Battlefield 1943 has been out for almost one month now. I'm still loving it, and I'm sure its safe to say that everyone else is too. If I'm anything like most veterans of the Battlefield series, this game was probably my most anticipated addition to the summer line-up. Granted, it's not quite the same as other games, in the sense that it is downloadable, it costs only $15, and it's definitely a much more compact version of previous Battlefield games. Nonetheless, this game still seems to deliver, and is certainly just as fun as any other game that has hit the shelves this summer.
That said, when you consider that there are only four maps, you have to wonder about the survivability of this game. I assume there will be further downloadable content, similar to the Left 4 Dead scenario. But it's not just the limited number of maps. If you reflect on previous Battlefield games, particularly 1942, you realize that 1943 really only has three vehicles; a fourth, if you want to count the landing craft. Granted, both sides have their respective versions of the same vehicle, but in the end, there are only three. I admit that, right now, this is fine, and certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyability of the game. But three months or so down the road, is this going to cut it? Previous Battlefield games had a multitude of different vehicles, 1942 being the pinnacle of this heritage. I fondly remember firing massive battleship deck guns against unsuspecting players on Wake Island, or bombing Germans with a slow, but satisfying B-17 Flying Fortress.
That said, when you consider that there are only four maps, you have to wonder about the survivability of this game. I assume there will be further downloadable content, similar to the Left 4 Dead scenario. But it's not just the limited number of maps. If you reflect on previous Battlefield games, particularly 1942, you realize that 1943 really only has three vehicles; a fourth, if you want to count the landing craft. Granted, both sides have their respective versions of the same vehicle, but in the end, there are only three. I admit that, right now, this is fine, and certainly doesn't detract from the enjoyability of the game. But three months or so down the road, is this going to cut it? Previous Battlefield games had a multitude of different vehicles, 1942 being the pinnacle of this heritage. I fondly remember firing massive battleship deck guns against unsuspecting players on Wake Island, or bombing Germans with a slow, but satisfying B-17 Flying Fortress.
I'm not suggesting that 1943 needs to include all of these elements. You might even suggest that 1942 had way too many vehicles; so much so that some would be underused, the submarines being a case in point. But I do think that forthcoming downloadable content is going to have to incorporate much more if the developers at DICE want to see this game being played long down the road.
I pick vehicles only because there are so few in 1943, where in previous titles there were so many to the extent that this element of gameplay really was a distinctive feature of the Battlefield series. Who doesn't want to take a few shots at an aircraft carrier with a destroyer around the shores of Iwo Jima? I would be interested to know what readers imagine could be possible vehicle additions; perhaps APC's of some sort, or even anti-tank artillery weapons?
All of that said, there is a lot to offer with 1943, and I do find it hard to criticize a game that only cost me $15. But does that mean we can't be critical of this game? I would say absolutely. I think we can justify our criticisms around the limitations of the current version of the game in the hope that future updates will address these deficiencies.
For now, I'm going to have loads of fun with this version, while keeping an eye on what this game could deliver even further. As I see it, there is so much more that DICE can deliver into this game, and I hope they will!
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment