Destruction toned down

[Minmaster]

how do you guys feel about this?

i cant find the article right now but i remember reading recently that they decided to tone down destruction in BF3 vs in BC2 where many of the buildings were fully collapsible.

new destruction will involve outsides like facades being destructible but you won't be able to bring the whole building down. this sounds like interior walls will be indestructible? they didn't make it clear whether few or none of the buildings in BF3 will be fully collapsible.

i guess this is the trade off for having more players and bigger maps but its gonna feel weird taking a step back in the destruction dept. which was pretty revolutionary.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Destruction toned down

well it's not that easy to collapse buildings in real life; specially ten stories buildings.

[Minmaster]

Re: Destruction toned down

true... and the houses they had in BC2, they were all crappy houses.

some of the urban settings will likely have different types of buildings where they have a strong foundation and won't be brought down so easily.

the Eiffel tower better be destructible tho! (jk)

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Destruction toned down

I suppose it would depend on how its done. Entire maps dont have to be levelled, but if you cant destroy things at all, then whats the point of making such a big deal about it to begin with?

Crunch

[jimykx]

Re: Destruction toned down

I have been feeling this since i started watching videos from bf3... The onlything ive seen is beeing able to chip pieces off pillars wich is more eye-candy than useful and being able to destroy the walls on some buildings so that they fall on whoever's under them. I havent seen the "-DAmn! there is no door!! - Dont worry, i've got a gl! i'ma make one!" tactic, and all the walls and buildings etc in the videos all seem to be very solid and to have a lot of detail to be destructible

[AvalancheDiode]

Re: Destruction toned down

That's a lesson learned from BC2. When everything on the map is torn down, it ceased to be fun. BC2 is about explosive spamming anyway.

I hope they still make the destructible part more tactically important and need some bloodshed in order to blow through.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Destruction toned down

Well I'd be very bothered if you could bring down a hotel with a single GL; demolition has to be planned and precise using C4.

Smaller structures should be demolishable tough, but you should get plenty of rubble to hide behind too. Magic parachute not withstanding, it would be completely pants if you entered a building just for it to be brought down by a single guy with a GL.

[Stryker]

Re: Destruction toned down

It makes it feel more like a true sequel to BF3.

[stilla-killa]

Re: Destruction toned down

Has DICE even mentioned the full extent of the destruction in the game?

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Destruction toned down

No they havent.

Crunch

[Anarchy1]

Re: Destruction toned down

I've read and heard many times from DICE that buildings can still be brought down, but they reduced the number of buildings that could be brought down (i.e. on maps like Arica Harbor, you could basically destroy every building down the main street).

[-Shifty-]

Re: Destruction toned down

I like what Lord said.

40mm grenade launchers aren't exactly building demo material.

As you can see, that's a very small explosion. I doubt that would bring down the walls of buildings like it did in Battlefield Bad Company 2.

I'm not bothered by the news. If you look at the single player gameplay, and assume some of those buildings would be in multiplayer, it would be insane to bring those buildings down, even with C4. However, a cool gameplay objective could be to destroy the Eiffel tower. For example, the mission could be like S&D where there's bombs you have to plant on each leg, and when the last one blows up, a cool end cut-scene shows it collapsing.

[Infernalis]

Re: Destruction toned down

Destroy the Eiffel tower? *facepalm* And then you have to destroy the Statue of Liberty too in the New York map (made by Eiffel too) just for the lulz. Looks like a bad movie from Hollywood (pleonasm I know). I'm ok with the gameplay idea though, SnD is fun.

But yeah it was too easy to destroy a building in BC2, with some hand grenades you could destroy a stone wall! Bad for gameplay and completely unrealistic.

[jimykx]

Re: Destruction toned down

Destroy the Eiffel tower? *facepalm* And then you have to destroy the Statue of Liberty too in the New York map (made by Eiffel too) just for the lulz. Looks like a bad movie from Hollywood (pleonasm I know). I'm ok with the gameplay idea though, SnD is fun.

But yeah it was too easy to destroy a building in BC2, with some hand grenades you could destroy a stone wall! Bad for gameplay and completely unrealistic.

Not if you imagine the eifell tower is beeing used as a important communicating device for the enemy! so it must be brought down!

and when the last one blows up, a cool end cut-scene shows it collapsing.

No freaking cut-scenes! i hated them in bf2142 because you were forced to see the titan beeing destroyed in a cutscene instead of dying inside fighting on it! make it so that you can be able to fight while the tower is collapsing! and only end the game once it has fully collapsed!


Also we are all bragging at how the destruction in bfbc was unrealistic and exagerated, but remember that having a wood wall that is stronger than steel or a normal wall that has no scratch if you hit it with a rpg isnt realistic either, and the thing is that you could bring buildings down very easly in bfbc2 but that was a gameplay feature, if it was mutch harder you wouldnt see people bringing them down, now the problem in bf3 is that they might not make it harder to bring walls or buildings down and they might just make them impossible to. I personally do not know what is more fun...although i hope they still allow you to feel the destructability and not go " damn i can't kick that sniper's ass because i can destroy the wall on his side, but i can't destroy the one were he is hiding behind...

[Infernalis]

Re: Destruction toned down

Not if you imagine the eifell tower is beeing used as a important communicating device for the enemy! so it must be brought down!

Yeah that's what I said, it looks like a horrible idea, completely unrealistic and insulting on top of that.