Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 24, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

How DICE fell in love with destruction Exclusive
How DICE fell in love with destruction
November 15, 2012 | By Christian Nutt, Kris Graft

There's no shortage of video game design that relies on destruction -- stomp on a Goomba, blow up a building, shoot an alien, etc.

Battlefield studio DICE has taken the concept of wanton in-game destruction seriously, as it's become a central differentiator for its Battlefield games and its Frostbite game engine.

Karl-Magnus Troedsson, general manager at Electronic Arts-owned DICE told Gamasutra how more powerful game hardware led the studio to a concept of destruction that would fundamentally change how DICE would design games and tech, going forward.

"[The concentration on destruction] definitely came out of discussions [about] how we would differentiate ourselves to others," said Troedsson. "But also there was a lot of discussion at the time, about how we might utilize the [sarcastic] awesome power of the next gen consoles. It was almost like everyone was a bit high on their own Kool-Aid. You know, people are saying 'You can have so much power -- we can do whatever we want!,' But of course we couldn't."

Troedsson admitted that the current generation of consoles did introduce a lot more power, but the question was what to do with that power, and how to push the (very real) limitations of new consoles.

"From the beginning when we started talking about [more extensive destruction], I didn't think that we actually foresaw how much it would change the gameplay," Troedsson said. "I remember the first playtest that we had with it, and it was almost like we opened Pandora's Box; it was like, "Holy crap, what just happened here?" And everyone just came back and said, 'This is so cool.'"

Earlier DICE games, like the Refractor engine-powered Battlefield 2, did feature destruction, but in limited doses. The Frostbite engine debuted in 2008, powering Battlefield: Bad Company, which allowed players to destroy objects such as parts of walls and parts of vehicles. Battlefield 3 (pictured) uses Frostbite 2 and cranks up the use of destructibility in game design.

"We had one demo I remember [of Battlefield: Bad Company]," recalled Troedsson. "It was the first time there was a helicopter chasing a guy into a house. The guy was in a room and I didn't think anyone had seen him. And there was tank just sitting in this square -- the player was running around in the houses around trying to flank the tank to get to an RPG or something, and the tank was just going 'boom boom boom,' shooting holes in the houses all the time. That meant that [the guy on foot] had to move.

"Compared to what we had before that was so different; that's when the light went on and we thought, 'Okay, this is really going to change what we do.' We actually got a bit nervous there, because that was such a huge change; it was like, 'This is going to alter the core recipe of Battlefield.' But then after more and more playtesting we realized that, wow, it was going to change it for the better."

Related Jobs

Digital Extremes
Digital Extremes — LONDON, Ontario, Canada

University of Central Florida, School of Visual Arts and Design
University of Central Florida, School of Visual Arts and Design — Orlando, Florida, United States

Assistant Professor in Digital Media (Game Design)
The College of New Jersey
The College of New Jersey — Ewing, New Jersey, United States

Assistant Professor - Interactive Multi Media - Tenure Track
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — Prague, Czech Republic

Game Designer


Alex Nichiporchik
profile image
I was a bit disappointed with BF3's level of destruction compared to Bad Company 2. In Bad Company 2 you could leve the whole damn map.

The feeling described in playtests, where the tank goes BOOM BOOM and the campers have to move -- was amazing. On one hand you knew (sitting in the tank) that you could fish out the camper, and on the other hand -- you know that at some point the wall behind you might be gone. So you had to constantly move and be aware of what's going on around you.

I'd always carry an RPG around just for the case of someone camping in an attic somewhere - just to blow a hole in it.

BF3 has that, but not to a degree of where you're hanging out in a building and all of a sudden the "building is about to collapse" noise is triggered and you have to get out fast. Bring it back DICE.

Nooh Ha
profile image
Agreed. Destruction added hugely to the gameplay of BFBC2. It is less pervasive in BF3 but tactical destruction is still a major part of the way I like to play, in particular on the urban maps.

Jorge Molinari
profile image
Agreed. They fell in love with destruction they say… Well so did I. After sinking countless hours in BFBC2 multiplayer, there simply was no going back any non-destruction shooter. Which is why I was especially let down, nay, heartbroken, by the BF3 destruction. Sure, the physics improved a tiny bit because the destruction mesh is now finer. But at the expense of having the majority of the map be non-destructible. Worst trade-off ever. I really wish next gen would be all about the physics (and in turn emergent gameplay) rather than graphics, but I doubt it’ll happen. After all, you can’t show physics in the promotion screenshots and you can fake awesome destruction in the on-rails portion of games which is invariably the footage that you see in AAA game commercials.