That looks awesome.
When is a "When we gonna see FPS games with totally destructable environments?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
That looks awesome.
No, it's incredibly limited in BFBC and really not worth shouting about. Red Faction did it so much better.
Why has nobody mentioned Crysis-I know that you couldn't destroy everything, but you could destroy pretty much everything you could realistically destroy. You could carve through trees and thin houses, but you obviously couldn't cut through a cliff with a machine gun...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
Dude, yes you can, there's many ways you just have to think. And there's many ways you can overcome the other problems a 100% destructable environment introduces, aside from the obvious things like an invisible wall or something similar like the thing in BF2 which really wasn't a big deal anyway since the maps were so huge.
For example you could limit the amount of weapons/items the player has that can damage environments.
Not every game is bound by realism, so there's many ways you could overcome the problems there.
If say the level was a ship in space and you blew a hole in the hull you'd die.
If the level was underwater and you damaged the outer wall the place would be flooded and you'd die...etc
And what's the problem with having say a reinforced wall around the level which isn't destructable to the point where you can get out of it and 'leave' the map. Is it really such a big deal if just a few walls aren't fully destructable when everything else inside of the level is?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I quite like it as it adds action and variety to the game some but your right its not anything new
BF2 had the same thing pretty much but it wasnt used except in mods for it. bfbc has added in ground deformation though which is kinda neat
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Some interesting ideas, the new red faction looks good.
I wasn't thinking of ways to tunnel to the centre of the earth with a rocket launcher, merely how cool it would be having boms that would blow craters, you could blow up pillars/walls etc. Drive a tank through a wall. Sensible things.
This could work well in MP, imagine bf3 with a prestine urban town, then an hour into the level, we are ducking in and out of ruble. You would still have cover and the level would be the same layout, you would just have crumbling buildings and craters everywhere.
I would doubt it would be like a nuclear wasteland after an hour
I wasn't thinking of ways to tunnel to the centre of the earth with a rocket launcher, merely how cool it would be having boms that would blow craters, you could blow up pillars/walls etc. Drive a tank through a wall. Sensible things.
This could work well in MP, imagine bf3 with a prestine urban town, then an hour into the level, we are ducking in and out of ruble. You would still have cover and the level would be the same layout, you would just have crumbling buildings and craters everywhere.
I would doubt it would be like a nuclear wasteland after an hour
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
Well I guess....if you gave every player unlimited mini nukes.
You made the grammar fairy cry
Only fully, completely destructible scenery game I ever came across was UFO : Enemy Unknown and its sequel. It's about 20 years old and I still play it every now and then. Nothing like being able to blow a hole in the side of an alien mothership and then send half a dozen guided missiles inside.
The carnage when you went in afterward was just brill
Last edited:
You made the Spelling Fairy cry
Ah you fast git! I was right in the middle of editing it!!
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
Personally, I think interactive environments ruin multiplayer games.
That's exactly why CS 1.6 will ALWAYS have been a better game than source. The maps are dreadful for competetive play.
That's exactly why CS 1.6 will ALWAYS have been a better game than source. The maps are dreadful for competetive play.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
"Drive a tank through a wall. Sensible things"
Is that classed as sensible?
Is that classed as sensible?
Exactly how I feel. Unless you drastically limit the amount and type of weapons that can actually destroy the environment, which then begs the question why bother in the first place, you will just end up with a completely levelled sandbox or something resembling an ant farm.
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
Yup.
For a game to even me the slightest bit competetive and to allow teams to develop tactics etc, you need a set and level playing field. Playing something which is different every time might be good for some but I really don't agree with it.
It's like changing the size of a football every football match, or changing a formula 1 track every lap.
For a game to even me the slightest bit competetive and to allow teams to develop tactics etc, you need a set and level playing field. Playing something which is different every time might be good for some but I really don't agree with it.
It's like changing the size of a football every football match, or changing a formula 1 track every lap.