I could never get in to Warhawk. Of course I sucked at flying, which was a major part of the game. As soon as I got in that thing, I was shot down. No fun.
i suck at this game. lol. i have to shot a whole freaking clip at someone to kill him. i get shot at and i don't even know from which direction. lol.
I don't get the arcade game remarks? What do you guys mean? Warhawk is the exact same game but better. 1943 grew on me though.
I think they are pointing out how BF 1943 is a XBLA/PSN release, and not a full-scale $50-$60 game like COD, Halo, KZ, etc. Or even Warhawk, which was sort of in the middle. Basically, it is hard to compare a $15 game to a $30+ game.
Off subject, but for the life of me I can't get my headset to work. I've got the Jabra one that came with Warhawk and for whatever reason it just will not register with the PS3. I checked Playstation.com boards and didn't see anything that I haven't already tried.
Aside from graphics I don't see the difference. Warhawk was a PSN game. I am going on fun factor, Warhawk wins. Its the same playing field IMO.
Warhawk was a mass produced game, on disc, that cost $60. It was not just a thrown together online exclusive arcade game. The games are basically the same to me, but Warhawk obviosly had more time and money put into it.
I downloaded Warhawk off PSN at its release. It was 39 not 60. The actual disk that cost 60 came with some exclusive stuff including a headset. 39$ then is about 15$ now IMO, meaning Warhawk 2 will probably be 15-20$. Playing field seems level, discount graphics, what else is there? Warhawk just feels more fun to me.
Warhawk was almost triple the price of Battlefield. Do you think that MAYBE they had a longer development period, and possibly a larger development team? Hence the much higher price? "39$ then is about 15$ now" It simple does not work like that...
Warhawk came out a long time ago. Like I said Warhawk 2 would probably be 15-20 I would guess. Anyways like I said, Warhawk > Battlefield, both the same style game. Ill agree its a great game though. And a great bargain. In case you didn't know on PSN you can share the game with 4 other users. As long as you trust someone else with your PSN ID and password they can use that to log on, download the game in your name on their system, then play the game from their ID.
Warhawk is a weird example. It did have a bigger budget, more development time, and a bigger team (I'm guessing?), but that was mostly because it was meant to have a single-player campaign. It almost wasn't released at all due to all the development problems, but I guess Sony figured the MP was good enough that maybe they could recoup some of the development costs. Had the finished product been the goal from day one, I'm guessing several things would have been different (e.g., graphics, price, etc.). Personally, if a Warhawk 2 were to be released, I'd hope for something closer to their original goals, and not just an upgraded Warhawk (even if it was priced at $15-$20). Not that this has much to do with BF1943 at all...other than the fact that both games are probably a lot of fun.
This game is just simply good ole fashion fun, played as a squad with friends last night and had a great time! This is a nice break untill I dig back in with NCAA football.
How would you guys compare this with the COD series? I know this has the vehicles and destructible environments. But besides that, just gameplay and fun factor.
Its no COD, that is easily the best FPS on the market. It is fun though. I generally don't like vehicles in online play but these are ok. Its a good holdover till Modern Warfare 2 comes out.
I think it is better than COD...but I think 1942 was the best FPS of all time...at least mulitplayer. DD
I loved 1942. One of my favorites though was Vietnam. I loved blaring the music from the helicopters. If anyone still has BF2, you should try the AIX mod. It kicks ass. Love the A-10 in it.
