Its fairly easy to spot when they go from alpha to beta to near release to gold.

Right now both todd and pete look sane so its still alpha.

When they start to look like deranged gas station attendants its beta..

When they start to look like the unibombers ugly brother its near gold.

When they look like the unibombers ugly zombie brother it hit gold...

Yeah. Perhaps Skyrim isn't that super-great after all. It sure has some really nice stuff and sounds pretty amazing, but if we look at what we've already been given, we see flaws in a lot of places.

People are probably continue going to be in denial though, because they can't accept that Skyrim perhaps isn't that super-great after all. They're going to continue give their own explanations like "6 months to go! Lots of time to fix and add things! No worries!", but they're forgetting that it has already been in development for what... 4,3 years or so?

Sarcasm is a beautiful thing!

:tops:

He talks about the "lack of polish" in the twitter, and he's right, the game is far from done and even if the major features are solidified they're not perfect, so if you nitpick you'll find errors but they tend to be easily fixed.

And I don't think it matters which stage in development they're in. I wouldn't be surprised if they would push back the release at November because of change of plans.

So true.
The ?there's still x months to go? remark bears all the signs of denial. Some of us have become emotionally attached to Skyrim. But it will be flawed. It won't be without its share of shortcomings. It won't be nowhere near perfect. And that in itself is a mesaaure of BGS success.They've raised the bar with Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3. Today, we'd take those games' standards as passable, merely.

All in all,Skyrim is looking out to be a solid game.

My first question is, what actually looks unpolished that's been released so far? It's an Elder Scrolls game, it's not about handling every detail that can arise out of the tens of millions of variable configurations, it's about those tens of millions of variables. I take all the screenshots and video released at "Release Level" quality, and sure, it's not perfect, and might be fixed, but if it's not, it's still better than 99.82% of the games out.

Anyway; Pre-Alpha, to my understanding, means a build of the game where features are still being introduced or cut.

Alpha; the features of the game, baring some catastrophic conflict, are locked in and the Technical Polish-Optimization, and ongoing bug fixing issues go full tilt when the whole team finally have an idea of exactly what they have to work on in detail.

Beta; Most of the really bad, game breaking bugs are squashed. The game is, theoretically, a market viability. And an alarming number of developers are releasing "Beta" versions and patching fixes in*cough*ObsidianEntertainment*cough*. Balance issues, difficulty curve, and advancement pacing are usually dealt with here. Some ongoing bug and optimization too

Commercial Build; Whatever makes it to the production line is the Gold version, but a commercial build is the one that's actually ready for commercial release. IE, not New Vegas.



Sorry, but Crash Bandicoot is a Solid game. If Skyrim is a just a "Solid" game, it'll completely destroy the company. So for everyone's sake, you'd best be wrong.

Alpha and beta have differing distinctions based on who's who.

Generally, most publishers used to like beta to be feature complete. However, recent years have led to publishers wanting ALPHA to be feature complete. But Bethesda's their own publisher, and even if they weren't, they're a major developer making a game that they and every publisher know will be a mega hit. Small developers usually have to do what the publisher wants- Bethesda has the leverage to have a lot more control over the game. So terms like Alpha and Beta may have different meanings to them.

Plus, games move really, really fast from Alpha to Beta. And, as far as we know, that could be an "overall" milestone, because they still ARE adding features to the game. There will come a moment where Todd stamps his foot down and says "No more features", and BOOM! just like that, it transitions to Beta. Plus, some systems could be done and tested to Gold while some are still in Alpha or Beta.

You can't measure a game by Alpha/Beta/etc.

I still stand by what I've said before.

The game will be delayed and they will not make the 11-11-11 date. I don't know when it will hit beta but I would much rather the game be delayed than put out on time with flaws.

I'd believe you, but Todd has really been hammering the 11-11-11 as the word of god. For better or worse, I think Skyrim will make that 11-11-11. And it'll probably be for the worse, though I guess aside from Brink, every game wishes it had more time.

is Pre-Alpha normal for a game at this stage or is it late... I just want to get Skyrim on 11.11.11

So you were the stalker in their window pretending to eat a cupcake with them!

(I know because I was a few windows down.)

Why not someone ask Pete directly? "What stage of development is Skyrim?"

Done. Doubt I'll get an answer today, it being easter and all.

Wasn't that well over a month ago? Maybe even 2-3 months ago?

It wasn't rude. It was truth, hard and cold even if it may be so. But still some of the screens are a bit yuk.

This is an Elder Scrolls game. Whereas us gamers like to liken alpha to "test maps and an incomplete engine" and beta to "it's done just with extra content that usually gets removed", I'm thinking Skyrim's progress is more along the lines of this:

We know that Skyrim has been in preproduction since Fallout 3 or possibly even Knights of the Nine. I like to think that most of the Creation engine was developed during this time. As an example, Valve started work on their Source engine whilst they were still watching over the HL1 mod and expansion scene. They forked their codebase into two - "Goldsrc", the source code that had already gone gold for their older games, and then "Source" which was continually refined over time. Snow accumulation and Havok Behavior may have been decided on only recently, but the improved draw distances and the like were probably in a workable state since at least 2009. That leaves (and this is just what I think):



It sounds like a tight release, but in the end things like armor and dungeons aren't that time-consuming to make. When you consider Bethesda to be a team exceeding 100 at this point, I wouldn't worry.

I don't.

I do hope that Todd gets off the "11-11-11 or bust" mindset". That will just lead to disaster because they will rush things. This is why as a developer I would never give a firm date until the game is just about complete. It's better for the game to be 6 months late than on time and full of bugs and flaws.

I am never surprised when a game is delayed, but I actually would be if Skyrim doesn't launch on 11.11.11.

Maybe you should look at all the threads around here. There have been dozens anolyzing things of what we've seen and complaining, etc etc.
If you don't see the flaws, maybe it's because you don't want to see them. Or maybe because you simply don't look hard enough, or think hard enough.

Or simply because you don't have the same values of what is a flaw and is not a flaw as other people here, period.

I thought that statement was made about the screens in GI that they saw back in December?

And if that's the case, I doubt the game is pre-alpha at this point. As for 11-11-11, I seriously doubt that they would push the game back after such a big release date announcement. They probably wouldn't have done that if they didn't feel good about it.

I don't see anything gamebreaking. After E3, I think noticing flaws will be more relevant than it is now. In the end, i'm going to play what Beth gives me, be enthralled in another world and love it. That's all that matters to me. To each their own.

If you're looking for flaws in screenshots, you're trying too hard anyway.


I'd like to see a "Compliation of Skyrim flaws so far" thread. Just to see what the haters have conjured up. I totally support pointing out as many flaws as possible, it's growth. But most of what I've heard is just insane "It looks just like Oblivion" banter from the DX11 crybabies.

By the end of the Summer holidays.



You think? :hubbahubba:

The game looks just fine, at times wonderful.
But you'd have to be Ray Charles not to see the polygonized clothing in the deer hunting pic. Trailer has at least one inconspicuous lighting flaw, from the top of my hat, at 1:42, when silhouettes go charcoal black. Add to these the AI blooper during the media event.

But we've been through this before.
Skyrim will be solid.