Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: So they said Battlefield 3 had lots of destruction..
  • Subject: So they said Battlefield 3 had lots of destruction..
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: So they said Battlefield 3 had lots of destruction..

A cornered fox is more dangerous than a jackal.

And from FOX, two phantoms were born.

Yeah sure we had a few walls and stuff.

But how come there were hardly any entirely collapsible buildings? (I haven't played any of the DLC so I don't know if there are maps like that)

I mean Bad Company 2 had entire towns full of buildings to take down and stuff and BF3 had a few walls.

  • 01.01.2013 3:32 PM PDT

Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.

  • 01.01.2013 3:33 PM PDT


Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.


I only have it for console. Is there far more destruction on the PC version?

  • 01.01.2013 3:34 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

I understand nothing because my life is a conspiracy.

They said it would have less destruction because they didn't want to copy/paste every building.

  • 01.01.2013 3:34 PM PDT

"I am an enforcer man! Don't nothin' go down in my house! This 100% heart baby! Sure, I check a few fools. I give em the pain! But sometimes its about intimidation, though. It's mind games."
-Terry Tate, Office Linebacker

I haven't noticed a significant difference. Then again I don't pay attention to that sort of thing.
Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.


I only have it for console. Is there far more destruction on the PC version?

  • 01.01.2013 3:35 PM PDT

Brainwashing, idiotic media: "hur dur, vido gaems cas vilenc n iz nt gud. dey ned 2 b baned."

Logic: Really? Then please explain how there's violence in third world countries. I guess they're all poor due to the large amount of video games they buy.

In actual warfare, what's the purpose of destroying everything in sight? The main Battlefield games and Bad Company games are different in that aspect, one's more of a sandbox with utter destruction while the other is more authentic in combat.

Besides, micro destruction kicks ass.

  • 01.01.2013 3:37 PM PDT

Mythical Group

There is no greater catharsis than arguing on the Flood.

I think they've done some great things with destruction in BF3, such as on Grand Bazaar where you can collapse building parts from high above to fall upon people in the alley. The game does have collapsible buildings, but for some reason, not a single one of them is put in a potentially important place. I agree that in the future they should not be afraid to again utilize collapsible buildings in the main areas of the map.

  • 01.01.2013 3:38 PM PDT

Mythical Group

There is no greater catharsis than arguing on the Flood.

Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.
Rush is by far my preferred game mode, and 24 players is pretty much ideal for the gametype. Speak for yourself.

  • 01.01.2013 3:40 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.

To be fair, every building being destructable wasn't all that great (like in Bad Company 2). Defending objectives while every building has been blown to pieces becomes way too hard.

I could live with BF3's destruction system, the way they brought back jets to the series bothered me though.

  • 01.01.2013 3:40 PM PDT


Posted by: BlazingAngel94
In actual warfare, what's the purpose of destroying everything in sight? The main Battlefield games and Bad Company games are different in that aspect, one's more of a sandbox with utter destruction while the other is more authentic in combat.

Besides, micro destruction kicks ass.


In actual warfare the purpose of destruction isn't just to destroy but to eliminate an enemy target or his hiding place. In actual warfare destruction can be just as widespread like in Bad Company - the best example would be World War II with entire cities leveled. It shouldn't be a surprise that if armored vehicles roll into an area saturated with hostiles that there are going to be a few destroyed buildings.

  • 01.01.2013 3:42 PM PDT


Posted by: Thunderjam0
To be fair, every building being destructable wasn't all that great (like in Bad Company 2). Defending objectives while every building has been blown to pieces becomes way too hard.

I could live with BF3's destruction system, the way they brought back jets to the series bothered me though.


I miss carpet bombing with 500 lb bombs :(

Now I get a wimpy gimpy guided missile or a rocket pod that shoots pop rocks.

  • 01.01.2013 3:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Telec
Remember kids: when Uncle Delta tells you he has sweeties, he isn't lying.

Now get in the van.


The Black Chapter

Made Rush a little irritating on BFBC:2 when you could just collaspe the building on top of the objective

  • 01.01.2013 3:43 PM PDT

Brainwashing, idiotic media: "hur dur, vido gaems cas vilenc n iz nt gud. dey ned 2 b baned."

Logic: Really? Then please explain how there's violence in third world countries. I guess they're all poor due to the large amount of video games they buy.


Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: BlazingAngel94
In actual warfare, what's the purpose of destroying everything in sight? The main Battlefield games and Bad Company games are different in that aspect, one's more of a sandbox with utter destruction while the other is more authentic in combat.

Besides, micro destruction kicks ass.


In actual warfare the purpose of destruction isn't just to destroy but to eliminate an enemy target or his hiding place. In actual warfare destruction can be just as widespread like in Bad Company - the best example would be World War II with entire cities leveled. It shouldn't be a surprise that if armored vehicles roll into an area saturated with hostiles that there are going to be a few destroyed buildings.


In modern day warfare, we have missiles capable of hitting a target with near perfect accuracy. We didn't have that back in WWII thus it was necessary to drop a -blam!- load of bombs in a wide area to get the same effects as a single tomahawk cruise missile.

  • 01.01.2013 3:45 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.


Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: Thunderjam0
To be fair, every building being destructable wasn't all that great (like in Bad Company 2). Defending objectives while every building has been blown to pieces becomes way too hard.

I could live with BF3's destruction system, the way they brought back jets to the series bothered me though.


I miss carpet bombing with 500 lb bombs :(

Now I get a wimpy gimpy guided missile or a rocket pod that shoots pop rocks.

Yep, or a machine gun that shoots deadly NERF-bullets.

  • 01.01.2013 3:47 PM PDT


Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.


I only have it for console. Is there far more destruction on the PC version?




http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/A-MoveWonder/


Here's my battlelog.


No, but it's much more pretty.

  • 01.01.2013 3:48 PM PDT


Posted by: BlazingAngel94

Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: BlazingAngel94
In actual warfare, what's the purpose of destroying everything in sight? The main Battlefield games and Bad Company games are different in that aspect, one's more of a sandbox with utter destruction while the other is more authentic in combat.

Besides, micro destruction kicks ass.


In actual warfare the purpose of destruction isn't just to destroy but to eliminate an enemy target or his hiding place. In actual warfare destruction can be just as widespread like in Bad Company - the best example would be World War II with entire cities leveled. It shouldn't be a surprise that if armored vehicles roll into an area saturated with hostiles that there are going to be a few destroyed buildings.


In modern day warfare, we have missiles capable of hitting a target with near perfect accuracy. We didn't have that back in WWII thus it was necessary to drop a -blam!- load of bombs in a wide area to get the same effects as a single tomahawk cruise missile.



This is true, yet destruction will always be a part of warfare. You can get as accurate as you want but it will never be totally clean.

  • 01.01.2013 3:49 PM PDT


Posted by: BRADEN OWNZ

Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.


I only have it for console. Is there far more destruction on the PC version?




http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/A-MoveWonder/


Here's my battlelog.


No, but it's much more pretty.


Guess we're linking battle logs?

Here's mine...

And I don't doubt it! From all the PC videos I've seen of BF3 it's more prettier in every way than console. I'm quite bummed actually, they really jibbed console players.

  • 01.01.2013 3:55 PM PDT

The most destructive thing in BF3 is the 2-hour long updates you need to get every other month.

  • 01.01.2013 3:58 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Member


Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
Im guessing you play BF3 on xbox?

If so your doing it wrong.
there's nothing wrong with the console version, get your head out of your ass

  • 01.01.2013 4:00 PM PDT

"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
- Dr. Seuss


Posted by: BalistaGaming
The most destructive thing in BF3 is the 2-hour long updates you need to get every other month.

DOH HO HO

  • 01.01.2013 4:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Posted by: STEALTH GUNNER3
If so your doing it wrong.
Irony.

  • 01.01.2013 4:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I do not want to stop asking. I do not ask to stop wanting.


Posted by: BalistaGaming
The most destructive thing in BF3 is the 2-hour long updates you need to get every other month.

  • 01.01.2013 4:18 PM PDT

Bombs, rope, lampoil? It yours my friend! As long as you have enough rupees!

BF3 really disappointed me, but it was okay.

  • 01.01.2013 4:20 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.


Posted by: acerad
BF3 really disappointed me, but it was okay.

How strange this may sound, I agree. It was a very good game, but it couldn't live up to Battlefield 2 in my opinion.

Especially the ranking system (with that I mean the actual ranks) was incredibly bad compared to Battlefield 2. The only difference between people their ranks in BF3 were basically just numbers while BF2 players had very much different (and awesome) emblems.

BF2 ranks were insanely hard to get though.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:28 PM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 4:28 PM PDT

Posted by: IrIsHmAn04
no its legit, i used coordinates, set weapon timers the works.

Actually OP, you're dead wrong. DICE never once said there was going to be more destruction in BF3. What they said was it was destruction 2.0. Nowhere does that statement say nor imply there is more destruction than that of the BC series.

In fact the lead producer said well before launch of BF3 that the destruction in BF3 is different than the BC series and that it was going to be more focused, which it is.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 4:39 PM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 4:32 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2