EA DICE Quietly Reveals Destructible Terrain for Battlefield 3

[uppitycracker]

it already ends up being pretty damn cheap in BC2. there is no such thing as taking cover unless it's behind a rock, any form of building and you'll just get blown up, along with the wall, from a gustav.

Well, considering that most buildings are just sheet-rock and 2x4's, that's not surprising.

Most buildings today only provide concealment, not cover. Especially with the types of ammo used.

yeah, i know, but for me it's always gameplay > realism. when you seriously can't take cover because everyone is shooting rockets at the wall your behind, it gets a little old. i'm still stoked for BF3! but i just hope they can balance that part out a bit better.

 

[Wolfinton]

Listen, DICE, just bring back some of the main features from Battlefield 2 and I will be a happy bunny. Things that need to be brought back include C4 for Special Ops (Snipers are useless with them), tall buildings (The tall buildings in BF2 were outstanding for defense) and planes. Oh, the planes. My second favourite thing I want back -- first is C4 for Special Ops.

Now, do that, and you will have my sale.

Oh, no campaign would be nice. Focus on the multiplayer aspect.

 

[Irridium]

Please keep the Battlefield Commanders, please keep the Battlefield Commanders...

 

[jmroutson1988]

I dont know if you guys were aware but DICE just released a huge patch for BC2.

 

[samsonguy920]

DICE and me aren't on speaking terms after the stuff they pulled with Medal of Honor.

I'm all tickled about a new Battlefield coming out. Hopefully it has some fresh ideas in it.

Hopefully.

 

[Loud Hawk]

I still think BF2 was the BEST Battlefield game.

If they could basically just remake the awesomeness of BF2, I will jizz in everybody's pants.... thrice.

 

[Rewold]

80 players, air warfare, huge maps. Show me what you got, DICE.

 

[Worgen]

Not another Medal of Honor in terms of gameplay and expectations, I hope.

This will be a game by DICE so they know how to make a balanced and actually fun multiplayer game.
Apparently a lot of people complaining about BC2 must be CoD people playing BC2 like it was CoD.

Cool, I've been meaning to try these battlefield games. As of right now the only FPS I've played this Gen has been killzone 2. CoD doesn't interest me in the slightest, but I've heard nothing but good things about the BF:BC series so far.

The Battletield series has be the pinnacle of online shooters since BF2 for a damn good reason. DICE knows what they're doing.

OT: Sweet news to hear, and just after the announcement of BF:BC2:Vietnam release. Could this week get any better?

they also just released 4 new multi player maps for bad company 2 today

 

[Lawyer105]

Meh... BC2 has it's place in the runny-jumpy-actiony-ADAD crowd of games, but BF (main series) is really just a smaller, less interesting version of Planetside.

They don't even do that much better in terms of lag management and hit detection, and their engine is nearly 10 years more advanced. And Planetside could handle nearly FOUR HUNDRED people on a server... BF just doesn't even compare.

 

[runedeadthA]

So, I can make a crater to hide in with a grenage, like in Fracture?

Because this shit could easily lead to bugs, exploits, and generally cheap bullshit in multiplayer.

it already ends up being pretty damn cheap in BC2. there is no such thing as taking cover unless it's behind a rock, any form of building and you'll just get blown up, along with the wall, from a gustav.

And now imagine if you could blow up the ground. It'd be horrid.

I hope Red Faction hasn't been forgotten. The MP in the original started to resemble trenches from WW1.

Of course, if they're using explosives to make holes, the best counter: More Explosives! Nice big hole is perfect for a grenade to roll into...

 

[WolfLordAndy]

Meh... BC2 has it's place in the runny-jumpy-actiony-ADAD crowd of games, but BF (main series) is really just a smaller, less interesting version of Planetside.

They don't even do that much better in terms of lag management and hit detection, and their engine is nearly 10 years more advanced. And Planetside could handle nearly FOUR HUNDRED people on a server... BF just doesn't even compare.

As someone who has obviously played alot of Planetside, you must be use by now to the fact that non one else will ever realise the joy and awesomeness of Planetside. And for some bizare reason no one wants to make another true MMOFPS

Although I'd say BF2 did planes and choppers better then aircraft in Planetside.

For those moaning about people putting rockets through the side of their buildings. Go sniper and snipe the engi before they know where you are. Or go Soldier and get in close and gun them down. Or even go engi in return and rocket their cover!

 

[Amalith]

So long as it's not the shitty, pre defined, no matter how this happens there is a hole in the wall this size in this shape scripted destructability of the Bad Company series I'll take it.

Though really, I was hoping for this game to be more like the previous real battlefield game (which I guess would be 2142, so really the one before that). A few games have both pushed server capacities past 200 players, so I'd like to see 128+ player battles, but it's not necessary, I'd be love the game if it was just an updated BF2.

 

[Flac00]

Yeah....destructible environments. If they want to make this revolutionary, they're gonna have to come up with something like an FPS scale 'World in Conflict' type thing, where the landscape actually is destructible. As has been said though, not sure how good that'd be for the maps to work successfully. Really though, I don't think we'll have to worry about that anytime soon. The tagline should be instead "Buildings will be destructible once again, but a little differently"

Well "Destruction 2.0" works quite well in BFBC2 atm, just that it's limited to buildings and a few scripted objects. What would be really cool is if they could add it to everything, even the actual terrain. Like when an airplane drops a bomb or an artillery strike comes down, you get a nice little crater in the ground with long matches turning maps into a properly scarred battlefield.

It wouldn't just be for looks really, it could provide makeshift cover as the game progresses forward, make some approaches more viable, perhaps even seal off some routes, making it harder for tanks to get through and such.

The craters were being made since BC 1, sure they were shallow but they were there. What would be cooler is if the physics were improved to such a level where when something blew up it didn't go "poof", but that it instead was literally blown apart.

 

[Vrach]

The craters were being made since BC 1, sure they were shallow but they were there. What would be cooler is if the physics were improved to such a level where when something blew up it didn't go "poof", but that it instead was literally blown apart.

Ah fair enough, I didn't actually play BC1

And very much agreed, improved physics would be great, right now it's a "if this touched by grenade/CG/etc. then erase closest wall". It's functional and not a bad start, but a more realistic feel would go a long way to offering a more immersive and even more dynamic battlefield.