View Single Post

Default 

April 22nd, 2008, 12:32
Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan View Post
I hate the no demo policy. It would be nice just to test technical performance. And if you can demo Daggerfall, sure as hell you could demo a FO3. Especially given the nice modularity of the TES CS, which is used here as well (how are we gonna call it in future???). So I call bullshit on the "no way" line.
I can't tell for Fallout 3 but take Fallout 1 and 2 for instance. Both games, the begining was total crap. In Fallout 1 you were killing rats then more rats until you finally arrived at Shady Sands, which wasn't the most fun/interesting place in the game.
Same with Fallout 2, Arroyo and the temple were mediocre at best, Klamath too. I really started liking those games once I arrived to Junkyard and The Den.

If I had played demos instead, that had the world map open only up to Klamath and Shady Sands, I'd probably wouldn't have bought the games in the end.

But in my case, a friend told me to buy em and warned me that the begining was dull but not to give up because the game got much better afterwards, I'm glad I listened to him.

As for Fallout 3, while Bethesda's explanation is as usual PR lies, I have to agree with the final decision. If Fallout 3 is true to his predecessors, and I surely *hope* it is (but doubt it will), then making a demo out of it would mean people will be trying the worst part of the game. That's indeed not something that would serve the game!
Hedek is offline

Hedek

Hedek's Avatar
Watchdog

#4

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 203