Why didn't destructible environments catch on?

[TheJewBear]

I remember when Red Faction came out for PS2. It was the first game I can remember that highlighted destructible environments as a key feature.

Later, Battlefield: Bad Company made HUGE use of the destructible environment features in its Frostbite engine. Playing multiplayer games you would watch villages start out with pristine houses and buildings and by the end of a match it would be burning rubble as players punched holes in walls and leveled entire structures with RPGs, C4, grenades and tanks. You could not really hide behind ANY wall because it could be blown up at any moment.

In recent years I cannot think of many instances of games with destructible environments on this level. Even the Battlefield games themselves seem to have steered away from having totally destroyable structures throughout their maps.

Why is this? Am I missing any other games that had hugely destructible environments?

 

[GhostZ06]

because triple A games are lazy these days

 

[WhiteMousse]

I think it's because for the most part developers didn't know how to implement them into their games in a way that actually impacted gameplay. Most of the time it's just a graphical thing.

While the gameplay mechanics of totally destructible environments like you're describing have obvious potential, designers might not have the ability to anticipate all the various possible outcomes of having a totally destructible world. All games have constraints and the less any game has, the more complicated it becomes. That's not a bad thing but it's a challenge.

 

[Hitman81]

I think it's probably more difficult now with the amount of detail people expect. You can't just have big blocks of nothing falling off everywhere.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

I think they could make a come back as CPUs improve and as improvements to graphics begin to plateau (even more than they already have) and developers need to come up with new tricks to keep things fresh and interesting.

 

[The Clark]

I think it depends on what you consider destructible environments. Two of the most popular games in the world, Minecraft and Fortnite, have destructible environments. I think that the Red Faction level of destructive detail is just overkill for the vast majority of games. And, like @Hitman81 said, it's tough to achieve when you're aiming for photo realism.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Why is this? Am I missing any other games that had hugely destructible environments?

Survival games use destructible environments frequently. RS6 basically did all you could with destructible environments in the FPS genre. Hell Let Loose/Battlefield use destruction sparingly. For theyre dealing with large scale PvP where tickrate and server performance cause limitations.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

because triple A games are lazy these days

Can't leave likes, but THIS.

Amazing how so many games have rocket launchers, but they don't leave a scratch on cardboard boxes.

 

[My Spot]

Because things like resolution and ray tracing are more important for business.

 

[HereticBD]

It's a neat trick, but I think for both player and developer, it's a bit too wide open and random, and can lead to broken gameplay. Developers like direction, and players also like being directed down a path of sorts. It's a lot of work for random results, where any obstacle can be overcome with raw power. It can work in designated bursts, where some areas can be destroyed, but an entire landscape that reacts too realistically to environment destroying tools can get stupid fast.

That said, there's always Minecraft.

 

[4daLuLZ]

It's a neat trick, but I think for both player and developer, it's a bit too wide open and random, and can lead to broken gameplay. Developers like direction, and players also like being directed down a path of sorts. It's a lot of work for random results, where any obstacle can be overcome with raw power. It can work in designated bursts, where some areas can be destroyed, but an entire landscape that reacts too realistically to environment destroying tools can get stupid fast.

That said, there's always Minecraft.

And what about Mario ?
Bashing his head against Rick walls all day and never even a scratch on his hat ?

I want destructible characters.

 

[elreece]

BF BC2 was my fav destructible environment. Jez that game was good in its day.

 

[Dizzy]

It’s gimmicky and doesn’t serve much purpose unless a game is designed around it.

 

[NoSmilez]

Uses a lot of resources on your computer. Imagine having a giant city like 2077 and everything breaks off. Your computer will go nuts.

 

[snowbro]

Fortnite one of the biggest games no?

 

[mb23100]

And what about Mario ?
Bashing his head against Rick walls all day and never even a scratch on his hat ?

I want destructible characters.

I remember being amazed that you could a hoot off peoples limbs in Soldier of Fortune.

 

[GhostZ06]

Uses a lot of resources on your computer. Imagine having a giant city like 2077 and everything breaks off. Your computer will go nuts.

yeah but even on a minior level it should be done in shooters.

chipping away cover, an stuff like that, shooting threw walls. its kind of pathetic that COD doesn't have this feature, i guess running around like a prick with a knife calling in stupid power up is sweet shit.

 

[KaNesDeath]

yeah but even on a minior level it should be done in shooters.

Deformed and or deteriorating cover creates another problem that can break PvP balance. Game needs to be designed with it in mind explicitly at the beginning of development for it to work.

 

[Fuzzybabyducks]

Break anything u want in Fortnite .. not sure why other games don’t do that

 

[jefferz]

Survival games use destructible environments frequently. RS6 basically did all you could with destructible environments in the FPS genre. Hell Let Loose/Battlefield use destruction sparingly. For theyre dealing with large scale PvP where tickrate and server performance cause limitations.

Siege wants to do more destructible stuff in game, but they've reached the limitations of the engine.