frostbite and destruction

[Jam3s121]

anyone else feel like its a gimmick?


dont get me wrong i love the game, but its not like EVERYTHING can be destroyed, but rather set walls of a building or wall etc get blown up, the same spots every game, if you guys get what i am saying.

also why are there explosive boxes everywhere? i mean you can spawn on the attackers when your parachuting down and theres boxes that blow up everywhere...

[Kylee!]

Re: frostbite and destruction

A gimmick? It completely changes the dynamics of the FPS hahaha, more like a major gameplay changing feature.

And explosive boxes are everywhere so you can blow them up? Who cares? haha.

[Jam3s121]

Re: frostbite and destruction

how does it change the dynamic?

for instance the buildings with charges in them are never fully destroyed and there are still places of cover inside after you just shot a tank shell right through it...

im not saying its bad or anything, but from the way its advertised and made out to be it SOUNDS like EVERYTHING is able to be blown up, but thats not the case, the buildings that blow up always blow up and look the same way they did last round.

[iQue]

Re: frostbite and destruction

for instance the buildings with charges in them are never fully destroyed

Yes they do... seen it many many times

It does have a great effect on the gameplay, with most of the cover blown out the attackers have an easier time and you can assualt a building from multiple directions instead of using the door... :p

[Corvic]

Re: frostbite and destruction

how does it change the dynamic?

for instance the buildings with charges in them are never fully destroyed and there are still places of cover inside after you just shot a tank shell right through it...

im not saying its bad or anything, but from the way its advertised and made out to be it SOUNDS like EVERYTHING is able to be blown up, but thats not the case, the buildings that blow up always blow up and look the same way they did last round.

Because if every building was destroyable, you could just sit back and mortar strike it all day without having to commit to an assault. See objective A on stage 1, and both objectives on stage 2. In fact, using the UAV alone, I've moved our team passed stage two, even though the other team held us back, they just forgot about the UAV.

I suspect that is the reason some buildings aren't destructible.

As for changing the dynamic, try to defend against anything with all your cover blown, you are not only easy pickings for enemy snipers, but tanks now have a clear line of sight with the advantage of being able to back up and hide on the hill.

[Minmaster]

Re: frostbite and destruction

def more than a gimmic

[stilla-killa]

Re: frostbite and destruction

Plus I just like blowing **** up!!

[imported_Erol]

Re: frostbite and destruction

I've destroyed objective A's building with a tank, mortar strike, c4, rpg, at rocket, and stationary AT more then a couple of times. Its just that objective B is not in a building so you can't do the same to it. Every building is collapsable, some just collapse easier

[troybob]

Re: frostbite and destruction

I've got to agree with the OP somewhat. There is no physics behind the destruction, its just some walls can be punched through and others cannot. They also always break in the same spot and look the same when they are destroyed. An entire house falling down usually just happens when the objective is destroyed inside it.

I was a little disappointed too. I mean yes it changes the "dynamic" in the way we interact with the environment, but while it is destruction, it is static destruction. Always the same spot, always the same hole. I good physics engine can "dynamically" knock down walls and buildings.

Yes it's new to BF - but it's not new to video games. I was under the impression that the destruction was based more on the physics and interactions of the objects/materials.

Oh and knifing fences down seems odd.

[jimykx]

Re: frostbite and destruction

I've got to agree with the OP somewhat. There is no physics behind the destruction, its just some walls can be punched through and others cannot. They also always break in the same spot and look the same when they are destroyed. An entire house falling down usually just happens when the objective is destroyed inside it.

I was a little disappointed too. I mean yes it changes the "dynamic" in the way we interact with the environment, but while it is destruction, it is static destruction. Always the same spot, always the same hole. I good physics engine can "dynamically" knock down walls and buildings.

Yes it's new to BF - but it's not new to video games. I was under the impression that the destruction was based more on the physics and interactions of the objects/materials.

Oh and knifing fences down seems odd.

Dude i was disapointed too with the destruction physics(wich are not really physics by the way xD). When i heard of "taking down full buildings" and "micro destruction" i actually thought it had awsome realistic destruction physics, even better than those in red faction guerrila wich many people say theyr just bricks attached to each other and that go with physics when they feel destruction, buty anyway its better than a wall that just pops out when hit, or a wall that allways brokes by same way in the exact same spot.
BUT even this "just same way in same spot" requires a lot of cpu going around there, so a huge map with all that stuff going on already blows up my pc, imagine if they were real physics, god damn i dont even want to imagine


The destruction that is in BFBC you can almost compare it to the same exact destruction that is in gtaiv xD; in some missions you can chip pieces of cover , and it allways remembers me of bfbc because it really looks like, because its just done on purpose and its not really physics. and there are some wood fences in gtaiv wich work very similar to the ones in bfbc too xD

[troybob]

Re: frostbite and destruction

BUT even this "just same way in same spot" requires a lot of cpu going around there, so a huge map with all that stuff going on already blows up my pc, imagine if they were real physics, god damn i dont even want to imagine

I have to wonder how removing a collision block actually takes up more CPU. I mean its a generic explosion with some particles that removes a wall and replaces it with a wall with a hole in it. Once it's done it's done. How much CPU does that really take? And how does removing people mean it will help all that much?

I mean you'd only have destruction going on in certain areas as people tend to shoot only when other people are around (see - enemies).

I'm no programmer though. But I've seen games with this feature before and this was years ago. I would rather have destruction, 64 players, and a bit lower graphics.

I think a lot of the cpu is taken by rendering vegetation - which doesn't seem to get lighter with lower options (i suppose to prevent lower end systems gaining an advantage by seeing through the grass)

[jimykx]

Re: frostbite and destruction

I have to wonder how removing a collision block actually takes up more CPU. I mean its a generic explosion with some particles that removes a wall and replaces it with a wall with a hole in it. Once it's done it's done. How much CPU does that really take? And how does removing people mean it will help all that much?

I mean you'd only have destruction going on in certain areas as people tend to shoot only when other people are around (see - enemies).

I'm no programmer though. But I've seen games with this feature before and this was years ago. I would rather have destruction, 64 players, and a bit lower graphics.

I think a lot of the cpu is taken by rendering vegetation - which doesn't seem to get lighter with lower options (i suppose to prevent lower end systems gaining an advantage by seeing through the grass)

Well that of destruction thing was what i heard from someplace wich i dont remember now, but i have to agree with you, the graphics are good but they dont look thaaaat good to be so slow and heavy

[ShadowX8001]

Re: frostbite and destruction

It's far from a gimmick. I mean, I guess it is, but it's a great gimmick, that all devs should try with their game. Nothing is more gun, then tubing a roof where a sniper is! OR blow out the supports of he building so the sniper get crushed.

[MrChris_CJ]

Re: frostbite and destruction

it totally alters the gameplay tbh, saying otherwise is quite naive

as for the nature of the destruction, even though it isn't exactly total I think it works perfectly well

I dread to think of the fps I would have if the physics and destruction were fully dynamic

probably in single figures

[ShadowX8001]

Re: frostbite and destruction

They do make it seem like everything blows up, but for Rush at least, you can't have everything blow up or the game wouldn't work right. I mean they have set a standard for Destruction and I cant wait to see Destruction 3.0. And exploding boxes are a BF classic item. .