this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
-7 points (40.0% liked)

Games

36705 readers
1371 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But destruction IS fun. Especially after the round ends and you see a literal battlefield with half of the trees gone

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course it's fun. But is more realistic destruction more fun?

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm trying to come up with an answer any other than "well, yes", because, well, yes. What I understand by realistic is "non-scripted, simulated". Bad Company didn't have that, the destruction there was fully scripted, especially houses falling apart, which were essentially animations, so it became predictable pretty fast.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 1 points 1 week ago

From my experience this kind of thing was a solved problem over a decade ago - it was at least good enough by far.