Battlefield 3 destruction disappoints: Hands-on

Product-Reviews writes: We just got back from Eurogamer and despite being pretty impressive by Battlefield 3 we have to say that we thought destruction would play a bigger part in the game's multiplayer game modes.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TekoIie2407d ago

i do remember when i played it that structures are harder to destroy than in BC2. But i personally think they've made it too hard and it really does bring campers back to the game

DaCajun2407d ago

Bring them back? They never left they just camp in the rubble since it won't collapse anymore. Which provides them better cover.

egidem2407d ago

Campers or some form of campers will always be around in Battlefield. There will always be that one recon guy sitting somewhere in a building snipping.

The awesome thing is that they can be 'spotted', which quickly gives your team a chance to bring his ass down.

Corax2407d ago

Not in hardcore but on the positive side you will be able to say where they are like Ex. He's "Southwest" on top of the building.

Biggest2407d ago

This really sucks! I guess I'll go back to the other FPS games that have a much better destruction model. Wait. . . What?

Does every piece of "news" around here have to be a mountain? This one seems more like a mole hill.


This game is over hyped. I predict this will like Killzone3, Hyped throw the roof but people will b disappointed when it finaly comes out.

ginsunuva2407d ago

Except kz3 wasn't hyped through the roof, just moderately.

chickens2407d ago

i agree in a way. showing all the 'amazing content' then slowly giving disappointing news to gamers.

Corax2407d ago

Killzone 3 was a good game. It's just that Killzone 2 was better and by looking at your one bubble I'm guessing you troll alot.

Septic2407d ago (Edited 2407d ago )

Not make it too easy like BC2 where I felt could insert my pen*s into a wall and it would collapse and not too difficult so that 178 rockets only manage to crack a wall.

The most important thing is that the destruction is balanced.

However, I don't want destruction for the sake of aesthetics only. It has to serve a purpose. For e.g, if you're pigeon-holed in a spot and can't get to your objective, how about you 'make' your own way with the help of some C4. Lateral thinking should be awarded not restricted

iamnsuperman2407d ago

Agree. BC2 was fun but being able to knife down fences sprt of highlights how easy it was to destory things. If its realistic then its ok. Like C4 should be able to blow a small hole in the wall and UGL should not be able to bring down walls. BC2 felt like everything was made out of paper

Hagaf222407d ago

Exactly what I was thinking. The article makes it seem like these guys were expecting bullets to take down trees and knifes to destroy anything in the environment. I love destructible environments but I hate how over done it was in BFBC's

lugia 40002407d ago

On MW3 you can destroy glass. How is that dissapointing BF3?

badboy74282407d ago

Dude you beat me to it. That's why I wonder why articles like this get approved. It's not News.

KonGreat2407d ago

As long as I can blow holes in houses and drive over trees with ma tank its all goood

jp02491072407d ago

Meh I was more interested in the 64 player combat and the vehicles anyway.

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.