So technology improvements used to create novel and emergent gameplay rather than shinier graphics is bad?

No, thinking of "a concept of destruction" as novel and emergent gameplay is the problem.

Not really Christian. In most games buildings/walls/landscape are pretty static(ie impenetrable landscape and walls.) Destruction creates a dynamic world that can be changed in an instant. Need to get to the next room....blow the wall up. Or create an open space by destroying cover making an objective much harder to take, is there a group of people camping around the corner in a city landscape>rpg the upper part of the building to have it take out the team from falling debris. As much as you may see it as not being emergent gameplay, it has a large impact on how a game will be played.

" Destruction creates a dynamic world that can be changed in an instant. Need to get to the next room....blow the wall up. Or create an open space by destroying cover making an objective much harder to take, is there a group of people camping around the corner in a city landscape>rpg the upper part of the building to have it take out the team from falling debris. As much as you may see it as not being emergent gameplay, it has a large impact on how a game will be played. "

Unless developers start thinking about gameplay, that isn't solely based on the 3 basic principles of destruction, mutilation and murder, games won't emerge in any form.
Interaction with the world in games right now is done with the grenade launcher and social interaction is done with the knife.
It's time for games to grow up, puberty is only entertaining for a certain ammount of time.

"Interaction with the world in games right now is done with the grenade launcher and social interaction is done with the knife. It's time for games to grow up, puberty is only entertaining for a certain amount of time."

DICE is known for Battlefield--its a military shooter--yes there is going to be killing and explosions. You are speaking of versus interaction. Yes this is what happens....

On the opposite side of the spectrum...there is a team of 12(on console) people working together to accomplish a common goal--generally all using headsets--sharing ammo, sharing health, reviving, repairing vehicles, communicating to take down common threats.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at? If you are looking for games to grow up in an article about war games and destruction, you are going to have a bad time.

Christian, that seems like an oversimplification. As Eric said destructible environments can let players approach game situations in much more creative ways. It might appear all about destruction on the surface but I think on some level its more about creativity!

Now we can finally make Bomberman!

The problem isn't with Destruction 2.0 existing in BF3, but with their apparent desire to show off their technology by allowing a wall to be vapourised with one hit from a grenade launcher (rather than progressively disintegrated with several focused hits, giving the occupants of that building an opportunity to relocate themselves), or allowing a combat knife to break down a locked door (rather than require the placement and delayed detonation of a breaching charge). By exercising a little restraint the relative impact of the tank would seem much more terrifying (although its reload rate could do with being slower). I've played games of BF2 that lasted long enough for the entire snowy village to be flattenned resulting in absolutely zero strategic cover and a ridiculously biased end game.

I get the impression Christian has not played any multplayer Battlefield 3 or BC2 matches. Within the multiplayer shooter genre, Frostbite's destruction tech has had a huge impact on gameplay and game enjoyment (isnt that what games are all about?). It also sets its games well apart from CoD and most other shooter titles IMO. Some of the funniest and most dramatic emergent gameplay moments I have experienced in a MP shooter have come from the collision of physics engine, building destruction, skill and pure chance. It allows gameplay and player actions/reactions that you simply cannot replicate in non desctuctable environment games.

Quoted from Christian: "It's time for games to grow up, puberty is only entertaining for a certain ammount of time."

Remind me not to play any games designed by Christian.

Funniest thing I've read in a long time ~


"Now we can finally make Bomberman!"

+10

I think Christian Keichel is addressing the "follow the gourd mentality". Destruction doesn't add anything the player doesn't believe is valuable. Stating destruction is the "path the a new wave of the future" is being blindly ignorant of the meaning of what you are creating. It's like a child demonstrating emphatic glee over a noise making toy, look it has wheels and wheels are what makes it better.. lets put wheel on everything.

And does "destruction" offer greater gameplay and and complexity ~ it can but it is simply one facet of cut jewel.

And let's be honest here, in an industry plagued by a lack of innovation which so much effort going into it looks a lot more like the automobile industry holding back electric cars or other advancement.

But directly does Battlefield 3 offer greater gameplay and complexity and overall experience through "destruction" ~ very very little. Destruction does not change the gameplay in a meaningful way, and it makes little differnce to the individual gameplay and experience.

Destruction is profound in bomberman however, and has amazing impact on the gameplay and complexity. Or, in other contrats try World of tanks, what does destruction do there? It has moderate to strong impact on the gameplay.

See what you think by comparison.

@Joshua;

I disagree. I played BF3 for a long time and although I have stopped playing it (I think they took the game and potentially the series in the wrong direction), the destruction can have a pretty profound impact on strategy.

You could think of it in terms of constants and variables. Any cover or wall that can be destroyed is a variable. You cannot rely on it for cover, and you cannot rely on it being there at any given time. A second storey apartment might be an excellent position to cover a capture point, for example, but that only remains true until a few explosions turn the cover into a gaping hole. Suddenly the other team needs to adapt their strategy.

In non-destructive FPS multiplayer games, that same situation never actually changes. Every match, for the entire match, that cover will be there.

This also helps in designing maps I suspect. Normally a designer has to be careful about how much cover they use and where it goes. A map can quickly become unbalanced if one side can more easily access a particularly good cover position than the other side. Due to destruction this impact is mitigated. You can have more varied and less balanced cover positions because the other team has tools to render those positions useless.

Alternatively, I have (and have seen others) use the destructible terrain in order to create new cover positions, or better cover positions. And I have (and have seen other people) use explosives to go through walls and bypass dangerous fields of fire, or access safer/faster routes to cover, or simply to avoid being seen.

All in all this means that the dynamic of the game shifts gradually over the course of a match, as players and teams adapt to a changing environment. Adapting to changing environment. I would say that's a pretty important shift in gameplay; people don't play BF3 the same way they play, say, Call of Duty. There is always an element of unknown in the people you are playing against, but when the map itself takes on an element of unknown, the map becomes a character in itself, and it can turn on you or your entire team if you don't adapt to it.

So yes, the end goal is ultimately the same, and the core gameplay will always be man-shoots-man, but every game has its layers of problem solving, and by allowing the players to interact in a meaningful way with the environment, the problem-solving aspect becomes exponential.

I agree that destruction in bomberman may play a more significant roll than it does in BF3...but I believe that many shooters are far more inferior to BF3 because of their lack of destruction.

Yes, the problem with the industry - and there's only ever one - is that people are making too much awesome stuff. It's definitely not that whiny hipster tortured 'artiste' types sit on their thumbs and complain about the stuff everyone else is making.

It is easy for destruction (in bomberman) to have a profound impact on gameplay when the gameplay itself is as simple as it is. At increasing levels of complexity it becomes increasingly difficult for any one mechanic to have a profound impact.

If you added bombs to Pac Man that blew holes in walls, you'd have a very different game. But the more systems you have that can interact with that change, the more exponentially complex the gameplay becomes as a result.

I would say that although bombs in bomberman are obviously a core feature (in that the game would literally be unplayable without them), the impact of destructible environments in BF3 has wider reaching effects simply due to the numerous gameplay systems that interact with it.

That said, I do think that Frostbite 2 and BF3 are a lot of wasted potential buried under the weight of too much oversight and heavy-handed marketing getting its claws into the actual gameplay.

Well said Chris OKeefe. 12:28 post.

Christian. From reading all of your posts here, it seems you take some level of issue with all shooters and DICE's penchant for destruction in particular. Where destruction in a game like BF3 is not of itself gameplay, it is a feature that causes an immediate strategic response; if a player is using cover that has suddenly vaporized, that player has to rethink his safety and strategy. This is the same dynamic battlefield situation that makes real military operations so exhilarating... and terrifying. Ops are planned, but the dynamic battlefield situation demands constant reassessment and adjustment, and in a game, that's gameplay. In essence, BF3 is a board game where the board can be radically changed and strategies need constant adjustment; other shooters involve tactics and some level of strategy, but the environments are static and therefore adjustments are limited. If you're bemoaning shooter gameplay, remember these are based on target practice... which then became tactical sims... which then became video tactical sims... which now became shooter video games. The drama of the battlefield is based on killing or being killed, a terrible target pratice. It's a simple concept, and short of more immersive tech, it's done well... and often. You see this as juvenile, but action movies and shooter games will always exist my friend. Even games like SPEC OPS: THE LINE are only meaningful in SP, otherwise MP is the same target practice.

@Chris Okeefe

In the moment, right there where a building may fall upon you, or uncover your position, I don't think has much impact on the overall game. for 2 reasons.
1 You can respawn almost instantly nearby.
2 Forceful offensive attrition almost always wins, holding in place does not offer advantage.

This I found to be demonstrated through the consistent play of open server games. So where even snipers that moved to and fro and from cover to cover held a much higher probability of a high score.

Destruction affects the game, certainly. But to what degree? 1%? 5%? Does it ever actually sway a win? I played hundreds of hours, thgouh not on teamspeak teams, it never had a percievably distinct advantage like it has in other games.

In a game like World of tanks an entire match can be decided by being behind destructable (s).

Aestetically speaking does BF3 gain from destructables, I woudl say definitely. It makes the game a little more interesting. But I wouldn't confuse this with advantage. Especially when the momentum of play is such a deciding factor of who wins or loses.

@Joshua;

In the instant it doesn't matter for that player, no. But that's very short-sighted; what matters for a player in an instant is a short respawn, but the loss of cover impacts the future of that match a great deal. Cover that has been destroyed doesn't respawn, and that player, along with his teammates, cannot simply return to it. Contrast that with another shooter without destructible cover, and you see scenarios where good cover with good strategic value will be returned to repeatedly.

If an entire building is being used by a squad to hold a point, and suddenly the building is gone, sure those players will respawn but they and their team also no longer have a building from which to defend a point. That has a very real and tangible impact on the progression of a map. In fact I've had plenty of matches where people would destroy a building or cover before the other team even has a chance to reach it, because those buildings have real strategic value that can be removed from play.

The simple removal of a wall can change the dynamic of a map entirely. A wall means that you cannot see or fire at an enemy. Remove it and suddenly many strategies utilizing that wall for a stealthy approach are invalid. How can that not impact the match?

So yes, I'd say that every single match - every one of them - is highly influenced by destructible cover. In fact I've had plenty of Rush matches where if it hadn't been for destructible terrain then my team would have lost. I've had a team beat their head against the enemy defenses to no avail, only to blow a hole in a wall and filter in, forcing the defending team to adjust their tactics. What was working wonderfully for them before suddenly isn't viable, and the attacking team overwhelmed them.

These kinds of events happen on the micro level all the time during a match, directly impacting the results of a fight, and then every single fight that occurs in that same space for the rest of the match. While it's rare for a single destructible to have a definitive impact on a match, I think it's very short-sighted to say that many micro-events happening over the course of a match have no impact on the results. They may not be discernible without being able to analyze every player's actions over the course of a match, but I think it's inarguable that players are constantly forced to adapt to the changing map.

Why do I get the strong impression this is a debate between people who have actually played BFBC2 and BF3 extensively and those that haven't. To suggest that destruction is not integral to BC2's gameplay is, frankly, ridiculous given that many of the Rush mode's gameplay goals can be and often are achieved by destroying the buildings housing the MCOMs.
That they withdrew this in BF3 is a different matter...

@"Why do I get the strong impression this is a debate between people who have actually played BFBC2 and BF3 extensively and those that haven't. To suggest that destruction is not integral to BC2's gameplay is, frankly, ridiculous given that many of the Rush mode's gameplay goals can be and often are achieved by destroying the buildings housing the MCOMs.
That they withdrew this in BF3 is a different matter..."

Could not agree more.

I think a big part of the problem is viewing the destruction as purely destructive rather than immerssive or creative, as it actually tends to be in BF.

For anybody who has any experience with battlefield, it's pretty obvious that destructible environments are core gameplay (best example I can think of is on metro rush destroying the wall in front of the escalators and the walls along the left side at the second set of capture points totally changes the map to favor defenders). I'd argue that they actually took BF3 too far away from destructibility as a gameplay mechanic because they made so many things non-destructible.

Is a BFBC2/BF3 match the most interesting to play before the destruction of after the destruction?

@Luis. During!!!

"For anybody who has any experience with battlefield, it's pretty obvious that destructible environments are core gameplay (best example I can think of is on metro rush destroying the wall in front of the escalators and the walls along the left side at the second set of capture points totally changes the map to favor defenders). I'd argue that they actually took BF3 too far away from destructibility as a gameplay mechanic because they made so many things non-destructible."

This is what I mean though, this wall coming down isn't a natural effect of strategic gameplay, it's a predetermined take away. It always comes down, therefore it's loss does not change the game in a meaningful way. It is simply down for all intents and purposes. And advantage goes always to the higher elevation. But forceful momentive teamwork prevails even here, disadvantage is of course always to the subway folks .. but it's a predetermined disadvantage .. every .. single game.

A crows nest on a second story works just the same. it offers a visibility advantage. Some buildings do offer more unpredictability, but not on the most commonly favored maps.

"If an entire building is being used by a squad to hold a point, and suddenly the building is gone, sure those players will respawn but they and their team also no longer have a building from which to defend a point. That has a very real and tangible impact on the progression of a map. In fact I've had plenty of matches where people would destroy a building or cover before the other team even has a chance to reach it, because those buildings have real strategic value that can be removed from play."

I have never seen this, doesn't mean it isn't there. But I have never noticed that missing a building changes the advantage of attrition in a seriously meaningful way. Yes, it changes the direction of the flow of the game, and yes you can lose a temporary situational advantage. But the win always goes to the team with the greatest ability to force attrition.

Most open server games I have played have all been determined by teamspeak/vent/ect. using skilled player stacking. If there is a more acute advantage to knocking over a building I'm not aware.

I will however concede that in organized well trained professional player only games these advantages are probably considerably more significant.

@"This is what I mean though, this wall coming down isn't a natural effect of strategic gameplay, it's a predetermined take away. It always comes down, therefore it's loss does not change the game in a meaningful way. It is simply down for all intents and purposes. And advantage goes always to the higher elevation. But forceful momentive teamwork prevails even here, disadvantage is of course always to the subway folks .. but it's a predetermined disadvantage .. every .. single game."

I'm not sure I follow. I am talking about Rush, I think you are not. Anyway, the walls don't always come down, and the disadvantage differs greatly. The disadvantage is always to the attackers in Rush, but it's degree varies HUGELY depending on various destructables. Just like the outdoor environment can sway very much in the attackers favor as you destruct the trees between the points, and the last set of points are pretty even depending on which side of the buildings between the two spawns get blown up.

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.

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.

Totally agree.

On one hand, many of the buildings in BF3 are way bigger. Eg. the big apartment buildings in Operation Metro and Seine River are too big to be taken down by RPG's or even tank hits. You can knock out sides of these buildings but can't knock down the whole thing. There was some buildings like BFBC2 like that as well - i.e. the big warehouses.

But there are small little single-family dwellings in both BFBC2 and BF3 and for some reason you could knock down the whole building in BFBC2 (which was tactically needed at times) but in BF3, you just wind up blowing everything away except the frame and the frame still stands.

That said, there ARE some buildings in BF3 that can be blown completely down. I.e. the small gas station buildings on Kharg Island, for eg.

But because there is little rhyme or reason as to what is destructible in BF3, it actually becomes less important in-game. Sure, what can blow up LOOKS cooler - it's just a little less fun.

And so I think that's what DICE should focus most on. I.e. realism of what can be destroyed with what. Eg. in BF3, if I ram a jet into a shipping container, the jet just comes to an abrupt halt as soon as it makes contact, and then it blows up into a bunch of different parts. But the shipping container is fine. It would be cooler if the shipping container tore open. Or guard towers - if a sniper is in the guard tower and you shoot a rocket into it, the windows may break but the gaurd tower doesn't tumble down. But yet some concrete block gas station will crumble with enough hits.

I know I'm asking a lot here, but I think if DICE was serious about it as a gameplay mechanic, they'd take big leaps forward on this & simply make the destruction more intuitive.