Fallout 3 - News Roundup

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Fallout 3 is still generating lots of column inches from their recent press tour and here's a roundup, much of which is taken from the Bethblog.
First, the official site has added three screens to the gallery. Next, the Collector's Edition has been confirmed "worldwide":
Fallout 3 Collector's Edition to be Available Worldwide
(London, England) – Bethesda Softworks®, a ZeniMax Media company, officially announced today that it will release a special Fallout® 3 collector’s edition worldwide for Xbox 360®video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, Games for Windows, and PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system. The limited collector’s edition is available for pre-order through participating retailers.

This premium Fallout 3 package, presented in a customized, metal Vault-Tec lunch box, includes the highly-anticipated game, a collectible 5” Vault-Tec Vault Boy Bobblehead, ‘The Art of Fallout 3’ hardcover book, featuring never-before-seen concept art and commentary from Bethesda Game Studios artists, and ‘The Making of Fallout 3’ DVD that includes an inside look at Bethesda Game Studios and the team behind the game.
Eurogamer's Kieron Gillen has asked Pete Hines about a demo and apparently it isn't possible:
Bethesda's Pete Hines has confirmed that there will be no demo for Fallout 3.Speaking exclusively to Eurogamer in the shape of Kieron Gillen, Hines said there was "no way" to slice a portion of the world off and have it stand on its own."When you build it as one thing, there's no way to portion off a section and have it stand on its own without putting the whole game in the demo, which we're just not going to do," said Hines."And it doesn't really capture the fun of a game like an Elder Scrolls or a Fallout, where you can go where you want and do what you want. So no demo, sorry."
On to the previews - from the official site:
Strategy Informer has posted a preview of Fallout 3 saying, "... it is clear that Fallout 3 is going to be a great RPG and an even better return for the much-loved series. " videogaming247, Eurogamer and Gameswelt have also posted previews.
More information.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
I'd love to have that lunchbox, hope their "worldwide" includes Russia. GTA4 preorders are now available and they promise to ship it on April 29 - same date as worldwide release, but it still looks more like an exception, console games are still considered some kind of curiosity here and are late almost always.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
82
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
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!
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
203
Pete, meet Webster. And this is Webster's friend, the letter H for humility.

"This game is so great and huge and all encompassing that a demo can't contain the genius."
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
339
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.

The daggerfall demo was essentially created from scratch, and in the end didn't really represent the actual game. I'm sure they could create a stand alone demo that demonstrated the technical capabilities of the engine, but it'd be a very expensive use of dev and QA time when it wouldn't really represent the game in any way other than as a technical demo. But then again, perhaps all PC games should have technical engine demos instead of system requirements ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,877
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.

Fallout 1 did have a demo. It was a built-from scratch Junktown-esque town, called Scrapheap, were you could recruit dogmeat and had multiple options to solve the problem of two rival gangs.

It was a good demo, though Chris Taylor has noted he regrets it in hindsight, but I've heard of many players who picked up Fallout 1 because of that demo.

So it's possible, but you'd probably need to build something from scratch.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
I wouldn't know, but genius seems to be a thin, frail kind of thing. The more genius that gets packed into a product, the harder it becomes to appreciate, somehow. Dumb products can be demo'd without a problem while smart ones have limitations. Genius ones can't be demonstrated at all.

No wonder geniuses are so misunderstood.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
1,807
Location
Orange County, California
The demo for the original Fallout was also a stand-alone area (a town) that was not part of the actual game, IIRC.

Demos are tricky to pull off well, especially in an open-ended game. A poor demo can potentially lose a lot more customers than a good demo will gain.

You essentially need to build a self-contained area just for the demo that showcases a large subset of the game's functionality. Companies often do this for internal presentations, conventions, the press, and previews, but they are usually not appropriate for releasing to the general public as a "demo" without a significant amount of polishing, bug-fixing, and re-balancing.

The initial part of a game such as this is generally not a good indicator as to what the game as a whole will be like (i.e. Fallout 1 & 2 fixations with rats, scorpions, and molerats for the early game). So it may seem like a good idea to take a section from the middle of the game and isolate it for a demo. But then you have to take into account that this section is no longer in its original context, and will need additional exposition so the player understands what is going on, and perhaps a tutorial shoehorned in where it doesn't appear in the actual game. It will also likely need extensive re-balancing and re-design, as the game design for this area assumes a level of familiarity and skill on the part of the player that they are not going to have on account of not having played through the earlier stages of the game.

It is far better, in my opinion, to not release a demo than to release a demo that gives false impressions as to how the full game plays. It's very easy to get this wrong and surprisingly difficult to get it right. And the last thing that Bethesda wants to do here is release a demo of Fallout 3 that showcases gameplay that can be easily digested in about an hour (i.e. combat), because it will inevitably lead to more cries of "they made Fallout a dumbed-down action shooter!!!"

The game is already being judged before being played; the last thing anyone needs is a demo that only reinforces those knee-jerk reactions because it doesn't have time to delve into the deeper gameplay present in the actual game.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
21
I bought Fallout 1 after playing the demo at least 5 times. I think the only reason for not providing a demo is that the developer is confident the game will be a smash hit without it; it's better to have disappointed customers who forget about their disappointment after a year and buy your next game/expansion than to have people disappointed by the demo ending not buing the game. Sorry if I disappointed anyone by repeating a certain word too many times.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
589
Yeah, and I bought Lionheart because of the demo.

So, um, I kinda have mixed feelings about the whole thing.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
461
There's lots of things that might prevent them from doing a demo.

A: Microsoft said no. An early PC demo would violate Xbox exclusivity.

B: The demo would still be fricking huge, since they'd have to link in most of the video and audio resources. Who wants a 3 gig demo?

C: Spending a month making a demo is a month not spent tuning and testing the game. They want us to have the bestest possible experience. Really, this is for our own good.

D: The game has stability issues, and even the trimmed down and revised radiant AI is keeping them from having a playable game. They'll be lucky to have a stable game when they ship -- a demo would only showcase their problems.

E: They're worried that a demo would actually lower sales. The game doesn't live up to the hype, and they need to maximize sales in the first week on the shelf.

F: They hate RPG fans (and at this point, who can blame them), and are refusing to make a demo just to tweak our noses. After all, this game isn't for RPG fans, it's for the mass market.

Okay, so 'F' is maybe a bit cynical, but really, this game isn't for us.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
250
Location
Indianapolis
Plus it´s not sure that the "Bethesda RPG" label plus a demo will sell more than without a demo. The question whether a demo will help or hurt your sales is very tough to answer.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
Sure thing, I can understand why a developer or publisher may not like making a demo. But I don't have to like it as a customer, OK? And either way "there is no way" is just not true. What it really means is: "that's an effort we are not willing to make".
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
I also prefer to get my sweaty hands on a demo before making a purchasing decision. seems fewer people are providing them these days - I guess extra dev costs etc. I do think that,though, it is always possible to construct some scenario (even if it's short) which shows off both the technical and gameplay aspects of your product. I don't buy the "awesome scope" type argument. I do buy the financial ones, however - people who feel they need to demo their game will, those who feel they are sufficiently established will simply not (mostly). In the latter case I will erm...sample...the game and make a decision based on that. And read reviews of course, but we all know those have to be taken with a pinch of salt!
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,137
Location
Cape Town, South Africa
bethesda sucks dwarf cock
 
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
812
Location
standing under everyone
Back
Top Bottom