Second round of the Candidates tournament played Friday had 4/4 decisive games[1]. In general, a tie might be the most common result but even at the highest level there tend to be chances for both sides.
It's really up to the players. SuperGMs these days are somewhat addicted to draws because it's a very safe result in a tournament setting and in terms of rating. Therefore these players tend to favour less risky and more calculable openings. They care more about avoiding a loss than they do about winning.
The idea that the large amount of draws is because players are so strong now, is mostly a myth. It's really just psychology and game theory at work.
For a perfect illustration of all my points, look at Aronian vs Grischuk from the 2018 candidates tournament. Here both players chose to play into complications, and the resulting game was wildly complex, with both players making several suboptimal moves simply because the position was just too complex even for two of the strongest calculators in the game at the time.
And in the end, they still ended up constructing a draw by repetition when all 3 results were still possible. Both players had good winning chances, yet the fear of losing finally overtook them and they collectively bailed out of the game.
It's not that players are now so strong it's almost impossible to win, the players just aren't as willing to seek out the necessary positions.
[1]: https://lichess.org/broadcast/fide-candidates-2024--open/rou...