Call of Duty dev down on destructible environments, sandbox gameplay

Game design first, destructability second ... that's really all there is to it. If it augments game design, then use it ... if it doesn't, done. Seems like a no-brainer.

Can't say I disagree any less. Nothing was better in Red Faction than the destructable environment. Just imagine you're playing a game like Battlefield. Protecting a checkpoint through the only entrance. All the sudden... BOOM, a wall collapses to your right as a tank strolls in.

I think destructibility would add to the strategy element in a game. I've been a part of too many stalemates on dust. Like when both teams refuse to launch an attack and the match lasts FOREVER. Well, having the ability to make a new choke point would help move the action along.

can we get some friction physics into games first please? nothing takes me out of a game more than seeing an object slide its way down some stairs moving an inch an hour when in real life the thing would have stopped.

sad when a dev uses this as an excuse to not inovate, just because you can blow shit up dosen't equal no fun. Look the fact remains that the 360 and the ps3 for that matter since they are almost the same in many ways , missed out on this being able to be done with flair,since neither consoles have a dedicated physics chip inside. Look the sad thing is online game play can and does get stale because of the fact that without destructable enviroments you invite camping and always getting the same results online...it becomes stale, I'll give you a example of why i feel this way of thinking is lame, in a game like rainbow 6 online if your let's say have a game of defend, all you have to do is cover the same entrance, but if physics were involved more heavily you could c-4 your way through a wall to enter or blow your way through the celing and the enter from there. If they are saying this it's because they are either lazy or can't be creative enough to think of any "new" ways to make the online experience any better..

Bout time devs started talking like this. Now, I want to hear this talk about multi-player madness. Too many games these days are dumping resources into making yet another online shooter that is like every other online shooter, except with a different weapon set. Spend that time and money on the game. Now, if you want to make an online shooter, go for it. But, don't start out with a game and only finish half of it because everything was burned up making a half dozen maps for pubescents to strut their madskillz across.

Of course, the almighty dollar comes into play here.

As for this, those who disagree don't even seem to get the point. Could I come up with a couple analogies where I could prove the argument wrong in a specific case? Of course. But at its core, the argument and the concept are about as big a no-brainer as the world not being flat. The argument being: make the $#*% game and make it $#*% fun. Then, think about the latest fad. If it won't fit, people still play fun games and you may just be publishing the next big fad.

He has a point, but if you are striving for realism, a wall isn't going to stand up to a rocket. You'll just have to coat those choke points with something fictional like adamantium, I guess.

Not sure what this has to do with sandbox gameplay though.

As a side-note, how much fun would a dynamic counter-strike game, where you could create your own routes/choke points be? Freaking awesome!

ok i totally disagree .. why not be able to blow it up but it piles into something else moving the choke point .. lazy lazy .. they just dont want to be outshined since they are probably not going to do it in this game.

Cop out!

Sandbox gameplay hurts storytelling, in my opinion. Non-sandbox games use levels like episodes; there can be a journey or timeline that good writers use to create a sense of drama and present a story. But sandbox worlds take the journey and timeline away from the writer and put it under the player's control. There isn't the same sense of drama when the princess is kidnapped, and you can dick around car-jacking taxis all day instead of rescueing her.

Think about games like Wolfenstein where there were somewhat scripted destructible environments. Maybe the goal is to combine a little bit of the destructibility that Red Faction had with quality level design like some of those in Wolfenstein.Maybe the environment is completely destructible, but only certain materials can ever be completely destroyed.

For example: Stone walls of a building may chip away very slowly and leave debris on the ground, but a machine gun or several machine guns would never destroy a stone wall (maybe expose holes to fire through but leave rebar [spellcheck suggests that word should be spelled 'freebase'] so that the player can't pass through the wall), but perhaps gunfire and explosives would be capable of destroying a wooden barricade.

In this example, the destructible environment could add a level of realism, but at the same time offer strategic alternatives on the battlefield.

Sandbox games and destructible environments are here to stay, but nothing is stopping them from taking over

Now; such destructible environments SHOULD BE THE NORM FOR REALISTIC GAMES like Call of Duty 4, perhaps, otherwise they kill their own desire to be realistic

I've never liked Sandbox gameplay much myself, but then again i've always been a fan of the linear story, and some will disagree with that, but there will always be something to satisfy us all

I don't know what to think, I could see both sides.

But to be fair sandbox =/= no story. Look at Shenmue. Just make it sandbox but make it so that if you don't rescue the princess she dies, or you lose the game, or everyone hates you big time.

I'm down with it as long as it is balanced. If all walls are capable of being destroyed, then weapon ammo should be limited. Tanks shouldn't have unlimited ammo and grenades should take longer to respawn.

im still waiting for the day every building object and landscape is fully destructable. So far crysis is the closet game yet still a farcry (pun intended) way from achieving the goal. Developers like this dumb one tend to forget that fully destructable does not mean strait line to the objective. In real life, could you blow your way out of a bank with a sub machine gun? No way. Unless you had like 5000 bullets to blow down the wall. Stuff like rocket launchers and grenades and c4 would be needed to make holes and create access paths. This stuff could easily be limited in a single player game. As well as multiplayer too. But for multi, it leaves custom games open to such fun if the creator wants to make it so that equipment is lying everywhere. Nothing would be cooler then having me and my team collect rocket ammo from around the level for 3-4 minutes, untill we had enough ammo to blow a hole through the mountainside and burrow our way into the side of the enemy base to cap the flag. They could even imrove this gameplay by giving out stuff like digging equipment to create long tunnels, and perhaps even have obtainable radar or sound detection equipment where you could hear an enemy tunneling through.

Just imagine a huge island with a complex in the center and the teams are 5 vs 25 or something like that. The 5 people need to defend maybe a couple entrances and have automated turrets and tons of ammo. The other large team must split up into groups and devise different methods on gaining entrance to the facility. Its just too fun to be true. I cant wait untill the day games allow us to do this.

A sandbox game doesn't mean non-linear. People try to say that something like Grand Theft Auto is non-linear. Uh huh, then how come every person that plays the game plays through the exact same missions with the exact same dialog. Sure you can play one mission slightly before another, but it doesn't make the game non linear.

A sandbox game is a game that gives you a variety of options in how you beat it. Grand Theft Auto is a sandbox game because you can steal a helicopter and chop a target with the blades, or steal a big rig and run through a barricade to get to the same person, or use a sniper rifle and take them out from a distance. You can defeat the missions in a variety of ways with these different tools, but the story remains linear.

I agree with sheppy - Red Faction's destructible environments were a kick to play, especially in multiplayer. Being able to blast holes in a wall or floor ramps up the fun factor.

Besides, destructible objects can be used as a strategic tool (there are plenty of examples given above). Another one is a sniper in a tower who you can't hit with gunfire or even a rocket launcher since he's hiding behind a solid structure. Instead, you have to wait for him to stick his head out for a well-placed headshot. That's cool but why wait? With destructible environments, that slow-loading rocket launcher or barely crawling tank you have is worth more since you can take out the entire structure he's hiding in.

Adding destructibility to todays games would be illogical. A little bit of realism would not be a bad thing though.

In real life if they offending side knows a choke point, they'll find another way in. Pure and simple. They defending side would just have to find a new way to defend. People are smart, I'm sure they'd figure it out.

I agree with basically everyone on top of me, destructable environments would be awesome. In a game like CoD where you're dealing with mostly stone and brick work, I wouldn't expect my rifle to do much, but several grenades and tank shells should blow walls up. It's not a fad, it's just another step towards realism in games.

Somebody made a map in Counter Strike that is comprised entirely of small destructable crates. you have to destroy the crates to carve a path through the map in order to find your team mates. With every box you clear out you run the risk of uncovering an enemy standing just inches away from you. It's great fun!

"Collier cites Counter-Strike's über-popular Dust map, where the two choke points serve as the focal point of entertainment, and how that could be compromised with destructible environments."

Oh jesus. This is how he defends his position that destructible environments are bad? This is a perfect example of the exact opposite. People get tired of Dust and CS because it has the exact same choke points every time. Playing the game becomes mechanical and unexciting. There is little strategy and no creativity in that approach.

If the environments in the Dust CS map were destructible, the choke points would be different, user created, unique, and on-the-fly during each and every round.

Quite frankly, these are the words of a man who doesn't want to do the extra work that would be required to make a game with destructible environments. Anything that a) makes the game more realistic b) puts more control in the hands of the gamers and c) is in the realm of technological capability to be well implemented should be put in a game. How is this even debatable?

And anyone saying that he is making a broad argument about poor implementation of gameplay features is wrong. He is specifically saying in this interview that these two gameplay features are fads and bad for games. For some reason he presumes that "fun" and "destructible environments" are mutually exclusive things. You can have both at once there pal...

how about destructive environments and adding realism and some real competitive skill because gamers have to deal with a changing situation rather than perfecting and taking advantage of the same strategies every single time. to me, even with destructible environments you can effectively design levels to have controlled gameplay elements if you know what you're doing.

there is definitely something to be said about sandbox gameplay and that has to do with offering enough story in different areas so that it doesn't matter if you miss something else. play sly cooper 2 and 3 and you'll see that a sandbox can be turned into as decent a level as any. mario 64 is probably the best example. people just need to wake up, there is a reason for 3d graphics, and its because you can go in more directions than forward.

"I agree with basically everyone on top of me"

Slut.

; ) I keed, I keed.

For a game to be truly realistic, the environment MUST respond to your actions as it would in real life. Same with physics. Sure, that's a lot of work for game makers, but it's a necessary step in video game evolution.