[quote]Rubin said that they didn't want to make everything destructible, because that runs the risk of players leveling everything to the ground and making the map "just flat and not very interesting."[/quote]
Well of course this doesn't work in a game where all the maps are tiny and everyone has rocket launchers and grenades coming out of their asses every ten seconds. BC2 combated this issue by making the maps huge and full of stuff to destroy, complete with shifting goals, so by the time one area was destroyed, there'd be a whole new area to destroy.
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;41863953]Well of course this doesn't work in a game where all the maps are tiny and everyone has rocket launchers and grenades coming out of their asses every ten seconds. BC2 combated this issue by making the maps huge and full of stuff to destroy, complete with shifting goals, so by the time one area was destroyed, there'd be a whole new area to destroy.[/QUOTE]
You can't compare Battlefield and Call of Duty.
Interactive fish: HORY SHET THE FUTUR!!!!!!!1
Fully-destructible environments: PFFT. That shit is for Battlefield!
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;41864027]You can't compare Battlefield and Call of Duty.[/QUOTE]
yes you can what
[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;41863953]Well of course this doesn't work in a game where all the maps are tiny and everyone has rocket launchers and grenades coming out of their asses every ten seconds. BC2 combated this issue by making the maps huge and full of stuff to destroy, complete with shifting goals, so by the time one area was destroyed, there'd be a whole new area to destroy.[/QUOTE]
BC2 still suffered issues when everything was flattened, other than the fact that a lot of the destructible buildings were spread out and really not that numerous, it caused tanks and helis to have far too much power, with nowhere for infantry to really hide.
Though what IW are calling "destructible" here doesn't really mean shit.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41864052]BC2 still suffered issues when everything was flattened, other than the fact that a lot of the destructible buildings were spread out and really not that numerous, it caused tanks and helis to have far too much power, with nowhere for infantry to really hide.
Though what IW are calling "destructible" here doesn't really mean shit.[/QUOTE]
Beat me to it this time :v:
[QUOTE=NixNax123;41864046]yes you can what[/QUOTE]
Partially yes, but in the end they are completely different types of shooters and shouldn't be compared in the areas that separate them, because that makes no sense. In this case though it does make sense because it's providing a reason why something works in one of them, but not the other.
Call of Duty would be fucking terrible with full level destruction. You already die to explosives every other spawn, now imagine all the walls knocked out and buildings collapsed.
Wasn't there a map in Black Ops 1 with an outpost around a crevasse with rock bridges you could use to cross over, which were destructable by explosives? If there's more tactical stuff like that, I can sorta see it working out.
Yes, because "revolutionary" fish AI that's actually as old as Super Mario 64 and a CGI mutt are far more interesting.
It's like they decided all that innovation in the last 20-30 years ain't shit unless it's related to guns, explosions and multiplayer, up until this very moment. Now they're scrambling to "innovate" while literally everyone else sighs and nods.
[QUOTE=TurboSax;41864357]Yes, because "revolutionary" fish AI that's actually as old as Super Mario 64 and a CGI mutt are far more interesting.
It's like they decided all that innovation in the last 20-30 years ain't shit unless it's related to guns, explosions and multiplayer, up until this very moment. Now they're scrambling to "innovate" while literally everyone else sighs and nods.[/QUOTE]
They never called it revolutionary
This is pretty much the exact same thing DICE said when making BC2. When they allowed the whole level to be flattened, it wasn't fun fighting on any more.
"We only know how to copy paste from previous titles and change out the maps, Full environmental destruction is beyond our limited capabilities"
It wouldn't work very well in shoe box sized maps anyway
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;41864027]You can't compare Battlefield and Call of Duty.[/QUOTE]
COD seems to be comparing themselves to Battlefield.
Destructible environments have their place in certain kinds of games and maps.
Can you imagine if Quake had destructible environments? There wouldn't be a map 5 minutes into a match, it'd be a hill.
Or in the case of some maps, there would literally be no map, only space.
[QUOTE=NixNax123;41864046]yes you can what[/QUOTE]
you can't, for the same reason you can't compare metallica to justin bieber
[QUOTE=TurboSax;41864357]Yes, because "revolutionary" fish AI that's actually as old as Super Mario 64 and a CGI mutt are far more interesting.
It's like they decided all that innovation in the last 20-30 years ain't shit unless it's related to guns, explosions and multiplayer, up until this very moment. Now they're scrambling to "innovate" while literally everyone else sighs and nods.[/QUOTE]
are you guys so desperate to criticize a game you'll never buy or play that you're clinging to a single feature that one of the developers mentioned off of the top of his head while listing some of the new bits of technology they've added to the game?
this dog joke and fish joke is really fucking irritating, and i can't wait until facepunch deems it unfunny and dumb.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41865041]are you guys so desperate to criticize a game you'll never buy or play that you're clinging to a single feature that one of the developers mentioned off of the top of his head while listing some of the new bits of technology they've added to the game?
this dog joke and fish joke is really fucking irritating, and i can't wait until facepunch deems it unfunny and dumb.[/QUOTE]
That wont stop people making jokes about it.
They probably can't even make fully destructible environments anyway.
[QUOTE=gazzy_GUI;41865510]That wont stop people making jokes about it.
They probably can't even make fully destructible environments anyway.[/QUOTE]
why would they? like, there's no logical reason to have a fully destructible map in call of duty
There are always reasons for a fully destroyable map, even if it doesn't adhere to balance or logic.
[QUOTE=gazzy_GUI;41865545]There are always reasons for a fully destroyable map, even if it doesn't adhere to balance or logic.[/QUOTE]
It was fun to blow up walls in Red Faction, sure, but other than a technological marvel, you can't just throw dynamic destruction into multiplayer without either severe balance issues or a severe tax on the netcode (unless it's damn good netcode). Battlefield 3 eases itself out with relatively simple destruction of specific walls and objects, but then the game kinda had that from the ground-up from the Bad Company titles; I believe Call of Duty [i]still[/i] is running on an self-updated derivative of IDtech, which isn't as fortunate.
There's no point, no reason to champion destructible environments for everything other than technology porn.
How is making a map completely different not interesting? Fighting in the ruins of a town can be very fun.
[QUOTE=roxter;41865744]How is making a map completely different not interesting? Fighting in the ruins of a town can be very fun.[/QUOTE]
Because part of Call of Duty's gameplay is learning the ins and outs of the maps, and using that knowledge to get the upper hand over enemies. That gets completely thrown out of the fucking window if somebody could just blow up one of the map's big landmarks.
BC2's destruction really changed the game completely for me.
If I was holed up in a building getting shot at with a bunch of other people also hiding, normally we'd just get cleared out, but what I did was plant C4 everywhere around the building, tell everyone to get out and then destroy it. The people shooting at us walked away, thinking that one of them had destroyed it and we were all dead.
This stuff really improves teamwork and makes gameplay a whole lot more interesting.
[QUOTE=gazzy_GUI;41865545]There are always reasons for a fully destroyable map, even if it doesn't adhere to [B]balance or logic[/B].[/QUOTE]
wut. Balance is super important in games like this. I mean, IW typically does a poor job with balance, they don't need to make it any worse. There's a lot of good reasons for not having a fully destructible map, especially for these types of shooters.
Buildings are one of the few things that balance out killstreaks. All the people that think CoD would be better with full destructible environments seem to forget about shit like helicopters, airstrikes, and other annoying killstreaks.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAeU7nPtWFA[/url]
Pfft, to me, the Red Faction is still the best environment destruction system of all time.
I liked on the Bad Company games where maps would go from normal to flat with practically no cover. It would totally change people's play styles and make the final moments more intense.
On Rush gamemodes it also gave the attackers a bit more of a helping hand to take the objectives.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;41866329]I liked on the Bad Company games where maps would go from normal to flat with practically no cover. It would totally change people's play styles and make the final moments more intense.
On Rush gamemodes it also gave the attackers a bit more of a helping hand to take the objectives.[/QUOTE]
The only reason Rush was good in BC2 was planting C4 all around the building with the MCOM station, planting the bomb, waiting for someone to defuse it and then collapse the building, destroying the station and everyone inside.
[editline]17th August 2013[/editline]
BF3's rush sucked because you couldn't do this. :c
[QUOTE=Mr. Tripp;41866840]
BF3's rush sucked because you couldn't do this. :c[/QUOTE]
You couldn't do it because it was dumb. One guy running into a building with mines or C4 completely destroyed the idea of rush wherein attackers had to use teamwork to defeat a more foe fighting from better cover and sightlines.
Was even worse when tanks became involved because they could snipe from their spawn to destroy the first MCOM buildings.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
