I've noticed that many forum goers have brought this up in various topics and posts but I haven't found one solely dedicated to the topic. If there is one out there, I apologize.

So why are all the previews including the most recent rounds of them, all pre-alpha builds?

I think that the reason behind only letting pre-alpha or buggy builds be shown is the same reasoning behind only showing the xbox 360 version. Todd has stated that the 360 version is shown because they want everyone to be surprised at how well the 360 can handle the graphics, and to be even more blown away by the inevitably superior PC version(since no screenshots have been shown so far).

In other words, managing expectations. Has there ever been a Bethesda title that wasn't buggy at launch? No(in all fairness this belongs to the majority of games). Therefore showing pre-alpha buggy builds at demo centers will serve to make the final product look that much better on launch day, even if it is buggy.

Another way to look at it: If the media were allowed to play current builds and discover bugs in those builds, that would look at lot worse than the media playing pre-alpha builds that were already KNOWN to have bugs. In the latter scenario, they can just attribute it to the fact that it is an old build and those bugs will be fixed at launch. In the first scenario, even though it is a more stable build, but god forbid an ugly bug rears its head, then it's harder to put credence and confidence in the product.

Overall smart choice by Bethesda.

OR, I could be totally off my gourd and it is for an entirely different reason..


disclaimer: I love this game, I would run a 10k race if it meant I could get this game a day earlier, don't yell at me plz

This and I think the alpha/pre-alpha version is the only one they added all the elements required to play on it. While the rest is under construction I don't believe it's possible to have a playable world unless they wanted to make new boundaries, close off certain unfinished features, etc. for every new version they went on to..

It's kind of like the custom games in Warcraft 3 or Starcraft if you've ever played those where people release them in beta and alpha and you eventually download 3000 versions of the same game because they want people to play the current 'test' stage. Much simpler to patch and prepare 1 version and keep the rest unpolished until necessary.

I'd imagine there being less bugs than previous games, this will be the third game they have made for the 360 so they have probably got rid of most of the bugginess, then again, it is a new engine.

^^ Yup, it takes time and resources to tie up loose ends to make a playable version that wont break on untested and unfinished content. So they do it once or twice and just use that through. I would think.

I'm pretty sure that a few of the newer hands on stuff was on a newer build, I think

The last four or five months have been a whirlwind of conventions, interviews, PR hoops to jump through at every turn, ON TOP of ensuring the game gets tested in a timely manner.

Only so many hours in the day. They had an alpha build to take around to shows and for hands on previews so they stuck with it. It doesn't give away too much and leaves their devs free to work on the real game.

Pete said it was the same build from PAX/Eurogamer.

Edit: I didn't read your whole post you already said what I said lol

It don't think so. The purpose of the public demo is to show how good is your game so people want to get it, not how bugged it might and to lose potential buyers.



If they wanted to do that, they could simply show their current build and say it's an old one, no one will be any the wiser.

I think the most probable case is that at some point they had to decide what they will show, and to tweak a special demo build for it. Since then, the full game version will have been improved.

The hands-on demo build is a specially doctored build that has

• a different start point (skipping the early story)
  
• the main quest cut out (all relevant dialogues removed, all relevant scripts prevented from running, all interdependancies between non main-quest dialogues and others isolated)
  
• dragons removed (all spawn points excluded)

It isn't a vast job, but it would take more than a little while, and someone would need to test a lot of it to make sure there weren't any bits overlooked that could (for example) trap NPCs in a horrid dialogue loop or even crash the game if a leftover script got triggered.

I think they just haven't got time to keep branching off a new demo version, or merging recent changes across into the demo code. Have you ever tried to do that on a big software project? I have, and it can be a slow and painstaking process.

^ Couldn't have said it any better. Stop worrying.

My explanation? If they were to give the latest version they'd have to repeat the whole process of preparing it for a hands-on, i. e. removing the start of the game, scripting in the starting gear etc. They must of figured "meh. Why go through all the trouble if it isn't going to change much about the experience of the journalists anyway?" and just gave them what they already had ready for a long time.

Wrong. Lots of previews today mentioned that the MQ was available, but Beth told them not to mention spoilers. Joystiq did some of the MQ. They even defeated a Dragon.

To save resources.

Dragons were also encountered in one of the previews...

Read the 'wired' preview.

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/10/skyrim-hands-on/?pid=2160&pageid=39462

Heh, I just noticed that . That'll teach me to post before reading all the latest info .

Seriously, though, the new previews I've read said the start of the story had been cut out. Were they just starting from a savegame? And were the latest previews being done on more recent builds, or just on old builds with the main quest left in?

Second* MW was on PC and Xbox(the first one) MW on 360 is just a port.. i dont think they even had to do anything to it programmimg wise

They skipped the first 30 minutes because Beth wants to keep the beginning a surprise. Everything else was available though. Pete said the build was an alpha build from a couple months ago.

Complete game is for Reviews

I am actually fairly pleased that they are showing an Alpha build at an early stage, and is polished enough to demo. The first impressions of these magazine and Blog writers are very important to Bethesda, and knowing the Alpha Build has been shown not to have any game breaking defects is HUGE in my book.

Bethesda have made three 360 games: Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

Ah, so it is a more recent build than that used for earlier previews (which I think was from June?)

I'm guessing they're using builds from significant milestones that have tested well enough for demoing, but not had all the most recent fixes, optimisations and last-minute content rolled into them.

The reason they do this is nowhere near as controversial as you would hope.

This is common practice for game developers, I know because I used to work for a publisher.

PR / Marketing only gets their hands on a few key builds through out the development cycle. The builds are usually designed specifically for marketing with what ever modification they feel necessary. For example the build they are using starts the player with a full complement of equipment (although it is not equipped) and skips the first 30 or so minutes of game play in order to drop the player right into the open world. I'm sure there are other modifications but I won't speculate on what they are without any facts to back them up.

PR / Marketing then takes said builds and uses them over and over ad-nauseam.

Could they technically upgrade to a later build? Of course they could. Why don't they? 2 legitimate reasons why they wouldn't would be (there are of course others):

1.) With everyone playing the same build and showing the identical build over many press events they showcase what they want with the game, know the common issues that will come up, know how to respond to those issues and can more easily expect and deal with the unexpected when dealing the the press and public.

And 2.) Would you honestly prefer that the development team sit around making yet another PR / Marketing build? Or working on the build you are going to be buying with your hard earned money?

The pre-alpha build was probably in good enough shape to adequately let people test the early stuff, so why would you want them to waste time re-creating the same basic demonstration experience for the press? Let them pass around the same build they always have and dedicate their scant remaining time to more important things.