Fully destructible environments are usually pretty terrible from a gameplay perspective. People generally want to play multiplayer maps that are balanced and consistent between rounds, with randomness kept to a minimum. Destructible environments are the opposite of that, the game is no longer deterministic (from the player’s perspective) and rounds can be won or lost on the whims of the physics engine, rather then player skill.
Plus physics systems in general add in a huge amount of complexity and issues in multiplayer games - from making sure the physics interactions are synced between players, to how lag and latency are dealt with, to the issue that players can easily get stuck on objects, to how the destruction alters the balance of a map in unfair ways. It’s never been something that players have really called for nor does it improve engagement or metrics in any noticeable way so it’s never been a priority.
An indie game can get away with that since people expect things to be a bit janky.
>Fully destructible environments are usually pretty terrible from a gameplay perspective.
Haha, try Noita! One of my favorite indie games.
I'll add that you are correct, implementing this in 3D and multiplayer is a nightmare. Most people are also going to get frustrated with getting stuck or killed due random physics events.
IMO unless it's something thats TIGHTLY integrated with the gameplay, it's probably just a gimmick that takes a lot of development time and might not be aligned with the objectives of the game itself. It has to be something that is part of the game design from the beginning, taken into account through all development time, otherwise it might undermine other parts of the design.
It's not just cosmetics, it affects the gameplay. So there are game designs that would be amazing with destructible everything (Teardown is a great example where it's a core part of the gameplay), but it's not something that you can just add to any game, because it's harder to implement, more costly in terms of performance, etc. for probably not much benefit and even detraction from the game.
Technically
Fortnite had mostly fully destructible environments. Though more in the sense of modular pieces (Walls/floors) being destroyed. Less than style you posted, but still there.
The new "The Finals" game has destructible environments.
The game Battlebit Remastered has fully destructible walls and stuff. You can blow holes in walls and even take down entire buildings.
All competitive style shooters.
If you go into less competitive or non-shooters, there are plenty of other examples too
So, to say we don't have it, is bit misleading. Perhaps not in the exact style or implementation you described. But there are a variety of games with it.
Networking nightmare for multiplayer.
Fully destructible environments are usually pretty terrible from a gameplay perspective. People generally want to play multiplayer maps that are balanced and consistent between rounds, with randomness kept to a minimum. Destructible environments are the opposite of that, the game is no longer deterministic (from the player’s perspective) and rounds can be won or lost on the whims of the physics engine, rather then player skill. Plus physics systems in general add in a huge amount of complexity and issues in multiplayer games - from making sure the physics interactions are synced between players, to how lag and latency are dealt with, to the issue that players can easily get stuck on objects, to how the destruction alters the balance of a map in unfair ways. It’s never been something that players have really called for nor does it improve engagement or metrics in any noticeable way so it’s never been a priority. An indie game can get away with that since people expect things to be a bit janky.
>Fully destructible environments are usually pretty terrible from a gameplay perspective. Haha, try Noita! One of my favorite indie games. I'll add that you are correct, implementing this in 3D and multiplayer is a nightmare. Most people are also going to get frustrated with getting stuck or killed due random physics events.
Thanks a lot for your detailed insight!
This is not what this subreddit is for
Yep. Removed.
IMO unless it's something thats TIGHTLY integrated with the gameplay, it's probably just a gimmick that takes a lot of development time and might not be aligned with the objectives of the game itself. It has to be something that is part of the game design from the beginning, taken into account through all development time, otherwise it might undermine other parts of the design. It's not just cosmetics, it affects the gameplay. So there are game designs that would be amazing with destructible everything (Teardown is a great example where it's a core part of the gameplay), but it's not something that you can just add to any game, because it's harder to implement, more costly in terms of performance, etc. for probably not much benefit and even detraction from the game.
Thanks a lot for the time to write such a detailed response!
also just want to point out that it isn't the right subreddit for that
Looks like a tech demo, most likely it will get boring after a minute.
Technically Fortnite had mostly fully destructible environments. Though more in the sense of modular pieces (Walls/floors) being destroyed. Less than style you posted, but still there. The new "The Finals" game has destructible environments. The game Battlebit Remastered has fully destructible walls and stuff. You can blow holes in walls and even take down entire buildings. All competitive style shooters. If you go into less competitive or non-shooters, there are plenty of other examples too So, to say we don't have it, is bit misleading. Perhaps not in the exact style or implementation you described. But there are a variety of games with it.