What happened to destructible environments in video games? We have more processing power than ever but most of it seems to be rendering megatextures.

>>715671709 (OP)
Too expensive/jeets can't into physics simulations

whenever you ask "whatever happened to x?" you're getting closer to realizing that everything novel is a trend or fad that will eventually fade.

>>715671918
>anon discovers that nothing is permanent
Good job faggot.

the trend just kind of died out after 2011. It does suck though, would take it over the path tracing push

>>715671918
Bro really thought this was deep lmao

>>715671709 (OP)
>>715671846

This, and also the same you won’t find a multiplayer game as snappy and well built as Halo 2 even though it’s been twenty years. In old games like that you had a few very high IQ White guys doing all of the game’s physics. Now you have a jeet army overseen by a girlboss with an MBA that thinks video games are ick.

donkey kong bananza is here anon...

>>715672256
Good for Nintendo for making it, I'm going to pick buy it soon because I like destroying the terrain.

My dream game is Planetside 2 but you can mousehole your way through buildings and dig tunnels to the enemy's lines, where after an afternoon, you and 200+ other guys turn an entire city into rubble.

>>715671918
or it could just be that this type of destruction was patented. god knows old volition would be petty enough to do so.

>>715671709 (OP)
Physics doesn't sell games, graphics does.

>>715672256
well-spotted, this is secretly a stealth pro-bananza thread