Destructible environments
Why developers thought they would rock:
Game makers heard us cry foul after we complained our rocket launchers were able to turn Nazis and zombies into mush, yet wouldn’t make a dent in brick walls or chain-link fences. Determined to right this paradox, we were promised destructible environments that would give us a leg-up on the Third Reich. Imagine laying waste to an entire city block to take out pursuing enemy units or flattening a building to bottleneck tanks into a cleverly positioned trap.
Why they suck:
That would be great; instead we get scenery that crumbles the same way every time alongside the same damn impervious walls. Essentially nothing has changed, except an increase in rubble.
As gamers, we already accept games as existing within a different reality - in this case, one in which buildings don’t give in to landmines. The promise of destructible environments invites a change - one where shit should blow up good. Yet when walls collapse with the same pre-scripted animation time and time again, alongside stable buildings that aren’t programmed to be demolished, then that doesn’t sit right with us.
Even if every form of infrastructure went kablooey, would it even matter? You could squash every building in Mercenaries, but it did nothing for us, while RTS Company of Heroes utilized every ruined area tactically. Perfect the feature or don’t advertise it.
