Dev admits DNF was dumbed down for consoles.
- Thread starter GiantRedButton
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh. I think I like "So Much Fucking Hate" better.SyphonX said:
Btw, you're allowed to swear on the escapist.
Which why they aren't worth mentioning every single MMO on a console may as well not exist not not even be counted as there is no market for them. Same as you may as well ignore that the PS 2 had online gaming as hardly anyone used it. The market is so small it may as well not exist on consoles.Ultratwinkie said:
You would want to carry those rocket launchers or shrink rays or whatever if you think you might need it, maybe against an bigger enemy or a vehicle that can't be brought down easily by other means. This is the choice and consequence part of it, you might come against an enemy that requires extra fire-power or a long-range weapon, meaning that assault rifle/shotgun (if that combo is possible) could still not effectively hit target from long-range (something that could be vital) OR deal enough damage against an bigger enemy. Its not enough to be able to hit everyone from any range (a combo that's often impossible to pull off efficiently), you have to think of damage output and the utility of each weapon.9_6 said:
Being able to carry every weapon eliminates ANY thought there is to be had when it comes to combat (and any need to use those exotic weapons you mentioned), which means that even the worst possible outcome (what you mentioned) of this two-weapon system is still better than being able to carry EVERY weapon there is.
But as i have seen from many a discussions, people's problem with regenerative health, two-weapon limit and other modern systems is not one of whether its the right choice (design-wise), but whether its "old-school" enough.
Nope, do not avoid! Im sorry but is this really surprising to anyone? A developer using the cheapest way out instead of actually taking their time to make proper use of the advantages of certain platforms (in this case, the PC).
This happened to Crysis 2 as well, so really for me at least, its just business as usual.
This happened to Crysis 2 as well, so really for me at least, its just business as usual.
They were lazy, so they picked the excuse they knew we would be all too willing to accept.
Never forget this. They had 12 years to make this game. It should be perfect. Never forget. They had enough time to make this game three times over. Never forgot that in this time they could have made three different copies of it.
Do not take their bone. Use your common sense. The game sucks because they jerked off for over a decade. If it was "dumbed down", it's because they chose not to make it otherwise. But they had time to do so.
Never forget this. They had 12 years to make this game. It should be perfect. Never forget. They had enough time to make this game three times over. Never forgot that in this time they could have made three different copies of it.
Do not take their bone. Use your common sense. The game sucks because they jerked off for over a decade. If it was "dumbed down", it's because they chose not to make it otherwise. But they had time to do so.
Because those situational weapons (like the shotgun, sniper rifle...) can be very effective and sometimes even crucial given the circumestance, meaning that having a combo that consists of a medium-range assault rifle and an exotic weapon could very well be as good or even better than having two standard weapons like assault rifle/shotgun. Whether or not these exotic weapons will be viable/useful enough in combat is yet to be seen, and i am basing my view upon the worst possible outcome (that the exotic weapons will be completely useless) and the best possible outcome (that they can be crucial in many circumstances and useful), unlike your previous statement which claimed that it would be the WORST possible outcome (despite the game still not being out yet).9_6 said:
The "carry all weapons" approach (given the worst and best possible outcome) gives as much incentive to use exotic weapons as the two-weapon limit, but without the choices and consequences.
What a load of horseshit.
It's easy to map lots of weapons on a controller - just look at Half life 2, Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 2, Mafia 2.
It's easy to map lots of weapons on a controller - just look at Half life 2, Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 2, Mafia 2.
its not their fault, we been over this in this thread already xD, 1. there are EASY ways to get past this issue with the controllers, there are examples listed, ie Half-life, Duke Nukem 3D, Turok 1 and 2. if anything its halos fault, does any one remember 2 weapon first person shooters before halo?tzimize said:
Technical expertise isn't required to build a gaming PC. Buying one is for suckers, and any PC enthusiast worth their salt will agree. To avoid getting ripped off, here's something important:Glademaster said:
1 - Think of a budget.
2 - Go to someplace like Tom's Hardware.
3 - Announce budget and other prerequisites they have listed to maximize their ability to help.
From there, the people that know what they're doing will usually find you the best bang for your buck, or tell you to wait for a price drop that would happen very shortly.
*Topic* I thought Duke was supposed to be over the top, not a clone of Master Chief. I'm definitely gonna stick o my guns here and say that a weapon wheel is needed for this game. I recall Red Faction 1 and 2 having weapon wheels, and those were PC ports. The PS2 controller had enough of a button layout to conveniently fit in the wheel. The X360/PS3 controllers are basically the same, aside from design differences. And Gearbox have the nerve to justify laziness.
I actually find that excuse a little insulting. Consoles don't by any means inhibit a variety of weapons, games like Bioshock have demonstrated that. A weapon wheel is not by any means impossible, in fact many games these days let you carry at least four weapons.
Duke Nukem has found himself being outclassed by Isaac Clarke in terms of weapon carrying, and Isaac is just an engineer.
As for the whole melee thing, well, Bulletstorm let you kick people. And if the 'mighty boot' really is a major part of the game series one would assume it should be there. But even then, even if the melee had to be a simple gun barrel whack at least make it look good.
Personally I was a little offended to call it the 'Halo style' melee whack because at least when you melee whack an enemy in Halo they actually react to it. Like move back or fall over or lose shields and raw in pain and annoyance. Yeah it's not great but at least it actually gives off a feeling of damage, all I saw in the footage of Duke Nukem Forever was him running up and hitting the enemy pig things and them not even responding in any way. Save for when they eventually fell over.
Plus Duke dies in like three hits out in the open which isn't exactly giving evidence to the whole 'mad crazy fun' mindset.
Honestly, saying Duke is a clone of the Masterchief is an insult to aspiring Spartans everywhere.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced by this 'it's for console tards' justification. Because I'm a veteran of console games and I can tell you right now, they are better then people give them credit for. You can carry plenty of weapons and there is room for a lot of functional mechanics in them.
I admit to not having played this demo but that's because I never had any interest in Duke Nukem Forever the second I heard about 'capture the babe'. What I saw of the demo in a fully presented video didn't inspire me at all. Terrible jokes, slow gameplay, sexism and a bunch of other crap.
It wasn't funny to listen to, not appealing to look at and if the remarks spoken by the people playing it were any indication, not much fun to interact with either.
Gearbox, don't blame the consoles and don't blame Halo or any other game franchise. Their design and mechanics are not an 'STD' on your design philosophy and nothing in console design forced you to slack off.
That was all YOU. You were lazy and you made a shoddy product, don't go around blaming everyone else.
But of course, that's just my opinion. Everyone's entitled to one and if you liked the demo then by all means enjoy it. I have nothing against the existence of the game if it's making people happy. I don't like it and have no interest in it but if it's your thing, go nuts.
Duke Nukem has found himself being outclassed by Isaac Clarke in terms of weapon carrying, and Isaac is just an engineer.
As for the whole melee thing, well, Bulletstorm let you kick people. And if the 'mighty boot' really is a major part of the game series one would assume it should be there. But even then, even if the melee had to be a simple gun barrel whack at least make it look good.
Personally I was a little offended to call it the 'Halo style' melee whack because at least when you melee whack an enemy in Halo they actually react to it. Like move back or fall over or lose shields and raw in pain and annoyance. Yeah it's not great but at least it actually gives off a feeling of damage, all I saw in the footage of Duke Nukem Forever was him running up and hitting the enemy pig things and them not even responding in any way. Save for when they eventually fell over.
Plus Duke dies in like three hits out in the open which isn't exactly giving evidence to the whole 'mad crazy fun' mindset.
Honestly, saying Duke is a clone of the Masterchief is an insult to aspiring Spartans everywhere.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced by this 'it's for console tards' justification. Because I'm a veteran of console games and I can tell you right now, they are better then people give them credit for. You can carry plenty of weapons and there is room for a lot of functional mechanics in them.
I admit to not having played this demo but that's because I never had any interest in Duke Nukem Forever the second I heard about 'capture the babe'. What I saw of the demo in a fully presented video didn't inspire me at all. Terrible jokes, slow gameplay, sexism and a bunch of other crap.
It wasn't funny to listen to, not appealing to look at and if the remarks spoken by the people playing it were any indication, not much fun to interact with either.
Gearbox, don't blame the consoles and don't blame Halo or any other game franchise. Their design and mechanics are not an 'STD' on your design philosophy and nothing in console design forced you to slack off.
That was all YOU. You were lazy and you made a shoddy product, don't go around blaming everyone else.
But of course, that's just my opinion. Everyone's entitled to one and if you liked the demo then by all means enjoy it. I have nothing against the existence of the game if it's making people happy. I don't like it and have no interest in it but if it's your thing, go nuts.
I thought that the whole point of Duke Nukem Forever was that it was essentially a Duke Nukem game deliberately exaggerated in a time period it really doesn't belong in. This whole macho-man stereotype of a hero, and the whole Capture the Babe stuff. The entire point of the game was that it didn't fit in with current shooters...so why have they decided to modify the gameplay into something exactly like the current shooters? Two weapons and a melee? I'll assume that a pistol factors into those two weapons, so we don't even have a Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 system of two main weapons and a sidearm...plus the two types of grenades, and the thermal camera and night vision.
If you can fit all of that onto a controller, then what's the problem with making every weapon available? Even Assassin's Creed didn't make you choose between two freakin' weapons every time! Prototype, too. Weapon wheels. Common bloody sense.
Y'know, I was quite looking forward to this. I was a bit young to truly appreciate the Duke, but I do remember playing the original at my uncle's. But that's as far as nostalgia goes. I was hoping for a comedic break from the 'real-world, gritty' shooters that are popping up everywhere now. But...nope. Essentially, we get Halo with a wisecracking tool.
If you can fit all of that onto a controller, then what's the problem with making every weapon available? Even Assassin's Creed didn't make you choose between two freakin' weapons every time! Prototype, too. Weapon wheels. Common bloody sense.
Y'know, I was quite looking forward to this. I was a bit young to truly appreciate the Duke, but I do remember playing the original at my uncle's. But that's as far as nostalgia goes. I was hoping for a comedic break from the 'real-world, gritty' shooters that are popping up everywhere now. But...nope. Essentially, we get Halo with a wisecracking tool.
There are so many solutions to that sort of problem, solutions we have seen work and work well in other games. So the "it was dumbed down because of consoles" crap doesn't fly with me. If they REALLY wanted to keep the weapon selection as wide as originally envisioned, they could have found a way, don't blame developer laziness or lack of problem solving on consoles.
The console could have easily done what they cut out. The dev's just lack any ingenuity at all. Like many have suggested a simple weopan wheel would have served nicely, or even my D-pad Idea. Don't blame the console just because the dev's are incompetent.Elsarild said: