This person here is the only one you should listen to. I couldn't have said it better myself.Xzi said:Start with Duke 3D. Update graphics to 2011 standards. Change nothing else.
Would have easily justified twelve years of development for me. As well as justify throwing down the $60 for it. Really, if they wanted to change anything else, it should have just been the story, the jokes, and maybe the level design as long as they kept the same design philosophy as Duke 3D. Which is to say, long, branching levels with exploratory puzzles and tons of secret paths/areas.
anything less than this would be a tragedy of epic proportionsAdumbroDeus said:It would have to be this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1968-Viewers-Choice-Duke-Nukem-Forever
A holodeck, failing that, a robot.Zaverexus said:I saw this post
and thought I would ask:Arkynomicon said:The shock with Duke Nukem Forever is that people was curious about what could justify 12 years of development. Turns out there was nothing in it to justify 12 years of development.
What features would a game have to include for you to consider it worth 12 years' wait? Or at least consider it a good use of the time?
Personally, I would wait 12 years for a game that dispensed bacon every time you complete a mission.
Definatly. Hell, if they made an expansion for 3D that did not even update anything aside from a new chapter or two, Id buy it. I still play it.Xzi said:Start with Duke 3D. Update graphics to 2011 standards. Change nothing else.
Would have easily justified twelve years of development for me. As well as justify throwing down the $60 for it. Really, if they wanted to change anything else, it should have just been the story, the jokes, and maybe the level design as long as they kept the same design philosophy as Duke 3D. Which is to say, long, branching levels with exploratory puzzles and tons of secret paths/areas.