Destruction has been a core pillar ofBattlefieldever since the series debuted. Immersing players in the chaos of battle, DICE has often tried to satisfy players with reactive environments that make them feel like the world is responding to their inputs. There is something incredible about stopping to watch a skyscraper fall, or simply take cover in the corner of a house getting blown apart by a tank.
The way that each game implements destruction has changed a lot over the years, and each successiveBattlefieldgame seems to have a different philosophy for how it treats the feature. After various leaks, DICE has officially come out with some more details on the direction that the next game is going in, showcasing environments that seem to be built with high levels of destruction in mind. However, it wasn’t always this way.
Battlefield’s Approach to Destruction Has Gone Through Many Evolutions
Battlefieldgames have not been very consistent over the last decade or so. Changing setting, gameplay, and even player counts, the series has a habit of not sticking with one idea for a long time.Destruction has remained a core feature ofBattlefield, lending a certain feel to the action, but it hasn’t always been in the same form either. Some games prioritized building maps that could be crushed flat by the end of a match, while some wanted destruction to be limited to a handful of spectacular moments.
For many fans,Battlefield Bad Company 2’s destructionwas the epitome of what completely destructible environments should be. Built for the PS3 and Xbox 360, it showed an impressive amount of emergent gameplay for a multiplayer shooter of the time.Bad Company 2’s maps were smaller in general, with lobbies limited to 24 players, but this allowed the game to focus on building playgrounds for players to take to pieces. Destruction was granular, with buildings often able to be levelled completely, even if they were rarely particularly big. It made taking cover as infantry incredibly exhilarating, as any moment the safety net of a hut could come crashing down.
Battlefield 3 and 4 Aimed for More Scripted Destruction
AsBattlefieldtook a more cinematic turn inBF3, destruction became a little more restricted. There were fewer structures that could be taken apart in quite the same way asBad Company 2, instead relying more on scripted events, such as pipes falling through a floor in a canned animation. The map variety ofBF3also didn’t help, as tight maps likeOperation Metro forced players down chokepoints, leaving little room for large-scale destruction.
This trend continued intoBF4, but this time DICE wanted to up the cinematic feel with Levolution.Battlefield 4’s Levolutionwas a divisive mechanic, as it made for incredibly cool moments where large structures being destroyed could change the face of a map, but these changes didn’t always improve the experience. The mechanic aimed to give players a way of drastically shaking up a match by altering how maps played, and it certainly succeeded in being incredible to watch.
However, subsequent map packs would focus less on Levolution, and many servers banned the feature. The feature’s opponents argued that Levolution made some maps play worse. Still, there was something incredible about watching theSiege of Shanghai skyscrapercome tumbling down.
Battlefield 1 Limited Destruction From Map to Map
The map design inBF1did not lend itself to much destruction, as they were often wide open and flat. The few maps that were heavily urbanized had little in the way of interactive environments, often limited to a few building facades and the occasional stone shack. What it focused on more was providing that feel of close-up trench combat, relying on terrain deformation to make new craters to scar the landscape. It could also be argued thatBattlefield 1’s Behemothscontributed to destruction; the airship’s burnt frame could make traversal of an area especially difficult for tanks.
Battlefield 5 and 2042 Tried to Incorporate More Destructible Objects
BF5iterated onBF1’s model by making destructible elements more central to maps. Narvik’s village was often in a very different shape by the end of a match, with many buildings left as shells with no walls. But while the game made improvements to its smaller-scale environments, it failed to make destruction a big feature again. Bridges could be destroyed to cut vehicles off, but the minor improvements overBF1made some players wish forBF4’s grander approach to make a comeback.
The story was similar in2042, with walls being easier to destroy to create new lines of fire, but the principle wasn’t applied to much else.2042’s maps often revolved around large, central structures, but withoutBF4’s Levolution, destruction felt like it was missing. WhileBattlefield 2042’s maps were more interactivein some ways, DICE’s vision didn’t manage to resonate with many players.
Battlefield 6 Could Be Making Bold Changes to Destruction
In a recent update,DICE showed off improved destruction inBattlefield 6, displaying how a building could come down under fire and create new landscapes to fight over. This would not only be a return to form for the series, but it would represent the first time thatBattlefieldhas properly bridged the gap between fully destructible environments and large scale. If what was shown off applies to most of the buildings in the game, then players can expect to see maps go from narrow streets to rubble-strewn debris fields.
Supposedly, destruction isn’t limited to only explosives; small-arms fire can do damage to thinner walls and perhaps make holes in sturdier ones over time. DICE seems to be putting creativity back in the hands of players, which would be a welcome thing for those who feel the series has been losing its identity.Battlefield 6’s release dateis still unknown, but more leaks and updates will surely come out in the following months, and a lot of it looks promising already.
