Calm Down About "Duke Nukem Forever"

[Golden potatoe]

. It may not have been the game worthy of the name of DUKE NUKEM

IMO, if it's not worthy of the name it should have stayed in storage till it could be released in a form that IS worthy of it.

See releasing a bad game, THAT kills the franchise worse than a game (with great potential) staying in perpetual development hell.

How could you expect it to be good after all of the sh** its been true anyway?

Same way Team Fortress 2 turned out great after literally 11 years of development hell.

Basically take all your best ideas, reconsider what you are trying to do, then tear everything up and start again. That's what the TF team did when over at Valve.

For a lofty comparison, Sir Isaac Newton as he was trying to develop his theory of gravitation he had a house fire and lost ALL his scientific notes, ideas and results. Years of work, gone, all that was left was what was in his head.

Indeed, you raise a good structured argument and I applaud you for that. It's so refreshing to spar with someone who seems to be educated unlike most of the people on COD forums, the horror and stupidity, but mostly the horror. So, I thank you for raising such good points! It has given me a lot to think about. Thanks again!

But he built from that, just from what he understood in his memory, re-did the experiments, and focused in on the essential truth of that would form the a theory of physics that would unmodified by used by the the Apollo Missions used put man on the moon 300 years later.
And he could have given up after his fire or just published his vague conclusions. But he didn't and his theory changed the planet.

Great things can come from a long drawn out mess, if you can pull yourself free from all the chaff. It may take a disaster, but I think it would be good to compare Team Fortress 2 and Duke Nukem Forever as the Right and Wrong way to approach a game stuck in development hell.

 

[GiantRedButton]

I finished it yesterday, and I like it. It's fun, it's funny, and it feels neither new nor old. It's a bizarre experience stuck somewhere in time and it feels different because of it.
Oh, and it DID have puzzles when it was under 3D Realms. This video leaked just after the official cancellation of the game, just about when Gearbox first got involved to take over.
[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOTwfNTBiW0[/link]

<eah its weird and different and i like it for that.

 

[Lesd3vil]

See, the problem here is that I'm seeing a lot of people saying 'It was crap, it was a bad game etc'... And the fact is, it wasn't a BAD game so much as it was just... Well, average. It was a pretty standard FPS with pretty standard gameplay, a few standout moments (especially when the shrinking mechanic came in to it) and a ton of sexist, puerile jokes on top... Fact is, the game works, it looks ok, and it's enjoyable enough in it's own way, but it's not gonna be something you play repeatedly because it's so good, it's just something you kill a few hours with :/

for any of you who've actually played the game, look in the trailers in the extras menu. Argument stopping proof right there, that the game was essentially finished before Gearbox got hold of it... Remember, Gearbox didn't really have anything to do with it, they just bought the rights and published the game, it was Tryptich (which was made up of - guess who? - 3D realms programmers) that did all the work that was left... The developers that released it are pretty much the same guys who were working on the damn thing for 12 years!

I mentioned it before and I did love the shrinking mechanic... Boss fights against normal enemies, or stepping on shrunk enemies, was very cool. There just wasn't enough of that over-the-top, ridiculous originality. Look at Half-Life: Opposing Force... there was a slew of different aliens and weapons in it, and that made it really fun to play, THAT'S what should have been focused on, not Duke as a character... Because he's really not

 

[Stabby Joe]

Are Gearbox terrible developers like some say? No. I find it both strange and funny that many are outright saying this as if all their previous games don't come into the equation.

Sure we can blame them for some design choices, not changing the original build or not even starting over from scratch, but I'm not going to write Gearbox off period.

As for DNF... I found it "OK".

 

[StormShaun]

Hey could anyone help me, should I return this game back or should I complete it first then return it or just keep on owing it, hmm I dunno, but the money would be good?

Someone please comment, I want to complete it, but I want to get money for my next game.

 

[JoshFTL]

I honestly don't know what people are complaining about with DNF. All the complaints that have been made, did not bother me in the slightest when I played the game. I think people are getting a bit too picky.

 

[9Darksoul6]

"use the ripper for almost everything."
You don't get it, it's about more than just using the same weapon for everything. What about variety and flexibility? You know, so that every fight isn't exactly the same?

a) "Almost everything" =/= "everything".
b) It's a manner of speaking, it doesn't mean I mainly use the weapon, and - think a little - even if I wanted to play the game like that I wouldn't be able to, would I?
c) It seems the game doesn't have weapon-balance that works for all players, so even if I wanted to play like that, and could play like that, it would still make sense to me.

--------------------------------------------------

I don't get why people are so attached to this status-quo of the 2-weapon-limit. Maybe people are too afraid of change.
It does NOT make you think.

Because it DOES, that's why; it's not Layton-thinking, but it clearly involves more brains than simply switching to 'weapon 7'. Maybe you're simply unadapated to this mechanic and can't work properly with it.

Want proof? :

You have no way of knowing what is around the next corner, so you cannot strategies, only compromise.

What about, IDK... picking weapons in mid-combat?

 

[Treblaine]

Because it DOES, that's why; it's not Layton-thinking, but it clearly involves more brains than simply switching to 'weapon 7'. Maybe you're simply unadapated to this mechanic and can't work properly with it.

Want proof? :

You have no way of knowing what is around the next corner, so you cannot strategies, only compromise.

What about, IDK... picking weapons in mid-combat?

That is what I HATE, scrabbling abound on the floor looking for a gun and trying to do that while trying to avoid getting shot and of course you have to select the LEAST optimal weapon to replace it!

So if you are under long range fire and you want to swap a shotgun for a rifle, you need to draw your shotgun and run around looking at the ground. You can't do that in mid-combat of a game with really challenging enemies. If AI is incompetent enough to watch you running around looking for a gun without killing you, the same enemies are incompetent enough for you to kill them with any unsuited gun. Or if you can it is a right pain in the arse and NOT FUN!

Not enjoyable, not engaging, not satisfying. It is a BAD game mechanic that you cannot appreciate, only tolerate out of familiarity.

But you know what you CAN do in combat? Press a direction on the D-pad to select the RIGHT gun for the job.

I have played literally HUNDREDS of hours of shooters with 2-weapon limit, but more than that I have also played hundreds of hours of shooter games with a high weapon limit. I know where it works and where it does not work. How many hours of gameplay do you have games with a large weapon inventory? Shooters, not RPGs.

You could only say that it works for Duke Nukem Forever, if you had very little experience of games with a large multi-weapon limit!

One game where it is least suited is Halo as the weapons are not balanced at all, you have guns hugely varying in capability and situational effectiveness while there is no reason your 7-foot-tall genetically-strengthened power-armour-wearing Spartan Super-warrior can't carry more than two guns. 4 at least.

There are games where a 2 weapon limit is suitable, mostly team-based multiplayer games with highly streamlines weapons and classes.

 

[Golden potatoe]

. It may not have been the game worthy of the name of DUKE NUKEM

IMO, if it's not worthy of the name it should have stayed in storage till it could be released in a form that IS worthy of it.

See releasing a bad game, THAT kills the franchise worse than a game (with great potential) staying in perpetual development hell.

How could you expect it to be good after all of the sh** its been true anyway?

Same way Team Fortress 2 turned out great after literally 11 years of development hell.

Basically take all your best ideas, reconsider what you are trying to do, then tear everything up and start again. That's what the TF team did when over at Valve.

For a lofty comparison, Sir Isaac Newton as he was trying to develop his theory of gravitation he had a house fire and lost ALL his scientific notes, ideas and results. Years of work, gone, all that was left was what was in his head.

Indeed, you raise a good structured argument and I applaud you for that. It's so refreshing to spar with someone who seems to be educated unlike most of the people on COD forums, the horror and stupidity, but mostly the horror. So, I thank you for raising such good points! It has given me a lot to think about. Thanks again!

But he built from that, just from what he understood in his memory, re-did the experiments, and focused in on the essential truth of that would form the a theory of physics that would unmodified by used by the the Apollo Missions used put man on the moon 300 years later.
And he could have given up after his fire or just published his vague conclusions. But he didn't and his theory changed the planet.

Great things can come from a long drawn out mess, if you can pull yourself free from all the chaff. It may take a disaster, but I think it would be good to compare Team Fortress 2 and Duke Nukem Forever as the Right and Wrong way to approach a game stuck in development hell.

Sorry about the scrambled post.

 

[9Darksoul6]

Because it DOES, that's why; it's not Layton-thinking, but it clearly involves more brains than simply switching to 'weapon 7'. Maybe you're simply unadapated to this mechanic and can't work properly with it.

Want proof? :

You have no way of knowing what is around the next corner, so you cannot strategies, only compromise.

What about, IDK... picking weapons in mid-combat?

That is what I HATE, scrabbling abound on the floor looking for a gun and trying to do that while trying to avoid getting shot and of course you have to select the LEAST optimal weapon to replace it!

So if you are under long range fire and you want to swap a shotgun for a rifle, you need to draw your shotgun and run around looking at the ground. You can't do that in mid-combat of a game with really challenging enemies.

I get it. However you must undertsand your point is based on both you hating this mechanic and your unability (we're all different gamers) to play it right.
I CAN do what you apparently think is impossible, believe it or not, on very challenging games as well (as long as the level design allows it); the system doesn't bother me, I hate the alternative you praise, but that doesn't mean it's suited for every player; like I said, I get that you don't like it and why; it also doesn't mean it's intrinsically bad (or "not good") as a game mechanic, nor that it shouldn't be in this game.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I wasn't so much as stating the pocket arsenal as inferior as I was defending the two weapon option. What I meant was that your decision making had to take into account that you had to choose two guns to cover your ass and you had no idea if they would even be useful against the upcoming enemies.

I'm really just against all of the purist losers who want the same game from over a decade ago, and any changes are an intended offense against the fanbase.

To be fair, at least for the case of Duke Nukem 3D, a big part of the appeal of that game was having access to a large, really neat arsenal, and how it interacted (primitively, but still) with the environment.
I'm curious as to why they felt the need to take away access to what used to be a really cool arsenal.
To appeal to console fans? Gears of War and Mass Effect both have a 4 slot weapon-wheel; Resistance: Fall of Man had an even larger arsenal. None of those games were hindered by their weapon-selection controls.

No, it's quite clear that Gearbox slapped those features in because those are currently the most popular style for FPS controls; not the most effective for the style of game they were working with.

 

[9Darksoul6]

I wasn't so much as stating the pocket arsenal as inferior as I was defending the two weapon option. What I meant was that your decision making had to take into account that you had to choose two guns to cover your ass and you had no idea if they would even be useful against the upcoming enemies.

I'm really just against all of the purist losers who want the same game from over a decade ago, and any changes are an intended offense against the fanbase.

To be fair, at least for the case of Duke Nukem 3D, a big part of the appeal of that game was having access to a large, really neat arsenal, and how it interacted (primitively, but still) with the environment.
I'm curious as to why they felt the need to take away access to what used to be a really cool arsenal.
To appeal to console fans? Gears of War and Mass Effect both have a 4 slot weapon-wheel; Resistance: Fall of Man had an even larger arsenal. None of those games were hindered by their weapon-selection controls.

No, it's quite clear that Gearbox slapped those features in because those are currently the most popular style for FPS controls; not the most effective for the style of game they were working with.

(I generally don't like people putting words in my 'virtual mouth' xD).
You're probably right.
As I stated before, it's also possible that Gearbox did it because of there's not a great weapon variety in the game, and because (the general consensus is that) some guns just suck, and limiting your arsenal can kinda force you to use them.
But, yeah, the two-weapon system is somewhat popular these days... so that could be the case, and it most likely is.

 

[Inkidu]

I'm a little bemused by the whole situation. Sure, it's a little disappointing that DNF isn't living up to expectations, but somehow I think we'll survive. Perhaps we'll purchase something else.

Let's just agree that DNF doesn't count as a Duke Nukem game. I call this "The Matrix technique".

Oh, massive amounts of denial... yeah that's healthy.

I deny that I read that comment.

What comment?

Oh, massive amounts of denial... yeah that's healthy.


...and so on and so forth

Some people, next thing you'll tell me the Matrix got two sequels.

Captcha: One of the words was upside down and backwards. :/

 

[Dapz]

We're all used to the unsophisticated heads of internet trolls, so it's only to be expected that when a game that took 14 years to develop turns out to not be all that, they'll leap on it and attack it brutally without thinking things through, such as who they should be blaming. The truth is that the idea of a game that's been in development for a long time being some amazing masterpiece that'll make everything feel mediocre is extremely misled! The main reason is the ambition from the start; it isn't planned that the game will take that long because they have big plans for it, it happens unintentionally because of whatever issues arise, but whatever it is they have to spend more time doing, usually it isn't expanding the game. As the years go by, the game remains at its core the same game that it was at the start, and so when its finally released, it feels like a game that belongs in whatever year the game started development. Duke Nukem is a dated FPS with futile attempts to make it SEEM new by adding the cliches of modern shooters (regeneration, two-weapon limit), Alan Wake was completely inoffensive, but pretty dated, once again playing like a game from a previous generation (because it is), and Gran Turismo 5 finally appeared but found that everyone had moved on in the past 6 years and it was way behind the PGR and Forza series!

 

[Doom972]

After beating the game, it unlocks video footage of the different versions of the game.
This version was developed mostly by Triptych (though they remade some material visible in the 2001 trailer). Gearbox fixed a few bugs and developed the multiplayer part.

 

[Vorlayn]

Seriously, it may not be the greatest game of all time, heck, it may not be as good as dn3d was...but it's not THAT horrid! Yes, there are many quicktime events, two weapons max does not really fit this game, and some puzzles could use some work...but it's still fun!

 

[ImprovizoR]

The game doesn't suck. It offers more than most modern FPS games and that's a fact. Don't make me start comparing it to CoD. I'll just say that it offers a lot more.

It has a long enough campaign and I find it replayable to a certain degree. Same can't be said about most FPS titles today. Graphics aren't bad at all. There is nothing wrong with graphics. I don't know what are people talking about. It's ridiculous. The graphics are the same and sometimes better than most FPS games today (CoD for example). It's not a gray/brown shooter either. It's very colorful and character models are highly detailed with a lot of polygons and great textures. Animations are good too. Sure the game doesn't have a story, but it doesn't need one. It's not supposed to have a story. It's supposed to be one big joke. That's Duke for ya. Gameplay is similar to most modern shooter so any bitching about that automatically means you hate every modern shooter. But the way it's done in Duke is actually better because the campaign offers diversity. It's not a rail shooter. It has exploration elements. And that's something today's shooters don't have. Not to mention mini games along the way, puzzle elements and the fact that the campaign always tries to keep things fresh. Sure it would be a lot better if 2 weapon limit never existed, and if Duke didn't have regenerative health. But other than that it's more than I hoped for, and definitely more than other modern FPS titles have to offer. All of this Duke hate is unjustified. I think it's psychological. If reviewers say it's bad, gamers will say it's bad. Think for yourself. It's a great game. Multiplayer is also a lot of fun but I won't get into it now because I'm a single player kind of gamer.

 

[FuktLogik]

Yes, it's our fault for taking the awesome trailers at face value, and not expcting them to throw a fucking curve ball with the regen health and arbitrary two weapon limit when even Boarderlands had four.

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/137/1291284470782.jpg/]

 

[ikoian]

the only thing i'm looking forward to about the release of this game is Yahtzee's review of it

Wednesday cannot get here fast enough, it's going to be hilarious.

i've not looked forward to a review so much since Brawl

Sadly, it will probably be next week seeing as it just came out internationally and he needs a week to get through the game. This week will probably E3

On topic
Frankly, I'm not surprized that it is getting thrashed this early on. When Gearbox started making a dozen meaningless trailers, delayed the original release date that was suspiciously close to Brink's, gave the demo only to those who pre-ordered, and was constantly advertised on every site with the word "game" in it's HTML code, I gained a good idea that it was just some cash in on a decade old joke.

 

[Saulkar]

Four hours into DNF, bored out my tits (Will go into more depth later on)

I'm recommended "Serious Sam HD"

Bought it...

FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUU----

CK!!!

Just my 2 cents. ;P BTW, he is telling the truth.