Less Destructible Environments in Battlefield 3? DICE Explains

Destruction has become a huge part of the Battlefield franchise. It was first introduced in Battlefield: Bad Company and has since then, become a staple part of the franchise. In an interview with IGN, Karl-Magnus Troedsson, General Manager at DICE, revealed that destruction was not originally intended to be a main part of the series. “When we threw in destruction, with having more dynamic environments in there, it actually worked out pretty well by itself.” He continued, “the destruction didn’t really rupture the whole Battlefield system. It actually was just a nice-add on…

Many fans would agree that it was a very welcome addition in Battlefield: Bad Company 1, which was later improved in Bad Company 2. However, it has introduced other un-anticipated problems along with it as well. For instance, “there were some maps that actually, after a while, if you played very long in the same area, you’d just grind down everything to the bottom, which made it really hard sometimes for, like, the defenders in a rush map,” said Troedsson himself. “When we see these things, [we think] okay, we have to add some covers that actually are not destructible.

In recent trailers and interviews, it’s been revealed that there won’t be as many completely destructible buildings like there were in Bad Company 2, however, destruction will still play a large role. Though you possibly may not be able to drop buildings on enemy’s heads in BF3, you will still be able to kill them with falling debris from destroyed walls or structures. Alan Kertz, senior gameplay designer at DICE, shed some more light on this subject when asked whether the player who caused the debris gets credit for the kill or not. He simply replied, “credit is given where credit is due.

If you played the multiplayer in the 2010 reboot of Medal of Honor, you will notice that DICE did not include any destruction at all. So far, we’ve seen a few things from MoH carry over into Battlefield 3 and now, perhaps, we will see less destructible environments as well.

Do you think this will better serve the gameplay? Let us know in the comment section below.

Be sure to check out some more information on Battlefield 3′s new voice chat system, and some more gameplay changes regarding stationary heavy machine guns.

Interested in writing for MP1st? Click here.

Don’t forget to follow @MPFirst on Twitter!

Update: DICE Clarifies Destruction in Battlefield 3

  • RandomBoner

    Intresting, though i’ve read that there is still buildings that are fully collapsable, though not quite as many as BC2. Although, i do agree that all out destruction can be a hindrince at the end of a tough conquest match or as he said, as a defender in rush because of the lack of suitable cover

  • Eric

    this really stinks . You can bring down walls and stuff but gone are the fully destructable environments. THIS IS A BIG LET DOWN TO ME>

    I used to love when i was in a building that was about to collaspe and i only had seconds to get out of it. IM gonna miss that.

  • Jon

    Destructible environments made the game what it was. Period. Someone duck into a house? I made the front of that house gone. I need to get to the other side of that wall and dont have the time to move around? I made a hole.

    If you played a 1000 tick game, and by the end every building was rubble, and death awaited you in every corner of that rubble? That was actually pretty fun. Being able to fully destroy the maps brought levels upon levels of awesomeness to the game, because it made each game you played different. Without it you are stuck in a pre ordained boring map, that you can only manipulate and do so much with. May as well play a COD match at that point.

    I can see why large 30 story buildings cant be brought down, there is just too much detail to handle and the technology can’t do it just yet with the debris. I get that. However, we had still better be able to take out the same types of buildings we were able to do in BC2, or else this game will have lost a LOT of enjoyment in my humble opinion.

    Sitting in a house watching the walls get blown away around you while you are pinned makes the game awesome. Don’t take that element away.

  • Andy

    Exactly what Jon said, because destruction does make the game fun and realistic. If your in a building, that would be awesome to try to get out of the building before it collapses. Just gives it an awesome adrenaline feeling. Because you not only need to worry about getting killed but also be worried about getting crushed, which is pretty intense, fun, and keeps the game going. Because like Jon said in his comment, ” because it made each game you played different”.

  • Dratyan

    I’m canceling my pre-order on Origin at this very moment. If this information is somehow not entirely true, I’ll gladly buy it again. CoD’s static maps are bad enough.

    • http://mp1st.com David Veselka

      Remember, as Karl-Magnus said in the interview, they’re just simply adding some more indestructible cover and probably reducing the number of fully destructible buildings. I promise you it WON’T be anything like Call of Duty.

      I HIGHLY recommend that you keep your pre-order :D

    • cancel

      dude shut da fuk up ,what do you go around blowing every building down with c4 and make it hard for your team mates to defend .good we dont need retards like you on bf3

  • Shadow

    Ok guys i think some are over reacting. Only certain parts of the map wont be completely destructible, which makes sense for game play balancing.

    Having a EVERYTHING destructible would ruin the game. DICE aren’t saying a lot of objects aren’t destructible.

    • http://mp1st.com David Veselka

      Its true, they’re not ‘nerfing’ destructibility by any means. They’re most likely adding a few more pieces of indestructible cover and including a smaller number of totally destructible houses/buildings. I’m sure there will still be an acceptable amount!

  • perpetuity

    I disagree with @shadow and agree heartily with @Andy …

    It adds a level of randomness and “realism” that other games do not have.

    Taking massive destruction away, in my view, takes away innovation in the video game industry (like it was stated, who want’s predefined mazes over and over? rats!), and, takes away playability and tactics. I can’t see how anyone believes destruction would ruin the game.

    Without destruction you face a rat maze where people find the best trick spots. For me a more interesting game would include random destruction and random spawn points (not excluding squad based spawning).

    Finally, if it were me, I’d add what Ghost Recon had a decade ago — more realistic bodily damage models where your soldier, if hit, would have trouble aiming, walking or running, and might eventually bleed out. This introduces a huge change over the rose stained glasses you don in current shooters.

    • http://mp1st.com David Veselka

      Also… remember that they are now also including the ability to ‘nade’ people through walls. So they are adding some more bits of realism in this sense :)

      • Hangglider234

        what is that supposed to mean? like u can blow up a wall with a launcher and kill the person behind it?

  • Peter

    Yeah, destructible buildings did make the game what it was! But thats BC2, this is BF3, a sequel to BF2, which had no destruction of buildings. In my opinion it’s good

    • http://mp1st.com David Veselka

      This is a great point.

  • Amuro Ray

    I do not approve of this.

    You could use the rubble from the collapsed buildings as cover, or could make it so that explosives made varying sized craters, which could also be used as cover.
    Or make MCOM buildings, and only MCOM Buildings, unable to be razes.

    YOU CAN BALANCE OUT ONE PROBLEM WITHOUT WATERING DOWN THE ENTIRE THING.

  • rmx687

    Clearly there are posters here claiming to have played Bad Company 2 when they have not… very few buildings were fully destructible. Basically if it wasn’t a four-wall rectangular prism you knew it couldn’t be taken down. Even then, many such buildings, such as those with steel girders, were impossible to take down anyway. It was only 1 or 2 templates that could be brought down and it became very easy to tell which ones you couldn’t take down.

    The interviewee probably means there are less buildings of that template placed in the game. I trust DICE, as arguably the premier FPS developer, to know the right balance. Personally, I wish BC2 had more, because it really made the battle evolve in the longer-ticket matches.

    • DarthDiggler

      “Clearly there are posters here claiming to have played Bad Company 2 when they have not… very few buildings were fully destructible.”

      In terms of Multiplayer you had far more destructible buildings then you did not. I have been playing BFBC2 since it came out and still play it. Most of your “Single Family Home” size buildings could come down with 5 C4s.

  • Dirk

    Destructible environments only work when it enhances game play. If the environment is sufficiently level and no one can move because they will be killed the moment they do so then how is that fun?

  • Wolfthatwonders

    Destruction of the enviroment is the ONLY reason to Play Battlefield. Period. it does not matter how pretty the game is, with out destruction which Should be the center point of series. If you dont have it the only thing left is tanks and jets that can shoot at buildings that never fall? With out destruction you might as well get ride of Tanks and jets! Then you Might as well play COD then!

    • Andrew

      What the fuck are you talking about? Battlefield 2 never had destructibility. This isn’t Bad Company 3, deal with it.

      • Wolfthatwonders

        Im dealing with it just fine thank you Andrew for your concern. Since you have trouble reading I will explain myself further. Dont feel stupid or anything because many people dont know how to read… Its ok just sit there and dont improve your self. All I was saying is the fact if you have a jet and it shoots “Thy Missle” In the Said Building and it does not level it to the ground, Its kinda lame and unrealistic, Destruction is key to any warefare.

    • Wayanvass

      It’s not the only reason to play battlefield at all. i dont go online to blow up buildings. i go online to play with friends, be strategic, com up with ways of taking out the objective, sometimes i’ll just be a black hawk pilot and my mate will be the gunner, we provide cover for the guys on the round, if anything battlefield has and always will be played for it’s teamplay.

      destructibility only adds to diversity of tactics, it changes the core gameplay, it isnt the core gameplay

  • dakan45

    did you thought even for a second that you will be able to demolish big and complicated buildings inside a city? ofcourse not, bf3 destruction is selective, you will be able to destroy them to a certain degree, not more.

  • ZeroOnyx

    HA!HA!

  • bfsucksyall

    hahahahahhahahahahahaha. fuck battlefield .. go COD MW3

    • Hangglider234

      hu.hu hu. HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAA! ur retarted. yeah, MW3 gonna pretty freakin awsome. but BF3, dude its gonna BEAST OUT on the COD games. it wont crush ‘em. no one will ever crush COD. but Battlefields gonna win on the battlefield this time. HOORA!!!

  • Moshpitti

    I find it somewhat ridiculous how people don’t seem to understand half of what they’re saying, what seems to be the one thing uniting people in the comments who want the whole maps turn into parking lots.

    Some even say they’re taking away destructible walls? The BUILDINGS won’t come down, they didn’t say the walls were made of solid steel. It’s pretty obvious the only ones truly concerned would be the ones who have only played BC2 and possibly 1943, back in BC1 walls would come down but buildings didn’t, and it was a blast without making maps boring and dull end of the match when there’s nothing in it. Before that? Back then it was like CoD, for you people who consider playing two shooters at the same year impossible.

    Just wait for the game to come out if you can’t read, and you’ll see.

  • ProFlight

    Battlefield 3 will still be the greatest FPS game yet when it releases. Only because some of the cover will be indestructible doesn’t mean the game will bomb. In EA DICE’s professional opinion, this is how it should be done.
    In EA DICE we trust.

  • DarthDiggler

    I think you guys are reading things into this. I don’t read that DICE actually said that BF3 would be “Less Destructible”.

    You could essentially add more non-destructible items to a map full of a bunch of destructible items and still have the same amount of destruction.

    BFBC2 had a liberal placing of the big square concrete blocks that would never go away. It sounds like they are just going to be making a few structures non-destructible for balance purposes and not a lack of technology.

    Can you guys write 1 article with out over sensationalizing the topic matter? I mean considering the amount of hours people have put into the Alpha this news being extrapolated from DICE comments, doesn’t really sound like it holds much water. Just seems like you guys took a square block and shoved it into a round hold and said YEP — thems the facts!

    • http://mp1st.com Fahed

      DarthDiggler, you’re one of our regulars, so I really don’t get why you wrote “Can you guys write 1 article with out over sensationalizing the topic matter?” ’cause we have plenty of straight forward titles.

      I’m going to ask Veselka to reply directly to your comment so that we can put this behind us, but we really appreciate your feedback positive or negative.

      Cheers,

    • http://mp1st.com David Veselka

      All I’d like to say, DarthDiggler (is it okay that I chuckle a little bit inside every time I say this name?), is thank you for letting us know how you feel about our articles in a civilized mannor. We do take your comments to heart.

      As for this title, it is a little more dramatic to say there will be LESS destructible environments than saying there will be MORE indestructible covers. But sometimes you gotta be a little more dramatic

      By the way, there is an update coming to this article soon that should clear up a few things.

      Thanks again for your comments!

      • memememe

        The biggest reason I didn’t enjoy BF 3 nearly as much was because of how destructible environments were “gone.” When I say “gone” I mean that they were basically taken out. Sure there were still destructible environments but compared to BC 1 and 2, they were almost nonexistent. The destructible environments were fun and added so much more depth to the gameplay. That’s one of the reasons I played BF more than CoD. They better keep fully destructible environments in BF 4.

    • Dogeatdog

      now we are actually playing the game and yes the destructability has been reduced especially on maps that are in cities I smell MOH features in BF3 with all of the indestructable metal fences that take c4 like a champ also dont like the death funnels like in MOH BF3 if in the caution if you continue the next game in this manner the game will be dead to a lot of people

  • Madness

    If you destroy everything, then you get flat land. On flat land, vehicles dominate infantry. Destructibility is a good feature, but balance/fun is more important than realism

  • DarthDiggler

    Ok well maybe I jumped the gun a bit, you guys have been doing an incredible job of staying on top of the BF3 news and it doesn’t seem like you a bunch of COD fan drones.

    I appreciate a little chuckle from my name. It’s Boogie Nights and Star Wars what’s not to like? :)

  • i_like_pom

    i like pom

  • Dag

    shocking…. it feels dangerously simular to MOH…. getting rid of the destructables was ur biggest mistake.. they are why bf is what it is :/… lame fuck this beta cack cack cack

  • Pingback: BF3 – More On Destruction, Ranking System, Squad Issues & Other Important Beta Info | MP1st

  • Caner Özdemir

    Bringing down building was some of the most fun ever.  I wish we still could.

  • http://profiles.google.com/chopster179 Sam Brown

    For people complaining about the so called lack of destruction:

    The reason they are toning it down slightly is due to the fact that after 20 mins of gameplay every map would be flat, as everything would be brought to the ground. This would be boring and so they’ve made it so buildings can be pretty much destroyed, they just remain standing, except for some small buildings which can be destroyed totally, as quoted from a bf3 tweet i saw a while back.

    • Goey

      Refer to reply to Ffs’s comment, Goey.

  • Ffs

    I love this because in BC2, when the game is longer because has a modified ticket count, the map would become unplayable after a while because there was no more cover.

    • Goey

      I disagree that the map became unplayable. I acknowledge that it did become more difficult to win, but that just means you have to up your game. There was still cover in BC2, even in Nelson Bay after you cleared all the trees it was still possible to win as attackers by using the rubble and those stone blocks.

      The possibility of destroying everything on a map just means: (1) attackers have to actually ATTACK, they cannot just sit back and snipe, after all the  most popular game setting is called “Rush” for a reason,  (2) there is a greater emphasis on teamwork, so put on your headset and communicate with your teammates, and (3) the game play experience is given more variety within the same basic construct.

      Also when consider all the maps, in BC2 there were only 2 maps where the destructibility could even come close to being too much. In a level like Nelson Bay maybe a good work around would be for the game developers to keep the fallen trees on the map instead of having them disappear.

  • Ianwinokur

    more destruction is more fun¡

  • Goey

    Less destruction will make the game less fun. It was the only thing I felt that set BFBC2 apart from other first person shooters. I do not game a lot. I can count the number of games I have bought for my both my xbox and xbox360 on one hand, those are the halo first person shooters and BFBC2. I am planning on renting BF3, but I’m not going to buy it if is has significantly less destruction than BFBC2. If the beta is any indication, I probably won’t waste my time and just keep on playing bad company.

  • guest

    WTF, Dice I love you, I love you games, but YOUR F***ING SCREWING ME HERE!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/caleb.mcnevin Caleb McNevin

    I know this is likely not gonna be in BF3 as this whole post is about destruction being toned down, but I think destruction would be much more interesting, even if you couldn’t destroy everything, if it was on less of a vertical plane all the time. For instance, in the end of metro it’d be kinda cool if when you blew a hole in the side of one of those buildings, part of the floor came too, rather than just the wall. idk :p

  • [email protected]

    The one thing I dislike about this, is that in BC2 I knew that every wall could be destroyed. But now, I won’t know what I can, and can’t blow up now. Does this make sense?

  • Cas

    Good job I didn’t throw my receipt away.

  • Pingback: Destruction was never intended to be part of Battlefield-and the problems it can sometimes cause :: The Radio Gamer

  • Jeremy_bob_777

    oh DICE oh DICE why have you forsaken me EPIC FAIL DICE the destructability was what made battlefeild for me I was a vehicle guy until the destruction came along then I enjoyed ground pounding now the destruction took a step backward and the vehicles arent as fun to use now they get blown up to fast. I liked being able to blow walls down and flank or use whole buildings as cover making tunnels through them. now I cant blow up a metal barrier on a side street with 3 bags of C4 I gotta say thats terrible. The Javlin only being able to do top down mode with a soflam lazer designator terrible the. taking 4 javlins to kill the tank terrible. how you cant have flares and a fire extiquisher at the same time terrible. medal of honor multiplayer was terrible, I am a HUGE fan of battlefeild and think its better than cod but bringing any other elements other than airstrikes for MOH has made me ashamed of BF3. Battlefeild has just made my rent before buy list. way to turn gold into lead DICE 

  • Cesar

    I was just playing and a launched a rocket to a wall for a guy who just ran into the building. It did not destroy the wall. That just sucked sooooo bad. The game was much better with more destructibility. I never had an issue with the destructibility being too much in any Battlefield game. That’s what made it a great game. What are you guys thinking?!

  • Doc

    As a developer and a gamer i can see both sides of this. My gamer side tells me this is a mistake and will ruin the fun. But i can also see what the developers are saying. If you have a city map on rush and you end up destroying all the buildings and make the map impassable or make debris on the spawn point it could ruin the game. There is way too many variables to consider with destruction, so they make it alot simpler, but without destroying the experience. You can still blow a hole in the wall, take out the front of a building, but what theyre saying is that they dont want you to be able to completely level a building to the ground. I support this, the game is still fun and has less chance for error

  • jetman

    how bout even thou blowing up buildings makes the game harder, well the remains of the building can still be used as covered, meaning that a building high enoug should leave big rock pieces on the ground to use as cover, or how bout making maps big enough that by the time everyone tries to destroy the whole buildings, the game has already ended and could make it more fun, more tatics to use, real life war, and up to multiple paths to take to make survial more intensive.

settings

close