Battlefield 1942: It really is that good

Holy crap. The full version is so much better than the SP and MP demos.

This is easily my pick for GOTY so far.

Surprisingly, the singleplayer isn’t that bad. I don’t think these bots will pass the turing test any time soon, but they’re more than competent for entertainment. And of course learning how to play the maps.

I agree. The single Player is a nice way to get introduced to the maps, and it is quite enjoyable too. I totally disagree with the IGN review about the SP game (what a surprise).

I enjoyed it right up until I snuck up prone behind an enemy base on a ridge and fired a bazooka at a axis assault trooper. The shell hit at his feet and character model went straight up about three feet in the air. He then turned around and peppered me with his Stg, killing me as I tried to reload. I guess I should have used something with a little more pop than my bazooka. My bad.

I have also had situations where I was manning the .50 cal on top of a tank when I spotted a bad guy nearby. I put the crosshairs on him and fired controlled bursts. Nothing. He just merrily skipped by as I fired dozens of rounds at him.

I enjoy the tank battles and bombing runs with my Spitfire. But the close combat fire fights I find unsatisfying.

If you guys keep this up, I’ll have no choice but to install the copy I bought last Thursday. I’ve been avoiding it for fear of having my life sucked away… again.

I’m troubled by a couple things. And this concerns multi-play.

  1. Machine guns are just too inaccurate at close range.
  2. Mounted machine guns are death traps at LONG range. And I don’t mean snipers. Worst place to be is at a mounted machine gun. In reality, well, your survival rate was pretty damn good at a mounted machine gun surrounded by sandbags until they got close. Here you’re dead from some guy with a BAR halfway across the map.
  3. How come I can magically zoom in with my BAR but can’t at the Browning?

Better accuracy at close range with a machine gun is needed and better armor at a mounted gun is definitely needed.

Haven’t played the retail version much yet, but in the demo that was by design. Bazookas don’t do much (or any) splash damage, so you have to hit someone in the chest for it to be any good. I think it was a balancing issue, they probably had people dominating MP games with those things, when they’re really intended for tanks. So, yeah, believe it or not, something in this game doesn’t exactly model reality…

But the close combat fire fights I find unsatisfying.

I was worried about this, but netcode issues notwithstanding, I was totally satisfied with the close combat using bots. There’s quite a bit of recoil (and additional accuracy modifiers for running/jumping/crouch/prone) in the guns, so you have to pick your shots for best accuracy.

The hit feedback can be more subtle than I would like, but otherwise, whenever I felt like I was sufficiently on target, they went down.

I love FPS games not based on the UT or Q3 engine. The engine makes a big difference. Contrast the game with the bobsled run level design in MOHAA. It’s fantastic to be outside the box again, in such expansive and open environments.

I had an insane close-range fight on the IGN server on the Stalingrad map. I dunno what you’re looking for in close range fights, but it was a fucking bloodbath.

I played a sparsely populated Midway game (5 or 6 guys to a side), and it just sucked. The visibility is like Jutland in the fog at night, you can’t blast away at ships with out being suicidally close. However, maybe it is more fun with a full complement of people playing. Anyone have any positive Midway experiences?

I had one, but I think the problem is that a lot of people either dont like using ships, or havent figured out the map yet.

The server I played my good Midway game on had both huge battleships side by side firing at each other, 2 destroyers/cruisers (cant remember which) a submarine and a carrier all engaged in a fight. I was in a japanese zero attempting to shoot down an american plane and he pulled me right through the middle of the fire-fight between the two battleships, then I saw the Carrier sink in the distance. It was just so cool. After that 10 minute battle was over however the map sorta fell apart and people just wandered around engaging in skirmishes.

I think a lot of people who play that map don’t use the planes early game just for scouting. One dedicated scouting pilot is IMPORTANT for mapping enemy ship movements. Subs work ok but they are slow underwater, and terribly vulnerable above.

I don’t understand at all how the ships work (other than launching planes and landing craft, which I can do). Maybe I should have Chet stop by and bring his game manual so he can explain it to me.

The rear guns on destroyers answer artillery calls from scouts. Dunno bout battleships, I haven’t used one of those yet. Most ships are outfitted with several positions for various players.

The submarine is a one man deal tho.

I ended up doing the quasi-cheat thing and edited my view distance. It makes an incredible difference on Midway. You can now see the enemy naval force when you are on the island. Likewise when you are in a plane it is much easier to spot the fleet. I then tried Battle of the Bulge and was surprised to find that I could stand at the windmill and snipe into St Vith. This could cause all sorts of online troubles. Against the bots I also found that they would snipe back at me- I wonder if the bot AI is connected to the player view distance or has anyone else been taken out by bots at distances beyond their vision?

Hmm… That’s odd that you like this game that much Wumpus. Usually you tend to thrash every game that you play.


The bots fire at anyone that fires at them. They will semi-ignore you if you’re far enough away and not firing. I’ve used this to “sneak” near some of the flags in SP.

I know each game is trying to do different things, but let’s say that I wanted a WW2 style shooter. Is Battlefield better than MoH:AA? Does it depend on whether or not I want vehicle combat? Is the engine as good?

Well, MOH:AA feels like a WW2 mod for Quake 3, albeit a very good one.

BF1942, on the other hand, feels like all out friggin’ war. If you love the smell of napalm in the morning like I do, you can’t go wrong with this game.

You can think of it as… Operation Flashpoint for Dummies. And I mean that as a compliment–BF1942 is way more accessible while retaining the unparalleled sense of open-ended combat immersion that OFP delivered. And perhaps most significantly, it delivers a better (more typical, and semi-thoroughly beta tested) multiplayer configuration out of the box, too.

It’s going to be very difficult to get excited about the pending Wolfenstein and MOHAA expansions after this.

Gosh, Wumpus… Declaring Battlefield 1942 GoTY already? With all of its documented bugs (insert laundry list here), shouldn’t you be telling us to play Day of Defeat instead – or to wait a month (at least) for all of the issues to get ironed out? Are you sure you feel comfortable suggesting that people go out and buy such a rushed product?

Oh, I know, dear – you just haven’t experienced any of the bugs for yourself, right?




So Vederman was Sinner?

Just for the record, I was the first Qt3er that called 1942 GOTY. What do I win?

Ignore what Wumpus says; it’s not even remotely an accurate, immersive WW2 sim. It’s just arcadey rock/paper/scissors tradeoff fun between the classes and vehicles.