Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BF3 destruction

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BF3 destruction

    http://news.tgn.tv/battlefield-3-des...etting-nerfed/

    Damage is done to façades built onto structures, rather than the actual structures themselves – you’re not going to be bringing buildings down in Battlefield 3 like you did in Bad Company 2 outside of scripted moments in singleplayer and possible hard-coded objectives in multiplayer.
    I'm searching for the actual interview with Dice to get a confirmation on this.

    Initial impression, thank god! Maybe the map will be playable longer then 4 minutes into the round.
    Nubhar

    - In the process, I have discovered that I can make iron bolts with my butt****.

  • #2
    Re: BF3 destruction

    As long as one can create huge, smoldering holes in the face of any wookie hiding behind a building, it's all good.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: BF3 destruction

      That is awesome news! One issue with Bad Co 2 was the ease of destruction combined with the total destruction. Limited destruction is by far the best way to go.
      Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: BF3 destruction

        Phew... great news indeed.

        I deserve a ribbon for Mortar Specialist

        Artillery conquers and infantry occupies.
        J.F.C. Fuller

        Proud to have been a member of the 5th, 71st and my beloved 19th

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: BF3 destruction

          hold up... that was part of what made bc2 so great was the total destruction. You had to have good comms with your team to do multi staged pushes on a map where the cover was gone....it was the only way to succeed. So how is this limited destruction good? seems to me it makes have to be "less tactically minded" and communicate less. In BC2 you couldn't count on the cover you were hiding behind would be there in 5 minutes so you had to be smart and always be moving....bah, I don't see why this is "good news"
          "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: BF3 destruction

            The good news: The enemy can't rubble-ize an entire city block to deny you defensive positions.

            The bad news: 90% of the time you can't drop the building an enemy squad is hiding in out from under them.

            At least that's how it sounds to me. Hopefully DICE will clarify or give more details on this soon. Personally I think it'd be more effective if a building could only be dropped by a lot of damage in quick succession, like say bombs from a plane, lots of C4 in different spots, or being pounded by a tank or artillery.

            "Over the din of battle could be heard Lancer’s maniacal laughter and it spurned us on to stay the course, not to give up, and enjoy." - Grimmfist

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: BF3 destruction

              I would suggest that the constant sprinting everywhere of BC2 is very gamey and for me at least detracts from the experience, reminds me of other games I don't like with dual shotguns and people bunny hopping round corners, watching people leaping off buildings firing an LMG just looks ridiculous.

              A little hard cover that is not destructible is potentially a good thing. It will be up to the player how he uses it, his opponent how he exploits it. Fixed hard cover will mean people will take refuge there, perhaps lingering a bit too long, enabling their opponent to flank them, rather than stand near spawn spamming Gustavs at it. Also buildings you can't level will make centre points, epic defenses. It's not like a grenade through the window won't still kill people inside, you just won't always be able to rely on spamming stuff at buildings to clear them. Maybe this will involve larger, more 'solid' buildings and as a result some house to house fighting that doesn't feel like you were caught in a combined missile strike/artillery barrage with a tin bucket full of bells on your head.:row__588:


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: BF3 destruction

                I think this is great, I hate the ease of destruction in BC2.
                sigpic


                Proud to have been an Irregular, HeadHunter, and a Siege Corps Engineers!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: BF3 destruction

                  As I understand it. You will still be able to "destroy" buildings i.e take down walls but you will not be able to bring down close to every building like in BC2
                  Nubhar

                  - In the process, I have discovered that I can make iron bolts with my butt****.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: BF3 destruction

                    IMHO, the problem with BC2 isn't the ease of destruction, but the map size. Arica Harbor tends to get flattened in Conquest, but you don't see much destruction on a map like Oasis except right around Bravo flag.

                    If BF3 maps are larger and offer more flanking opportunity, destruction won't have nearly the same effect on the gameplay.

                    I like destruction and Extreme Logging.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: BF3 destruction

                      Originally posted by Abel View Post
                      As I understand it. You will still be able to "destroy" buildings i.e take down walls but you will not be able to bring down close to every building like in BC2

                      oh if it's like this then I'm good with it.....move along, nothing too see here :D
                      "Everyone makes fun of us rednecks with our big trucks and all our guns........until the zombie apocalypse"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: BF3 destruction

                        Originally posted by Abel View Post
                        As I understand it. You will still be able to "destroy" buildings i.e take down walls but you will not be able to bring down close to every building like in BC2
                        I thinking along the lines of the construcion building skeltons in BC 2 . Even those buildings have destructible points to deny cover. So , I see no issues. Prehaps it's more refined and better game play , then the skelton buildings. It may actually require floor to floor and room to room combat ? Hopefully not overly tedious though.
                        I want all those who get to know me
                        To become admirers or my enemies

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: BF3 destruction

                          Full destruction is okay by me as long as it takes quite a bit to accomplish it. For example, being able to punch holes in steel-reinforced concrete walls with small arms fire was a tad much in BC2 imo.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: BF3 destruction

                            ^^ Exactly it was too easy and in the end that make things silly. M203 was OTT unless nades can really take down walls?


                            Only a TOW missile really offers quick destruction on the Arma engine otherwise tanks are the most common way to fell a wall


                            If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: BF3 destruction

                              Don't get me wrong, I dig destruction but just in a limited way. In Bad Company 2 statics just blew apart sooooo easy like they were made of thin paper and then instead of leaving debris, everything just vaporized. Trees were the worst, it was like a team of lumberjacks came in and hauled them all away. So it should be harder to destroy things and even harder to bring down a building. The bad company 2 way just clears all the cover leaving open fresh ground to fight with no debris for cover.

                              I get that at the time it was the best system they had available and can not fault them for that but they could of at LEAST made the statics take more damage before vaporizing. It sounds like BF3 is going to strike a good balance of limited destruction so you can blow up a lot of stuff but still keep enough cover and give the levels war torn atmosphere.
                              Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X