Destructible environments

Cheezdoodles

+ 1
Veteran
Over the years we have seen a few titles that have had very destructible environments (BF:BC and red faction come to mind). Sadly even the reasonably new BF:BC only has scripted destructibility, meaning that everything will get destroyed in the exact same way every time, etc. This takes away allmost all the joy of destructible environments for me, because everything gets old after youve trashed one building to the ground, all the destruction is the same etc.

Im wondering when people think we can expect "fully" destructible environments with actual physics? Where environments react "realistically" to your weapons?

Tbh, i kind of expected that this could be done even on current gen consoles if one relaxes precision and thus processing power required.. Surely the SPU's in the PS3 are a good match for doing heavy physics?
 
To be honest if KZ2 didn't do fully destructable enviroments is for some reason,neither did Geow2...the hardware is not up to the task yet to do heavy physics? IMO i think is that..
 
Couldn't it be a memory issue too? If you have a lot of objects potentially moving around in unpredictable ways, you have to constantly keep track of where they are in relation to other movable objects. Or, if you blow a hole in a wall you have to create assets (model/texture) to show what is behind that wall or if you partially destroy a pillar, you've got to model/texture the inside of it as well(?)

Perhaps 512 MB isn't enough for that AND pretty graphics...there would have to be a trade off.

...I'm just guessing. Maybe an expert could chime in.
 
Imagine trying to design an epic and dark war game with destructible environments where the user can't wreck things by cutting a hole in the floor under a plot-critical character like they were Elmer Fudd.

Imagine what would happen with trigger-happy AI squadmates blasting away in a building and wrecking your path.

"Thanks, I needed that hallway."
 
Couldn't it be a memory issue too? If you have a lot of objects potentially moving around in unpredictable ways, you have to constantly keep track of where they are in relation to other movable objects. Or, if you blow a hole in a wall you have to create assets (model/texture) to show what is behind that wall or if you partially destroy a pillar, you've got to model/texture the inside of it as well(?)

Perhaps 512 MB isn't enough for that AND pretty graphics...there would have to be a trade off.

...I'm just guessing. Maybe an expert could chime in.

Just for the info, the PPU (which would beat a Cell doing only physics) used 128MB of DDR3, althought I dont know if it is using much system RAM.

Imagine trying to design an epic and dark war game with destructible environments where the user can't wreck things by cutting a hole in the floor under a plot-critical character like they were Elmer Fudd.

Imagine what would happen with trigger-happy AI squadmates blasting away in a building and wrecking your path.

"Thanks, I needed that hallway."

If the gams is to be realistic then you can t blast things that easly, if not then it should be easy to imagine a way of not having such problems.
 
If the gams is to be realistic then you can t blast things that easly, if not then it should be easy to imagine a way of not having such problems.

Level design, AI, and event planning are a lot harder if the players can bypass physical barriers that are used to guide them along.

Even if the computational and memory demands were met, game devs would have to go through a lot of extra work to keep players from breaking plot points or hitting undefined situations that the AI or game script don't take into account.
It might mean fully and realistically destructible environments would still be rare.
 
Im wondering when people think we can expect "fully" destructible environments with actual physics? Where environments react "realistically" to your weapons?

I don't know if you will ever get fully destructible environments. We rely on physical structures to act as visual occluders, so that everything behind them can be culled and hence reduce draw load, etc. If every building in a level could be totally flattened then it presents a huge performance problem.

I think at this point the target is midway. First, maybe designate some structures as expendable and those can be blown up totaly without causing performance chaos. Secondly would be allowing mass decrepitude of existing structures, so maybe they get smashed up and fall apart as they are shot up, but their basic structure remains intact so they can continue to occlude. Not ideal, but a decent midway point.
 
This seems like what BF:BC does, more or less. It is pretty impressive. I was capping a flag while hiding inside a building. Someone called in an artillery strike and the next thing I know I'm standing practically out in the open, naked as a jaybird. More than half of the building was destroyed!

While I was initially highly critcal of the game (and still am), you have to give credit where it is due. The "destructibility" is pretty cool.
 
Level design, AI, and event planning are a lot harder if the players can bypass physical barriers that are used to guide them along.

Even if the computational and memory demands were met, game devs would have to go through a lot of extra work to keep players from breaking plot points or hitting undefined situations that the AI or game script don't take into account.
It might mean fully and realistically destructible environments would still be rare.

There's actually an easy solution to that->Game Over. Fully destructable environments are the future of gaming. People, yes I'm talking to you game developers, better get used to it.
 
Fully destructable environments are the future of gaming. People, yes I'm talking to you game developers, better get used to it.

Not going to happen in this generation yet. Current game engines still use lots of precalculated data to speed up visibility calculations, lighting, physics and AI. We still do not have the processing power needed to calculate everything on real time, unless the game designers are confortable with lowering the graphics quality a bit and simplifying the physics and AI drastically. It's a tradeoff not many game developers are currently willing to take. But as the performance increases (next gen or after that) I am sure some of the processing power going to graphics, physics and AI can be sacrificed for fully destructible environments.
 
Imagine what would happen with trigger-happy AI squadmates blasting away in a building and wrecking your path.

"Thanks, I needed that hallway."
If the physics were fully implemented, you could then clear the corridor, or find another way. That's not a possibility yet because all the routes players can use are generally predetermined, with invisible walls preventing the player from climbing some rocks or leaping some barriers.

It would need an open game design, clever AI that avoided linear scripting and instead, the story unveiled itself through whatever encounters the player creates (not completely if the player makes a hash of things or goes completely the wrong way!), and smart physics so the player can traverse any terrain in a realistic fashion, so a rock-fall can be climbed over, or the player character can hold onto the trees on the hillside below and work their way around.

I dunno that these are impossible to achieve this gen, but alongside pretty graphics, probably. I think the failure of Digital Molecular Matter in the Jedi game is the biggest reason to question viability. After such tempting hype, the end result was utterly non-descript. Neither DMM nor Natural Motion's Euphoria have delivered anything spectacular yet, and both are core principles needed for fully destructible environments.
 
I too think destructibility is more of a gfx issue than physics issue, looking ad BF:BC.
I would also be quite satisfied with BC's approach, precalculated destructibility, but it doesn't seem to be very viable in graphically overloaded games, at least in the near feature.
 
It would need an open game design, clever AI that avoided linear scripting and instead, the story unveiled itself through whatever encounters the player creates (not completely if the player makes a hash of things or goes completely the wrong way!), and smart physics so the player can traverse any terrain in a realistic fashion, so a rock-fall can be climbed over, or the player character can hold onto the trees on the hillside below and work their way around.
I find that this two interviews are pretty relevant and interesting (posted them a while ago in the state of procedural creation and left4dead thread without much reaction tho).
Dealing with prcedural creation as almost the same falldown as dealing with fully destructable environments, devs will face unexpected situation (both articles highlight the raising need for more and more testing)
Not completely related but both articles are worse the read (I will read them again :) )
http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/gabe-newell-writes-edge
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21165
 
Im still waiting a game where destroyed "wall" wont dissapear from the ground in 5 sec.

Test some Crysis.


Anyway I hope to see in the future more 'fine grain' destruction. I am talking about projectiles deforming material (more than just bending it a bit/simple deform CE2) and creating true bullet holes. It could create great athmospheric scenes with lots of holes and light/god-rays pouring through the holes etc.
 
In future when we have enough processing power and memory to store the (almost fully) destructible environment, the graphics artists are going to be the bottleneck.

In current games the artists have to model and paint/photograph textures only for the area player can move and see. With current limited movement, all areas hidden behind corners, walls and other obstacles do not need to be created at all. Also areas only visible from far distance (visible from windows, through a fence, over a blocking object, etc) need only to be modeled with very low polygon and texture detail (often needing only a area specific sky box, as human eyes cannot really determine the perspective on far away scenery that well).

Now imagine you could tear down that fence, break a window and jump out of a building or explode rocks in a blocked path. This all would require the whole game world to be modelled and textured in full detail, including countless of new objects that would not be even visible if the game area would be limited. In a in-door game this problem would be even more severe. The player could break all the walls. Inside structures, pipelines, electric wires, filling materials, etc inside every wall in the game area would need to be modeled and textured in high detail. Also all the (previously unreachable) rooms behind those walls would need to be modeled and textured, and nothing really prevents the player exploding the wall of that new room either, revealing another room, revealing another room, etc, and ultimately getting out of the building to the open terrain. Even without the possibility to get out of the building, this could easily over 10x the work needed by graphics artists (and still the developers would need to limit the amount of destruction). The art creation is very expensive in the current generation titles (often more expensive than programming), and it's becoming more and more expensive every year. Fully destructible environment might sound like a simple feature, but considering the effect it causes to the game project schedule and cost it might never be feasible, unless some kind of automatic content creation system is invented that reduces the artist workload dramatically... and we would need to have automatic testers also (as the testing workload to cover all the possible scenarios would become impossible to handle by human resources only).

Every object breakable inside the game area (bounded by walls and other indestructible obstacles) is a much easier task to complete, and should be achieved in many next generation games.
 
In crysis you can bring down the entire wall/roof/house on the ground, but nothing will break into small pieces or ruble.

Oh you meant wall in pieces not disappear in 5 sec instead of just wall piece?

Otherwise yes ~correct about Crysis but metal plates/objects from house bend to a certain extent and some stuff still breaks down. Apart from that there is lots of stuff that breaks into small pieces, wood fences for example, furniture, vegetation etc.
 
Back
Top