After playing Battlefield bad company for a extended amount of time and playing pretty much all previous titles do people think the destruction element in bad company hinders the gameplay in any way?

Personally i thought it would be a total disaster before i gave the game serious time but have now found it really odd going back to battlefield 2 and being unable to flatten the landscape into somthing resembling fallout.

What do you guys/girls think? Whats the element of destructibility brought to battlefield for you?

I really think it was innovative, and something that should be considered a standard in most FPS now. I really think it will be wieird playing COD5 without any destruction; COD4 I can forgive as it was released before Battlefield:BC, but I feel it should be implimented a lot further now that it has been shown to be possible.

If anything, the destruction added to it in BC, however I felt it didn't change the focus of the game, it was still 'Kill these guys however you can' or 'get to co-ordinate B', it never felt like a game where the focus was 'Blow everything/everyone up til you get here and then blow up more!', it just genuinely felt like a refreshing mechanic that helped, and didn't hinder, the gameplay.

I agree with Lashe...games will be expected to follow suit and make the trees able to fall down, and I hope in cod5 when I use my noob tube that the side of a wall will blow up...

the only problem I see is that cod's maps arent as huge as bad companys. So I could see a problem where in say a small map the entire thing being absolutly destroyed nearing the end of the game, allowing no cover left....but hey is that such a bad thing?

I wanna se some terrain deformation, Something in the lines of fracture, but not being a game mechanic. Like Red faction but better.

I loved it. It just gave me something extra to do. Hopefully this wil make other games feature it.

"I wanna se some terrain deformation, Something in the lines of fracture, but not being a game mechanic. Like Red faction but better.
"

Yeah. I can see what you mean, but I just have a feeling there needs to be a level of interaction. Its all well that some games have terrain which is pre-destroyed but I'm not sure that that will cut it now after playing Bad Company.

i'm not sure. I mean, COD5 uses the COD4 engine so there will be no interactivity or destruction there.. I'm just not sure how that will feel. Maybe dated is the word?

"I really think it was innovative, and something that should be considered a standard in most FPS now."

I definately liked being able to make your own path through buildings and such, but it is pretty frustrating having so little cover.

the only problem I see is that cod's maps arent as huge as bad companys. So I could see a problem where in say a small map the entire thing being absolutly destroyed nearing the end of the game, allowing no cover left....but hey is that such a bad thing?"

The more the better, few things blows away the suspension of disbelief as when your tank crash into a wooden fence or when you shoot a rocket at a wooden door and nothing happens.

I don't think bad company has the traditional Battlefield feel to it. It may be because of destructibility but either way, it feels weird.

From what i played of Bad company *the demo* destructable enviorments ruined the gameplay, especially when the enemy would rush forward with all the vehicles and park em ontop of the gold crates and just blow out the walls and have them destroyed about 50 seconds into the game, Not sure how the full game is i've heard its been tweaked so that stuff doesn't happen but i've yet to see it.

Destructable enviorments like any game element if used right can be amazing...

"From what i played of Bad company *the demo* destructable enviorments ruined the gameplay, especially when the enemy would rush forward with all the vehicles and park em ontop of the gold crates and just blow out the walls and have them destroyed about 50 seconds into the game, Not sure how the full game is i've heard its been tweaked so that stuff doesn't happen but i've yet to see it.

Destructable enviorments like any game element if used right can be amazing...
"

I loved it. Blowing up walls to flank enemies was very exciting.  Although, not everything was fully destructable, but it was a lot better than Black.

It certainly was a great thing, and in all honesty when Red Faction came out, I believed that they were going to set the tone for destructible environments.  Then they came out with Red Faction 2 and that blew dick.

It's cool but the novelty wears off very quickly

Pro: Awesome feeling blowing up walls and being able to basically go through the buildings rather than around.

Con: Enemy can blow up the wall you are hiding behind!

"I definately liked being able to make your own path through buildings and such, but it is pretty frustrating having so little cover.
"

I love the destructible environments, and I think they only add to the gameplay.

"After playing Battlefield bad company for a extended amount of time and playing pretty much all previous titles do people think the destruction element in bad company hinders the gameplay in any way?

Personally i thought it would be a total disaster before i gave the game serious time but have now found it really odd going back to battlefield 2 and being unable to flatten the landscape into somthing resembling fallout.

What do you guys/girls think? Whats the element of destructibility brought to battlefield for you?
"

Although the game doesn’t feature true destructibility (like in Red Faction) it more than works for Battlefield.

i think it's great at least in BF:BC's case, it gaves the player more option on how to play the game.

/signed

Destructibilty is a big addition to the 'Battlefield' feel and gameplay. I wouldn't want to miss it for the world! And yes, I will never go back to 'less destructibilty'! Now, I want 'more' and especially 'dynamic realtime' destructibilty. Next game, on my list of games with physics/destructibilty improved environments, is 'Star Wars : The Force Unleashed'. Can't wait to see, how that turns out!

Metal Simulation! Wood Simulation! More Material Simulation! Huuuuiiii! Evolutionary!

P.S. Farcry 2 is the next game I intend to play on launch day. Fire Simulation! Yeeee!

With out the destructibility, im afraid its just another sub par shooter.
Destructibity entirely makes this game.

"WilliamRLBaker said:

"From what i played of Bad company *the demo* destructable enviorments ruined the gameplay, especially when the enemy would rush forward with all the vehicles and park em ontop of the gold crates and just blow out the walls and have them destroyed about 50 seconds into the game, Not sure how the full game is i've heard its been tweaked so that stuff doesn't happen but i've yet to see it.

Destructable enviorments like any game element if used right can be amazing...
"

For some reason i got this same impression from the demo however as im a battlefield fan i still pushed on to purchase the full version. Once playing the full version i have not seen as much of this so id assume some tweaks were made
"

I like that it changed things up from being just another battlefield console game,sure it might not be as deep as battlefield 2,but it made the games combat seem like it had more to offer. In terms of people saying "innovative" though,definitely not. Red Faction started this years ago, with more destruction possible.

I think a good amount of FPS's as the years go on though will have almost full destruction as a standard as time moves on though.

I think its an awesome aspect of this game, and would like to see it in more games. But I would like to see it controlled more. IE only some classes have the ability to blow up types of walls. So for example C4 can blow through anything, whereas the mounted grenade launcher can only go through loose brick or dry-wall walls.  That way you dont have every Tom, Dick, and Harry busting through walls, leaving no room for cover. I do enjoy it in BF:BC however.

I thought that the destruction was awesome