by JawBreaker » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:38 pm
Hey B.A .. miss playing with you.
I've considered exactly what you have expressed for a long period of time .. probably 10 years. I have not really come up with any solid evidence where it doesn't look like some FAN BOY trying to defend the game I like. But, here's what I have arrived at after more than a decade of thinking about it ..
People don't really remember that Activision put out "Call of Duty" as a direct response to BF42. They had to counter it because it was so powerful an entry. So, add up all of the money Call of Duty has made and all of the money that Battlefield has made over the years and .. this is the game that started it all. This is version 1.0, the original for both of those games.
So, there's a lot of stuff that got done in this game that they chose not to carry in to other sequels .. either CoD or BF. One, very obviously, is naval. This game is not the DEFINITIVE naval simulation but .. it pretty much is the end all be all for combined arms naval-air-amphibious-island defense type of warfare. The stuff we play on Wake and Midway and other maps was never, ever done again in the canon. Ever. And Midway is the only map you can use a submarine for tactical purposes in the history of Call of Duty or Battlefield. Unfortunately, they modded out the submarines in Midway here but .. that is one intensely unique circumstance.
Another basic reason is the physics engine. Battlefield 1942's concept was:
"Vehicle simulators have gotten really really good on computers now. So, let's just throw a bunch of simulators in to a sandbox and see what happens".
They give all of the physics of a simulator but none of the complexity. It's gameplay, mostly. And that's where it comes from. A fun, not entirely realistic physics engine makes for hilarious stuff. There's things I see in the game today I have never seen before .. 15 years after playing it. The reason that is .. is because .. it's a complex physics engine from taking all these "simulators" and throwing them together in to one arena. And then, they cranked up the fun factor. So, it's based in reality more than most any game .. but yet .. bizarre weirdo crazy laugh-out-loud stuff happens because of that exact reason.
Finally, there's weirdo people like that JB guy who really dig history .. we're in to it. And these maps .. man did they do their homework. When things are created for EXACT realism .. it's not fun. It might be a great recreation of it .. EXACT .. but it's boring as shit. Or .. it's not fun because war isn't fun. But, the homework was done from the perspective of each map takes an ABSTRACTION .. a strange Picasso like abstraction .. of the original source material of realism. And they keep the basic concept of what was the historical bent on things. It's done really, really well and I am always flabbergasted that it holds to the historical line so well. Now, granted, goofy modders screw up a map something fierce (See: Tobruk .. blue can't win there) but the GAMEPLAY .. the weaponry .. the vehicles .. I'll tell ya what .. there are people that before Battlefield 1942 would not know how to tell the difference between a Tiger tank and a Sherman. But after Battlefield 1942 .. if they see one in a museum .. they know RIGHT OFF what type of tank that is and what side used it.
That's a good thing.
That's how history should be taught.
And Battlefield 1942 teaches history in a wonderful, wonderful way.
Come play with us, B.A.
We miss you.
JB
..