Less Destructible Environments in Battlefield 3? DICE Explains

Destruction has become a huge part of the Battlefield franchise. It was first introduced in Battlefield: Bad Company and has since then, become a staple part of the franchise.

[rabidpancakeburglar]

I want more destructible buildings. There's nothing better and worse than when you think that the building you're in is coming down and running into the building that actually is coming down by mistake.

[Criminal]

The adrenaline rush you get when a building you're in is going down is unmatched.

[iXenon]

This. Nothing like shouting "GET OUT! IT'S COMING DOWN!" to all your squadmates.

[rabidpancakeburglar]

iXenon
Really? You shout that? I just say "Oh crap, oh crap, oh crap. Dammit I died." and my squad mates usually see what's happened.

below
Coooool

[MidnytRain]

rabidpancakeburglar

I think he was talking about the in-game dialogue.

[hqgamez]

I remember during the alpha ,my friends and i was like a boss with another squad with one base left to charge. We were sniping since the other team was camping in their last base and one guy took an rpg and launch that shit at the building we were sniping in. I was like HOLY!! S**T! My friend jump out the window when he saw that shit. He survived, but the building collapse on him and took his life.

[zeeshan]

It should be simple. The building should be able to take a lot more damage before they collapse especially from light weapons. Artillary fire or jet fighters, choppers should be able to bring down buildings using missles but averahe RPGs should not really collaps a building with one shot.

Lastly, I do however believe that other stuff such as trees etc should all be destructible even with light weaponary.

Overall BALANCE is the key here :)

I am loving BF3 so far but I getting a little concerned. I need to see more console footage or perhaps a missed it? I did see the co-op gameplay video from Gamescon '11 but has anyone seen multiplayer video in all it's glory of the PS3 version? EA should expect more sales from consoles even though PC version is going to rock! And to make sure that happens, they should show us more of the actual console footage. If I have missed all that somehow, could someone please share a couple of gameplay footage with me?

[iamnsuperman]

@zeeshan. Agree... It too easy to take down buildings. BFBC2 taken down buildings was really easy. For this one instead of less destructible objects just make it hard with RPG and UGl to take down buildings. Cover then becomes available and the destruction is more realistic. Jets should be able to level a battlefield. This is an area BF games need to perfect

[A-Glorious-Dawn]

@hqgamez

That was an epic story man!

[Gray-Fox-Type0]

awww abit dissapointing was so awesome destroying buildings in bfbc2.

[Persistantthug]

The more I read, the more pissed I'm getting over changes and ommissions.....like this.

Dropping buildings on enemies and even getting buildings dropped on you is a major thrill. I don't want LESS of that.
So wtf?

[NuclearDuke]

This is just one of many lies DICE has had to excuse.

[NBT91]

You still can, the point is they are purposely adding (some) areas of cover that can not be destroyed in addition to the buildings that can be blown to bits.

And they are doing this because defending bases became difficult when all cover had been destroyed.

[Elwenil]

And let's face it, Rush can be a pain to defend when 1/2 your MCOMs don't need to be armed by the enemy and all they need is a few snipers calling in mortars to bring the building down. I don't mind one objective at a base being in a destructible building but both is a pain to defend sometimes. I was looking forward to lots of destruction, but I'll withhold judgement until I see how it balances out.

[kneon]

I find the level of destructibility in BF:BC2 just stupid so if they are toning things down then that's a good thing.

Small arms fire shouldn't be able to take down a building. I've seen WW2 footage of towns that had been carpet bombed that had more standing structures than most maps at the end of a round of Bf:BC2.

[HellzAssassin]

Firearms don't cause the buildings to drop; just saying... Rocket Launchers, Tanks, Grenades, Grenade Launchers, Airstrikes, etc. are what made the buildings crash... How did you manage to topple buildings with an AR?

[TheIneffableBob]

Rocket launchers, grenades, and grenade launchers are considered small arms.

[limewax]

Yeah, RPGs are light weaponry in comparison to the weapons that do real damage to structures, and their displayed damage in BFBC2 is certainly overboard, when my best mate was in the army (British) he had an RPG fired at the same wall he was using for cover, he was fine and so was the wall.

This could certainly be fixed without spoiling the game, A repeated RPG assault on one spot would eventually cause structural damage, But the video I saw of BF3 had an RPG taking out a large section of a skycraper made of what would be reinforced concrete.....That is miles off of reality.

The biggest thing I always felt they ruined about the aspect, was that BF requires skill and thought but taking out a building doesn't. If taking down a building had to be done by taking down integral structural points rather than taking down its health bar, it could have been good, but instead integral points only provided a hugely excessive damage boost

[ATi_Elite]

ah yes nothing better than a long match in the Panama Canal map and just turning the whole map into one big pile of smoking gravel!

I really enjoyed the fact that you could blow up everything and pretty much have no cover. That's only a realistic scenario of war.

Have you not seen pictures of Berlin during the Allies invasion of WW2 where the only cover was behind blown up tanks or big piles of rocks......That made BFBC2 extra special once you took down a ton of buildings.

[Corax]

If none of the new maps have that buildings coming down on you what's Destruction 3.0 then, and im sure they will release some of the classic maps like Cold War on BF3 at least i hope since this is official Battlefield and not Bad company series

[ChrisW]

More than likely only the console versions will have less destructible environments.

[frostypants]

Care to wager?

[ChrisW]

Well, considering that the rock-bottom minimum spec requirements for PC are slightly greater than that of the HD consoles...

Sure.

[tronjohn]

Less destructible buildings my balls. No one form Dice ever said there will be fewer destructible buildings; only more indestructible buildings.

"we have to add some covers that actually are not destructible"

This is just a bullshit article misrepresenting the facts and pandering to readers with pour comprehensions skills.

[DeadlyFire]

I believe its just console limitations. One example of a decent way to add more destruction is make the destruction system more realistic. One granade round to a wall will not blow a giant whole in it for example. Makes conserving your ammo more useful and makes players not want to destroy everything as it takes to much effort. Could be a nice balanced mix to it though. Likely won't see that until Frostbite 3.0

[subtenko]

Thanks for sharing the epic storys guys :D Thats what you experience when your a gamer that plays these types of games safety in your homes and now in real life thank goodness. Bring on BF3!

Agree or Disagree if you Agree

[xtremexx]

i saw a video that told me why they did this,they didnt want everything to be destructible because they wanted people to have more cover, also it might be a console thing.

[Fishy Fingers]

They've been pretty clear on this several times. Complete destruction, while "nice" can do more harm than good.

[Caleb_141]

Not necessarily - all they would have to do in BF3 is make it so that buildings take much more punishment that they did in BC2, I mean it's just ridiculous to think that a Grenade Launcher can create a 2m x 2m hole in a building; if anything it should only be a hole of about 10cm radius.

[Persistantthug]

:P

[RegorL]

10 cm radius?

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[Caleb_141]

@RegorL

Notice I said Grenade launcher - not AT4. The weapon calibre should effect the amount of destruction caused is what i'm getting at.

Also the destruction caused by that AT-4 is still much smaller than Bad Company 2 proportions.

derp

[Corax]

@RegorL Sweet Fancy Moses! Personally one of my favorite shows.

[Kleptic]

Personally I don't think this is a big deal at all...

First of all, no shooter has destruction down 'completely correct' yet for multiplayer...and DICE seems to have a good grasp of the pros and cons of what has been done before, a lot of which they pioneered...

Destruction 2.0 in BC2 was great most of the time...but it was also almost entirely script based...after playing a fair amount of time online, you'd start to see that it was actually gimmicky...and was simply a matter of spamming building with any explosive...and it would eventually come down...players also got smart enough to look for where the holes were appearing in the walls, count them, and know when to stay the fack out...there was some physics related ways to bring a building down faster...but you could still bring anything down by just shooting it for a couple minutes in random places...

that is the fundamental issue with scripted destruction...internally the game just attaches a hit point counter for the structure, and it comes down when the meter is full...

What DICE is sort of backhandedly admitting is that even frostbite 2.0 isn't ready for completely dynamic physics based destruction...at least to a degree where it allows everything to be 100% destroyed...

but it does apparently have 'a lot' of physics based stuff...which is where the falling debris can kill players...

and that is fine with me...I don't want to shoot the corner of a building with a tank, and have the entire wall to the left of where I hit it just open up with a scripted animation and the same hole that appears everytime...partial destruction, as long as its actually dynamic, will be much more realistic...and especially...better looking...

[Mister_V]

It's true. I've been in some matches where the battlefield was completely levelled. Wasn't all that much fun to be honest.

[darksied]

This is true. You get into a certain match of Bad Company 2 right now, people know all the cover spots/buildings, etc. And so what they do is they just drop those building with a tank or heli immediately when the match starts and all of a sudden you have a match that has NO good cover in it at all. Not that fun.

[WitWolfy]

Well taking cover in a collapsed building does have its perks :)

[DeadIIIRed]

I actually like defending points up till they're nothing but craters.

[NoobSessions]

THERE IS NOTHING TO EXPLAIN. I WILL NEVER PURCHASE A GAME FROM YOU AGAIN DICE, YOU HORRIBLE DEVELOPERS. FOR SHAME.

[TheMyst]

ummmm... what?

[Serjikal_Strike]

he funds Activision by puchasing every CoD and all the map packs too...
his name says it all NoobSessions

[NoobSessions]

Lol @ disagreers that thought I was serious.

[Hoje0308]

So, the fact that they've fixed one of the elements from BC2 that became broken over time makes them bad developers? I mean, who wants a balanced online experience?

Either you're trolling or you're just too dumb to understand the idea behind this move.

[3GenGames]

Of course you got disagrees, you took the cruise control for lame and forgot to add a /sarcasm. Two very critical things for notating sarcasm on the interwebz to take into account.

[NoobSessions]

I thought it was obvious enough :[

I guess people are just used to very crazy people here on N4G.

[HappyGaming]

I didn't disagree with you comment but yeah put /s next time the internet is full of crazy people who would actually be serious about this :P

[Criminal]

I thought you were referring to Medal of Honor MP that didn't work too well, but not "horrible developers".

I now realize that you were joking. Seriously though, did you play MoH?

[jimmywolf]

you post in all caps a ignorant troll statement then laugh when you get disagrees as if it was a good joke.....

[Akiba96]

Speaking of destroying houses... anyone else HATE that BFC2 trophy where you have to get like 10 destruction kills? please DICE don't bring back trophies like that.

OT:trophies are cool :P

[Criminal]

I think it's 20 kills not 10.

[stannyman73]

Thought it was 20 kills destruction kills on bb2 I'm sure I v nearly every achievement on xbox apart from silver and gold stars on nam on the weapons!!!!!

[Hellsvacancy]

Nope, that was an awesome trophy, C4 x6 with the extra boom spec, rig and camp in a building, BOOM, me and my stoner buddies had fun with that trophy

[Kleptic]

The weird thing was that I played the demo for like 30 hours early in 2010...and guarantee i would have had that trophy, as demos always have a lot of newer players that have no clue what they are doing...

then I read how many people were complaing when the game actually came out...it must have gotten harder as people learned the game...

reminded me of the top 1% trophy in killzone 2...if you played the game at release it was cake...but a few months in pretty much to this day...its regarded as one of the hardest PSN trophies out there...you have to spend nearly 100 hours a week playing as a rocket boner in body count to keep up with the top point collectors...glad I got that trophy week 1...

[ARTISAN]

ohhh geez thats my last one in that game and i just can't get it it ticks me off i got 71 out of 72 =P

[MidnytRain]

I know this is probably a good thing, but I can't help wondering what could have been. Maybe they can ramp it up in Bad Company 3. I suppose it's all good so long as it has that epic, no-place-is-safe-forever feeling BFBC2 had.

[Dynasty2021]

As much as the destroying houses thing in BC2 is annoying what with the trophy, you can take down a house with 3 C4s in strategically placed decisions (clue, jump and place them in the top corners on the bottom floors) with the explosives amplification ''perk''. Boom, groan, down it comes.

Destructive environment is key to Battlefield now, but not having everything destructable is smart, as most people just blow away the most important buildings especially in M-com maps.

[detroitmademe]

Yea full destruction isnt all that fun but it would b nice if they had like 2-3 large buildings per map that we could bring down in multiplayer.Like set pieces.

[Gamer_Z]

So what the hell is this then?! A COD wannabe playing at 30fps! The beta better blow me away or its MW3 for me then. And whats up with all of you? You guys were praising the game because it had destruction and bashing COD because it didn't but now that DICE are taking it out its OK! pfff hypocrites

[3GenGames]

If your not convinced from the videos and the history DICE has with amazing quality games, just stay on COD please.

It's a real Battlefield series experience with a improved BFBC2 engine with all the classic vehicles and game play of the BF series. If you don't know exactly how it plays just from that sentence, keep staying off of all Battlefield games and again, stay on COD. If you haven't already decided to buy BF3 first day, just shut up, because you're not thinking clearly on what makes a good game.

And you also said BF3 is a "COD Wannabe"....I don't have much to say to that except you're a complete moron, please stay on COD!

[Gamer_Z]

All those MP (not co op) videos, previews, and images are all taken from PC there is no indications of how the console version will even play. Im not saying that BF3 wont be an amazing game but more and more it seems that console owners are getting the shaft with less player count, smaller maps, 30fps locked, lower textures, and now less destruction. PS This is why COD is failing because when fans speak up about something that is wrong with the game they are labeled as fanboys or your trolling.

Edit: i said COD wannabe because if they tone down everything thats exactly what it will turn into and nobody wants that.

@hello
I did, basically they are saying that they are toning it down from previous BF games and sorry if i got a little hot headed its just i was looking forward to leveling some building full of COD campers =/

[3GenGames]

So the PS3 is not a console too? Interesting. Actually, not really. Get out. If you want PC then play PC. You're saying the console is the limiting, not the factor, which is retarded. Just stop talking.

[DaTruth]

"more and more it seems that console owners are getting the shaft with less player count, smaller maps, 30fps locked, lower textures, and now less destruction."

If console owners are getting the shaft, it's our consoles that are shafting us! This console generation is over and we can hold out for another year or so, but something new needs to be announced for next year!

6 years was okay for last gen, but technology, especially with the free-fall in the price of ram, just seems to have pushed this gen to a quick end, while the crippled economy has kept us stuck in it!

[Hoje0308]

Battlefield is nothing like CoD. Vehicles, huge maps and destruction set it apart from CoD. And yes, the destruction is still there, they've just toned it down to levels that don't threaten to break the game. If you've actually played BC2, you'd know this is a good thing. Also, we've seen PS3 footage and it looked pretty damn good. DICE have stated that the console versions will achieve feature parity with PC. It would be the height of stupidity to think that everything on consoles would be able to match PC levels though. And as for your 60 FPS argument, well, I don't really think it is one. To me, Battlefield feels way better than CoD. In Battlefield, it actually feels like you're a real person handling a weapon, whereas in CoD it feels like someone attached a camera to a magical floating gun. Said gun may also contain a heartbeat sensor or other noob-friendly features.

[blaktek]

Can't reply to your second post, so this will have to do.

- CoD was a good game before it courted the console market. It was still fun for about two versions.

- Games should take every possible advantage of the platform it runs on. PC version will be the pinnacle of the experience, PS3 will have fancy post processing and 360 will have a seamless community integration. The game will be brilliant regardless of your platform of choice. This is how it should be.

[theflyindutchman]

this is gettin funny.
typical ea, first create a big media hype and when the release closes in they tone down bit by bit.
its moh al over again.

[DanSolo]

Maybe a mixture of buildings...

Reinforced ones that can't come down but can take a hammering to look like something out of Beirut back in the day...

Tough buildings that take a lot of damage before coming down!

And some lighter buildings that come down about the same as the ones in BC2!

Whatever happens though the game is looking good, can't wait to get on the PS3 and get shooting some people next month!

[zero_cool]

Dice take notes how material stress plays a important role in physics:

[Jack_DangerousIy]

*after reading the actual article*

Seems fair enough. If I didn't have faith in them then I wouldn't be buying this game right?

[PhantomT1412]

Well it's not that great for attackers neither when there are no more covers for the objectives in Rush. Everytime you try to plant that bomb you get nailed down.

[zero_cool]

That's why you work as a team & provide cover fire thus allowing that person time to plant & set charge then allowing everybody time to distance themselves from the impact of the explosion when the explosive is remotely detonated.Also there are different types of explosive charges such as timed,remote,trip & pressure sensitive charges so even if your killed one or more of your enemies are bound to run into it & forget that is was there.So remember it's not all about run & gunning enemies down it's also about using your surrounds to your advantage & to your enemies disadvantage through a series of quick on battlefield strategies.

[xtremegamerage]

Can anyone answer who has played the beta.

When in the water, do you move at the same speed or does the water slow you down like it should?

[GamerPS360]

water slows you down. And, you have to take off all your gear and everything if you don't want to drown.
Realistic in game doesn't always work.

[DigitalxPiracy]

Try playing a round of Conquest on Arica Harbor with your spawn on the high side (US deployment?) and having every building leveled. If the opposing team captures all of the flags they will just mow you down as you come down the hill. Tell me that's balanced. I want lots of destruction just like everyone else but it has to be well thought out.

[blaktek]

Or that snowy rush map (the one in the beta). Attackers have to go down a rocky hill (the Wookie Hill) having only trees and one rock for cover.

And defenders have plenty of mounted ordinance to destroy said trees very fast.

More "secured" cover spots are a good thing.

[GamerPS360]

BC2 valpariso 2nd mcom is worst for destruction. Everything lvls and no cover at all, if you are defending.

[ljh217]

"Though you won’t be able to drop buildings on enemy’s heads in BF3, you will still be able to kill them with falling debris from destroyed walls or structures."

Worst. Mistake. Ever. Dice. BFBC2 does well because bringing down structures is fun. Hell, most of the time it's crucial. All you had to do was move the M-Com Stations outside of the completely destructible buildings (into containers/bunkers wherever) and then you could have left the destructability in. Surely that would have been easier from a design perspective as well?

I'll definitely still be getting it (had my Xbox preorder for months now) but I am slightly disappointed. Surely Dice should just compare BC2 and MoH and use that as a decision maker for what the game should be more like. Ditch the MoH **** and keep the BC2 awesomesauce.

[REDGUM]

There was a very valid point made by the producer. If everything is totally desrtuctable it would make it very hard to defend. It takes a brains (not being sarcastic at all) to develop a game like yours and try to cover every aspect of the game. Great work DICE. You've made fantastic games in the past and am really lookin forward to playing your game. Bringing a game out every year gets boring and nothing really changes, just new maps. You guys have supprized me every game. Thanks for the great entertainment guys.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Given the self healing vehicles I think a little less destruction on all buildings giving some kind of cover makes sense.

[Ares84]

No DICE, NO!!!

Not less destruction but MORE!!!! That is what made Battlefield so great. So you could take out buildings and cover so a sniper HAD to move to another location and couldn't camp at one spot. It was a great thing when you realized that someone was shooting at you from a window and you took out an RPG-7 and blasted the wall away either killing the person or opening up the cover than shooting them down. It is one of the best things about Battlefield and one thing that makes it different from COD.

[arjman]

Just make another BF Vietnam remake and I'll be happy, I love the vietnam games!

Nothing beats firing an M60 out of a Huey while surfing bird is playing in the background...nothing.

[leemo19]

Little disappointed in having less destruction cause nothing its more sweeter when your drop a whole building on campers hiding in buildings. As long as there's enough destruction to where it still makes BF, well BF than ill be fine with it.

[whatis]

Lazy.

[gamingisnotacrime]

it is disappointing, even if the reasons make sense.

i loved rushing out of a building that was about to come down

good memories

[CAPSLOCKFURY]

Gotta love how some people assume the worst and then roll their collective faces across their keyboards in a fit of rage, instead of actually reading what was said. "Wont be as many" does not equal "none at all."

[ljh217]

Perhaps you should read the article. This is a quote from it.

"Though you won’t be able to drop buildings on enemy’s heads in BF3, you will still be able to kill them with falling debris from destroyed walls or structures."

[CAPSLOCKFURY]

You should try reading the whole thing, instead of quoting only the parts that say things you want it to say. "In recent trailers and interviews, it’s been revealed that there won’t be as many completely destructible buildings like there were in Bad Company 2, however, destruction will still play a large role." Which is the sentence directly before the one you took out of context.

[Holeran]

Alot of assumptions being made in this article as far as I can see. The man from Dice said they had to make some cover that was not destructible, he never said anything about not being able to topple buildings.

[ljh217]

Except this: "Though you won’t be able to drop buildings on enemy’s heads in BF3, you will still be able to kill them with falling debris from destroyed walls or structures."

[Holeran]

Is that what he said? I thought he said this.

"In recent trailers and interviews, it’s been revealed that there won’t be as many completely destructible buildings like there were in Bad Company 2, however, destruction will still play a large role. Though you possibly may not be able to drop buildings on enemy’s heads in BF3, you will still be able to kill them with falling debris from destroyed walls or structures"

And the even funnier part is that none of these words came from the employee of Dice but from the person writing the article.

[Holeran]

Oh and this just hit the web as well.

http://n4g.com/news/838539/...

[shooter747]

What happened to the BF fanboy cry that everything in the BF world can be destroyed?

[Rettom]

I read that in Butch's kid voice when he is mocking you in Fallout 3.

*FALCON..... PAAWWWWNNCCHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

[eliteslaya13]

As long as we see some Destruction 2.0 and enough 3.0, its all good.

[Solo227]

I hope he worded his statement incorrectly...

Not being able to drop ANY buildings is gonna be a step backwards...

If u wanna add MORE indestructible buildings fine... But please DICE dont take it completely away... smh

This is the first bad news we've gotten about this game...

[PixL]

It's funny to see how people are so quick to jump to conclusions after reading one misleading sentence. Just watch the interview those quotes were edited from and you won't have to worry.

[animalia85]

By the end of a level I want to feel like I just went through war, complete with piles of rubble where a camper got what was coming to him. I love my teammates blasting holes in the walls with tanks and the rest of the guys swarm in like hornets. MORE destruction please.

[MrSent]

Most of that article was pure speculation.
There will be more destruction in BF3 than in other BF games, but not to the point where its a completely flattened map. They've paid more attention to the after-effects this time.

[Solo227]

I noticed those were the writers words...

BUt if you also think about it... I havent seen a video of an actual two story building drop in BF3... Its always that same clip of some wall being blown out and you see the rumble hit the ground...

If theres a video of an a building coming down completely in BF3 some please point me in the right direction... But thru all the hoopla people havent really paid attention and just assumed it would be in the game

[DA_SHREDDER]

they need to put a limit on how many times you can use your parachute per life. I see people jumping out of buildings and using their parachutes 10 times in with one life, its jumping the shark quite a bit.

[tigertron]

Nothing beats driving a tank through a building filled with camping snipers. Oh yeah baby! =D

[scark92]

B) Goodbye buildings

[Nefariouz]

In recent trailers and interviews, it’s been revealed that there won’t be "as many" completely destructible buildings like...

As many being the keywords here. Reading comprehension is lacking nowadays apparently. More proof:

http://tbreak.com/megamers/...