes with lawn mower engine would be going backwards.

I rather see modern combat with faster jets.

 

[AntiFreze]

yeah, after hearing that the PC version would be only 24 players because thats the max the 360 would allow I have decided to stop buying BF games. I hope EA rots.

 

[DannyLove]

How can a current battlefield game provide you with a 64 player server and then a NEW battlefield game give you a limitation of 24 max! That just seems counter.... intuitive. 12 vs 12 would be completely boring. My clan would be considered stacking! lol

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: DannyLove
How can a current battlefield game provide you with a 64 player server and then a NEW battlefield game give you a limitation of 24 max! That just seems counter.... intuitive. 12 vs 12 would be completely boring. My clan would be considered stacking! lol

If you read the links they talk about it. A great deal of it has to to with the large amount of bandwidth required for the physics of destructive environments.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Azn
That video from IGN. Looks like Wake Island but no jets with missiles. The plane looks weak. Flying jets to flying planes with lawn mower engine would be going backwards.

I rather see modern combat with faster jets.

No way. I always hated the jets because there just wasn't enough room to fly. I can't wait to get back into one of those planes.

 

[Coldkilla]

Not that I'm defending this game (because I'm most certainly not because I hate this spin off), but I prefer the WWII planes (at least with the BF series) because of the level size constrictions. Going from one end of the level to the other with a jet takes 5 seconds, with a prop plane it takes 30 - so its much more fun for air combat imo.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: HeXploiT

Originally posted by: DannyLove
How can a current battlefield game provide you with a 64 player server and then a NEW battlefield game give you a limitation of 24 max! That just seems counter.... intuitive. 12 vs 12 would be completely boring. My clan would be considered stacking! lol

If you read the links they talk about it. A great deal of it has to to with the large amount of bandwidth required for the physics of destructive environments.

And? All they're saying is "the technology isn't ready for what we want to do yet".

Far Cry had a similar problem when it came out - they wanted a really really far view distance, but they had to cut so much detail to make it run decently it looked like shit.

Battlefield with 24 players? In BF1942, servers with less than 40 players sucked ass, and the fun factor was directly correlated to an increasing player load. The more people you got in there, the more it actually felt like there was a war going on.

I don't care if it's because of destructible envs. It's a stupid design move, especially for this series.

 

[lupi]

Agree about the planes, either you are constantly turning while in a jet cause the maps aren't big enough to use them, or you've got such a big map that while the jets are fighting it out the guys on the ground spend most of the time looking for the other side.

 

[Finalnight]

Originally posted by: lupi
Agree about the planes, either you are constantly turning while in a jet cause the maps aren't big enough to use them, or you've got such a big map that while the jets are fighting it out the guys on the ground spend most of the time looking for the other side.

I loved BF1942 because you could do your own thing, it was something for everyone. If you wanted to be Navy, then you hopped in a boat and fought other boats and provided assistance to your ground and air forces. If you wanted to be in the air, same time of thing, ground, etc. 3 different styles of play all working together.

 

[GullyFoyle]

"DICE has not forgotten the classic Battlefield player..."

Video

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: DanDeighan
"DICE has not forgotten the classic Battlefield player..."

Video

Ugh. Yeah, they forgot about us. What a crock of TF2 looking shit.

 

[TehMac]

DICE is referring to their unannounced project dealing with the Battlefield series..


I have a slight bit of hope, but it's interesting to see their response. Instead of just saying "well the market says this," they genuinely seem to be cooking something a little more along the tastes of hardcore pc gamers.

Which would make sense because Battlefield 2 sold around 2.2 million copies in first year or so of release.

 

[TBSN]

I am so excited for this! BF1942 was so awesome, if they updated it with new graphics, they wouldn't even need to change anything else. But WTF is up with 24 players only? Why call this "Battlefield?"

How can you have ppl flying, piloting destroyers and fighting on the ground if there's only 12 PEOPLE PER TEAM?

I hope they straighten this out before it's released...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I thought people were being whiners about the 24 limit, team fortress is usually 24 snd that's fine. Although I never thought of it like that 12 per team with tanks,jeeps, bombers, subs, carriers plus all the random gun emplacements? 12 per team does sound weak.

 

[minmaster]

hopefully they see that PC gamers want more than 24 players max and make changes so it's at least 32-48 for PC version. it's not like there will be cross-platform play anyways, so i don't see why upping the limit for PC is not an option...unless they want to get lazy and give us a straight console port. they might have to scale the map though to do this.