How Games Do Destruction

Oh hi Mark

Teardown is nothing like Minecraft and does not represent the terrain as blocks. It's all pixels.

An early example of destruction would be Duke Nukem 3D. You can destroy select parts of the map, but they're defined by the level designer. It's basically the "two versions" approach, just done in the level editor. It's usually done with sector floor and ceiling heights (and slopes of them), with the map built in the destroyed state, and then special sprites used to instruct the game how to adjust them to give the starting state, then moving to the heights and slopes built in the editor when the destruction is triggered. The engine does allow for moving sectors, but they don't actually get much use for the purposes of destruction. Just changing heights and slopes goes a long way, especially with a few well-placed sprites.

When I created my destruction sandboxes in Unity I used the first method, but tried to find out via script if parts are connected and since that was frustrating I gave up before finding out using joints could make it possible instead. Maybe just maybe I'll try it out. My goal back then was to make like a GMod-esque destruction sandbox

Edit: basically I heard about RF:Gs stress system and tried to make one myself without informing myself on how it actually works

Interesting poll at the end. I neither play games, nor am a developer, but Youtube recommended me your video and I like physics.

One good example is Söldner: Secret Wars from 2004 with its Advanced Destruction System (ADS).

6:21 brutal

Memory budget...
Lol
Back when they had to innovate for the RAM

thank you i learned soo much

No mention of the OG? Dig Dug, 1982.

1:30 4:53 6:32 7:56 10:25 14:46
My favorite parts.

Something that is missing in most of these games is the opposite: creation.

If the player can actively destroy the course... introduce something that can recreate it. Either by letting the player do it, or by letting the world do it.

This could easily be it's own gameplay loop, where it's not PvE or PvP but PvW. They fight the world. Imagine if the road can be straight to the objective, but the (magic or sci-fi) world repairs itself so fast that the player needs to be smart about how it destroys the world to make their path, and then use that path to get there. Sure TECHNICALLY you can explode yourself through that mountain straight at the objective, but if you make a mistake and don't destroy a path fast enough the game world will repair itself around you with you at the center, essentially burying you alive.

Alternatives are where the player needs to simultaneously destroy stuff and build/repair stuff to advance. Similar to Minecraft the things you can build can be reliant on resources you have to gather locally, and possibly build something stable enough too. You might want to destroy a wall, only to find out it had a ton of water behind it and now you have to build something that you can climb before you drown. Or much of the playspace is empty space that you need to bridge, literally. While destroying bridges that provide enemy encounters (or build towards encounters for rewards/progression).

Creation can also mean production. So you can technically destroy everything, but to advance you need specific things that can be gotten through production. Like setting up a quick little industrial hub that produces your ammo for you which in turn can be used to stop enemy attacks and destroy the world further, creating a feedback loop where the player has to constantly build to be able to destroy.

Additionally the goal can specifically be keeping some stuff intact, so the player is encouraged to NOT destroy specific things while heavily encouraged to destroy everything around it. Creating skill requirements in how you deploy your destruction and how accurately. Like the very buildings you create yourself could be just as destructible. Easy if you want to recuperate the resources, hard if you depend on those structures and terrain features to stay alive and progress.

Edit: and then there is the way of creation. If you need to reach a ledge a few meters higher, then in a Minecraft system you can easily build a stairs or even just jump and place blocks below you. But if you limit it to letting the player build, for example, entire pieces of a building like an entire appartment or office section. Then the player has to build such a section (and subsequent sections on top) to reach the ledge.

This is where creation and destruction can be vital in moving through the world. Your current blueprints might not let you place something you can climb on to reach the ledge, but you might place it, collapse the walls of your own structure strategically to partially collapse the roof and create a ramp. Or build a large radio-tower which can be deliberately toppled as a makeshift bridge or climable structure. Or you have to strategically create stuff and destroy it to build a foundation for something else to stand on.

Even how the creation is placed in the world can change the gameplay. Being able to teleport things into the world similar to Satisfactory gives you a whole different puzzle structure than if buildings are dropped from the sky and you have to make sure they can land without snagging on something (or use that to your advantage).

Creation and destruction can also be the same thing. If you go with the system of "buildings are dropped from the sky", then suddenly that is a weapon by itself and you can limit the player's arsenal of destruction. Dealing with enemies can be trying to drop a structure on them. Or overloading a structure's weight capacity to cause it to crumble on top. Teaching the player to build stable structures also means teaching them how to build unstable one's on purpose. Use that knowledge!

Star Trek: Bridge Commander had a procedural damage system in it too. Could blow holes and chunks out of a ship's hull and it would dynamically adjust the mesh in real time. It did have some jank to it but it largely worked and sold the effect.

The Final's destruction looks fun, but there is an odd sense of toy-like shape and durability to larger destroyed components and other macro-debris. It is not that bad in the grand scheme of things since the game moves at a fast pace, but from time to time it visually feels like things are disconnected but not actually destroyed. I suppose there just isn't enough variation in damage to loosed objects that they seem too 'undamaged' after destruction happens, but there is a lot going on so it gets still a pass.

There was a game called World Destruction League Thunder Tanks on the PS2 that also had voxel like destructive bits of environment. I remember being very surprised that I could effectively tunnel into a shipping container by blowing a hole through it and making basically a cave to hide my tank in, the thing was treated like a solid structure rather than an actual hollow shipping container but there were also random buildings that were similarly voxel like constructions

Seems like "Control" was focusing a lot more on the world than the actual story...
I did not even notice the world, and got bored fast from the story.

Rampage? 😢

Please do another video and explain Worms destruction system! That game is from the 90s and has had one of the most impressive world destruction systems ever!

JELLYCAR MENTIONED!!!

I wish the people who worked on Red Faction would make a Hulk game someday. Imagine destroying a full city while battling a big boss or roaming around as the emerald giant.

It's a crime that Space Engineers with it's Completely destructable planets and destruction physics wasn't mentioned!

BeamNg is so cool!

I was hoping for Crysis

Devs should know that we prioritize games with THIS

Can we talk about the over reliance on making textures look 3d? At some point, they're gonna have to stop doing that, and at some point, that means overhauling a BUNCH of stuff, cuz its pretty much the only way they know how to make things look 3d now, without BEING 3d.

My new favorite channel.

Very nice! Too bad you didn't include GTA IV

it just feels like we make steps backwards everytime we get better hardware. physics stuff is getting rare or at least not much in the center of attention anymore. gaming starts to feel bland more and more.

Wreckfest ja No soft body collision model!!! Its hard body with multiple stages

Could you combine the real-time destruction of Rainbow 6 siege and Astro Bot with the stress mechanic of Red Faction: Guerilla?

One, I'm impressed Metal Gear Rising wasn't even mentioned since it's cutting mechanic was a heavily featured system for the game and one of its selling points.

Second, I honestly would be interested in seeing a similar video except it's for character/player/enemy body damage, like Dead space, Monster, and yes, even MGR.

What happened to the video

You're not talking about recent Battlefield? Like 5 or 6? Surely it has changed much compared to Bad Company 2?

I am a little surprised that with the Astro Bot entry that there was no honorable mention for Metal Gear Rising since that game did the same kind of destruction to enemy characters, enemy objects, some structural objects, and static objects over 10 years before. I know you'd have to avoid gore for the video but even just showcasing Kojima Productions' own reveal trailer footage of Raiden realistically cutting a watermelon could have gotten the point across. I do also still love that in the final release of the game that you can max out memory through cutting objects so much that when it tries to create new slices from Raiden's attacks that it just keeps duplicating the same set of tris, it's really funny to see.

Finally a game mechanic that's specifically directly very relevant to me

Gta 6 will nail with procedural glass breaking system.

The technical evolution of environmental destruction in games is fascinating. Understanding the balance between physics-based systems and visual fidelity is key for modern game design. Great breakdown! cantürk emre petekçi"

8:50
Fun fact: the Portal 2 PTI editor (the built in level editor, not Hammer) actually uses voxels for its geometry, to my knowledge. So walls, floors, and ceilings are all voxels, and all testing elements are in the voxel grid. This is a much different approach to something like Hammer, Unreal, Unity, or pretty much any 3D game engine, where the placement and size of geometry is much more customizable. Although if you think about it it’s still TECHNICALLY voxels.

Shout out to Destroy All Humans, Mercenaries, Red Faction & Just Cause

bake and make

No way bro didn't talk about The finals in a video about destruction, I'm dissapointed

I developed a same destruction system on s&box game engine for monkey fortress, it was looonng to do but i am happy

The Finals???

No offense but these videos are so high level why would a dev watch? Certainly not for how to's...

you probably won't see this comment, but Deep Rock Galactic uses a very interesting map generation and with it being fully destructible you can shape it however you want and enemy pathfinding and props will be influenced by it. even explosives can carve the terrain

If anyone is interested in games with destruction, absolutely check out The Finals. It's a competitive FPS, imo the most fun shooter since Titanfall 2 and best on the market right now (though I've heard Arc Raiders, by the same studio, is good too). But its main selling point is that environments are destructible, and it's incredibly fun. The fact that its actually a legitimate part of the gameplay loop is awesome too, like you can take down buildings with explosives, or knock down walls to get to your enemies. It's really awesome.

Wreckfest was the most fun I had in crashing into other cars.

i kind of wish you went into more detail about how sieges destruction system worked (Ie: soft walls, hard walls, indestructable walls, reinforcemtes, wall denial, vert play etc) but good video. I would just like to see the effects these mechanics have on the gameplay explored more.

This is GOLD!

Did you even research any of this? Bad company does NOT just swap out a wall with a destroyed one. What the hell? They made a whole GDC presentation outlining their approach. You reducing their work to this is almost insulting.