Going backward it seems.

http://news.tgn.tv/battlefield-3-destru ... ng-nerfed/

just before I start reading the article: if this is about a rifle grenade not being able to blow up a whole damn wall, then that's great. one of the things I disliked in bc2.

Not sure if I would want everything 100% destructible anyways. So I don't look at this as going backwards, but really adjusting to larger scale maps, and more vehicles that could cause more damage to structures. If you had complete destructibility, the air vehicles could dominate the map.

RO2 has a full destruction model but TWI decided on limiting the effects simply because its no fun running around an empty map if you destroy everything..lol

Much more fun running around in ruined buildings..

I agree 100% destruction would be fun to try but i can see it getting old fast as there would be no cover I am still waiting for the day when a building can collapse and you can run through the debris of it and use that as cover, that would fix the problem of no cover. It seems in FB2 the debris just disappears, maybe FB 3.0 will do that.

You do realise this is a blogger commenting on an IGN article? It's great how people read a blog from some random person who has written a rather lazy article and take it as truth.

zh1nt0 revealed that not everything will be destructible on DRMB podcast which you can find here and gives reasons for it, much like the same reasons TW have given in regards to destruction as Butch pointed out. It's about 9 minutes in when he starts talking about destruction in BF3.

I see this as a good thing, I despise full destruciton. Nothing worse then playing on a BC2 server with 1000+ tickets, by the end of the game there is NO cover left.

BUT, I also see this a a big LOL to BF fanboys!

Don't really care too much. Posted it. Take it for what's worth. If it's worthless, then disregard it.

Seems like a failed attempt to troll..

It's certainly worthless.