(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The Destruction on BF3 sucks compared to BFBC2. Do you guys agree or disagree?

I disagree. It's better in BF3.

I also disagree. The level of destruction capable from Frostbite 2.0 is far superior. Just take a tank to one of the buildings in Karkand. Literally every one of them is destructible.

The destruction could have been better in the default maps.. not that much buildings you can completely destroy to the ground. but they improved in the B2K maps.

Disagree. BF3 and Frostbite 2 are far superior. Use tanks more often

Hard to tell the difference really but I'd say thanks to Frostbite 2, it is better than BC2.

Karkand destruction is decent, but on the basic maps it sucks in my opinion.

Yeah, was a bit disappointed that the default maps do not the destructibility of B2K maps, but still, it's better than BC2 either way!

I have to agree and disagree. There are certain aspects of the destruction in BF3 which rock and some which suck. Graphically the damage has improved somewhat since BFBC2. But the amount is much less. I recall in BFBC2 I could place some c4 in a few spots and take out a house full of bush wookies. I do like that falling debris does damage though, it has come in handy. That is all I can recall at the moment, but if I think of more I will add it.