All BF1942, all the time!

Well, EA’s announced Battlefield: Vietnam.

http://www.eagames.com/official/battlefield1942/editorial/vietnam.jsp

The main new gameplay features that I see are:

Battlefield Vietnam will allow passengers to fire from moving vehicles and players will have the ability to airlift other vehicles via helicopter.

In other news, Desert Combat 0.38 was released today.

Fixes/Update:

New Seal Raft with outboard motor
New Iraqi BMP-2 , an amphibious
personnel carrier
Improved SCUD damage
New Iraqi GP30 grenade launcher
New US M203 grenade launcher
New US knife
New Tabuk Sniper rifle model and skin
New M25 Sniper scope
Improved sniper accuracy
All new radio command sounds
All new vehicle sounds
All new explosion sounds
Many new weapon sounds
Improved pistol firing speed
Realistic accuracy settings on all weapons
New T72 model and skin
New Bradley weapons setup
New Ural transport truck
New drivable forklift
New environment sounds
Added Binoculars to Assault
Added Skorpion sub machine gun
Tons of new static objects ranging from warehouses to cargo ships
New DC Al Khafji Docks map
New Inshallah Valley map from Flatline|44
Single player version of Eastings
Updated spawns on all maps to include BMP-2
New Mortar kneel position
New damage warning system added to high-tech vehicles

So I don’t think I have to buy Planetside just yet.

Drivable forklift? Can you actually lift something?? I may have to give this a whirl.

I was okay with Vietcong, but Battlefield: Vietnam makes me a little queasy. Weird, huh?

Excited about a drivable forklift? Do you like playing with kittens? Do you like looking for sailors? Have I got a game for you!

Why ?

I’d rather Battlefield 1917 over Battlefield Vietnam any day. Trenches, machine gun nests, Fokkers and Sopwiths, artillery and musturd gas…so much untapped potential in a WWI game of this sort.

Why ?[/quote]

I dunno, which is why I said it was “weird.” I mean, I know in the sense that I feel funny about a game that takes Vietnam, which was a fairly recent, very brutal war, and gives it the BF1942 treatment. It’s one thing to approach a subject with some amount of seriousness and try to portray, somewhat, the subjective experience of what it was like to be there (as Vietcong did, at least from what I’ve seen). It’s another thing to do a sort of slapstick, run-n-gun version. I’m not saying anything bad about the gameplay–I love BF1942’s gameplay, and I’m sure the elements added to BFV will improve it–I’m just saying it’s tough subject matter. We’ve had this debate before in this forum. But for me, the line somehow gets drawn between Vietcong and Battlefield: Vietnam (or at least, between Vietcong and the BFV game that exists in my imagination).

Yea…

And what about the forgotten war? Korea!! I would love to see a game based on that war.

And what about…

The Civil War? Now that would be kick ass!! Body parts flying everywhere!! Fighting on horseback would be sweet!!! High body counts. Slaves muttering “yes master” Just before you blow their skulls wide open! Yea… of course you would only do that if you played a Southern boy.

And what about…

The Native American Wars? They could reenact Custards Last stand! Your troops against 5,000 Lakota Sioux warriors!! Can you make it out alive? You could raid villages, and drink fire water till you dropped!

Bring it on developers… :D

Puts me in mind of my dyslexic take on the original… “Battlefield: 1492”

I can see it now.

[Native4ever]: d00d WTF? u totally gave me the plague!
[BlanketMerchant]: pwn3d!

Jason Cross and I had this same discussion, and I feel the same as you, Ry. I can’t really explain why, either. WWII was more brutal than Vietnam, in the grand scheme of things. But Vietnam was more recent–during my lifetime, even. It’s a war that left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, and not really old enough to feel like “history,” I guess.

“Excited about a drivable forklift? Do you like playing with kittens? Do you like looking for sailors? Have I got a game for you!”

Now that’s comedy! :lol:

Battlefield 1917 features:

Spend 4 hours at the front, simulating the weeks that units spent there. Be subjected to random artillery barrages.

Spend 8 hours in the back, engage in dalliances with young married women.

Spend 4 hours at the front. Oh wait, you get to go over the top.

Experience the fastest, most decisive victory in world war 1 history - the front moved six inches closer to Berlin! Congratulations, your unit only sustained 80% casualties within the first 15 seconds.

With any luck I’ll be able to afford broadband by the time this game comes out. I just can’t stand having to miss out on the Battlefield action any longer. I managed to watch a 10 player game at a LAN party for 15 minutes before I had to excuse myself to the restroom and clean up the drool that was dripping all over my upper body.

And yet, as others have mentioned already, there is something so recent about the Vietnam war that makes me hesitatant about this newly announced game. My dad was in the war. It seems to be a dark war, lacking the black and white glory and heroics that WW2 is often portrayed as having. Do I really want to be a part of this new game?

… not to mention it will take six months for the less mature to get chat-spamming “Me so horny! Me love you long time!” when playing as the Vietnamese out of their system. :?

You can guess what sort of names are showing up on EOD servers.

As the “old” gaming cliche goes, multiplayer games would be great if they didn’t require other players.

Although I think BF1942 is a terrific game and a lot of fun to play, it came out at a time when I began gravitating away from games where servers were full of dozens of players. I enjoyed playing the game with friends but on a 32 player server, it was hard to actually work together, assuming you even ended up on the same team. Combine that with my growing distaste for the idiocy on pubs (and it seems like most developers never learn the lessons from others and leave their games wide open to people abusing the mechanics) and BF1942 ended up gathering dust.

Today I’m far more likely to play a weekly game with my clan which might see 4 on 4 in UT2003 or a small group playing terrorist hunt mode in Raven Shield. Then there’s that standby of Diablo II which I’ve played through in co-op three times, never once logging into battle.net. :)

Maybe I should give pubs another shot. It could be I just hit a stretch where idiots were bountiful, but my gaming time is not as great as it once was and if I have the choice of gambling on a good, wide-open pub of BF1942 or playing a smaller-scale game with a few friends, right now the latter is winning out every time.

I really don’t understand your stigma about the Vietnam War ? It was yet another war among countless others both recent and in the past.

Maybe it’s because the U.S. didn’t win ?

Its partly the “we didn’t win”, but its also the fact that when you look back on it, its really obvious that there wasn’t any clear way to win the first place. The “we had to destroy the country in order to save it” stigma – My Lai, and all the things that were done in the war that seem so utterly anti-American compared to the clean “Fight Against Evil” of WW2.

58,000 Americans died, and we look back at it now and go “err… what was the point again? We got into this because of a false report of a torpedo attack against a US destroyer? Waahhhh?”

Then you add in the rest of the stuff that went on in the 60s and early 70s (assasinations, watergate, civil rights movement, students getting killed at anti-war protests) and you end up with this whole big complicated oozing blob of incrimination that, as has been pointed out in this thread, makes some of us go “this is sorta wierd to be in a game, but I’m not sure why.”

But hey, you Australians were in Vietnam too, ya know.

Well WWI and WWII were a bit of a mess too and I don’t see too many people criticising games like MOH:AA etc.