BF2 - So where did destructible environments go???

E

EricDawg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
427
So a bunch of us have been drooling over the reviews saying BF2 would have destructible environments. No more getting nade spammed by someone hiding behind a sand bag while your tanks blasts did nothing. Sigh. Still a lot of that dumb shit in BF2.

What happened to this highly tauted feature? Is it just not in the demo or did they take it out? Or was it never there to begin with and I'm smoking crack? I'm pretty sure I read reviews bragging about this.

Anyone know?
 
Im sure they were talking out of there ass. I say this because, to implement that feature, it would take alot of CPU power to do all that. Think about it, you have 64 people on a server, 32 on each team, this team artility strikes this base, while the other team artility strikes another base. If it was all destructable, im sure it will lag like mother, until its done. Even if it wasnt online, it will still lag pretty bad. I dont think we have the power yet to do that. The only thing I noticed in that game that was destructable was the Artility, UAV tralier, and the vehicles :D
 
In the Demo i belive you can place C4 on the small bridges and blow them up.
Unfortunately the bridges are worthless through my whole time playing in BF2 Demo servers i have yet to see a vehicle cross them blow up or not :rolleyes:
 
donahue said:
I was hiding from a tank behind a box once and it exploded and I died.
Click to expand...


was it the supply box that the commander drops? thats the only box I've seen blow up

anyway, as mentioned the bridges do blow up. My guess is thats what they were talking about. They will have just a few elements of the "environment" be destructible, like bridges, but most everything else, like your sandbags, are just like every other game.
 
Well if thats all that is destructible then they have pioneered nothing.

Destructible terrian will have it's day. But BF2 isn't gonna bring it to us. If i'm not mistaking UE3 will be one of the first big engines out with this feature. By then we will all hopefully have multicore processors that can handle the physics mess that will come with terrain that can be blow to bits.
 
From a server standpoint, destructible terrain is really a piece of cake. From the viewpoint of the server, one moment the object is there. The next it isn't so it allows things to be hit.

The impact is really on the client side. The server sends out an update stating that Object A isn't there anymore. The client will then remove the Object from view. How that is done is what is going to cause lag. If it just >poofs< into thin air, then your client doesn't hiccup. If the Object explodes with resulting hundreds of pieces and physics and what not, then your client has to spend time rendering it if it is in view.

My money is that they just didn't put it in because it would take to much time to get things looking just right on the client side.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
Im sure they were talking out of there ass. I say this because, to implement that feature, it would take alot of CPU power to do all that. Think about it, you have 64 people on a server, 32 on each team, this team artility strikes this base, while the other team artility strikes another base. If it was all destructable, im sure it will lag like mother, until its done. Even if it wasnt online, it will still lag pretty bad. I dont think we have the power yet to do that. The only thing I noticed in that game that was destructable was the Artility, UAV tralier, and the vehicles :D
Click to expand...

Soldner did it almost two years ago, and it supports up to 128 players. Absolutely everything in Soldner was destructable except for the equipment stations, which were essential to play the game. All structures, trees, and the landscape could be fully deformed until there was nothing left. The game ran like butter too but was plagued by other unrelated problems that relegated it to dismal status.

The only thing limiting developers is the developers themselves, and the corporate suits that hold them to absurd release dates.
 
I think it is pretty lame that you can only destroy the artillary, uav trailer, and radar dish with c4. I'm guessing they're coated with anti-depleted uranium tank shells or something.. :rolleyes:
 
I think its really lame that you expect the entire enviroment to be destructible and have the amount of detail presented to us. Soldner was able to accomplish this because its graphics and well almost everything else SUCKED. It wasa bug ridden piece of shit software.

Only key enviroments will be able to be destroyed in BF2, This has not changed, just because one single map does not have any of these key enviroments doesn't mean every other map wont.
 
darkhorse said:
the only thing I noticed was the ability to knock down stop signs.
Click to expand...

thats worth the money you will spend on this game ....lol
 
I'll just settle for blowing up people and their vehicles. Personally I think everyone gets into this hype and expects so much, that they are always led to dissapointment.

Doom III wasn't that bad. I didn't expect anything revolutionary. I didn't expect anything revolutionary with HL2. I enjoyed them as a result.
 
Torgo said:
From a server standpoint, destructible terrain is really a piece of cake. From the viewpoint of the server, one moment the object is there. The next it isn't so it allows things to be hit.

The impact is really on the client side. The server sends out an update stating that Object A isn't there anymore. The client will then remove the Object from view. How that is done is what is going to cause lag. If it just >poofs< into thin air, then your client doesn't hiccup. If the Object explodes with resulting hundreds of pieces and physics and what not, then your client has to spend time rendering it if it is in view.

My money is that they just didn't put it in because it would take to much time to get things looking just right on the client side.
Click to expand...
well with those new physics chips people are startin to get excited about, the client that destroys an object woulod send a little data packet with force and direction info, which the server would distribute to the other clients. the would then use that info to create the proper explosion.
 
ryanrule said:
well with those new physics chips people are startin to get excited about, the client that destroys an object woulod send a little data packet with force and direction info, which the server would distribute to the other clients. the would then use that info to create the proper explosion.
Click to expand...
If you're going to use physics, it more than likely would have to be done server side as well otherwise the indivdiual sand bags (for example) might not end up in the same location as where the server thinks they are.
 
What's wrong with the server computing the effect of the explosion, determining new object geometries, sending them to the client, and tell it to render a big fireball there? It isn't as complicated, but it should work just fine. No flying objects that actually matter. They could be there, but they wouldn't hit you and kill you.
 
Y'all are assuming that the the debris would still be left on the field of play. I'm telling you right now that type of scenario is still a few years off. For what you're talking about (say taking a sandbag wall and blowing it up) taking a few simple polygonal shapes and suddenly increasing the number of polys on the screen by a gigantic factor. Even with today's high end cards, they couldn't handle a persistant environment like that. Your game would increasingly get slower, and slower and slower. Not to mention the memory requirements.

It's the same reason that we don't keep bullethole textures longer than we have to. Eventually it bogs the game down. The first step is to create objects that "done blow up good" with the small debris removed. Leaving large rubble (i.e. building chunks, half a wall) behind wouldn't cause that much pain to the client.
 
um when they said destructable enviorment you guys realy thought everything. If you watched the videos it only showed somethings, like barrels or a pile of trash. I pictured it to be exactly what it is, a step towards everything being destructive. This map is also the demo map, gives you a taste of what the engine can do, but not the full potential. I for one was not impressed by the demo, but the more I played it the more I like it. It is all the little things that make this game great. And what they were talking about with the cover/concielment is that bullets go through things now. explosions seem to alittle but not much. But bullets will tear through certain fences and walls now. go play a single player game, or a small online game and just play around with everything before you totaly dismiss the destructiveness of the game.

As for the c4 being the only thing that can take out artilery, it makes since on a game level. If everything could take them out, then there would be no need for a "special forces." Rember this game realy focuses on teamwork and classes. If everyone could do everything, then what is the need for diffrent classes or for that matter teamwork. I enjoy the fact that this is in the game, relying on the internet to work together is a very hard thing to do but this game does pull it off nicely.
 
the origional redfaction could do this. You could destroy any part of the envirment,
 
ryanrule said:
it made multiplayer teh shiz
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think that was by far my favorite multiplayer game. Its a shame that not too many people played it, and that they took multiplayer out of the second one :(
 
El Nacho said:
Yeah. I think that was by far my favorite multiplayer game. Its a shame that not too many people played it, and that they took multiplayer out of the second one :(
Click to expand...
u never played goldeneye?
 
Torgo said:
Y'all are assuming that the the debris would still be left on the field of play. I'm telling you right now that type of scenario is still a few years off. For what you're talking about (say taking a sandbag wall and blowing it up) taking a few simple polygonal shapes and suddenly increasing the number of polys on the screen by a gigantic factor. Even with today's high end cards, they couldn't handle a persistant environment like that. Your game would increasingly get slower, and slower and slower. Not to mention the memory requirements.

It's the same reason that we don't keep bullethole textures longer than we have to. Eventually it bogs the game down. The first step is to create objects that "done blow up good" with the small debris removed. Leaving large rubble (i.e. building chunks, half a wall) behind wouldn't cause that much pain to the client.
Click to expand...


Why cant we blow walls up with a tank or missle in bf2 with some sort of limit on how many walls in a certain radius which reset after a period of time? To much strain on the system? Obviously you never played the game red faction which is a few years old.

Your talking making models for every single sandbag. Your thinking to hard making it more complicated then it seems. They can just make 1 model of a bunch of sandbags with an animation where an explosion causes the entity to disappear then have sand explode everywhere after all there just bags of sand not titanium. They can do it they just dont want to waste the resources on something mildly complex thats really only for show.
 
I can't wait for the day in some future BF series (if there are anymore) when a tank can actually knock down a puny tree!!! God that is so frustrating in the thick of battle when you get caught up on a tree and can't turn fast enough. :rolleyes:
 
S0m30n3 said:
Why cant we blow walls up with a tank or missle in bf2 with some sort of limit on how many walls in a certain radius which reset after a period of time? To much strain on the system? Obviously you never played the game red faction which is a few years old.
Click to expand...
And you have obviously never designed a game. Seriously think about what you're talking about. You have game that's trying to be a semi-realistic battle simulation and you want to have a limit... that then resets? How exactly does that play out? I can take out half a building, but once I reach my limit then my tank ceases to be effective? How is that fun? Doesn't that destroy the reality?

You gotta realize that the level designers are walking a fine line here. Take the Gulf of Omar map and let's pretend for a minute that you can destroy everything. Anything and everything. What's the first thing that the USMC is going to take out? They're going to level the hotel and every friggin' building. Scorched earth right?

Oh wait, the MEC just flies a jet over and takes out the carrier. Oops! Now the USMC is out of luck. Eventually, every battlefield becomes a field of craters that ends up being a shootout at the OK Corral. Whoopeee! How fun!

In reality, no one practices scorched earth policy anymore. For game design, you need to place actual limits on what can and can not be destroyed. It's a delicate dance of playbalance, entertaining the player and sticking to a desired method of play.

Your talking making models for every single sandbag. Your thinking to hard making it more complicated then it seems. They can just make 1 model of a bunch of sandbags with an animation where an explosion causes the entity to disappear then have sand explode everywhere after all there just bags of sand not titanium.
Click to expand...
Tap the brakes there. Your method is more complicated. I'm talking about a server event (sandbag barrier exploding) being rendered on each individual client using about 500 grouped polys (assuming a 10 x 50 wall of individual sandbags using 2 triangles per bag to make a simple rectangle) suddenly flying in the air and letting the client handle the physics of it flying and bouncing around, after which the rubble disappears freeing up system resources.

You on the other hand are wanting to pre-render this somehow? What... are you talking a 2D animation clip that takes time to load and play? Or are you talking about making a 3D model that explodes in only one way and doesn't take into account the angle or force of the explosion? Not only is that going to look goofy as hell, it's not necessary. The developer isn't going to take several weeks of time to pre-render every single wall that falls down, every building that explodes and every sandbag! You've got to be kidding. No, they're going to spend $100,000 on buying a physics engine that plugs-in and all you need to tell it is "Object A blows up". The physics engine will do all the quick math (angle of attack + force upon objects) and do it for them. Hey, the physics engine can even figure out how many and which bags are now "powder". It looks better and it's much, much easier. Even if I did it your way with a pre-rendered 3D explosion, you'll still have the same number of increasing polys due to rubble.

Look, it boils down to this. You can blow up as many things as you want. You're only limited by the client being able to handle the resulting increase in polys on screen, the additional physics load from debris moving, and restrictions on object descruction based on criteria set forth from the level designer. What you have in BF2 is what it is.
 
OTL said:
Soldner did it almost two years ago, and it supports up to 128 players. Absolutely everything in Soldner was destructable except for the equipment stations, which were essential to play the game. All structures, trees, and the landscape could be fully deformed until there was nothing left. The game ran like butter too but was plagued by other unrelated problems that relegated it to dismal status.

The only thing limiting developers is the developers themselves, and the corporate suits that hold them to absurd release dates.
Click to expand...


To the point of absurdity - a bridge exploding into millions of fragments because you've clipped it with a corner of your car? Yes please!

I heard that some scenery would be destructible early on in a PCG preview last year, but they didn't specify - i assumed they meant buildings, but maybe they were being intentionally vague because the best they had was destructible bridges and tin fences penetrable by handgun fire.
 
Something is better than nothing, I dont need high quality realistic explosions to enjoy the fact I can now blow the side of a building up and toss a gren in. Or take out the guy thats spamming grens from inside through a hole I made with my tank, or to blow up some sandbags to get my tank through even though in reality I could run right over them. I guess the stuff im suggesting is all made up sci-fi shit I mean who ever heard of a tank being able to blow a hole in a building even though you keep talking about realism. Who cares if it has a limit and resets, the vehicles do that dont they? Would you think its better they blow up and an engineer has to find it and fix it? I didnt say anything and everything just everything in reason, everything most people would want in moderation. Lets take a step forward with environmental interactivity. Look at tribes, it had big maps with structures and vehicles. Its been done the only thing there doing is making it bigger and prettier whoop dee doo that just means less action more graphics and more time spent in a vehicle to go and cap a point to get back in it and cap another point.

You even contradict yourself.

"but once I reach my limit then my tank ceases to be effective? How is that fun? Doesn't that destroy the reality" Not being able to blow a hole in a wall is not reality but I guess shooting it over and over and nothing happening is realistic to you. The limit is to cut back on what? Resources, just like they do with the vehicles and map size depending on players.

Some>none = more fun

Its possible, its been possible. It might not be that pretty but its better then shooting shit and nothing happening.
 
S0m3On3 said:
I guess the stuff im suggesting is all made up sci-fi shit I mean who ever heard of a tank being able to blow a hole in a building even though you keep talking about realism.
Click to expand...
S0m30n3, yes you are talking about sci-fi when it comes to actually doing a game like you want. Even so, that example would take out a building rather than punch a hole in it.

Hey, it would be great if we could do all that you listed, but we're just not to that point yet nor would it make it a fun game in the long run. The modern military game is all about preserving assets, be it equipment, buildings or people. Please take my word for it. Look, I hate to pull the "I know more than you" card at this point, but... I do. I'm absolutely right on this. You're close in wanting more features, but not at the expense of playability and balance.
 
You most likely do know more than me but the way I see it is. Past games such as red faction you could blow holes in shit lots of holes. Far cry had a big enviroment and vehicles with impressive grapihcs. Combine that and you have a big stunning environment with shit that you can blow up. Whats so hard about that? After a few years we should be able to have both. But we dont.
 
Torgo said:
S0m30n3, yes you are talking about sci-fi when it comes to actually doing a game like you want. Even so, that example would take out a building rather than punch a hole in it.
QUOTE]

Not if its a military building reinforced with steel beams. :confused: :p


btw aoe is a damn good game :)
Click to expand...
 
PPU FTW!!!

once the ppu becomes mainstream then we will see some truly incredible physics/destructible environments in games. I am much more interested to see developers start integrating the ppu into their games than integrating say SM3 into their games. I mean the games look great as it is, if you think about it physics are awful.
 
S0m30n3 said:
You most likely do know more than me but the way I see it is. Past games such as red faction you could blow holes in shit lots of holes. Far cry had a big enviroment and vehicles with impressive grapihcs. Combine that and you have a big stunning environment with shit that you can blow up. Whats so hard about that? After a few years we should be able to have both. But we dont.
Click to expand...


Also, just because you blow a hole in a building doesnt mean you have to make it fall. They could very easily limit the amount of "holes" in a building. BF is supposed mimic real warfar, and in real war....shit goes "boom"
 
El Nacho said:
Also, just because you blow a hole in a building doesnt mean you have to make it fall. They could very easily limit the amount of "holes" in a building. BF is supposed mimic real warfar, and in real war....shit goes "boom"
Click to expand...
mimics...not emulates
 
El Nacho said:
Also, just because you blow a hole in a building doesnt mean you have to make it fall. They could very easily limit the amount of "holes" in a building. BF is supposed mimic real warfar, and in real war....shit goes "boom"
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm seeing a way out of this that gets you want you want (things that go boom more) but keeping in with what the designer wants. If buildings (or collateral) were assigned a negative ticket value, then you could take it out, knock holes in it or what have you. You can do it, but you wouldn't want to because of the cost attached to it. That keeps with the intention of real warfare where damaging infrastructure is discouraged.

That presents some interesting choices at that point where you have a decision of do you take out a civilian's house to get the sniper? Is it worth the cost or is there a better way? Now that's something I can get behind. There are some things that have to be invulnerable just to playbalance the terrain, but gives you more of what you want.

As for "real war.... shit goes boom", you don't know the half of it. My family deals with it on a daily basis in the most graphic terms. That's just part of the reason that I feel a line needs to exist between having fun with a war sim and getting too graphic and real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top