Is the term “destructible environment” a misnomer?

By: Michael Carusi | November 9th, 2009

It occured to me while playing Saints Row 2 how perplexing the term “destructible environment” is.  We’ve been promised it time and time again, but games will always have immovable, impenetrable elements.  Just as a disclaimer, this isn’t meant to complain about the lack of destructability in environments, but consider the limitations.  Saints Row 2 has arguably even more destructive potential than in Grand Theft Auto IV if you get into a fight with the police, bring some gang members with you, and then watch the chaos escalate to an entire city block.  Yet there are always buildings, windows, and trees that can withstand multiple rockets.

Let’s assume for a minute that you can visibly and accurately destroy every building, tree, and object in a game world, something Mercenaries 2 apparently does fairly well.  Let’s also assume that the ground never displays so much as a crack if you fire twenty rockets at it.  Doesn’t the ground count as the environment as well?  Where would it end?  Although the term “environment” is subjective, it implies everything visible and interactive in the game world, including the ground.  The term “destructible environment” implies that every weapon should realistically affect the ground, trees, and even cliffs that only serve as invisible walls to prevent a player from straying beyond the game’s boundaries.

Given that “destructible environment” is misleading, I propose we start using the term “destructible elements”, or perhaps “interactive elements”, since the idea of a “fully interactive environment” runs into this same dilemma.  As mind-blowing as it would be to use rockets to punch deep enough into the ground that we expose the planet’s core and throw the entire planet out of alignment, we’re not there yet (alas).