Quite possibly. I just got reminded that it's been said somewhere that you can set oil on fire - does that count as evidence of destructible environments?

All I can say is, if there's deformability, I hope there's rebuilding too. If I left the game on for five minutes only to come back and discover half of Whiterun had been flattened, I'd be pretty annoyed if it remained that way for the rest of the game. *cough* Kvatch *cough.*

That really wasn't terrain deformation. It was rocks (or objects painted to look like grass) that simply got disabled when the corresponding gate was enabled. The terrain never really changed (and it was a sore point for many Kvatch mods, because they couldn't change the ground texture to make it look like it wasn't burnt, without ruining the look of the gate). The kind of deformation caused by the dragon crash-landing would be dynamic depending on where it crashes and how far it slides.

As for the trees, I doubt they're breakable. I mentioned in a separate thread, but that's the http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8495/skyrim720p.jpg, broken the same exact way, as shown in a http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Daily/2011/02-Feb/11/Skyrim screens/Skyrim4--article_image.jpg. Occam's Razor: two separate shots of two different run-throughs at two separate points in development that happen to have the same exact tree dynamically broken the same exact way, or, it's a prefab mesh of a broken tree.

I think this is a perfect example of people hyping the game up waaaay too much. If terrain was dynamically deformable BGS would have excitedly told us about it already because it's just so bloody hard to pull off. You know Bad Company 2? Yeah? That relatively straightforward and enclosed shooter that basically revolves around dynamic deformation? Yeah I don't think it's very feasible for a huge open world game like Skyrim.

And Crysis 2 has destructible environments as well.

Would be super cool but I think it's just wishful thinking, lets hope I'm wrong.

You create a thread to discuss the possibility of deformation and then shoot me down for giving evidence to the contrary? I thought that was the point. I don't understand your hostile reaction. Others could get excited by you using the tree as an example, not knowing that Oblivion had broken trees. I was merely adding to the discussion, with only the dragon damage left to base deformable environments on, it is very weak evidence, thus people should not get there hopes up based on that alone.

This is a discussion board, someone else can now counter this with some new evidence or explain the flaws in my thinking, but bashing me does no good.

Aren't dragons able to destroy towns as well as the residents? I know they're going to attack towns, but will the buildings suffer?

All that has been stated is they will attack towns. No information has been given on their destructive capabilities.

Wrong thread, sorry!

Er... yeah, deformability is a good idea! :goodjob:

I'd had a bad day at work and was excited to get home and start a new thread, imagining in my own head that everyone would find the argument exciting. I needed everyone to like my idea so I could feel better. When you wrote your comments, it broke my illusion and sent me hurtling into despair. But you're right. I did you wrong. I'm sorry. I apologize.

I found your counter argument (the above quote) better worded in explaining your validity to refute my evidence with counter "evidence" ... evidence IS evidence, whether it's for or against, and I kind of forgot that, too. I did say I welcomed "evidence" on this thread, so I must live by that. Thanks for being rational in your return comments and for not making me feel worse. I appreciate that, my friend.