Because the servers and connection won't be able to handle it. If it was done dynamically each of those bombs would need to be calculated, as would the destructive patter of the affected stuff, which would cause huge load, followed by having to tell everyone exactly what had just happened, more load.

Fully destructable would make sense and I suppose the rubble should become cover they would have to do it effictively so it didn't suck. Otherwise you will end up with a flat landscape and you'll just get raped by tanks all day...

If it was truly fully destructable you would just end up with dust everywhere... It would be interesting tactically, like using rubble to crush people and create makeshift cover, or destroy the enemies cover. It would be a massive undertaking in gameplay.

I think it would be hard to make it work correctly though. I mean if rubble falls on someone and they die is it the person to made the rubbles kill or do they just simply die? :/

I think this would be best done in like a desert warfare.. In and out of small town with bumpy surfaces. When strikes his the surfaces should change round the explosions.

That way you would still have some decent cover. Underground passages wouldn't be such a bad idea either. So you would have cover from airstrikes and artillery.

Something like that would make the game more fair.

It's an interesting concept, it would need to be done properly, is all I can really say.

Thats the only real way to make the gameplay fair and not get spammed spawn raped by tanks, planes and helicopters all day. If it was made like that I think it would be pretty insane and definately worth its usual unstableness. 2142 however is just a pain in the ass and the gameplay wasn't worth the mindless crashing..

I would really like to see properly destructible environments, and not just Physx only titles. However, it needs some form of damage limitation and serious usefulness (good cover).

PhysX enabled servers? If it were done correctly, the server would say the bomb has dropped and the client would do the rest, and store it in volatile memory.

If the client does the rest you have a high chance to cause a lot of mismatch.

It would have to be done correctly. Which is where the problem begins with a simple two letters: EA

We really need an independent company to do this, not getting pushed by a mega coorperation to release it. Someone like Valve would be good for pioneering it.

Bets on if Valve did it, it would go Source. That wouldn't be good. Source is a great engine, but it's looking very dated when compared to the likes of the Reality Engine and CryEngine 2.

Source is a fantastic engine, and they are keeping it going very well (Source 2007 has some incredible updates, larger maps, higher quality graphics in general, multicore support). I was using Valve as an example, as they are completely independent of companies like EA pushing them, they use their own deadlines.

Even so. Failing at graphics they would still make the game to be actually stable about 99% of the time rather than about 50% of the time -_-

They may not make the most impressive games but they generally make them to a high standard at the same time. But I must agree with Aaron in saying source just wouldn't work with BF..

Its not the right kind or style really. It's just generally annoying how EA publish such awesome games but their always at a low standard..

Valve are very good at making incredibly enjoyable and immersive games, IMO, and very smooth running. We need more developers like them, but not making games like them, other games, like BF, just to their standard.

EA have great game concepts, but waste them so much with shoddy implementation.

Agreed.

Slightly pointless post.

Anyway, BF3 is going to be like BF2, isn't it? I wonder if they'll keep the commander mechanic, it was a good idea but poorly used by players, I think they need to improve the teamwork mechanics to be more persuasive.

We shall have to wait and see. We can say alot about how we want it to be but in all honesty I do not think it will happen..

Yeah, I actually think it's probably a couple of years off, yet.

I dunno if its been in de delopment already stuff should be released about it soonish. Considering 2142 has been out for quite a while I would think they would have got stuck into BF3. Probably just have nothing to show from it yet which is why all we have to go by is rumours..

I didn't mean BF3, just the fully destructible environments. I think Crysis may be a big step, but there will be some way to go.

As for BF3, we can probably expect it next year or 09, I would guess. Probs late next.

Could go either way really. EA are usually quite good for not setting games back alot. So when they say its coming it out it is usually pretty close to that estimated time. Maybe where they go wrong.

As for destructable stuff I would hope do it in a fair way. Though I honestly can't see whole building being knocked down.

That's the main reason EA games fail... they push them out too quickly.

Seems it. Though they do tend to patch it. Aparently the 2142 bugs have been fixed so its more stable. It's just kinda lame it didn't work properly originally...

Well they often need a few months of patches, and by that time they've lost a lot of players to bugs, and they won't come back because they stopped caring. It's much better to release a solid finish game and release smaller bug fixes and balance tweaks in patches. Maps aswell, or even new features can sometimes be good (UT04 had a bonus patch that added more vehicles).