If you focus on screenshots and scripted playthroughs then maybe. But if you play a simple 3D physics demo where everything can be destroyed and Battlefield 4 where only 5 buildings can be destroyed, the subjectivity of realism is lost. It feels constricted.
An ugly 3d physics demo with hundreds of boxes becomes about as entertaining and feels subjectively as realistic as BF4, if you ignore screenshots and pay attention only to gameplay.
Believe it or not, shooting hundreds tank and artillery rounds into the environment turns it all into rubble.
A major priority of game studios is marketing. Currently they depend heavily on screenshots. That means they'll constrict environmental destruction to 1 building per level to preserve screenshot fidelity. If they turned down graphics settings and allow physics engines to contribute to the subjective feeling of realism, they're afraid it won't sell enough.
That's an approach some indie games have taken. Naturally it's more efficient to develop. Maybe efficient enough to get rid of $100 million a year teams and be profitable with lower sales.
If you focus on screenshots and scripted playthroughs then maybe. But if you play a simple 3D physics demo where everything can be destroyed and Battlefield 4 where only 5 buildings can be destroyed, the subjectivity of realism is lost. It feels constricted.
An ugly 3d physics demo with hundreds of boxes becomes about as entertaining and feels subjectively as realistic as BF4, if you ignore screenshots and pay attention only to gameplay.
Believe it or not, shooting hundreds tank and artillery rounds into the environment turns it all into rubble.
A major priority of game studios is marketing. Currently they depend heavily on screenshots. That means they'll constrict environmental destruction to 1 building per level to preserve screenshot fidelity. If they turned down graphics settings and allow physics engines to contribute to the subjective feeling of realism, they're afraid it won't sell enough.
That's an approach some indie games have taken. Naturally it's more efficient to develop. Maybe efficient enough to get rid of $100 million a year teams and be profitable with lower sales.