"You don’t have to be a Guns and Roses fan to have an “Appetite for Destruction” when it comes to first person shooter gamers. “Environmental destructibility” in game designer jargon has been on many gamers’ wish lists for many years now."
wow thats a lot of destruction!
Damn dude i wish i had 100,000 percent of something like... Imagine ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PERCENT of ten Bucks.
@ Gimme the loot It is Dumb Ass-holes like you who choose logical analysis over Obvious meaning and context. Telling me That I am displaying ignorance by constructing a metaphor; (just because i want to talk to my awesome friends Here on N4G) is a shallow attack that leaves me to think that you have absolutely no life what so ever and all that you can do is fantasize about the well constructed ignorance that you want me to pump into your mouth with my large kok, smothering your ass licking breath with my hot Rail and choking your oxygen flow with my white living embers. you want to Argue over basic conversation on a Gaming site? go to f.uc.ki.ng preschool you tramp you might be able to get the "Up TIGHT' out of your ass.
Keep in mind Alan Kertz (the dev who said this) is an American living in Sweden. So he meant one hundred thousand, and not 100 percent with 3 zeros. I thought that should have been obvious when he said 'if you play the map enough times'. Can't believe this is even news.
@reedbananaboat Gimmetheloot is a troll account joined 13h ago
lol nice comment. Gimmietheloot needs to get a life
I hope all the big buildings do not come down to easily. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam... even Paris and Berlin in World War 2... showed that large buildings rarely collapse during a ground conflict. Aerial Bombardment yes, but not in a ground war which is what BFBC3 will primarily be. So hopefully any large buildings collapsing will be scripted, but we can still inflict massive superficial damage instead. That would be ultimate realism. We have lacked destruction, let's not over do it and destroy the illusion. It would be such a shame. And please note, I am talking about the big buildings which typically have immensely strong internal walls.
technically UGL grenades shouldn't bring down walls unless the walls are very thin. There not designed to do this.
They actually said it would be very hard to bring down buildings completely - and impossible in most cases. It was easy to level a 3 story building in Bad Company 2 and it kind of pathetically pancaked when you shot a rocket at it - they insist this won't happen on BF3.
I would b lying if i said i wasnt just a little worried about the destruction n this game,Ive heard/seen that the most destruction u can do n multiplayer is bring down whole parts of a building.But he said that maps would be over %100 destructable if played enough.I wish they wouldve went into details.
You can count on, that it's a lie.
Away cursed troll!!
yeah what did he mean by 100,000% destructible if you play a map enough times? Like destroying a map by 50% per game and playing 2000 games on that map?
basically what he meant mate yer
Basically, yes. He was being awkward and not giving a real answer.
I think he means that it is like Battlefield: Bad Company 2, except it looks better and has added micro-destruction (sniper bullets breaking concrete). Obviously the pillars of the the metro station in Operation Metro aren't going to break (I think the entire map would collapse). But I think 90% of things should be destructible. I know that White Pass, Rush Mode, Battlefield: Bad Company 2's first mcom stations were in a big building. The walls were destructible but we could never destroy the whole building.
So this means i can level a whole level to rubble??Looks like i know what im gonna do to prevent damn campers in buildings:P.
Camping is a style of play BUT in a game like battlefield were destructable enviorments exist, the style of play will not get you far, and neither will rushing like a chicken with its head chopped off.
To be honest, there are VERY, VERY, VERY rarily any long-lasting campers in Battlefield games. I've never encountered a long-standing camper because the shape of the battlefield changes so much. The landscape of frequent skirmishes and back-and-forth tug-of-wars keep most able-fingered snipers rushing to the next segment to help out their teammates. It's amazing because the one game where crushing campers is a real delight doesn't really have many campers to crush. It's such a far cry from the CoD clones.
Contridiction themselves. Previously Dice said they don't want to break the game/maps by doing that, but guide the game. Although.. "a map is “100,000%” destructible" A? as in, singular map? Need a little more specifics.
yes, he was talking about caspian border. indeed paris or NYC won't be destroyable at 100%, it would be good gameplay wise
As said above, he was basically saying you could do it by destroying a map by 50% per game and playing 2000 games on that map. He was just being awkward and not giving a real answer, the writer of this article clearly didn't understand what he meant - the developer was playing with him sarcastically.
No map is 100% destructible. The way he said it was a joke.
IDK if he's telling the truth. "play enough times"? Wtf does that mean?
Speculating - maybe they limit the destruction per round... Like: - You can only level one building to the ground. - You can remove facade of some buildings - You can blow a hole in any wall This would require you to play several times to see all buildings destroyed...
Maybe there's different ways a building can fall down. I dunno >_>
all these percentage issues are getting confusing... but I am assuming he means there simply isn't enough time per given round to completely level any given map...but the destruction you do on the first round will carry over to the next?...or something...so that after several rounds pretty much everything is gone...is that what you are saying? either way...i think the only thing anyone cares about is if the destruction is entirely physics based...or more script like gimmicks that were in past Battlefield games...destructible environments always sounds great on paper...but when you find out if you shoot given building with a tank twice...and a hole opens up on the side, conveniently NOT where you shot it...it can get lame pretty quick... Bad company 1 was terrible with this...Bad Company 2 was MUCH better, but still a little glaring at times...
maybe what he means is that in general they made every map and its resources 100% destructable, but the engine only allows a certain percent of the map to be destrucable and before each match the engine randomly chooses which of that % of the map is destrucable, therefore making each match a different experience cause at times you may be able to bring down a certain wall, and other times you cant...who knows
This will even add destructibility to COD! ;)
Good edit. I was actually going to ask you what you meant earlier. But I come back and you have cleared that up. :) I think there is plenty of room for both. Cod is a great 'game' but it's the(for me personally) community as a whole that makes me unable to enjoy it. Idk if it's the 'lack of' chat in BC2 but it's just so much more enjoyable to lose on a Battlefield game.
@3GenGames Haha I LoL'd HARD on that! +1 bubble for hilarious hilarious.comment is hilarious Edit: Soo funny I bubbled up your response below.
Haha, thanks guys. I didn't think anybody would get it, either! :P