No Playable Demo of Fallout 3

Morbus

Morbus

Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Matt “Gstaff” Grandstaff cleared the subject regarding an eventual playable demo of Bethesda's Fallout 3. From his post on the official forums:<blockquote>One thing to consider about demos though. For certain kinds of games, I’d say its not as easy to just break off a piece, and say, here’s the demo. Sure you can take a game of Madden, let someone choose between two teams, and then make it one quarter. Or as of yesterday, just release a few songs for Guitar Hero III.

For a game like Fallout (or Oblivion), there’s a lot of details that have to go into it since the game plays as a sandbox…where do you cut the user off. You might bring up that we have a playable demo that we’ve shown at events, but from the previews you read, you’ll notice that the G.O.A.T exam is never taken, we never decided to save Megaton instead of blowing it up, and so on. Part of the reason for this is that for the purpose of showing the game, they didn’t need to flesh out those details.

If we were doing a demo, there’d be a lot of time spent on deciding where a user could go, what quests to include, etc. For Fallout 3, we’d rather commit the time that can be used for delivering a demo into spending more time working on the final product.

Of course, it’s always nice when you can get a demo. I enjoyed the Bioshock one, and I played Guitar Hero III’s last night, but as a gamer myself, I don’t always expect one.</blockquote>Spotted at: Fallout 3: A Post Nuclear Blog
 
He seems to neglect that the first Fallout did have a demo, as did previous TES titles like Daggerfall. But I guess Oblivion had so much more "detail" in it than Daggerfall.
 
Personally, I hate when games don't have a demo - I bought most of my games after playing a demo - most of the games that I bought without playing a demo were a disappointment.

That's why I generally ignore games without demos or test them in other way, by borrowing them for example. After the Baldur's Gate series thing I don't trust reviewers at all. Borrowing NWN saved both my time and my money, because after seeing blue highlights and being molested by an image of an elven whore and discovering unkillable commoners, I could make a decision that I don't want to play that game.
 
My heart died a little when he called Fallout a 'sandbox.' It's like he's subconsciously admitting that F3 will be nothing but Oblivion mixed with GTA:Post-Nuclear.

Admittedly, having sandbox elements would improve an RPG...

Wait a minute - doesn't RPG already presume an open environment you can interact with? Lots of items laying around, quests, and what not? Then what the hell is 'sandbox'?

Oh yeah: the ability to run around like a retard, doing whatever you want, with no permanent consequences for you actions.

Listen, Bethesda - I already own all three GTAs (on PC, biatches), and I love those games - but I don't want your imitation of them. Why, exactly, did you pay for the Fallout franchise if you didn't want to make a Fallout game?
 
Honestly I was kind of expecting Bethesda to not do a demo. I wish they would though, but I wish they would make it REAL Fallout also and I could get a house in Florida and a million dollars to spend the rest of my short life in peace but we all know none of those things are going to happen.

Gothic 3, which I feel if it had more funding like Oblivion did would have blown it out of the water, had a demo as do lots of other good games. I think what he/she said is two fold, one it sounds to much like a excuse to me and two you really do have to buy the game now to see if you like it or not instead of just play the demo so their market profits increase.
 
One reason for them not to do a demo is that they know people are going to buy it in masses anyway. So why bother? Which I fully understand, and partly also support some of the fundamentals in (It costs money to do it and they don't have to convince any financial department this time).

And it is effectively keeping us in the grey zone a little longer, in the buy or not buy dilemma.

add: basicly what he said ^
 
Grandstaff said:
Part of the reason for this is that for the purpose of showing the game, they didn’t need to flesh out those details.
Click to expand...
euhm. no...

just no.

the only valid reason for that is that:
- the demonstration would've simply been too long
- the sequence wasnt finished yet


as for the whole demo thing, there was a chance that Bioshock for example wouldnt have gotten a demo, because they wanted to spend the time on the actual game (but ended up making one anyway). Bioshock actually received quite a bit of consideration and understanding from the fans due to the correct PR around the whole issue. hence, it is possible for a game to be released without demo, if that means the game is made better through it.

however, i feel this does not ring true in the case of FO3... why? well, arent they supposed to be about halfway the dev cycle by now, yet they're already telling us they wont have time to make a demo? hmz... sounds like bad planning to me boys. might want to rethink the time table if you're already scratching things like the demo in favor of finishing the game.
secondly, FO3 is marketed as a true sequel, but obviously IS NOT. the demo would make this clear to all people who want to see it for themself. not publishing a demo means you rid the people their chance to find out... is this a marketing ploy? might be...
 
"It's awesome, believe us! Buy it, you don't need to test it, what, do you think we would lie to you??"

Yes, as a matter of fact I know they're lying.
 
with no demo any sane person will turn to a friend who has played it or play it at a friends (they dont really think people will listen to big-website reviews ? do they ?)

or better yet wait till the rich friend finnishes or is finnished with it :) friends share all sorts of crap dont they ? (i am not supporting piracy in any way btw. - in east europe we still have friends who dont say .. go buy your own .. i guess tis this socialist upbringing. P.S. i buy every game i consider worthy)
 
I can't say I'm remotely surprised.

It's just not in their best interest to release a playable demo that the gaming world (particularly "old school" fans) can get their hands on and tinker with.

They already know that the slathering Oblivious fans will line up and buy the game in swarms. Similarly, they can probably expect a fair chunk of the more traditional FPS and HALO crowds to buy in as well. I mean, lots of cool guns? Exploding heads? Where do I sign up?! :P

Then of course there's the crowd they already know won't be signing on for various reasons. Those who simply won't touch any sort of "RPG", "FPS", etc etc.. There's going to be some people who simply avoid this for whatever reason, as there always is with any game.

Then there's "us". We're the only group where dangled carrots are really going to make any significant difference, since for the "zOMG shiny!" people, a movie clip here and there will be plenty, but for us, we want to see something. We want to know just what the hell we'd be signing up for. Some of us lean more in favor, and some more opposed to the idea of this thing as a "Fallout sequel", but the point is, we're the group they can still swing one way or the other.

Giving us a demo that will very likely only serve to further reinforce what we see as negative aspects of this title would be foolish, unless they had some way to definitively dispel a fair to large portion of our fears and concerns as to how they're often going in entirely the wrong direction.

I see this announcement as merely more support for what I already suspected, and I won't be lining up to buy Oblivious ][ : The "Now with guns!" Chronicles anytime soon.

-Wraith
 
SuAside said:
Bioshock actually received quite a bit of consideration and understanding from the fans due to the correct PR around the whole issue. hence, it is possible for a game to be released without demo, if that means the game is made better through it.
Click to expand...

I remember reading the excuses from both devs and on the fan forums for Oblivion.

"We're delaying this game to make it better, if the game has problems now, you'd want us to fix it."

"They're delaying this game to make it better, if the game has problems now, you'd want them to fix it."

"We're fixing it."

"They're fixing it."

"OBLIVION RULES!"

"OBLIVION RULES!"

I don't believe a word Bethesda's PR machine says anymore. If they come out and say "no demo because we want to focus more on the game" I'd consider the same promises that were told during Oblivion's production.
 
Don't bother thinking. They would NEVER spend money on making something that would only decrease their sales, now would they? They are not as stupid as they seem, in the end...
 
Morbus said:
Don't bother thinking. They would NEVER spend money on making something that would only decrease their sales, now would they? They are not as stupid as they seem, in the end...
Click to expand...

Nah, more greedy.
They're arrogant and they have the attitude of "We know best and if you don't like it f**k off" but not really stupid.

As for the ingame design, they simply don't have a clue.
 
Hellion said:
He seems to neglect that the first Fallout did have a demo.
Click to expand...

I suspect technical limitations of today's games prohibit a demo. Try ten years ago to suit your needs.

EDIT: Also, I didn't see THAT MANY previews that actually delved into the details Gstaff mentioned.
 
Those are all bullshit reasons for not making a demo.

Good reasons would have been:
- we don't give a damn about our customers
- the game will suck, so it's better for us if people discover that after they buy it
- time management is not our forté
- a demo? a demo? are you kidding, dude? we're not giving out any stuff for free, man, sheesh, those days are over
- no comment

No demo, no alec coughing up 50€ for a potential failure of astronomical proportions.
 
I'm surprised Beth isn't releasing a demo. They're missing a golden opportunity to make some extra money by charging the masses $4.95 to download it. :)

Mick
 
but as a gamer myself, I don’t always expect one.
Click to expand...

No, of course not. As I gamer I am supposed to swallow all the shit retarded magazines and sites like GameInformer and GameSpot are feeding me and buy the game eyes-closed and smiling.



It's obvious why they don't release demos. Then people would see their games don't even come close to living up to the demented hype around them.
 
The Chosen Juan said:
I really don't think I'm going to buy Fallout 3 whether or not Bethesda releases a demo....
Click to expand...

There is a very easy and legal work around where you get the game and they don't get your penny as that nagging "wonder what this game is like" feeling might overcome you, E-bay. I highly recommend it for those that don't want to support the specific game company. You are supporting a gamer, not a game company this way so all is good (except for the game company, which is what you want).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top