Fallout 3 hands-on at E3 is press only
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
That's what the rope is for, make your own invitation with a tied up bouncer, or a skylight window!
The stimpacks are for the hits you're going to take bringing the bouncer down or the last 12 feet that your rope doesn't reach at the bottom.
And the shot to the groin is what you use to incapacitate the guard / Bethsoft eagle eyes on the watch for NMA in disguise.
It's a perfect plan that only involves jail time if you're caught!
The stimpacks are for the hits you're going to take bringing the bouncer down or the last 12 feet that your rope doesn't reach at the bottom.
And the shot to the groin is what you use to incapacitate the guard / Bethsoft eagle eyes on the watch for NMA in disguise.
It's a perfect plan that only involves jail time if you're caught!
Sarkus said:
NMA cares.
Bodybag said:
Uh-huh, because E3 is the only show out there, and Bethesda just randomly picked E3 for a hands-on not realising it's press only
Wow, we're really the only looking foolish here
Bodybag said:
Getting an invite would be like a walk in the park, because I am a game journalist, it's my job.
But you're still assuming this is a floor show. Since Gstaff clearly speaks of selecting the people who get to see it, as there's bound to be a line, a sign-up sheet and behind closed doors sounds more likely.
I would be happy to attend as a GameBanshee journalist, writing only for GB, but I don't think they like either me or GB. GB is about honest journalism and a critical voice, not really something Bethesda likes a lot.
Besides, I (personally) can afford a trip the US easy (though NMA couldn't), those are dead cheap now that US dollars are the equivalent of monopoly money, but I have better things to do with my time and money than to go to gaming expos.
welsh
Junkmaster
Nexus6 said:
To the best of my knowledge, we have no plans to attend to event at this point. As BN points out, NMA simply doesn't have the funds.
I'd like us to go, but we just can't afford it.
You guys would probably just get held up at the border, have your laptop and all your personal belongings rifled through (and possibly seized), and then get shipped back as suspected "turrists".
It's really fun flying to and from the U.S. these days. And by really fun, I mean horrible.
It's really fun flying to and from the U.S. these days. And by really fun, I mean horrible.
when they hit Europe with it, i'll ask to go to the showing again (through the same channels).Brother None said:
And here it is, confirmation from his royal Gstaffness that "press only" means "press Bethesda selects only"
As well as confirming no videos.
I hate to say I told you so, Bodybag, but...I told you so.
How. Bethesda.
As well as confirming no videos.
I hate to say I told you so, Bodybag, but...I told you so.
How. Bethesda.
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
Bethesda.... Bethesda never changes.
Sergei Quaid
First time out of the vault
But Fallout sure did 
Bodybag
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Again, who was the helpful chap asking those questions?
And you're getting pretty funny here - "press only" isn't something that they decided, it's the format of the show they're attending. It was cute how you suggested through colliding sarcasm that they only chose E3 because of the tightly controlled format. Certainly it has nothing to do with the fact that it's basically THE trade show for video games.
And he doesn't say anything about selecting what members of the press get to play(and I can totally already guess your response to this, but I'm going for it anyways!). Here's his quote, AGAIN:
Like I said, I already know how you're reading into that statement. But forget for just a second how dirty and rotten Bethesda is - E3 is on a schedule. There's going to be a lot of gaming mag guys looking to play this (and other games) and part of determining how long each will get to play is knowing how many people will be playing total and going from there. It's basic organization, and there's nothing inherently shady about that. So they'll get a sign up sheet and appoint times, like everyone else at the show.
Now, why don't you cut to the chase and tell me who won't get to play Fallout 3 because Bethesda won't let them. Gamebanshee and who else?
And you're getting pretty funny here - "press only" isn't something that they decided, it's the format of the show they're attending. It was cute how you suggested through colliding sarcasm that they only chose E3 because of the tightly controlled format. Certainly it has nothing to do with the fact that it's basically THE trade show for video games.
And he doesn't say anything about selecting what members of the press get to play(and I can totally already guess your response to this, but I'm going for it anyways!). Here's his quote, AGAIN:
Like I said, I already know how you're reading into that statement. But forget for just a second how dirty and rotten Bethesda is - E3 is on a schedule. There's going to be a lot of gaming mag guys looking to play this (and other games) and part of determining how long each will get to play is knowing how many people will be playing total and going from there. It's basic organization, and there's nothing inherently shady about that. So they'll get a sign up sheet and appoint times, like everyone else at the show.
Now, why don't you cut to the chase and tell me who won't get to play Fallout 3 because Bethesda won't let them. Gamebanshee and who else?
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Bodybag said:
The point being that there are plenty of shows, but Bethesda is apparently only going hands on at the press-only E3. It is no great wonder, but it is very typical of the approach to games releases that Bethesda has taken thus far. They rely heavily on press previews and reviews, and give little information directly to fans or less managed outlets.
The could choose to take Fallout 3 to the other expos, which aren't as heavily subscribed and controlled, but it would be somewhat out of character.
As it is, BN has only pointed that what is happening is very typical of Bethesda's iron-grip approach to the control of information (about which, they are quite open, if you look at some of the older Fallout interviews).
There is only one post-er screeching about machiavellian conspiracy, and it isn't him...
Bodybag
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Bernard Bumner said:
Nice itallics.
This is the first time since they've announced "the game is basically done" that it'll be hands-on, and it's the first major show to come along in that time frame. Right? I mean, what other shows have they skipped just to deny people the chance to play it? What "other expos" are lined up between now and the fall release? Of those, have they announced any that they plan on skipping, or attending with a "hands-off" showing? "Hands-on" to me suggests a much newer (and closer to release-candidate) build than what's previously only been carefully demonstrated to press memebers with a Bethesda staffer the only one playing.
I'm sorry guys, I don't see where you've proven there's dirty pool here.
Haha wow. Ok, I'm dying to know - who's screeching about a conspiracy, machiavellian or otherwise?
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
I don't recall any of us coming here to prove anything to you, buddy.
We're here to glean tiny bits of usable information about a game that we've been waiting on for 10 years, to see if it resembles Fallout enough to even warrant a purchase.
If Bethesda was open and truthful with the fans of the Fallout franchise, we wouldn't have much of a reason to assume that they are hiding something with the lack of publicly released information about the game.
We're here to glean tiny bits of usable information about a game that we've been waiting on for 10 years, to see if it resembles Fallout enough to even warrant a purchase.
If Bethesda was open and truthful with the fans of the Fallout franchise, we wouldn't have much of a reason to assume that they are hiding something with the lack of publicly released information about the game.
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Bodybag said:
That strawman you were arguing with...
Otherwise, my memory is that Oblivion wasn't show off much outside of E3 and the few journalists invited to private previews by Bethesda. At least, that is going by British media...
I did say that they could well choose to show Fallout 3 more widely, but it certainly wasn't what happened with Oblivion.
(Oh, and I like my italics...)
Bodybag
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Bernard Bumner said:
Jesus Christ. Look, I know that, despite the horrible things some of you people say about your fellow man, that most of you are probably really good people deep down inside. It's the whole reason I come here - the belief that you can be reasoned with. The folks back home think I'm a dreamer, but it's a dream I gotta follow!
But so help me FUCK if one of you hurls out the Strawman defense incorrectly one more time I'm going to kick their MOTHERFUCKING door down, break their keyboard, and then shit in their hat. For their own good.
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Bodybag said:
I've already taken a shit in my own hat, so there; it keeps my ears warm...
No, but you are the one who's extrapolated - as far as I can see - way beyond what anybody has said. That Bethesda controls information tightly and restricts access to its products prelaunch to journalists are simply bland truisms. You seem to be suggesting that statements about typical Bethesda behaviour are indicative of more paranoid thought processes.
Maybe I've misinterpreted you, uh?
That Bethesda has disengaged from meaningful fan interaction, and has been as tight as a gnat's arsehole with information have been longterm gripes.
Bodybag
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I'm still waiting for to explain the makiavellian conspiracy angle I supposedly drew up. But since that's obviously never going to happen I'm willing to move on to waiting for BN to give props to the guy who, judging by the various reactions on display in this very thread, performed a valuable community service.
Bodybag said:
In what way? E3 is now a press show, the biggest game shows are PAX and GDC.
Bodybag said:
Hmmm, you must have comprehension problems.
They made appointments with press too at GDC. Not a big deal, if you asked, you were in. But was NMA in? Would we have been in if we stated we wrote for NMA? Nope, Gstaff has explicitly said as much as well.
Now, you're getting a bit stressed out here, with the yelling and stuff. Because the funny thing here is:
Bodybag said:
All I've said, right from the start, is that Fallout 3 won't be playable for normal people, something Bagge was denying, claiming "hands-on" automatically meant "on the floor". He was wrong.
Now you, for some unclear reason, hurled yourself headfirst into this argument to refute "How Bethesda". Why? "How Bethesda" doesn't mean others in the industry don't do the same, it doesn't even contain any disapproval of what they're doing, it just says "doing a hands-on for press only is very much Bethesda's normal mode of operating".
And it is.
I think you're digging too deep a hole for yourself here, man. But there's still time for you to climb out. Just...calm down, first. You're obviously suffering from internet-upset, here.
Bodybag said:
I never said what you were arguing against. You claimed someone was pointing to some "dirty pool" or how "dark and rotten" Bethesda is.
Nobody actually said that. You fabricated the argument that there were some darker motives at play here without me ever claiming that.
That's a textbook strawman; a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument.
Bodybag
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
No, BN, dity pool and rotten were in my words, and not directly attributed to anyone elses argument. (notice the lack of quotes, or quotation marks). ANd I never even used the word "dark" (OMG STRAWMAN!)That was from my perspective. If I seem confused to you, well consider what you've given me to go on:
Usisng your logic, I should be screaming "strawman" because no one is arguing the inverse of this ridiculous shit. Hell, can you EVEN inverse that tangled mess? Like you said, I have comprehension problems.
I merely stated that I didn't think "how Bethesda" was really being honest, not when you consider in this instance they're not doing anything outside of the norm in respect to their peers. Ergo, beyond that, it's not really fair to file this away as more evidence of blah blah blah tight as a gnat's arsehole ecetera. And I even agree about the gnat's arsehole!
I stand by that assessment. How long until you blame me for making this tit-for-tat? Will it at least be after you post a "props to" or "kudos to" or perhaps even a "thanks" next to the helpful chap's name who's responisble for this bit of info trickling out? Heck, I bet he's even settle for a "spotted by."
Usisng your logic, I should be screaming "strawman" because no one is arguing the inverse of this ridiculous shit. Hell, can you EVEN inverse that tangled mess? Like you said, I have comprehension problems.
I merely stated that I didn't think "how Bethesda" was really being honest, not when you consider in this instance they're not doing anything outside of the norm in respect to their peers. Ergo, beyond that, it's not really fair to file this away as more evidence of blah blah blah tight as a gnat's arsehole ecetera. And I even agree about the gnat's arsehole!
I stand by that assessment. How long until you blame me for making this tit-for-tat? Will it at least be after you post a "props to" or "kudos to" or perhaps even a "thanks" next to the helpful chap's name who's responisble for this bit of info trickling out? Heck, I bet he's even settle for a "spotted by."