Anyone else think its important to add destructable environments? If a dragon attacks a city I want to see some destruction! However, each building (and person) would need like 5 counterparts with a randomly generated name that would replace the original after a while to keep the game changing. Everything needs to do this though, trees, animals, even people!

No.

There are innumerable things I would want BGS to perfect before they bother turning their attention to destructible environments.

Besides, I don't know why one would want to destroy a building. It takes time to make it. Much time.

As long as it's just the large creatures that can smash things with ease. The player exploding through a city wall would be derp derp.

Yes.

Think about Battlefield Bad Company 2. Great game with completely destructible environments. Im just saying that if something attacked the Imperial City, I wouldnt care. Why? Because the shops I like and my house will still be there tomorrow. But if there was that fear that they wouldnt, it would create a more realistic game feeling and you would be more likely to fight out the battle. Plus if everything would be rebuilt eventually, you would never get bored with a city.

Yeah, while this would be a nice little feature. Let's be honest, Dragons probably aren't going to ransack a city unless it's a little village, and your character will hear about it late, and when you get there, the cell is reloaded to make the village look damaged.

And in the case of the player causing destruction to the environment. That would almost be the exclusive territory of Destruction magicka, which not everyone uses.

Do you have any idea what kind of processing power that would take in a game as complicated as an open world TES? The features that would have to be cut to accommodate things that can fall over is ridiculous. No. There are countless other things that would actually add to the game without hogging processing power. This is very, very low on the priorities list.

Edit: dragons ravishing towns will probably have an impact, but it will be a scripted thing. Destructible environments and two different textures are not the same thing.

I too think there s too many grey area and potentially pitfalls in Skyrim to add somthing as destructible environment. It would be nice ? Hell yeah but fith layer in importance.

As fot the dragons destroying a city, really i couldn t care less as i want to join them!

I really don't think it would be that important for this game. It would be cool but I don't want a ruined building in a city for the rest of the game.

I don't know how much terrible damage the dragons will bring to cities and the environment, but it'd be silly if the place got hit by Alduin and it'd be still there.

If it was in, it'd have to be during scripted events (like the climix of Oblivion). It'd be extremely difficult to implement fully destructible environments like in BF:BC2 in an open-world game as massive as TES.

Addint two textures and two meshes to some building, would be interesting, as far as those building could be reconstructed in few game days. Else all destructible things would end destroyed along the game, which isn't so funny.

It doesnt have to be a dragon attack! Skyrim is in a civil war. Some cities are going to be destroyed. But I want them to be rebuilt. I also dont want it to be scripted, because then you end up with Kvatch and it is the same every time you play. Maybe random buildings are chosen every time to collapse in a specific way. But the key is, things are destroyed, replaced, and then destroyed. A changing environment would be worth getting the extra pc power.

That would either end in frustration or pointlessness. If things get destroyed then it's frustrating. If they get rebuilt quickly enough to avoid frustration it negates the point of doing it in the first place.

I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of settlements getting Kvatch'd as long as they're rebuilt to some extent, but that would be scripted and not BC2 destructible environments as you seem to be advocating.

When I read destructable (sic), I immediately thought, "This member is a B:BC2 player who just joined the forums." Lo and behold...

And another thing. If the game never changes, it will get boring fast. Think about once you win the game. What are you going to do after you have beaten all the quests. You will want to play, but you wont have anything to do. So random attacks on the city would be fun! Random buildings would be destroyed, then you help clean up and rebuild, live your life for a few weeks, and then do it again. Whenever something attacks a town a specific music will play (Like when your attacked only different) and so the player will know whats happening. And if BGS includes the player having a closer bond with NPCs then you will be able to have something worth fighting for. It would be good, and it can be done. If you can run Battlefield BC2, this should be fine.

I don't think the feeling of "I wonder what city is going to be inconveniently destroyed this time I play!" would keep me going for long after I get bored with the game.

This. Destructible environments comes along with a huge list of technical challenges, especially in an open world game. It is certain that we will see some form of mass destruction in Skyrim, but you can bet that it will be scripted.

Precisely. All the more reason NOT to play, as I wouldn't want to end up with no cities after 100 hours of gameplay.

Even if they were rebuilt, it would just be a nuisance. And once one city had been destroyed and rebuilt you'd have seen it all. What's the point of it happening randomly and infinitely?

Yes I want it. To some extent. Destructable trees would be really nice.

But... everything's that is destructable should very slowly "restore" itself. It would be sad if something got completely ruined. Far Cry 2 had this "restore" thing, but it was too fast. A slow transition would be nice

If dragons attack it would be really weird if everything is 100% intact. Seeing buildings be razed is also really cool. Makes the game a lot more exciting and interesting and believable.

Also, as far as I know, the only time destructable environments "hurt" the performance, is when it's overused at the same time. One building being razed wouldn't really affect the performance at all. Twenty buildings at the same time, and you got quite a big performance hit. Doubt that would happen though.

The only reason I see not to have fully destructable environments would be if it takes way too much time for Bethesda, which I doubt

Right, B:BC1/2's destruction was VERY localized and seemed to work in panels instead of in an organic fashion. That made the CPU draw lower. Red Faction's destruction is impressive, but that's all the game is, a destructible environments tech demo.

It'd be very cool, especially if the player could melt ice and things like that.

Also, why not have destructible items? It'd only have to be simple, like the coffee mug at the start of Portal, but it could be very effective.

at a smaller scale it would be brilliant! imagine mixing an awesome potion then putting on a table then accidentally bumping it off <>

it would rebuild

Ahem.