[KamikazeTutor is the first of many that will be promoted to the front page for Destructoid's Monthly Musings. In this "Good Idea, Bad Idea", Kamikaze looks at destructible environments. -- CTZ]
This article touches the subject of how destructible environments can create an immersive or frustrating experience and how they can make a game look more realistic and the complete opposite.
Technology is capable of simulating amazing things. It’s been a while that computers are used to aid construction of seismic-resistant structures to aerodynamics, all through an immense blur of physics’ reproducing code. Now, even home computers can stand up to their massive cousins, allowing players to witness the power of physics firsthand as everything seems to fall properly and not bounce like balls. Wood breaks like wood, water flows like water, etc.
Most the time, physics are shown in games just like in one of my favorite science shows, Brainiac, where science is fun. If they keep exploding stuff every episode, that is.
This leads to the topic of destructible environments, the new fad in gaming -- and I say this as both praise and insult. Okay, I lied; this feature has existed since the primordials of gaming. From the simple smash of a block in the old days, to what has escalated to what we see now.
Creating a world that the player can freely destroy can originate the most amazing eye candy ever, if well done and if not, the worst type of obstacle.
The first and main thing developers must settle is how important destructible environments are to the game. Does the game mechanic rely heavily on this feature or will it only exist as a jaw opener? How much of the world is malleable by the hands of the player? And how will it be controlled, to avoid the player getting stuck in the game?
This takes us to the point of this article. Players are curious, and as the saying goes, curiosity killed the cat. If the player can destroy the world that surrounds it and make it impossible to complete his goals, then we have a flawed game.
Allow me explain my point by exemplifying some situations while using certain games as reference.
Mercenaries 2, yet to be released, will have mass destruction and where we’ve seen screens of buildings collapsing, etc. What if one of those buildings, which the player needs to enter and get some important files, gets destroyed? Game over, of course, but what if it’s done not by the hand of the player, but the enemy’s? Without warning, just, boom.
The player is able to destroy the world, why not also the enemy? Doesn’t the player use the enemies’ weapons at some point? Does the developer choose to make that specific building indestructible?
That’s when the reality roller coaster crashes, and burns, and probably one man survives, goes home and slaps his wife. If something thought to react as its real counterpart through out a game is excluded from the set rules, then the sense of realism is broken.
A game where I believe the freedom of destruction is well controlled is Crysis. Not by altering the way the world reacts, but more on giving the player the upper hand.
Through out the game, the player understands what can and cannot be destroyed. It’s possible to explode metal and wood shacks but not concrete buildings. Thinner trees can be shot down, but not ticker ones.
Then imagine this quite absurd but possible situation: the player surrounds itself with garbage from its destruction, with no ammo to blow everything into smaller pieces. How does the player escape? At least in Crysis you have super-human abilities, which will enable you to jump or punch a way out.
I’m almost certain that the developers always planned on giving those abilities to the player before thinking about destructible environments. While I feel this was a given solution to a possible problem, one can wonder how badly the game design could have gone if the situation was the opposite.
A scene that amazed hundreds, and then kicked their collective groin, was from the 2003’s E3 first Half-Life 2 footage. In this particular scene, the player blocks a door with a table from a pursuing enemy which then starts forcing the door open, finally knocking the table over and resuming the chase. After the game’s release, players realized that scene was scripted; by trying to block other doors and having enemies simply walk through them, pushing away heavy objects without effort.
Although unrealistic and lacking proper AI adjustment, this happens for a reason. Even possessing the gravity gun, the player cannot manipulate heavy objects, but only push them. If the player would succeed in blocking his way out of a room, then he wouldn’t be able to accomplish his goals, which would make the game flawed. This is why doors in this game have unrealistic powers against friction, unless part of a puzzle.
Going back in time, I remember this place where I would get stuck 9 out of 10 times in
Contra Force for the NES. Often was the situation where the player destroys a certain box needed to reach a higher platform, which would return if the screen scrolled away from where the box was. But not on one spot in level 3, oh that dreaded level, where it was impossible to move away from the box spot; I still want to kill the one responsible for such a flaw.
As with all development choices, destructible environments can result in a good thing or a bad thing to a game, it depends how it is implemented and how far goes the liberty given in using and abusing of it.
That’s about it. I hope you liked how I opted to write this article. I’ll be glad to read your opinions about on which games destructible environments worked out or not and even weird situations that that feature got you into.
most popular
RSS feed
MORE IN OUR 
More from this author: 
66 comments + 37100 views
Nice write up, and I agree, phsyics at the moment are a really hit-and-miss thing, and ultimately provide many obsticals for the game developer, however, I think we're striding closer and closer to a point where destructable enviroments will no longer be a problem, where if you destroy the building you were supposed to get stuff from, the story will continue in a different way, and everything will be far more realistic.
Or atleast, I hope so.
vry nice writeup
and yes these are all valid issues that you adress...
well I was playing some Crysis earlier this week and I was wondering... Immagine playing this online, 8 vs 8 team deathmatch or something alike...
7 minutes into the game, there won't be a frigging tree standing anymore on the whole map... (except for maybe 1 or 2 'thick' ones ) :-)
you would just have a plain to fight on, with the occasional concrete building/thick tree standing out in the middle :-)
but as reaprar said, its probably all just a matter of time...
quite interesting
Very good write up man. A pleasant read indeed!
The thing I didn't understand in Crysis was why they didn't have ineluctable concrete. As anyone who's played the game knows there were plenty of destructible concrete structures in the Graveyard level.
Not to mention in the Core level you could break the alien vegetation down to each "branch". Yet you couldn't shoot branches off of larger trees. Whether this was a time constraint or something else I'm not sure. But something just never added up about Crysis' destructibility.
wtf is ineluctable?
hahah
I meant destructible.
your not on my friends list because im not on yours. lets fix this grave error.
@mistic
...
Crysis has multiplayer, what are you talking about?
Yeah, that's the thing, currently I've seen a lack of non-linear storytelling.
@Skribble:
Probably because if you had destructible concrete, you should also be able to destroy the ground you walk on. They might have had some sort of line of thought there.
I didn't add this to the post because it felt redundant, but I remember playing Red Faction and blowing holes in the ground and getting stuck inside them. ^_^
That's the game I was gunna mention! I forgot what it was called, but red faction and red faction two actually give me fond memories of destructable enviroments, maybe just because I had alot of people to play with at the time though.
I think destructible environments should be pushed to the next level where they change gameplay.
Example. In a city with lots of building, there is a group of enemies cluttered around. You could destroy it and wipe out a majority of the enemies, but some cons would be it alerts more enemies nearby, or the building can be used to takeout an enemy encampment farther ahead.
I still like destructible environment.
@Egg:
Yes, a game where the story completely changes on how the player manipulates its world would be fantastic, yet it's something really hard to recreate.
Also, if you make enough noise in Crysis you'll alert nearby enemies, I don't know for sure if the AI sends new units after a while but it's close.
How can a player destroy an entire building alone? Unless its an airstrike though, wich usually comes with scripted events.
I still like the idea of blowing a hole in the wall to flank the enemy, or a hole on the floor to prevent enemies from crossing. Shooting down wooden stairways to prevent enemies from getting upstairs.
But dont worry, I'm sure they will make essential buildings indestructible, kinda like in most games which essential NPC's cant be killed.
@exodus:
Don't take this reply wrongly, just trying to make some challenge to your comment.
Tanks can bring buildings down, C4 on the main supports, etc.
If you can shoot wooden stairways to prevent enemies from getting upstairs, what keeps you from doing a similar action and blocking you way to your goal?
If you can destroy most buildings but not the essential ones, it takes away the realism that the game tried to hard to establish.
Also, loading a previous save isn't an answer. Players should only be force to it when dead. And some players are capable of making quicksaves in the worst moment ever.
very interesting thoughts on a very interesting subject.
a game like crysis actually makes you use the environment to take out enemies. you can lure them all inside a house, jump on top of it and bash the roof in.
i think we will see more of this kind of environment manipulation in the future. not only in games that use it as a gimmick (mercenaries2 and bf:bad company)
@KamikazeTutor
Still, it would take alot of firepower to bring one down (depending on what kind of building it is), so its kinda hard to do it accidently so you screw up your mission. And it even might be possible to search the ruins after the objective.
Talking about the wooden stairs I really had multiplayer in mind. The stairways could respawn after a while or an engineer could repair them.
You know, there are plenty of titles out there where you can shoot through friendly NPC's/Players without damaging them. There are also times where you die and magically reappear later. You can also jump several metres in the air and fall down again like a feather. There are also these bugs wich can suddenly make you fall down through the ground or walk through walls. I'm pretty sure that you screwing up stuff because of the physics wont happen much more frequently than a bug screwing up things.
But dont worry, it will take least 10 years before we get realistic/near realistic physics system. And I'm pretty sure the programmers will have thought of any possible screwups wich may happen.
Just dont worry, and look forward to good things to come.
your writing is cut off.
Congratulations on the promoted piece!
Congrats KamikazeTutor!!
Interesting read indeed.
R.A.D. (Robot Alchemic Drive) for the PS2 did a great job of dealing with destructible environments, in that they created penalties for doing so, but otherwise left the entire world open for demolition, by both the player and the computer. At the end of each "episode" you'd get a damage report by a new reporter regarding how much desctrucion resulted from the robot on robot battle. You'd then have to pay for the damages! :D
Furthermore, there were occassional instances where the point of a particular mission was to protect some buildings from demolition. Especially fun *because* either you or the enemies could end up bringing down that building.
While really a mish mash of bad on purpose design with "as good as we're going to make it with this budget" limitations, that game was overall great, including its use of destructible environment.
Great write up and you're on point tbh theres nothing to add IMO.
The story is cut off. Can't read it all.
congrats kamikaze!
Nice and concise. :)
I think destructible environment, I think Red Faction and GeoMod. I also think of the failed promise that it was supposed to be included in Tribes 2. I wanted to nade a foxhole and sit tight. :(
Thanks people, this came as a surprise. :)
@exodus:
"You can also jump several metres in the air and fall down again like a feather."
Yes, in the case of Crysis, you do. It all depends in balancing the world and the player's abilities.
@mix:
Yeah, it has been a bit edited, I like it and I'm thankful, as English isn't my primary language. :)
@Tubatic:
Will try it out. :)
Wait... mix and digitaldemigod, I don't see any problems, where is it cut off to you?
Hat!
I am looking forward to Mercenaries 2.
Please don't suck.
Sucks that part of your post is a bit cut off. From what I was able to get out of it though was very excellent. Congrats
In the case of Mercenaries 2, I think the way to go about the destroying the building with intel inside of it, is to put the intel in a safe or something like those black boxes on airplanes that are "indestructible". After all, if it's so important that you need to steal it, it should probably be important enough to protect. Then when, or if, the building is destroyed, you have to dig through the rubble to find the safe/black box.
Another way to do it, is you just lose out the full amount of money or whatever for that mission and you move on. I really don't think it's that big of a problem though.
In a game like Mercenaries 2 where you take down entire buildings with a few shots from a RPG or grenades, grab the turret of a tank and swing up, open the lid, throw a grenade in, then proceed to use the controls in the recently bombed-out tank, or jump up and hijack passing helicopters..... I don't think anyone's worried about maybe one building that can't be destroyed for the sake of story progression.
Good article. Realistic physics is one of the better game developments of recent times. non stop bland FPS' games is a bad one
Congrats, KamikazeTutor! Nice write-up!
Whenever I think of destructible environments, I always think of Red Faction on the PS2 with its Geo-Mod technology. It was one of the first PS2 games I remember renting from Blockbuster in the spring of 2001. I had a lot of fun with it, but I definitely also remember getting stuck in holes that I had blown in the ground beneath me. For its time, though, it was pretty cool.
An interesting article. Congrats on the promotion!
"After the game’s release, players realized that scene was scripted; by trying to block other doors and having enemies simply walk through them, pushing away heavy objects without effort."
I don't mind typos ("ticker" trees), but c'mon let's try to form complete sentences, especially if they are essential to a paragraph's point.
Otherwise, interesting article...I think destructible environments won't be completely feasible (or fun) for a long time. It requires a whole new standard of level design. Think of all the wooden doors in Half-Life 2 that blocked your progress. The most glaring example was in Episode Two, where the Advisor was inside a wooden barn, and because one door was locked, you had to crawl under a bunch of planks to get through...when simply blowing through any part of the barn walls would've gotten you there.
We should have more fully destructible environments (to a point at least). The trouble is that if the game remembers which objects have been damaged / destroyed, eventually there would be nothing left. Which would mean that you would have to stop playing or wait for the building to respawn.
Having destructible driving surfaces (just like in the days of Vigilante 8) would be great. Driving along a road only to drop into a massive crater that wasn't there a minute ago would make for a better game
I know a guy who helped build Black for EA, and he said that destructable environs are cool but hard to do right. Most of the DE's I've seen don't take it as far as I would like, though I thought Doom 3 was pretty cool, knocking shit off the shelf doesn't really equate to a destructable environment.
We need infinite destructability, where you can destroy everything on a map and then dig 500 feet into the ground with your explosives.
"If the player would succeed in blocking his way out of a room, then he wouldn’t be able to accomplish his goals, which would make the game flawed."
This is not true. This would be the same as jumping down a pit that's not deep enough to make it a fatal fall, but deep enough to make it impossible to get out of it. Player's fault, the game should be aware of the situation and suggest to reload the latest checkpoint/quicksave.
I like abstract games, I like fantasy (to a point), but if a game has realistic settings and environment, the environment should behave realistically. Leaving every door open to imaginative creativity (think Katamari), the standard game should take physics and (as a consequence) destructible environments as granted: they shouldn't be eye-candy nor a show-stopper. Game design should adapt to them, not the other way round. In other words: Mercenaries 2, the mission is to retriveve files from an office in a certain building -> the building is destroyed, it's game over, whoever did it. Checkpoints are standard, anyway.
Again, it's 2008 and there's no more room for wooden doors that don't go down with an RPG. In a way, it's like the uncanny valley effect: the more the whole thing is real-like, the more the exceptions stand out.
I'm still waiting for a game where shooting glass out of a window above my targets, will damage and/or distract them.
I'd just like to have a game where you look at a situation, think of something you (or someone in that situation) would do in real life... and do it. Pushing furniture in front of doors, unscrewing a lightbulb, anything like that!
pfft, as long as the game obeys physics, I think the next step is destructible environments no matter what. If you blow a hole you get stuck in you die. Want realism? There it is. Be more careful with your explosions and stuff. As for the objective buildings, make the game smarter.
Just my 2 cents. You want real realism? Destructible to the point of no return is just that. Real.
Of course this would only work in realistic games. Contra? Not realistic. That shouldn't happen.
@xenon:
"This would be the same as jumping down a pit that's not deep enough to make it a fatal fall, but deep enough to make it impossible to get out of it. Player's fault, the game should be aware of the situation and suggest to reload the latest checkpoint/quicksave."
So on ET for ATARI, that wasn't a bug?
If it's a pit where the player can't get out from, why not kill him? Why make the player reach for a save game? That's a flaw in the game.
"Game design should adapt to them, not the other way round. In other words: Mercenaries 2, the mission is to retriveve files from an office in a certain building -> the building is destroyed, it's game over, whoever did it. Checkpoints are standard, anyway."
So is stress and anger.
@imcowman:
Well, the first thing games must be, above realistic, is fun. If the player is having fun destroying stuff and gets a game over, the fun ends.
Not that a game with lifelike consequences wouldn't be bad, but there's the fun factor to be aware off.
I like these replies. :D
Some people have made good points about destructible environments in games like Mercenaries or its sequel. The thing to think about is: are the environments destructible for realism or just to add fun to the game? In the case of Mercenaries, they are there to add fun to the game and really nothing more. So like some have said, having certain undestructible buildings, etc. isn't a big deal.
the half-life 2 example was classic.
A discussion about destruction, and no mention of Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction? For shame. That game is fantastic. Where else can you get POINTS for destroying things? Awesome.
@KamikazeTutor: The ET one was certainly a bug. Speaking of modern game design, though, I think it make sense to have obstacles that are not technically lethal, but lead to a game over. This actually opens new possibilities - speaking again of a realistic environment, it's more likely to find a 5 meters deep pit that traps you than a 50 meters deep one that shatters you when you fall into it. It's obvious that games should be fun, above all, and I know I have a slight fixation with certain aspects of realism, so this approach to environments should be used wisely and correctly (like AC3 :P).
Finally, we usually accept that the death of an important AI partner leads to game over (think Alyx), and it wasn't a direct fault of ours: we just allowed it to happen. Like a building collapsing on our needed files under enemy fire we didn't fight back enough. I guess. :)
Based on the Mercs example alone, you seem to think that developers have no way to control their technology, don't test for such situations, and that the designers would never think of these things harming playability. Very false assumption.
Yes, they can cause problems but I don't see the possibility of them breaking a game very often if at all, especially under obvious circumstances like those.
I did not mention many games, I was to in my initial text, but I found myself being redundant in the end. Hulk certainly lived up to its name. Red Faction was a pioneer. :)
@Gehof:
Au contraire, I'm making the point where the developers know what they have to do, and how sometimes the path to a flawless gameplay is hard to achieve when par with a high level of freedom given to the player.
Regarding "breaking the game", it all depends of which path the developers take. If they do penalize the player with a game over for the destruction of certain structures, imagine yourself repeating the same mission over and over again, not because of your mistakes, but also because of the destruction caused by the AI, while trying to kill you.
Why not make the game fluid, in it's "win/lose" system? One wrong shot with a tank (say this is some Mercenaries spin-off) takes out the HQ you was protecting. Game over, right? No. The enemy retreat, you get an email from their leader who says "hey nice shooting, they now want to kill you, come work for us!".
Or, you blow a wall out, and find out your contact was on the other side (and now is in itty bitty pieces). You then have to struggle through that part of the game without the contact, until you can find someone else to help you.
Why does the game have to end? If i shoot Ashley in the head in Res 4 (oh she deserves it), maybe the game changes from "rescue the pres daughter" to "escape with the knowledge about what happened here". The game gets tougher, it punishes you for killing her (or letting her be killed), but it's playable.
/ramble off
Indeed, that's other way around it. Allowing the player to create the plot twists, various outcomes.