Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Greasy_Mullet
    Member
    • Jan 2007
    • 344

    #61
    Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

    I am a firm believer in limited destruction but much bigger maps. Sometimes less is more and when after playing a round for 10min and the map is rather empty and plain then that ruins not only the environment feeling of battle but also the gameplay.

    When I say limited destruction, I mean a lot of the object is left standing at its maxiumum destruction. The object not only adds to the feel of the map but also provides cover from ground and air. I have no problem with ONLY certain statics being destructable if that means more players and larger maps.

    One problem IMO with bad company was not just that things got destroyed but it was how quickly they got destroyed. It takes just one hit to blow up a wall or object and when you have 3 of 4 classes with a powerful exploisve weapon running around that turns the battlefield into a bare map. So an increase in hitpoints to take out object and a thinning out of the explosive weapons use would go a long way to making the battlefield last.

    Comment

    • VACkillers
      Member
      • Jan 2011
      • 41

      #62
      Re: Would you give up destruction for larger maps in BF3?

      I voted for maybe a little of destruction for more players/maps. I dont see why you couldn't have both, bigger maps with the destruction aswell, i like bigger maps and huge ammounts of players/bots in BF, thats what makes the series great, but if i couldn't have both, i would be forced for more players, as thats really where the fun is, but its using the frostbite 2.0 engine, so its going to have destructible enviroments, so is this question kind of pointless?

      Comment

      Working...