Battlefield 5

[Other]Does Map Destruction Really Make the Game Better? I think it makes Battlefield worse.

Battlefield 7 - [Other]Does Map Destruction Really Make the Game Better? I think it makes Battlefield worse.

To begin, BF2 and 2142 are the games that got me into the series, and when map destruction came out, it was a really cool game mechanic. Most of the community also seems to agree that it is a defining feature of Battlefield games and the more, the better. But after years of playing with map destruction, I have come to dislike it, in the forms of random destruction and "Levolution". Random destruction, as in blowing apart buildings with tanks and such, results in plenty of maps ending up as slightly different piles of rubble instead of uniquely different maps with special landmarks.

I know it could be argued that more destruction is more realistic, but I think that one, people blowing up everything with zero regard to collateral damage is quite unrealistic, and two, that should be the last hill to die upon for realism in the Battlefield games that contain map destruction. It could also be argued that map destruction allows for dynamic gameplay as the match progresses, but I disagree with that too since the objectives themselves never change, the map almost always ends up blown to pieces in the same way, and the similar rubble piles make lots of maps feel the same instead of having unique characteristics in the way of buildings.

As for Levolution, the novelty wears off pretty quickly and it can end up making the map simpler and less interesting. Siege of Shanghai is a great example of this where the skyscraper has multiple levels of action and acts as a strategic point for attacking other control points, but after it falls, the map feels pretty flat despite having tall buildings everywhere. And while it makes a map more dynamic than normal, it's an expected event every match and so it gets to be more annoying than cool.


The destruction of pieces of the map is certainly cool and it belongs in Battlefield, but I think it has gone a little too far. For example, Battlefield 2 had the destruction of map features like bridges, but engineers could also repair them on the fly which created much more dynamic matches than permanent, irreparable map destruction. And I can understand the frustration of people who like tanks who can't seem to kill a guy and/or his squad who are holed up in a building and can hide behind simple walls as cover from a tank shell.

I think a fix for this is either making tank shells more fragmenting for anti-personnel purposes, or applying penetrating directional damage to surfaces that normally would have been destructible. As in a guy with a rocket launcher hiding in a building would get killed by the blast of a missile or tank shell hitting the wall he's using for cover, but the wall and building don't fall down. This should be a good balance between combat that feels realistic and maintaining a unique map that was built the way it was to improve gameplay.

TLDR; Destruction is cool, but too much can make a map worse and make it feel like every other map.

Source: Original link

© Post "[Other]Does Map Destruction Really Make the Game Better? I think it makes Battlefield worse." for game Battlefield 5.

Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020

2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.

Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]

2020 has a ton to look forward the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *