Battlefield 3 getting nerfed

I would assume that 50-60% of buildings would be destructable, especially around the checkpoints. I can see 2 sides to this yes destructable is great but i remember playing BF2 will 900 ticket rate on 24/7 servers, i would guess that some servers would do the same. so if they made every building destructable it would be annoying.
 
Swifty55 said:
So what you're really saying is, you want to camp?
Click to expand...

Not really, all of my favourite FPS games are all run and gun games, I just dont want to spawn in the open, Run into a building, See someone taking a flag or whatever, Then get a rocket hit the wall and blow the whole building up and killing me :p

I just find it kinda takes away skill when instead of aiming at people behind cover or nade and flush them out you can just randomly shoot at a wall and get kills personally. I feel there should always be walls that cant be destoryed so there is always some kinda cover. I guess this only really becomes a problem when the tickets get raised thus making the game last longer, Meaning there is no cover left.
 
I can't see why they'd remove it totally. Just beef up the structures a bunch to withstand the extra firepower in BF3 over BC2.

It was a little silly in BC2 sometimes at how easy the building collapsed totally but it was only in longer matches that the map turned into a total wasteland.
 
HHs said:
Not really, all of my favourite FPS games are all run and gun games, I just dont want to spawn in the open, Run into a building, See someone taking a flag or whatever, Then get a rocket hit the wall and blow the whole building up and killing me :p

I just find it kinda takes away skill when instead of aiming at people behind cover or nade and flush them out you can just randomly shoot at a wall and get kills personally. I feel there should always be walls that cant be destoryed so there is always some kinda cover. I guess this only really becomes a problem when the tickets get raised thus making the game last longer, Meaning there is no cover left.
Click to expand...

Go play CoD then if you want to run and gun. BF series has never been about run and gun!

For wall spam and nade play I played Counter Strike (not source), for constant kill kill kill die spawn repeat there is CoD (although if your into matches there's always promod which can be fun).

But for big open battles with vehicles with a faster pace than Opflash/Arma, it's BF.

Destructible cover was a great addition to the BF series, since it added something that none of the above shooters had, further cementing BF's uniqueness in FPS games, why would you want it to be exactly the same as BF2 with no bullet penetration and constant nade spam.
 
We also seem to be forgetting that it does take effort to reduce a building to rubble. A single rocket on a wall will not bring the building down. Hell, i've seen buildings in BC2 that seem to defy mavity and are full 2 level building held up on one remaining corner. If you remain camped in a building and someone has the means to reduce it to rubble to move you on, then that for me makes a much better game.

Otherwise it becomes a boring camp fest with squads holed up in buildings with medics reviving and assaults ammo spamming and no matter how much fire you put on the building it remains intact and they can sit in there as long as they like.

Not all BC2s buildings where destructable, plenty of holes could be shot in them but they never came down, I think perhaps (and hope) that this is what they mean by this and we should all take it as such. I doubt very much they'd remove destructable buildings alltogether.

I also doubt there would be 4 or 5 jets + choppers per map, but again there must be ways of countering these assets with some practice, even from the ground. (never played BF2 btw!)

Out of interest, how did ground forces deal with jets, choppers in BF2?
 
Last edited:
it's not like there's no indestructible cover either. a collapsed building is now an indestructible pice of cover with lots of holes to crawl in.

or how about those huge sandbag walls (ones made with those big cube ones) we see.

or embankments, or raised areas, rocks etc.

sounds like an excuse for bad design.
 
garyfl said:
this is really naff, you cant just only blow up certain buildings in real life, you dont get to choose, these games are supposed to similate real life and a good game would be able to blow up all the buildings as thats realisitc in my eyes.
Click to expand...

yea you want maps to look like a warzone after awhile not oh look part of a building has disapeared probably in a preset fashion...
 
gropingmantis said:
From what I understood we aren't talking about total destruction as in being able to take down every structure on the map but total destruction as in actually being able to bring some buildings totally to the ground which quite frankly if I can't do that then that is a step backwards.

What they said in the article was that no buildings would be able to be brought to the floor but merely there was a destructable facade on the buildings so you can open them up but never destroy which is definitely a step back from BC2.
Click to expand...

In BC2 you can take some down buildings and not others. So it would be the same?

Sin_Chase said:
Good tank commanders don't do this.

The bads who do get nuked by Recon/Engineers in about 5 seconds flat.

So, no-issue really is it not?
Click to expand...

Well if everybody is a good tank commander there would be no issue. But they are not.
 
garyfl said:
this is really naff, you cant just only blow up certain buildings in real life, you dont get to choose, these games are supposed to similate real life.
Click to expand...

Errr, no they are not. You ever seen a real soldier jump out of a second floor building and successfully pull their parachute?

You ever seen a tank in the heat of battle being repaired by a solder with a drill?

There are a thousand more....................
 
People jumping to conclusions and judging the game way too much with way too little info. Have a little faith in DICE people I mean hell they tend to make pretty damn good games in case you forgot :p. I also have to question why the website linked to in the OP is the only one running this story (i've personally never heard of the website or seen it so no idea how credible it is, i also now cannot connect to it). Giant Bomb, RPS, Kotaku , Eurogamer, no one else seems to be reporting it.
 
You know what a cluster **** the game would be on maps with choppers and jets if everything could be destroyed? I'm all for destruction done sensibly to keep balance in the game.
 
Delboy said:
I think people are just jumping to conclusions here with no real proof. I doubt they will remove destruction like BC2. So, take your strike 1 back please, anyway - it was you who convinced me to buy BLOPS..........
Click to expand...

Haha. Nah the strike is staying, whether or not it is true it looks like it might be. :D

The game has three strikes, I was expecting it not to get any until actual release but this is gold, I don't want BF3 to fail and hope it doesn't but with everyone getting so excited about a game not actually released yet I can't help but reckon there are going to be a lot of disappointed gamers out there (ignoring the initial release period, as any game has bugs and issues for the first couple of months these days).

Besides, Blops is kind of...fun ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom