Poll: What's about destroyable terrain?

Ah, true, that was a fairly old post.

I really hate people that say this, so what it's realistic? Why is that bad? Faulty logic like realistic = bad because realistic = bad is even worse than the dishonest quoting that you are also doing.

The problem is that in the context of Game Design, Realism doesn't matter unless it somehow helps you achieve the gameplay you're intending. The problem starts when people use Realism as some kind of deciding factor when it really comes down to the circumstances. Realism is in most cases only a side effect of something that works well for the game. It's much rarer to do things Because they're realistic.

All that is not to say that you can't be grounded in realism, TA, SupCom and PA have do that to varying degrees most notably in the simulation aspect of each game.

Mike

I would just like point out that my original mention of realism which has ignited this turd-flinging contest was quoted entirely out of context.

I agree with you that realism shouldn't be a deciding factor in game development.
In the example I originally spoke about above, realism was a bonus, not a motivating factor. The motivating factor for artillery being able to destroy some terrain (apart from it looking really cool with pieces of mountain flying everywhere) would be to make a battlefield more dynamic and changeable, without having to nuke/asteroid the hell out of it.

Who said realistic is bad?

Whoever came up with the idea of units limited by fuel.
Okay, he didn't necessarily say it... But I'm sure everyone else did soon after.

No controlled terraforming, please. It raises the amount of micro already involved, which already makes this game less attractive then already a bit rusty supcom.

There needs to be a level of moderation on deformation. While you want asteroids to do memorable game changing effects, you dont want the safety of a mountain range to be eaten through by a bunch of tanks by using attack ground commands. If every feature is removeable by some means, then the late game is just a flat map with no diversity or challenges.
We see this same thinking of design in FPS games like Battlefield3. While the game is generally very destructible, there are still key features that will remain mostly impassable or completely indestructable, otherwise games go from realistic destruction down to unrealistic levels of unscrupulous exploitation of the mechanic. Maps in any type of game must have a minimum solid template that the core gameplay can rest on or else all methods of early strategic positioning is too easily defeated and pointless.

if they can, yeah.

It would be nice if there was a very light dent, but what I really want to see is a big *** scorch mark.

EDIT: The terrain shouldn't be to deformed so you can't build on it anymore.

Weapons that can have terrain deformation:
- KEWS
- Nukes
- Super artillery
- Comm nuke
- Krogoth nuke
- Anything that goes BOOOOOOOOOOOM

Things that should never have terrain deformation:
- Pew pews
- pops
- Anything that goes boom.

If a weapon isn't designed to deal game changing terrain damage, then it doesn't. It's pretty straight forward.