For anyone who seems to have diluted themselves into believing Battlefield 1943 will be similar to a Battlefield 1942 PC experience, you're wrong. The console space will possibly never evolve to the PC experience where your teammates seem to be somewhat willing to cooperate. Whereas on console games, where the nature of the playing field is to hop-in, hop-out, and typically go out with a lone-wolf approach. Take Battlefield: Bad Company for example (Which appears to be the same game as Battlefield 1943), as far as I can see, it didn't work on consoles. People would simply never give you health packs, and imaginably, if there was a revive mechanic, similar to that of Battlefield 2 or Killzone 2, the same would apply. People playing shooters online on consoles are typically oblivious to their teammates around them -- they seem to get into a sort of hive-minded/drone mentality that seeks to aid the player himself, and no one else but himself. Compare a game such as Call of Duty 4 to Battlefield: Bad Company on the consoles. The experience Call of Duty 4 provided was simply better tailored to appeal to the current shooter audience on consoles, which consists of people who adore cheap, instant thrills. Battlefield: Bad Company attempted to present itself in a more methodical, strategic, or tactical fashion by having larger maps, and no regenerating health, but as far as I can see, Dice's attempts on the console were all for nothing.
Let's just hope the PC audience responds more positively to Battlefield 1943 than the console audience will.