Jim, you should join in for FNF.
Yeah, easily worth the purchase price.
'cept for those damn ice mages.
I wish you'd mentioned the Gladiate arena though, as it is flipping solid. I can get to Level 8 or 9, but that's it (not sure on the Level Limit).
It depends how badly the server issues affected overall enjoyment. Fat Princess' problems are annoying, sure, but the sheer fun of the gameplay makes up for it. From what I've heard about 1943, the server issues are absolutely game-destroying.
It's really not hard to see a difference between an annoying problem and a game breaking problem.
The Xbox 360 1943 servers were literally offline for hours at a time: as in, unplayable.
For Fat Princess, you might have to try 3 times to connect, but it always connected, even during the minute of launch.
Also Jim, can multiple people play it on the same console? As in split screen or anything?
"can multiple people play it on the same console? As in split screen or anything?"
No: not at all :-(
Cheers for cliched and lazy writing!
I owned BF: 1943 from day one on the 360, and yes it was a bitch to get into a match at first, but once you did, it worked just fine. So no it wasn't unplayable at any point, and they completely fixed it over that weekend. Is Fat Princess fixed yet? Nope, so how long will its server issues go on for? Hopefully not as long as Castle Crashers! I'm just saying, shouldn't every online game be held to the same standards? Not pick, and choose which ones get punished?
They ARE held to the same standards. The standards are us asking this simple question: "Is this game good enough to rise above any faults it may have? Is this game so fun that the faults are negligible in comparison?"
Just because two games have similar problems, that doesn't make them identical games. It's really easy logic.
Those are your words Jim. I'm just going by what you told me, in your review of the game. That's easy enough logic for me!
So you're telling me that when DICE announced on their twitter that "all 1943 servers are offline for a few hours, bear with us", you were able to connect? No one I knew could, because DICE admitted the servers were completely offline.
If you're speaking from experience with the PS3 version: it didn't have those issues. If you don't own a PS3, and only a 360, I think I can see where these fanboy-esque claims are coming from.
unfortunately, I'm waiting for a few more titles to drop before I make the plunge.
It's the same logic that stopped the game getting a 9.5
please for the sake of the rest of us Canadians stop making us look stupid. It's like Magnalon said, DICE announced that ALL servers were down. how were you playing 1943 at this time. Explain.
Obviously you're more forgiving of these matters, which is realistic considering Sony's claim that a patch is on the way.
But my main problem with you is that you are obviously an Xbox fanboy!! The fact that you gave Fat Princess a good review is proof enough of your bias!
They were down for a few hours, which was that afternoon, they we're back up that night. So yes I played the game quite a lot the first day it came out actually. God I'm not trying to make a big deal about this, but I just think its a bit hypocritical when the same things that were said about BF: 1943 all of sudden gets a free pass with this game. I'm just going by what Jim said in his review, because I obviously haven't played the game.
So that's really all I can go by, is what Jim told us about his online problems with the game! If Jim thinks its still a 9.0, and should of been a 9.5 than that's his prerogative, but when other places like EuroGamer are giving it a 6.0 that makes me question his 9.0 a bit, is all I'm saying. Sorry I questioned something about the precious PS3. I guess you guys just need every game on the system to be great, to justify its worth, or something. So all of a sudden I'm stupid now just for asking a simple fucking question. Great community we got here, I'm so glad I participate in it so much!
Eurogamer usually either completely hates a game or really loves it; there's rarely an in between for them.
IGN gave it a 9.0, and Gamespot a 7.5. The reviews are pretty mixed all around, and GS's main complaint was the balancing, which didn't make a whole lot of sense based on my own experience with FP. Sometimes I think GS just talks out their ass, not entirely unlike Eurogamer. You can usually tell from their previews what a game is going to get, because they've already made up their minds before they've even played the game.
But I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's not coming to haunt Xbox live or anything.
As for the whole BF: 1943 not being playable on its first day of availability, that's BS, because I have two achievements for it on the day it came out. So how the hell could I get those achievements, if I couldn't play it on launch day? So "Steel Brotha" don't tell me that I didn't play it on launch day, because I know I did, and I know what I'm talking about. Why not back up a fellow Canadian, instead of just assuming that I'm wrong!
I found the gameplay to be repetitive and dull, and you're never rewarded with a sense of accomplishment in the game because it's impossible to co-ordinate your team - and any time you DO kidnap the princess from the opposing team (single handedly), it's because the AI is letting you do it: there's actually no way you could do it legitimately.
I am really disappointed. I like the premise and the presentation of the game but the classes are poorly balanced (a Worker can kill a Warrior in melee combat) and ultimately the matches get boring long before they finish.
I'm gonna try it online, but I seriously doubt that the problem of co-ordinating your team will be any better, and ultimately who wants to be a cog in the machine if the machine is driving itself? Not me.
"It's a genius little gimmick that exemplifies this game's main strength -- the focus on making sure that everybody has something to do. "
This could not be more true - no matter which hat I put on, there's something useful I can be doing to further the cause of my team. I *love* that - everybody can contribute.
@PEICanada7: "Sorry I questioned something about the precious PS3."
Are you implying that Jim inflates his PS3 reviews because of some fanboyism for the system? Honestly, I think you need to lurk more then. There is no harsher critic of Sony on this site than Mr. Sterling. Believe me, I've nerd-raged over his articles many times in the past, but one thing he has never done is white-wash his opinions; he has integrity.
Give it a spin.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow




















follow

