It's so strange that fps games like Battlefield 3 are hailed as the zenith of destructive physics technology when a game from 2008 out-dates it so hard in this department it might as well just go back to using rigid body physics to not delude itself.
It amazes me why this concept died around 2009. The race for the perfect controller tossed out the window in favor for control schemes that will never ever make it off casual gaming territory no matter how much out of touch "gaming futurists" want it to.
: I'm looking at you motion controls/touch screen
GOOD GRAPHICS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE TO MAKE?
maybe BF3 wouldn't feel so bloated if this tech had been in frostbite 2
Chdonga
Star Wars: Force Unleashed didn't have completely destructable environments, which is why it didn't get as much popularity as Battlefield 3.
naronic
What I meant was more along the lines of what BF3 should be doing.
If you look closely at game footige regarding destruction you'll notice that most of the destruction is pre-baked, and pre-determined. It should've used DMM for how much it's destruction was hyped up.