Battlefield 3 – Destruction is getting nerfed
by Chriss Raven on Jul 9, 2011 7:25 pm
Yes, you read the title correctly, Destruction is getting nerfed. Now this isn’t that much of a shock, you can’t have a fully destructible environment in a balanced multiplayer game, it just doesn’t work very well. That’s why the original Red Faction games were successful, because the levels were designed with some limited destruction in mind, for the sake of gameplay, not full out. The problem comes with the way levels are designed in these mod.war. shooters. Samey semi/urban maps with a few copy/pasted buildings here and there, that generally makes for a bland map, destruction on some of them is a good way to at least make it a well balanced map. That’s going to be a large part of the newer maps, but there are going to be remakes of old maps and some legitimately new and original ones. Dice want to keep things going in a game and not clutter up the gameplay field… and your CPU. But on the other hand, destruction is just plain fun!
Damage is done to façades built onto structures, rather than the actual structures themselves – you’re not going to be bringing buildings down in Battlefield 3 like you did in Bad Company 2 outside of scripted moments in singleplayer and possible hard-coded objectives in multiplayer.
A lot of the fans are complaining a lot about this. And it’s mostly PC fans, which I fail to grasp. PC gaming is all about balance and competition, not how much buildings you can wreck. I guess the old days are over.
D2.0 is not gone. Not at all.
Which is good, but we just have to wait and see what happens when the game comes out. I am a real hard core Battlefield fan (hated the Bad Company series) and what I find shocking is the fact that I don’t really care much about BF3. I am anticipating it eagerly, but I guess the oversaturation on the mod.war. shooter market is taking it’s toll on the industry. Here’s hoping for a change in trends soon. I’m just tired of shooting up turban wearing people in deserts.
Oh and if you want to know where this story comes from (yes, you ohshutup)- the story comes from an interview that DICE did with IGN. My take on the whole situation is that DICE just want to balance out and polish everything. There is no need for a feature like destruction to become a centrepiece of the Battlefield experience. Which is exactly what DICE are doing, they know that it’s good for gameplay, opening routes, flanking, quick access and so on, but they understand what can happen with a bit too much freedom.
On the other hand, nothing is stopping them from adding smaller “throaway” buildings that could fit with the design of maps. I understand why we can’t level a mansion that the entire level takes place around, but why not be able to blow up a small wooden shack/house. I am not saying anything, lest I become the same type of douce IGN are, everything in this article, except the quotes is pure speculation on my part. I personally like to believe that there will be small, insignificant structures that we can go all Mjolnir on, but the bigger, more important ones will only be redecoratable.
