What happened to destruction in video games? Why How is it that in 2019 the environment is 100% static in 98% of games?

What happened to destruction in video games? Why How is it that in 2019 the environment is 100% static in 98% of games?

Attached: red-faction-guerrilla.jpg (1920x1080, 396K)

It was just a fad, it's your fault for getting too attached.

Games can't make dynamic lighting looks as good as baked in lighting yet. And baked in lighting doesn't work with moving objects

>RTX ON

It's just not super interesting klmechanic in most games. Imagine a game like tf2 with destructible environments, for argument let's use Harvest. You run out of spawn and the 12 year olds blow up the buildings in the first minute f the gane, so for the rest of the match you're playing in an empty field with rubble on the ground. Why bother doing level design when every map turns into that?

In multiplayer with smaller defined arenas it could be a problem, but in a larger environment with more durable structures that take longer to chip away, it has the potential to make things a lot more dynamic

The current gen CPU cores are weaker than the Xbox 360 cores in single-threaded tasks. Too hard to program physics to run on so many threads so devs basically gave up

Oh yeah, and the PS5 and Xbox 4 are intended to be cross-platform with the PS4 and Bone (because x86). So it's not changing anytime in the next 5+ years either

If you wanted innovation you should have chosen a hobby not tethered to 2006 level technology

In Bad Company 2 it was pretty good. You just have to balance the amount of damage a building takes with how long an average round will go

console processors can't handle it

>Games can't make dynamic lighting looks as good as baked in lighting yet. And baked in lighting doesn't work with moving objects
Thats why deferred rendering exists, is a standard and has produced some pretty amazing results, op's game and pretty much any game with more than 4 lights visible at any time is probably using deferred, and although recent apis and technology can now handle a bunch of forward rendered lights without much issue, its still not as efficient as deferred rendering.

Its more likely that the benefits dont justify the development costs, Red Faction only had such nice destruction because the engine was built from the ground up with it in mind, also the nature of it means the games themselves would have to be designed around said destruction, relegating such massive effort for a visual gimmick would be stupid, among a myriad of other small problems, like modular destruction being much easier and yielding similar results.

>The current gen CPU cores are weaker than the Xbox 360 cores in single-threaded tasks

Attached: hmmm.jpg (604x453, 40K)

Then what's the reason that games barely have any moving objects at all anymore? Everything ends up being glued in place. It's become super noticeable with how cluttered environments are now

Its a thing in Battlefield, I think it like AI stagnate because of the rise of multiplayer FPS with no singleplayer.

Jaguar gets soundly outperformed by an Atom, bud

You really think a 360 CPU is slower clock-for-clock than an Atom?

Also, the Jaguar cores run at 1.6 ghz and the PowerPC 360 cores run at 3.2

>Too hard to program physics to run on so many threads so devs basically gave up
*citation needed*

Yeah came here to post about bc2. One of the best online experiences I've ever had and i feel like destructible environments played a lot into that. Side note: bc2 still holds up today

Yakuza 6 and Kiwami 2 are amazing for this
The game is janky as fuck but throwing somebody into a filing cabinet, the cabinet breaking and paper sheets flying out like confetti and being physics objects that fly around like actual paper and slide off people's bodies just looks cool

You can get into a fight in the streets, throw a person into a window, break the window, climb into the restaurant to grab a chair and beat the shit out of people as they pour in the window

>Then what's the reason that games barely have any moving objects at all anymore?
AI, rendering and physics all benefit massively from having static geometry
It's easier to make the game, and it performs better

who gives a shit about multiplayer games

people who have friends

>multiplayer

You do not know what you're talking about just shut up

It's hard to do destructible environments in multiplayer. You can do canned destruction states and animations with client-side physics for debris, but actual physics based destruction means a ton of extra data to keep synchronized between the server and clients.
Even client-side physics debris has to be used sparingly, because it might impede one player but not another.

>tfw no game with RFG destruction + Crysis physics/graphics + FEAR AI

Attached: 1550682243240.png (382x455, 76K)

But the games I think of when I think environmental destruction are all fairly spaced out in terms for release date.

I think this is the only game I ever played where the destruction was the best part and didn't just feel like a tacked on gimmick

Attached: 220px-The_Incredible_Hulk_-_Ultimate_Destruction_(game_box_art).jpg (220x312, 37K)

It had like 2 buildings that you can hit and when hit enough times they would just crumble.

all performance power is dedicated to graphics over gameplay and interactivity

>guerilla
what happened to the destruction of red faction one?
you could literally shoot your way through the level.