bah, I'll take good design over added bits on screen. Walls that destruct are a game design issue, not a physics issue, if those bits break apart super realistically or just fairly realistically is a physics issue, IF they can break apart is a design choice.
Same goes for most real game world, game play effecting things people like to call physics. Destructable walls, tables on a map that can be broken or shoved out the way, most other things.
I'm not against things being added to make things look better, but marginal improvement for huge performance cost isn't worthwhile, marginal improvement for marginal performance cost is fine. If something comes along that makes game dev's look at Physx, laugh and use a freely available, faster API, good for everyone. However, Havok can do basically anything needed, the amount its used is again a design decision and there is little to no need for super realistic/power hungry versions when we can't tell the difference between real/fake(estimated) physics. It's still design decisions to use it, or not, and how a game will play.
