Fortnite isn’t better than Battlefield, because it lets you completely destroy cover (which would have been irreplaceable in any Battlefield game before battlefield V.) Battlefield isn’t better than Fortnite, simply for letting you can blast craters into the ground or cause tunnels to collapse, (both of which were impossible the last time I checked Fortnite out.) Minecraft isn’t bad because bedrock can’t be removed under normal conditions. Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six:Siege is made a much better game by having nonbreachable surfaces.
More destruction isn’t inherently better. Each game has destruction mechanics as appropriate to its own gameplay. If the game and all its mechanics don’t mesh together well, then it wouldn’t be a successful game. None of the games above were the first game to combine having destruction with being “well-programmed” and being open-world; we just remember them because they were well designed, (as well as being well marketed, funded, etcetera.)
I mean that was probably a joke. Fornite is kinda crap in most aspects, including physics. Games like Battlefield 1, Battlefield 4, War Thunder, GTA V, and the others I list it do it much better. I really think Nelson should look at those games for inspiration and add this idea
Fortnite isn’t better than Battlefield, because it lets you completely destroy cover (which would have been irreplaceable in any Battlefield game before battlefield V.) Battlefield isn’t better than Fortnite, simply for letting you can blast craters into the ground or cause tunnels to collapse,
I was not saying either was better, in fact I tried my best to make neither sound like one was better as I’m not going to compare them like that for many reasons. Minecraft for it’s time was revolutionary with it’s open world and Rainbow is similar to Battlefield in it’s open destructibility - just in smaller, condensed maps.
I mean that was probably a joke. Fornite is kinda crap in most aspects, including physics.
It wasn’t a joke, and you’ve missed the point. I’ll repeat again that I’m not trying to make Fortnite sound like a good OR a bad game - I’m not going to debate whether it is a good game over the internet as it’s a lame topic. Fortnite doesn’t have “crap physics”, I don’t know what’s wrong with them. I don’t know why you’re saying it’s crap in all aspects either, people only hate it because of it’s community, but that’s about it for most people. Also just know you’re comparing 3 $60 games and a fucking plane dog-fight game that has nothing in common to Fortnite to a F2P game, and even GTA doesn’t have “better physics” just because they have good car physics (something that Fortnite shouldn’t need to replicate) and ragdolls (Fortnite doesn’t need ragdolls either, so you can’t really compare).
Fortnite generally has a better interactable open world environment than all those games you listed. Are you able to individually blow up every house in GTA? No. You can in BF, but then again, $60 game and it’s not as interactable as Fortnite, seeing as not everything is interactable, it’s just generally really detailed.
If Nelson wants to look at games to take inspiration from for open world enviourments, he is better off looking at Fortnite, seeing as they share the same engine and have the most similar style.
And before someone accuses me, no I’m not a Fortnite fanboy - in fact I don’t really like playing it for other associated reasons (shit community, lame content updates, generally repetitive battle royale) and I’ve never really enjoyed it that much, but anyone who says Fortnite is shit is completely tripping - a game doesn’t become GOTY material while being shit.
Well, it kinda seemed like you did say that.
Fortnite mastered only two things:
-Excellent marketing and advertising
-A game that appeals to multiple groups and was able to be sold in many sub-markets
Fortnite itself is an unrealistic arcade game…
Hence why I believe Nelson shouldn’t look at this game for inspiration. A dynamic destructible environment is key for a vivid and immersive PvP experience, which is why I feel it should be implemented.
that would be cool
Then you’ve completely misinterpreted and if anything I shouldn’t let you choose what you think I say really.
I don’t want to talk about which game is better because it’s a pointless, endless discussion with two games that compare in very little areas.
That does not stop me from going as far as simply comparing the two mechanics they both have in common; open world destructibility. Fortnite’s is way more open world while BF is way more detailed and interactive, something that also revolutionized open world destructibility at the release of BF4. Then again, that was awhile ago. But it was very limited and, if anything, overrated because very little was actually interactable. It just looked really fucking nice.
Fortnite mastered only two things:
-Excellent marketing and advertising
-A game that appeals to multiple groups and was able to be sold in many sub-markets
Fortnite itself is an unrealistic arcade game…
First, the game is free. There is nothing to sell besides skins, that pose no game advantage.
It doesn’t matter what type of game Fortnite is. I don’t care because it has no relevance to the topic at hand - the open world destructibility. I don’t care how it’s played or if it’s unrealistic (why does that matter? Unturned isn’t realistic at all either)
I don’t understand where you’re reaching for if you want Nelson to set up 4.0 like games with the over-detailed but lack of interactibility (is that a word?) open world destructibility but you don’t want Nelson to do it like Fortnite does, where almost everything can be damaged and break into individual pieces with good reasons (Fortnite drops resources).
If you seriously don’t think Fortnite didn’t revolutionize the gaming industry if it wasn’t clear enough by how much it blew up, then can you find another game that let you break almost everything in the map the way Fortnite could?
If fortnite was revolutionary, why didn’t more games do the same thing?
Fortnite only became popular because of youtubers. Thanks to it Minecraft made a resurgence, so that’s literally the only thing that was good about it. End of story.
Side note: terraria, starbound, 7 days to die, and a million other games let you destroy the entire map. Fortnite just decided to add building destructibility to a battle royale.
I think you are mistaking revolutionary for pop culture.
Brendan Greene made revolutionary mods/games, it turned into the battle royale genre. Though MC Hunger Games was the first, it wasn’t what revolutionise the game industry to pump out battle royale games. The release of PUBG is what prompted other developers to make more battle royale games, Fortnite Battle Royale included. The base Fortnite game is a survival game, Epic Games just hopped on the battle royale trend after the revolutionary success of Greene’s games.
Onto Battlefield’s levolution/map destruction, there are limits to what can be destroyed, because playing on a map that is only rubble is not fun. If Battlefield has 100% destructibility in all of its current maps, that is bad map/game design, because people would be either be stuck or running around pieces of buildings with no overhead cover from helicopters/jets.
As mentioned in previous posts, the destruction respects the game design. Fortnite has plenty of destructibility because the game revolves around destruction and creation of structures. The destruction mechanic destroys the object and provides the player with resources if they swung their melee at it. Creation mechanic uses up a player’s resources and creates a structure. These features are why Fortnite’s map destructibility design is as it is.
Game design is a big influence in how a map works.
It could not compare because the two games play differently.
And we all know how GTA plays. I don’t see the point on why you had to compare it at all.
If Unturned II took a path similar to the destruction/ open world environments of Fortnite - I think that would be really terrible. Every map object being able to be destroyed to nothing and leaving an empty plot of land where a building/object once stood.
If fortnite was revolutionary, why didn’t more games do the same thing?
Do what? Open world destructibility? Because it was revolutionary because not many games did that, because they couldn’t. Open world destructibility is a very hard thing to implement which is why many games don’t bother doing it.
Fortnite only became popular because of youtubers. Thanks to it Minecraft made a resurgence, so that’s literally the only thing that was good about it. End of story.
What? Then what is bringing people to the game? What is it about Fortnite that people go “oh shit, this game is fun”? What about it made it easily top 3 Game of the Year (in terms of player numbers) in 2018? Just because YouTubers played it? PewDiePie and many other youtubers played Unturned and there wasn’t much of a growth in the playerbase because of it. If youtubers had such influence on video games like that you’d see stuff like this happening all the time. A game simply doesn’t become popular because of YouTube - and if it does, there obviously is something about it that people like.
Side note: terraria, starbound, 7 days to die, and a million other games let you destroy the entire map. Fortnite just decided to add building destructibility to a battle royale.
Terraria’s way of doing it is awfully simplistic, although still very nice and generally a good game, but it didn’t really “blow up” seeing as it’s exclusively a PC game. I’ve never played Starbound. 7 Days to Die I’ve never played either. If you’re asking why these games didn’t blow up, then it’s because clearly they were missing something that’ll attract players. Terraria, like I said is essentially a PC exclusive game (mobile port is shit) and I don’t know about Starbound/7DtD sooo
Like I said, I really don’t want to praise Fortnite as a game in general. I don’t like it. It’s part of the lame Battle Royale chain that got boring real quick. I’ve never really played it much because of that.
Onto Battlefield’s levolution/map destruction, there are limits to what can be destroyed, because playing on a map that is only rubble is not fun. If Battlefield has 100% destructibility in all of its current maps, that is bad map/game design, because people would be either be stuck or running around pieces of buildings with no overhead cover from helicopters/jets.
Yeah that’s what I meant - it was very limited but the things that were destroyable looked really nice (buildings, houses falling, etc). There was just a big limit. It still was very nice but the fact that it was limited (for good reason) made it less view-able and accessible which is why not much people talk about it, despite it being an underrated feature.
As mentioned in previous posts, the destruction respects the game design. Fortnite has plenty of destructibility because the game revolves around destruction and creation of structures. The destruction mechanic destroys the object and provides the player with resources if they swung their melee at it. Creation mechanic uses up a player’s resources and creates a structure. These features are why Fortnite’s map destructibility design is as it is.
I’ve not suggested Nelson blatantly copies Fortnite for open world destructibility, because copying any game for anything wouldn’t work out. I mean taking inspiration from what Fortnite has done for open world destructibility in 4.0. Like being able to put holes and such in houses while wallbanging so PvP isn’t so lame or destroying the bottom of a tall building to see the people on top fall down to their death. Obviously they’d respawn (Different from fortnite as there it just stays gone forever)
Fortnite only allows destrcution of your own (prebuilt) assets, the few prebuilt buildings and trees. The actual envorement (as in the ground itself) is is not gonna budge. And whilst Influenccers is not the sole reason Fortnite is what it is it would not be anywhwere near as big if t wa snot for them.
It’s not that hard to make trees and buildings destructible. That’s all the fortnite did.
The reason there wasn’t much growth was because they really didn’t play much of it.
Also, the majority of fortnite players are kids who saw their favorite YouTuber play it, and they became obsessed with it as it was a free battle royale that they could play without their parents flipping out.
Terrarium is on Xbox, and mobile, and I believe ps3 as well.
Starboard is basically terrarium, but much larger, and more expansive.
It was made by the devs of terrain, and is sorta their main focus.
7 days to dies system is literally Minecraft system, except quite a lot more.
Side note: it’s possible and easy to make a map in unturned that functions the same as fortnites map. There is literally a workshop map where you can destroy EVERYTHING in the map.
Fortnite only allows destrcution of your own (prebuilt) assets, the few prebuilt buildings and trees. The actual envorement (as in the ground itself) is is not gonna budge. And whilst Influenccers is not the sole reason Fortnite is what it is it would not be anywhwere near as big if t wa snot for them.
Everything in the map is destructible, except for the floor. Literally everything, except for the floor under. I don’t know a single game where you can damage the floor and put holes in it in stuff from grenades but if II did that that’d be actually really cool.
It’s not that hard to make trees and buildings destructible. That’s all the fortnite did.
If that’s the case surely so many other games would’ve done it? Yes certain games do it. Not many, but some. And they were backed by massive development teams and got what they deserved in terms of profit and player numbers.
Also, the majority of fortnite players are kids who saw their favorite YouTuber play it, and they became obsessed with it as it was a free battle royale that they could play without their parents flipping out.
Saying the majority of players are kids from YouTube is such a fucking stretch that I’m not going to entertain it. Please re-read what you just said and say something else. I’m not going to bother trying to get a response to a completely statistic-less claim with absolutely no proof behind it
Terrarium is on Xbox, and mobile, and I believe ps3 as well.
Terraria is very unpopular on PS and Xbox, and the Mobile port is awfully built. Also Terraria has 12 million copies sold on PC, ranking it 5th all time sold PC game. So it’s done very well.
Side note: it’s possible and easy to make a map in unturned that functions the same as fortnites map. There is literally a workshop map where you can destroy EVERYTHING in the map.
It’s a mod. Doesn’t actually come with Unturned, thus doesn’t attract people to the game as much. If you want to blame someone for that the most you can do is blame Nelson for not utilizing the destructibility to it’s full potential
7D2D lets you destroy, from what I know, literally everything within the borders of the map. I’m not sure how far you can dig down, but everything is destructible. Its basically minecraft survival with zombies and horrible textures.
I support Unturned taking a 7D2D route with destructibility, and even furthermore its experience system is amazing.
That’s not my point. My point was you don’t know what revolutionary means.
This looks more in-line with R6S than Fortnite.
Again. Game design affects what the player can interact with. Just because it isn’t hard to implement does not mean they should.
And in my opinion having complex building destruction isn’t in my want list for a survival game.
I guess the most interesting thing that would come from it is being able to wreck cars into buildings… but yeah. Too complex.
Now this is the kind of destruction that would be VERY cool kanye
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.