• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Destructible environments?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Destruction, lol, should be renamed "Light vandalism".

I've only ever noticed destruction on Spartanovka, specifically to houses that you couldn't even enter. Got pretty much tricked from pre release footage and interviews talking about destruction.

I remember one specific video in which they displayed "destruction" on Gumrak. What they never said was that the building they were blowing up, players could not get into in the first place. Cheap, cheap, cheap.
 
Upvote 0
#22
It's certainly not the fidelity of the bf series or anything but there is bunch of stuff that is destructible. The only issue is there isn't a whole lot of consistency on this from map to map so it can be hard to tell until you've played each map a bunch. Usually it takes a lot of damage to do it also, in some cases multiple arty hits. Here is my list:

Destructible on most maps:
Fences
Some Very low walls
Movable "furniture" type items
Trams and railway cars (fully for rr cars, partially on trolleys)

Fallen fighters:
The small phone booth type structures
The center fountain. (I think also the other monuments but not sure)

Red October:
Small square mini buildings
Fuel tanks (again not 100 percent sure on this one)
Some ruins walls?

Spartanokova:
All non-enterable buildings. (multiple levels of destruction)

Barracks:
?

Apartments:
Can move around some furniture, that's all I think.

Grain elevator:
?

Station:
All rr cars.
Small boxy buildings near edge of the map.
 
Upvote 0
#23
If you went into RO2 expecting BC2 level of destruction, you read what you wanted to into TWI interviews. It was pretty clear months before beta we shouldn't expect anything like that, and they went to great pains to spell out what it wouldn't be and why they wouldn't be doing it.

If you're "disappointed" in RO2's level of destructiveness, you served it to yourself and are laying at their doorstep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poerisija
Upvote 0
#25
Sheps said:
Destruction, lol, should be renamed "Light vandalism".

I've only ever noticed destruction on Spartanovka, specifically to houses that you couldn't even enter. Got pretty much tricked from pre release footage and interviews talking about destruction.

I remember one specific video in which they displayed "destruction" on Gumrak. What they never said was that the building they were blowing up, players could not get into in the first place. Cheap, cheap, cheap.
Click to expand...

LOL "light vandalism"

i agree completely, if tripwire was smart they would remove all signs of destruction...because what is destructible right now is just laughable

non-enter-able buildings and railroad cars can be blown completely?? and yet sandbags behave like SOLID CONCRETE (except for bullet penetration of course)
 
Upvote 0
#26
Nenjin said:
If you went into RO2 expecting BC2 level of destruction, you read what you wanted to into TWI interviews. It was pretty clear months before beta we shouldn't expect anything like that, and they went to great pains to spell out what it wouldn't be and why they wouldn't be doing it.

If you're "disappointed" in RO2's level of destructiveness, you served it to yourself and are laying at their doorstep.
Click to expand...

i wasnt expecting BC2, but i was under the impression that walls and such could be destroyed by tanks/satchels.
 
Upvote 0
#27
This is all in your heads, people. You heard the words "Destructible environments" and came up with your own ideas what that meant. Tripwire never promised anything specific other than saying some non-critical stuff can be destroyed and that tanks won't get stuck on wooden fences anymore (ie they crush them rather). Spartanovka was used as an example in a presentation where non-enterable buildings could be partially be destroyed.

All they promised in terms of destructible environments is in the game, if you think they promised more you were reading too much into what little was said on conventions before release.
 
Upvote 0
#29
Sufyan said:
This is all in your heads, people. You heard the words "Destructible environments" and came up with your own ideas what that meant. Tripwire never promised anything specific other than saying some non-critical stuff can be destroyed and that tanks won't get stuck on wooden fences anymore (ie they crush them rather). Spartanovka was used as an example in a presentation where non-enterable buildings could be partially be destroyed.

All they promised in terms of destructible environments is in the game, if you think they promised more you were reading too much into what little was said on conventions before release.
Click to expand...

Reading too much into it? Lmfao are you serious? TWI talked numerous times about their "destructable" enviroments and painted a picture of actual destruction, not what they delivered.

To put this in the form of a metaphor. TWI announced to the thirsty that they had water that they wanted to give everyone. So we put down our money and show up at their doorsteps only to see them handing out a single teaspoon of salt water.

If something is so utterly minimal like destruction, don't talk about it like it's even worth anything. They should have saved their time and worked on fixing bugs because at the moment destruction has absolutely not affect on the battlefield.
 
Upvote 0
#31
Reading too much into it? Lmfao are you serious? TWI talked numerous times about their "destructable" enviroments and painted a picture of actual destruction, not what they delivered.
Click to expand...
I watched all the convention videos. I read damn near all the interviews. I watched where Ramm pointed to something and said "see, that's it getting destroyed." In the same interview he mentions that some buildings aren't enterable on Spartanovka.

I like how you talk like you took the time to inform yourself before buying this game, and are claiming you've been lied to, when the people that actually knew the score aren't feeling ripped off at all. I got exactly what I expected to.

Don't blame TWI because you didn't learn anything about the game you threw your money at. People shouldn't have to tell you to be an informed buyer in this day and age, assuming you're an adult and know the value of your own dollar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minstrel and Poerisija
Upvote 0
#33
Sufyan said:
This is all in your heads, people. You heard the words "Destructible environments" and came up with your own ideas what that meant. Tripwire never promised anything specific other than saying some non-critical stuff can be destroyed and that tanks won't get stuck on wooden fences anymore (ie they crush them rather). Spartanovka was used as an example in a presentation where non-enterable buildings could be partially be destroyed.

All they promised in terms of destructible environments is in the game, if you think they promised more you were reading too much into what little was said on conventions before release.
Click to expand...

Is this joke? Are you suggesting that a "destructible environment" consists of breakable picket fences? And what is the point of a destructible building if you can't enter it? Is it just eye candy? "Oh look at that building over there on the edge of the map that we can't enter....lets blow it up!!!">>>Why would I have any interest in blowing up a building that I know is empty as a guaranteed fact? Those un-enterable yet destroyable buildings are just placeholders and filler buildings anyway...they hardly add to any sort of cover or tactical obstacle...
 
Upvote 0
#34
Oh so this is now a debate over semantics?

Seriously. Do you people spend your own money on video games? Do you see a game promising "most amazing life experience ever", buy it without trying to find out what that means, and then come to their forums to ***** that it wasn't what you didn't know it was!

I played the **** out of BC2. When I heard "destructible environments" in RO2, it's the first thing I thought of. And I immediately found out it wasn't BC2. Because I can read.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Unreal 3 doesn't really have destructible environments, that's just how it is. The destructible environments that they did code in were obviously hacked together to appease the fans, and they deserve props for even getting that in.

To be honest, 64-man servers already adds quite a bit of latency overhead even without destructible environments (although I can't help but feel this is due to bad optimization).
 
Upvote 0
#37
Mike133 said:
Is this joke? Are you suggesting that a "destructible environment" consists of breakable picket fences? And what is the point of a destructible building if you can't enter it? Is it just eye candy? "Oh look at that building over there on the edge of the map that we can't enter....lets blow it up!!!">>>Why would I have any interest in blowing up a building that I know is empty as a guaranteed fact? Those un-enterable yet destroyable buildings are just placeholders and filler buildings anyway...they hardly add to any sort of cover or tactical obstacle...
Click to expand...

Not that I wouldn't like to see more destructibility, cause I would, but the other destructible buildings (on maps other than spartanakova) ARE enterable. I agree that right now it's a very minimal impact on gameplay as 99 percent of the time if somebody gets killed due to destructibility it will be due to arty as opposed to a 'targeted' attack, but to a degree that will be the case with even more realistic destructibility. (especially since bullets penetrate anyway) again, don't get me wrong I'd love to see this improved but it was also pretty clear watching pre-release stuff that this is more or less what we were getting.
 
Upvote 0
#38
Sheps said:
If something is so utterly minimal like destruction, don't talk about it like it's even worth anything. They should have saved their time and worked on fixing bugs because at the moment destruction has absolutely not affect on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

When did Tripwire ever make a big deal about destructible environments? Was it ever a major selling point? As far as I can remember, they only brought it up because people were asking if tanks were going to get stuck on wooden fences like in RO1. I followed the development of this game and I never saw them hype up destruction to be a hugely important and impressive feature. Fact is in the spartanovka presentation they specifically said that the level of destruction would be minor as to not affect gameplay negatively (ie you won't be able to flatten all the cover to make progress difficult).

Show me the press material you were basing your big expectations on and I might concede defeat.
 
Upvote 0
#39
Not sure about other people... but I'm fine with the level of destruction.
I little more would be nice, But I did not expect anymore that what I have seen.

This is not BC2 with 6 buildings and a few damage zones modeled.
Almost all the buildings are different and that is why it has not been done.

A few more maps with spartanovka levels would be great though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu