K, i know there were other warfare 1944 posts but they were made before it was released and did not focus on this.
So im asking this question. Ive seen a lot of people complain about it but i dont understand why these people are doing so. Sure there are bugs but con is just about to get another version of it out soon. This will be great and even better
I think 1944 went bad for some people because it is more strategic. It is more harder and some gamers like to just unleash their armies simply and see the destruction.
Personally, i think it was great and may be better than 1917.
I don't think anything went wrong in 1944. It just got more difficult and challenging but I see no problems in that. Some people are just whining because they can't win it without the help of the difficulty setting (which ConArtist added in a later version to satisfy the people).
I love the fact that it got way more challenging and not just about charging out into the field though I would still prefer to have the support options not as part of a 'buy' scheme but rather like in 1917 where it 'recharges'. Of course that would make it way easier and take the fun out of strategizing.
I personally loved this game and can't wait for the third installment! Oh and the graphics are awesome too - not to mention the sound effects (except I'm not too fond of the Artillery sound!).
I didn't find it that hard, honestly- I played it through on medium difficulty (Allies) with only one loss on the first try. If I was going to suggest a flaw, it would mostly be that the tank levels can be over very, very quickly.
yea it got more difficult but more fun!! But i see people say that 1917 was better.
@keeton52 i dont get what your saying. Are you saying that the allies get most of the power? or u just mean something else.
Also, Con is making another version and might allow more squads to one cover!!
I personally loved this game and can't wait for the third installment!
I dont mean to get u upset or anything, but this is gonna be the last installment of Warfare. Sadly, Con did not like the feedback and thought it would be better if he just left it like this. Heres his message.
[i]And this is why 1944 will be the last modern history Warfare gameâ¦.sigh - Con[i]
[i]In my opinion theres too much wrong with the game but it just wasn't as fun as 1917.They should have just kept one track for people to walk on and they should't make you tell your people to throw the grenades.While 1944 is more strategic,simpler is sometimes better and in the case of 1917 vs. 1944,simpler came out on top.
Just because it is his last modern warfare game doesn't mean he can't take this concept something else, perhaps Warfare 2144?
Personally I like the greater strategic scope, and more detailed tactical options, but no one can please everyone. Striving too only means you never accomplish anything.
1944 is a great game! its tougher, which is great. more strategy is involved which is awesome. and well its just great in everyway! i dont see any flaws! its just an amazing game!
