Video games have spent decades trying to convince us that their worlds are real. We get 4K textures, ray-traced reflections, and motion-captured sweat. But then you fire a rocket launcher at a wooden fence and... nothing happens. The fence doesn't splinter. It doesn't even get a scorch mark. This immersion-breaking wall is exactly why games with destructible environments remain the "holy grail" of development. It’s a messy, expensive, and technically punishing feature that most studios simply skip. Honestly, it’s easier to just paint a pretty picture than to build a world that actually breaks when you touch it.
I remember playing Red Faction back in 2001. Using the Geo-Mod engine to tunnel through a rock wall felt like magic. It felt like the future. Fast forward over twenty years, and we’re still looking at static environments in most AAA titles. Why? Because making things break is easy, but making them break well while keeping the game playable is a nightmare.
The Chaos of Choice: Why Destruction Matters
Destruction isn't just a visual gimmick. It’s a fundamental shift in how we play. In a standard shooter, a door is a bottleneck. In a game with a high degree of environmental reactivity, that door is just a suggestion. You can go through the wall. You can drop the ceiling on an enemy. You can blow out the floor from under a sniper.
This changes the "logic" of the game. Look at The Finals, developed by Embark Studios. They use server-side physics to handle the demolition. This is crucial. If the destruction happened only on your screen (client-side), you’d see a hole while your teammate saw a solid wall. That leads to desync, lag, and a miserable experience. By moving the math to the cloud, they’ve managed to create a world where entire buildings can collapse in real-time. It’s chaotic. It’s loud. It’s also incredibly hard to balance. How do you design a map when the map might not exist five minutes into the match?
The Engines Powering the Rubble
Not all destruction is created equal. We’ve moved past the days of simple "scripted" destruction where a building falls in a pre-recorded animation. Modern games with destructible environments rely on complex physics engines.
Frostbite Engine (DICE/EA)
The Battlefield series is the poster child for this. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 arguably peaked the series in terms of raw "micro-destruction." You could whittle down a house until it just pancaked. Later entries scaled this up with "Levolution," but many fans felt that scripted events were a step backward from the organic crumbling of the older games.
Chaos Physics (Unreal Engine)
Epic Games introduced the Chaos physics system to replace PhysX. It allows for high-scale fracturing. It's what powers the more impressive destruction sequences in modern Unreal titles. The problem? It’s a resource hog. Developers often have to choose between 60 frames per second and having a wall that breaks into 500 individual pieces.
✨ Don't miss: Hidden Money on GTA 5 Online: The Stashes Rockstar Doesn't Explicitly Map Out
Voxel Engines
Then you have games like Teardown. This game is built entirely on voxels (3D pixels). Because every single object is made of these tiny cubes, everything—and I mean everything—can be destroyed. It’s the most "honest" version of destruction we have. There are no "invincible" assets. If you have a hammer or a blowtorch, you can dismantle the world piece by piece.
The Technical Debt of a Broken Wall
Why don't we see this in Call of Duty or Halo? Performance. That’s the short answer.
Every time a wall breaks, the game has to calculate the physics of every flying brick. It has to update the lighting because there’s now a hole letting "sunlight" in. It has to update the AI's pathfinding so the bots don't try to walk through a wall that isn't there, or conversely, so they can walk through the new hole you just made.
Most developers decide it’s not worth it. They’d rather spend that processing power on better character models or bigger draw distances. There’s also the issue of "gameplay flow." If a level designer spends six months crafting a perfect stealth mission, and the player just blows a hole in the back wall to bypass every guard, the "game" part of the game breaks. Destructibility requires a total rethink of level design. You aren't building a hallway; you're building a sandbox.
Realistic Damage vs. "Fun" Damage
There is a weird tension between realism and playability. In real life, if you hit a concrete pillar with a sledgehammer, your arms would vibrate and the pillar might get a chip. In a game, we want that pillar to shatter.
Rainbow Six Siege is a masterclass in this balance. The destruction is "tactical." You can’t level the whole map, but you can blow "murder holes" in drywall. This creates a psychological layer to the game. You aren't just watching the corners; you're watching the floor above you and the walls beside you. Ubisoft used a proprietary tech called "RealBlast" to handle this. It calculates the material thickness and the force of the impact to decide if a bullet creates a tiny hole or a breach. It’s specific. It’s intentional.
What Most People Get Wrong About Destruction
People often think more destruction equals a better game. It doesn't.
If you can destroy everything, the map quickly becomes a flat, featureless wasteland. This happened a lot in the original Red Faction: Guerrilla. By the end of a big fight, there was nowhere to hide. No cover. No verticality. Just red dust and rubble.
The best games with destructible environments understand the "Return to Center" principle. You need some structures to remain so the game remains a game. Deep Rock Galactic handles this beautifully. Since the entire world is destructible (it’s a mining game), they use procedural generation to ensure that even if you dig a massive hole, the cave system still has a logical flow.
The E-E-A-T Factor: Who is Doing This Right?
If you want to see the cutting edge, look at indie and mid-tier developers. They are the ones taking the risks that AAA studios avoid.
- Teardown (Dennis Gustafsson): A masterclass in voxel-based physics. It’s essentially a puzzle game where the solution is always demolition.
- The Finals (Embark Studios): Former Battlefield veterans proving that server-side destruction is the future of multiplayer.
- Noita (Nolla Games): This is a 2D game, but "every pixel is simulated." Fire burns wood, water puts out fire, acid eats through rock. It’s chemical destruction, which is arguably even more complex than mechanical destruction.
- BeamNG.drive: While it’s about cars, its "soft-body physics" is the gold standard for how objects should deform. Most games use "rigid body" physics where things just shatter. BeamNG makes things dent and twist.
Actionable Insights for the Future
We are entering a new era. With the widespread adoption of SSDs in consoles and the rise of cloud computing, the "hardware excuse" is dying. If you are a developer or even a curious player, here is how to think about the next wave of environmental interactivity:
- Focus on Materiality: We don't just want things to break; we want them to break correctly. Wood should splinter, glass should shatter, and metal should bend.
- Leverage AI for Pathfinding: The next big leap isn't the destruction itself, but how AI reacts to it. We need enemies that look at a hole you just blew in a wall and decide to use it as a flank.
- Sound Design is Half the Battle: Destruction feels "thin" without proper audio. High-fidelity games need to move toward procedural audio, where the sound of a falling wall is calculated based on the size and material of the debris.
- Persistent Rubble: One of the biggest immersion killers is when debris disappears after 10 seconds to save memory. We need engines that can handle persistent wreckage so that the map tells a story of the battle that happened there.
Destruction isn't just about breaking stuff. It’s about agency. It’s about the game acknowledging that the player exists. When you leave a mark on the world, the world feels real. That’s why we’ll keep chasing the perfect explosion, even if it breaks the frame rate along the way.
Next Steps for Enthusiasts:
If you want to experience the peak of this tech right now, download the Teardown creative mode or jump into a match of The Finals. Pay attention to how the "flow" of the map changes once the walls come down. Compare that to the static maps of a game like Valorant or Counter-Strike 2. You'll start to see that "static" isn't a limitation of the hardware anymore—it's a choice by the designers. Whether that choice is the right one depends entirely on how much chaos you’re willing to handle.