NowGamer: DICE has detailed the three main types of destruction in Battlefield 3, confirming that set-pieces - like MW3 - will be largely scripted...
only major set pieces in campaign e.g the earthquake.
OH I see. It's not only MW3 eh? Haha. Show me console footage dice.
unlike MW3 BF3 has destruction which isn't scripted obviously... don't try and compare the two.
Well if you want something to happen consistently in a SP mission its going to have to be scripted isn't it? If you want a plane to crash into the ground, so that the player has to go and rescue him as part of a mission - that is scripted. If things weren't scripted, there would be no consistency - I mean, come on. Use your brain here. The difference between MW3 and BF3 is that the majority of destruction in the BF3 is unscripted, whereas with MW3 it will be all scripted (unless you count 'shooting glass' - anyone else remember how Robert Bowling said "we have great glass in MW2" f**king lol)
i don't care if some is scripted, if that is what will work best, go ahead dice, i want this game to work the best it can
play bf bc2 and see what destruction really is . judging by bc2 i have full faith in dice to deliver destruction in bf3
@Caleb_141 Bingo. Major story events will always be scripted, no matter what. However, how you get from Point A to Point B is where the game really shines. Battlefield you can drive through the narrow roads in town and try to shoot your way through. Or you can level a few buildings and take a short cut. The possibilities are endless. No such freedom exists in any shooters today.
BF3 has almost all destruction non-scripted. It's the large scale set pieces that get scripted destructibility, which is understandable. COD games only have scripted destructibility, on a second thought... i'm not even sure those games have any destructibility.
haha now compared to CoD how many pepole are going to support this haha :)
Finally people can stop using the unscripted vrs scripted argument for comparing COD and BF3. @Movements I agree I want to see console footage too to make a judgement. To everyone already saying BF3 will be better than COD please wait for gameplay footage because at the moment for consoles imo they are neck and neck because we haven't seen console footage for BF3 and for COD e have seen one console (could be engine driven) trailer. This fanboy war is the most stupid war. At the moment I am not going to get either until I get more information edit: I know BF will use non scripted destruction for small buildings but people saying we can blow down skyscrapers was so stupid. Do not believe everything you see in a trailer
So stop hating, unless you're that oddball PC gamer.
I just hope BF3's single player will be entertaining. Bad Company 1 and 2 single player campaigns were average at best, even though their online multiplayer were fun.
Wait so r u gonna buy a game based on destruction!!..What happened to the fun factor???? We all know BF3 will b better than COD MW3 but COD MW3 is where the fun factor will b...Hate it or love it COD has the best Online Fun factor for an FPS this gen. I enjoyed killzone 3 wen it came out but it did not last long and i went back to playing COD black ops.
Yes but Destruction is what battlefield is known for since Bad Campany 2, and I dont want anything less.
More like "piss me off because the game is so unbalanced" factor.
@tmoss Dont blame the game cuz u suck :) Also Red Faction has better Destruction so :O yeh :)
@ Blackboijones I'm just curious what this fun factor is in Black Ops you're talking about. You run around, shooting stuff. Not much different than other shooters. Only you are doing it in a bland world of mediocre graphics and poorly executed death animations. For some reason kills don't have much of an impact; as opposed to KZ for instance where a kill is much more satisfying. And more fun in my book.
U mad? http://img861.imageshack.us... LOL haters gotta love em ;)
Still a little worried about how this might look on consoles...
I'm sure it will be fine BC2 was fine so it shows DICE can work with consoles, obviously it won't be as amazing as the PC counterpart but I think it will still look amazing.
I hope they fix the screen tearing and pop in BFBC2 had.
Seing how Crysis 2 look on consoles I have no doubt DICE will be able to compare themselves with that Crytek did.
I'd be happy with graphics on-par with BFBC2 on consoles, although I'm pretty sure BF3 will look better.
The graphics will probably look better than compared to BC2. I really want to see what MW3 environmental destruction is going to look like for MP. We already know BF3 will have great unscripted destruction for MP.
@MWong Boxes, glass and scattered papers.....Id be shocked to see any structural damage in the MP
. CRAP DOUBLE POST!!!
I agree. BC2 was alright graphically, certain parts did look really good. But overall it was the awesome gameplay that won me over over the sub-par(imo) graphics. But after seeing the BF3 footage for the pc I have to say my hopes are really high. I will get it and love it no matter what, I'm sure. But I would like some awesome graphics.
Things like this is why I want next-gen consoles! They will be able to have much more of non-scripted destruction and other features that takes a lot of power :) Destructibility is an "expensive" feature.
hopefully with next gen console we can see the next BF go up to 64 players the same as PC, if not higher without having to lower other settings i.e graphics. either way PC will always be ahead, if I had the money I would build a PC and keep it up to date as much as I could, sadly I'm not that rich.
You don't have to be rich to build a gaming rig that will play all games out now in high detail. http://www.ibuypower.com/St...
It's scripted in the game for storyline purposes. No matter if its 5 years ago or 5 years from now, all games will need to have scripted events at some points in order to tell a story. Either way, after watching the trailer, it's pretty convincing how it was scripted. Unlike games such as Homefront with invisible walls, christ what a terrible design decision.
wow this dumb idiot took out a small snippet from that PAWN episode and uses it as a bait. The only parts that will be scripted are cut-scenes THAT'S IT! Everything else is on the fly real-time destruction.
Yeah explain the debris warping from space time middle top of the screen. http://h5.abload.de/img/bf3... Could be the gif software cut some frames so yeah.
That looks like a glitch, glitches only occur when everything happening in REAL-TIME! And how does that prove it's all scripted when the player is clearly blasting a random building?
I know this is a stupid question, but what in the world does ''scripted'' mean?!
Scripted means something will happen the same way all the time because the dev team wants it to happen.
i don't think you will be able to destroy whole buildings in multiplayer, just some parts of it...
why not you could in BC2
Of course whole buildings can be destroyed in multiplayer, just like you could do it in Bad Company 2.
but those were just the small buildings or not? (sorry i didn't play BC2 too much)
Actually some of the smaller buildings and the larger buildings could be destroyed, the deciding factor was what structural materials are used, steel beams cant come down, wooden beams can, with the change in locale I expect all or most buildings will be steel structures. So I imagine a new deciding factor will be introduced, That said I expect full destruction, what I expect as the main graphical loss in that aspect personally is particle effects for consoles. BFBC2 had amazing particle effects though so maybe not
I buy BF3 and MW3-End. What's the probleme?Two very cool military FPS-
These was the same people trolling MW3 articles how destruction is scripted but its ok for BF3 right ? Ridiculous anyway Bf3 should be a great game regardless of whether it's scripted or not.
the difference is battlefield 3 will have both real time and scripted and mw3 only scripted .destruction is what battle field does best . call of duty has never had any.
Thats not the point of my damn post I read the article. Like I said I'm exposing the double standards on this site. Call of duty is a different game it should never be compared to Battlefield 3. Lord have mercy the hypocrites on N4G is something else lmfao. Just yesterday people was bashing COD because of scripted destruction and regardless of whether BF3 has less scripted it still has it. And furthermore I never seen anybody mention scripted effects in BF3 yesterday or the day before that. So my point is people need to stop trolling when they don't have all the facts it makes them look foolish. I think a lot of people might be scared Modern Warfare 3 could actually be a good game. I accepted BF as a good quality franchise and I don't bash it so why do most of you BF fanboys continue to troll articles thats my question...
@stealthdawg ikr, haters gonna hate. Destruction would kill MW3 because the maps are smaller and if it had destruction like BATTLEFIELD, you could break the ENTIRE map LITERALLY.
MW3 has ALL Scripted destruction. Has no real time effects. The majority of destruction in BF3 is UNSCRIPTED and in real time with its entire lighting engine. All the destruction in MW3 is SCRIPTED. Most lighting is pre baked. Huge difference.
I'm sorry... did you say you came here to expose the "double standard"? No disrespect, but I hope you see the irony of this.
@Raiinstorm81 did u even play bf bc2 ? it was allot more than flying papers and broken glass . whole buildings came down whenever u shot gernades at them thats what this series is all about.
He's talking about MW3. Read carefully.
suprised? im not. Overhyped. Its not as if BC2 had dynamic destruction, you shot a wall with a grenade and no matter what the exact same piece of wall dissapeared each time not to mention the destruction animation was the exact same each time round. I can only hope BF3 will be half as good as BF2 and will have even half its longevity.
@markus Its probably because it's not using a more advanced, material engine(that i know of) if that makes any sense, lookup the euphoria engine or digital molecular matter engine used in star was the force unleased/2. I am kinda disappointed more games are not using it, not sure if it's exclusive to lucas arts games or what, instead of the common texture switch it actually allows the material to be destroyed naturally. But bf/bc's destruction might be too numerous or complex to use an engine like euphoria, would be nice, although i question how much processing power would be required. To have everything destructible and to have all the material shatter, warp, explode or fall to the ground as it would in real life. Sorry playing bfbc2 the other night my lmg or was it my sniper rifle, was starting to tear apart the left side of a concrete barrier the enemy was behind but not the right. I don't think the destruction is as scripted as your making it out to be, and since only a small handful of devs even have it in there game, i am betting it is alot more to it than we think it is.
But thats were your not getting me, people are acting like Destruction = Better Game Which I can tell you for me it deffinetely does not because I hate Bad Company 2s shooting & health system. Regen health in a BF game? You can kill each other? COD level health in a BF game? Perks? Medics made useless by regen health Sorry as a long time BF2 fan all those things dont make up for a billow of smoke covering up a prescripted piece of wall dissapearing. BF3 better be a direct lead on from BF2 with the "best" taken from BC2.
Awesome we'll get scripted buildings blowing the hell up and falling plus the building we blow the hell up and make fall ourselves.. that's a win/win.
some destruction is scrripted. That's a tool for directing the plot. Why are there these industry wide phrases that people automatically associate with a negative with no subjectivity. Why do people claim to want games with no structure, where you wonder around lost with no sign of direction. Why play with no purpose, I'll never understand.
Can you people freakin read? The scripted destruction is only set-pieces in the single-player campaign that are used to advance the story progression/events. It's scripted destruction, ON TOP OF full real-time destruction. It's not 50% real 50% fake destruction. The environments are still FULLY destructible.
The game would crash if you could keep blowing up sky scraper after sky scraper it would over heat from to much awesomeness. Dice are worried this game will still be to awesome that it will make pcs and consoles overheat. Seriously though cant wait for bf3 :)
. It's up to the dev to decide how he wants the level or map to play out. COD is a FPS and all about speed and that is why they have made 60 fps the centerpiece of it's game play. Of course sacrifices have to be made and that is why the game will run at 640p Vs native 720p. Battlefield 3 dev Dice may or may not run at 60 fps ( on consoles ) and as of now, they don't want to talk about it which tells me it won't. How will it effect the game play??? Only after comparing the two games side by side will we be able to tell. There have been many games that featured destructible environments...some better than others. Here's a couple of my favorites... Far Cry 2... http://youtu.be/rYZKN6jZVwE Red faction Guerrilla ( Mad Max )...a step above... http://youtu.be/7TfMKHRNVfs Crysis 2, love this game...THE game to beat right now... http://youtu.be/mW8bMnkZozQ There are others but these are a few of my favorites. It's not " magic ". The dev has to decide how he wants to approach the development of the title and what sacrifices they are willing to accept in order to make it happen. I think Crysis 2 has a fantastic balance between fidelity and destruction...can't wait to see Kingdoms and how it looks.
I doubt it will be scripted in multiplayer.
Agreed. It never has been.
Almost everyone on my friends list is going to buy MW3! WTF maybe I need new friends, I'm really into team play and that's why BF3 is my choice his time around.
"Battlefield 3 Art Director Gustav Tilleby has admitted that not all of the environmental damage will be dynamic however." The word use (specifically, 'admitted') is kind of faulty. It's almost as if NowGamer assumed that the art director had said previously that everything is dynamic.
Given battlefield provides destructible environments, I have no problem with scripted events. Just don't over do it. I hope bullets can penetrate some metal objects an structures like civilian car doors.
PLAY BFBC2 That game utilises all of the same techniques. During MP and SP. It's just how DICE makes the game. This is nothing new and to be expected if you want a more in-depth SP and MP experience. You can't simulate a building falling down in a video game and not have to worry about some SERIOUS processing issues. That isn't something you want to be solely based off of physics.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.