User Reviews (1 - 11 of 32)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Battlefield 1942

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 21
Date: December 22, 2003
Author: Amazon User

OK, so this is the game of the year huh ? Come on EA Peoples/makers.... How bout something that actually works ? I mean you load the game, then you need patches. Then sit and spend about 20-30 minutes trying to connect to a server. Dont think I am joking. I am on day 5 now. I spend more time trying to connect then actually playing. And you want me to what !?!?!? Rush out and buy Vietnam this spring ?? I dont think so. I have windows XP, and my computer is less than a year old. I have all the system rqrmnts and then some. I have talked to your tech help on-line. I have run diagnostic tests on my pc. I am done with you guys. And yes, I am passing the word. Save your money. Dont waste your time. Go play something else on-line. And please.............. dont look for a new game around the corner. Cuz the corner coming....... wont come. For all you you people out there thinking "I know, I know.... but my kid wants the game......" dont give in. Save yourself now. Dont do it. Save the 35-40 bucks and dont get the game. And for all you people that said this was game of the year ? Heck... my 13 year old son and my 12 year old daughter think you are all on drugs. 'JUST SAY NO !' And I want to know.................... how are these people that said it was 'Game of the year ?' Some idiots that have a degree in something totally un-related to gaming. Come to my house. See what is going on with my system. I dare you to make me eat my words. I can promise you, I will prove you wrong.

How did this get past QA?

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 4 / 11
Date: December 21, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Ahh, Battlefield 1942. What postive things have been said about this game that have not already been said? It has already won high praise from many gaming magazines as well as several "Game of the Year" awards. With all those accolades, you'd be right in assuming that BF1942 is fine piece of code, right?

Wrong.

Now, don't get me wrong, Battlefield 1942 IS fun to play, on the rare occasions that you can find a good server with players who genuinely play together as a team. Most of the time, however, you'll be simply frustrated at the horrendous graphics bugs, sound bugs, input bugs, display bugs, connection bugs, menu bugs, CD-key bugs, copy protection bugs, etc. How, exactly, such an awful display of computer science-gone-wrong managed to win "Game of the Year" from so many magazines is beyond me. While I can definately see the appeal of being able to jump in a plane, tank, or battleship you come across, BF9142 suffers from the classic downfalls of "great concept, terrible execution."

When I first installed BF1942 and the requisite patches, I loaded up the game with eager anticipation at the fun that was in store for me. I mean, this was the game of the year, right? Well, no sooner had I started the game did it dump me back to the desktop with no explanation. It turns out that BF1942, by default, will not run if you have overridden the display refresh rate. (something that is a must if you don't want to play at the eye-watering 60Hz refresh rate) So, making the necessary adjustments, I loaded up the game once more, only to be struck by what is possibly the worst menu system I have ever encountered. The server browser, in particular, takes ages to sort the servers and will not remember your filter settings. If you want to search for games to play, be sure to use an external app like All Seeing Eye. To make matters worse, the whole menu is apparently flushed from memory once the game begins, so if you want to go back an make changes while playing, you'll sometimes have to wait nearly a minute while the hard drive grinds away to page the menu back in. With 512MB RAM, I've never had this problem with any other game.

After laboriously finding a server and waiting through the agonizingly long loading times, you'll be greeted by some the blandest graphics ever to grace an FPS. Despite their simplicity, however, the renderer runs quite poorly, even though games with graphics an order of magnitude better than BF1942 (like Unreal Tournament 2003 or Call of Duty) run smooth as silk of my machine. The explosion and pyrotechnic effects are passable, but the player and weapons models, as well as the texturing, are downright ugly. Oh, and did I mention that there is an omnipresent haze on every level that so close it makes it nearly impossible to hit these in the distance with artillery? As for the sound, it's yet another notoriously buggy area of the game. Sounds will mysteriously cut in and out when more than three our four were played at once, and sometimes they would not play at all. Even when the sounds play correctly, BF1942 is aurally bland, which gives the game a very sterile atmosphere.

But nothing, absolutely nothing, compares the sheer awful-ness of the networking code. You'd think that, with a game where multiplayer plays such a big part (the single player is utterly forgettable), the developers would focus on making online play as smooth and lag-free as possible, but BF1942 once again defies all expectations. Even with seven patches (and an eighth on the way at the time of writing), it's still frustratingly bad. Often, it's necessary to lead your target a distance of several feet in order to hit them, but since the amount you must lead them is directly proportional to the amount of lag at that moment, trying to hit someone at a distance is often a matter of luck. In addition to all this, BF1942 does one of the most boneheaded things imaginable: Make the impact prediction server-side predicted, but have the impact effects client-side predicted. What this all means is, that even if you see your shell hit the enemy tank, or see your bullets hit an airplane and takes pieces off of it, none of your hits will register if the server doesn't say so. To top it all off, BF1942 might be the first game I've played where lag manifests itself as horrible framerates. Even on 32 player servers, the moment any number of players are gathered in one spot, the game will often become a literal slideshow. With a broadband connection, I can't imagine how people with a 56K could ever hope to play this game.

Even when everything goes right, (technically) Battlefield 1942 will still find ways of annoying the hell out of you. Planes are ridiculously overpowered, being able to carry 15 or 30 bombs; add to that the complete lack of spawn protection, and you can look forward to being haplessly bombed from above with infuriating frequency. Of course, the power of the planes also means that half your time will usually be camped near the airfield while the rest of the team fights off the enemy. You can also look forward to being sniped regularly by unseen foes with rifles that fire as straight as an arrow at distances of over 1000 yards. What it all adds up to are some of the most frustrating deaths you'll ever experience in an FPS, often made worse by an inexplicable bug that makes the camera jump the very corner of the map when you die, making you wonder how exactly you got killed. "How did I die?" is a question you will be asking yourself, A LOT!

I could go on about the myriad of bugs and gameplay issues, but I will simply conclude things by saying that no amount of patching will ever fix this game. Save your money for a real WWII FPS, like Call of Duty or Day of Defeat.

Battlefield 1942: Waste of Money

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 1 / 5
Date: March 06, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Okay....I'll have trouble about what bad quality of the game to address first, but I'll start with the historical accuracy.
Start the game as Allies. The fist mission, Operation Battleaxe, is NOT ACCURATE HISTORICALLY AT ALL!!!! Operation Battleaxe was never put into operation as the Allies were too busy worrying about Rommel with his Panzer divisions completely annihilating the Allies. They could never put it into action as they were on the retreat. Now the best part of the innaccuracy is the part when the Allies win. The dumbest part was that there was never a battle historically.
Operation Crusader? Same deal. Flopped for the Allies. They lost about 2 Armoured divisions, and had to retreat to Tobruk, where Rommel just moved in and slaughtered them. The battle was a disaster. Best part: Allies win in single player.
Omaha Beach? In D-Day, it was a major error to attack Omaha beach. For the accuracy of the map, there were not two roads leading conveniently behind the Axis bunkers. The Allied divisions had to scale the cliffs. There were heavy casualties sustained on Omaha, and the machine gunners were a lot more effective. Not to mention minefields, Goliath tanks (remote tanks loaded with two tons of TNT that exploded in landing crafts, wiping out divisions at a time), beach obstacles, and artillery fire. Then you had the Panzerscreck platoons, who camped in bunkers and killed hundreds. Then you had friendly planes dropping bombs onto the Allied forces, on accident. That alone killed hundreds. No, Omaha Beach was a failure. The only reason the Allies managed to get past was the divisions from other beaches came around from the back and slaughtered the German defenses. Another funny moment: I beat Omaha without dying once, and the ticket counts were about 50-0 (Started at 100).
Now for the gameplay. Singleplayer = awful. You run around, and shoot people. I'm a big fan of MOHAA, where it involves skill, but BF1942 is ridiculous. The AI is awful. They do not engage in melees. They just go prone and try to gun you down with a pistol. Bazooka? That weapon killed thousands throughout the war. I fired a bazooka at a guy and he just continued to shoot me with a pistol. How dumb is that?!
I haven't played multiplayer, but I'm sure it is as big a flop as single player.
Why, if it is so bad, did I give it 2 stars? Cuz it deserves two stars because I'm sure that someone put in a lot of effort to make it. That deserves two stars on its own.
Bottom line: Want a good WWII FPS? Buy MOHAA or Call of Duty. BF1942 doesn't fit the bill.

Umm...Try again, EA!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: February 19, 2004
Author: Amazon User

C'mon. This game has a great interface and all...but a 30 second spawn wait in single player?! That is absurd. The only reason I am giving this two stars is because of the vehicles. You can get in every vehicle. That is the only good point. The AI is awful. They will not even engage in melees. They will just go prone and fire like two shots on their pistol EVEN WHEN their primary gun is a machine gun! How dumb is that?! If you want a good FPS game, buy Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. Much more worth it. And, what's more, MOHAA is actually a good game!

A 2 1/2 Star Game Now, After The Originality Is Gone.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 5
Date: August 05, 2005
Author: Amazon User

When Battlefield 1942 first came out it was a total hit unlike any other war game out there. Now however it's 3 years later and it's no longer original. The game can be fun to play at times, but in Singleplayer it's quite lacking on the number of missions. The game itself is exactly like Starwars Battlefront, which I already owned, so there was no new feel to it. Gameplay got to be somewhat boring on many levels. And while this is one of the most realistic war games out there and does have quite good graphics, the gameplay somewhat gets annoying and repetitive after awhile. Like when you're sniping unsuspecting enemies and you aim the sight right at their head. After firing three or four rounds you may hit them. And even on easiest the AI's on your side can never hold their own agaist enemy AI's, making your person have to breach every enemy line and hold every outpost. There are a few fun levels, that you'd want to replay, but many (Like The Battle of the Bulge) you're just happy are over.

Pros:
- Very Realistic War Game
- Graphics Still Good
- Multiplayer is Good

Cons:
- Singleplayer Can't Hold Its Own
- Repetitive Gameplay At Points
- Your AI Always Seem To be Worse Then Enemy AI
- Many Singleplayer Missions Are Simply Boring
- Takes Only A Day Or Two To Beat

Lag and Bugs too much a hindrance to keep it immersive

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 2
Date: October 26, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Too much choppy gameplay prone to lag and control issues. Icky first person gameplay compared to most any FPS. Great ideas controlling the vehicles ships and planes. Lopsided gameplay that heavily favors pilots. Communication a hindrance without real time mic chat built in and a terribly late typed messages. Sometimes almost impossible with skipping key inputs and garbled messages. Therefore any real strategy on a grand scale against the enemy is laughable. Most kids online just 'rambo' and grab a vehicle or plane and take off on their own agenda.

Good but not THAT good.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 04, 2004
Author: Amazon User

The idea & the game in overall is good. But because of its copy-protection program in it, it causes a lot of bugs. Even with my super high-end computer in 2003 (Athlon 2500+ 1.84GHz, 512DDR SDRam, Radeon 9600 Pro-128MB) it still bugs a lot. About the game, the Americans all wear the same uniform in every battles, from Europe to the Pacific which is wrong. The AI lacks a bit of intelligence when given orders or by itself. Reloading is not automatic & should be (like in Medal of Honor Allied Assault), like if you would not reload in a battle?! Good thing is that you're able to use the ennemies' weapons like in real life. The only big problem is the bugs. That's all. & the AI. & the uniforms.

Multiplayer: the only good thing

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 20, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Single player isn't bad, I mean you get to fly planes, ride in a jeep, a sit in the back of a truck while someone else drives you, but the game is so easy, it's not even fun anymore. even a 6 yr old could defeat the game in hard. Another anoying and ridiculous thing is the 30 sec respawn. It's happened to many times that i won the battle before respawning. Something else, is Omaha beach, there's like 10 allies that land on the beach, surtaintly not what really happened! Multiplayer is the only really fun thing about the game, so if you want more than just multiplayer, don't waste your money, and buy Medal of Honor. it's cheaper, and a lot better!!!!

Best online play

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 1 / 2
Date: January 01, 2004
Author: Amazon User

This game is an awesome buy. With all the variety offered in weaponry and operation of equipment, it is great to play online with other human players. You can get really involved with strategy and different roles.

The downside is the single-player mode. All the missions are nearly identical and it gets very dull after a short time. I see it merely as training for the online play.

Not Just For Broadband

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 7 / 12
Date: November 23, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This game Rocks and its not only for High speed internet users. Those who tell you you need a Cable or ADSL Modem haven't got a clue about how a computer works. Everything on BF 1942 is server side the actual amount of info that is passed back and forth is ver very small. Your system is the big factor in BF 1942. Processor Speed, memory, Hard Drive acsess speed and Video speed are all much more important than Connection speed. I play BF 1942 Multi Player on a 28.800 connection, I have my system Tweaked out and I get very little lag. I love it when those who have no clue about how the ineternet works scream at me because my ping is above 350, I laugh blow them away and increase my standing. If you are running a decent system (1.5 gig porcessor and 512 DDR with at least 128 of vedio mem) this game will run very well using Dial up.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 Next 

Actions