Battlefield 3 features Destruction 3.0, a feature like the one known from Bad Company 2. But this time it's less extensive than it's predecessor - and it's sometimes not looking very authentic too.
Suspension of Disbelief people, suspension of disbelief. The gamne is not made so that every single thing can be destroyed. That is not the point of the game. Destructibility is supposed to be an incidental element to the overall experience of the game. Destruction was never ment to be the point of the game. In anycase, you would need stupid processing power to enable every single thing in the game to be destructible. Nevermind the fact that it would break the game anyway.
This man speaks sense, unlike this article....
I think the destruction is awesome. almost everything can be blown to bits.
Basically, I figured that if you can go right behind the wall, you can destroy it. My theory seems to be true from what I've played...
I seriously believe that Google translated articles shouldn't be allowed here, I hate having to waste time trying to comprehend this broken Engrish shit. Stopped @ like the third sentence.
Who said anything about destruction 3.0?
No wonder there was a sense of confusion at the back of my mind mind when I glanced briefly at the title's title. You're right. I never heard of Destruction 3.0 ever said by anyone from DICE. Unless...I'm confused about that too...
Fire whole clip into cardboard boxes = nothing. Fire 3 bullets into wooden pallet = pallet explodes into tiny shards and disappears. Lol...
I'm too busy shooting people in the face to notice that cardboard boxes don't disintegrate when I shoot them. It would be like having sex with a Natalie Portman but complaining that you don't like one of her freckles. Idiots.
I noticed on siene crossing that after 3 or so rockets the building did fall apart. It was one in the very back of the map.
Destruction 3.0 is such a failure! Dice lied and didn't even put it in the game and just gave us crappy 2.0 instead. They better give us 4.0 for Battlefield 4 or else I'm going back to COD. At least they come through with their promised 60 FPS.
Lol downgrade confirmed. Dice am cry, how can you make the destruction worst then in bad company i thought the purpose of a sequel was to improve upon a game.
Thing is this isnt a sequal to Bad Company or Bad Company 2. Its a sequal to Battlefield 2. Which is a 6+ year old game now. And DIDNT require to have destruction in it at all. Sure, its not as heavy as in the bad company games. But if you look at the advertizing for Bad Company to BF3, you will notice a huge difference on the focus of said advertizing. Where BC1 and 2 focused on its destruction, BF3 focus is on its graphics, and downright amazing MP.
As an question, if you dont mind. Why, after being dissapointed in the destruction in BF3, would you go to a game that has NO destruction at all? Wouldnt the more logical thing to do would be to find something with better destruction, as that seems to be the only thing that you have a problem with.
Lol obviously sarcasm guys.
i don't expect a large scale destruction until the next-gen consoles arrive.
Geomod in Red Faction guerilla begs to differ. Of course BF3 would have to seriously scale down its graphics to use that though.
Wow, this website is trying WAY to hard... Sure, its not REAL LIFE! Its not freakin perfect. Yes, the game looks great, yes, the developers talked it up like it was the next best thing to the second coming of Jesus himself. But seriously, if its a fail, show me that, not your petty nitpicking.
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.