Why Gearbox is not to blame!

[KnowYourOnion]

So it's not their fault that they blamed consloes for their game sucking? It's not their fault that they said they could take over the project? It's not their fault that they promised it would everything the old fps crowd loved and more? It's not their fault that they're relaesing a game that's obviously not upto their standards?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

GEARBOX NEVER BLAMED CONSOLES FOR SUCKING OR MADE ANY PROMISE THAT THE GAME WILL BE WHAT EVERYBODY WAS WAITING FOR.
These words where spoken by 3D REALMS people at a time 3D REALMS was still working on DNF.

Gearbox just got the game after 3D REALMS bankrupted,fixed the bugs,made the multiplayer,and are now going to release a 3D REALMS game.

I'm willing to admit I may have jumped the gun on that a little, but if they're going to takeover and release a game, flaws and all, then they're still to blame along with 3D realms.

Not really, I bet they probably hadn't seen the code when they bought the IP. They don't want to keep developing it because they'll lose an incredible sum of money that they probably want to keep so that they can actually develop new games!

 

[ZeroMachine]

That's like saying it's not the chef's fault if his vegetables were half-rotten when he got them, but served them to the customer anyway.

Can we please end all these shitty analogies? They don't make your point valid.

But that one made complete sense...

Still doesn't make his point valid.

You're right. It just reinforces an already valid point.

Nothing wrong with that.

It isn't valid, it is simplistic, which is the ultimate failing of all analogies.

So because something is simplistic, it isn't valid? What kind of fucked up logic is that? Either way, his point was very valid. Gearbox, apparently, got a shit game. It was there job to release a quality game. If they failed at fixing what was broken, they're just as much at fault.

That really is like a cook using the vegetables that he was given even though they were rotten.

I don't get your issue with this.

 

[Hyper-space]

That's no excuse, you don't release products until they're great, no matter what state you acquired them in.

You know people need work, right?

Those developers have families to feed, meaning that *GASP* the same people that make all those terrible movie-games and shovelware probably do not have the luxury of being able to work on their dream projects or rejecting a paycheck.

Not every developer can have the infinite funds of Valve or Blizzard.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

*snip*

Not really, I bet they probably hadn't seen the code when they bought the IP. They don't want to keep developing it because they'll lose an incredible sum of money that they probably want to keep so that they can actually develop new games!

So? When they took over this game it became their responsibilty. If it fails once Gearbox have cleaned it up a bit, then they are still partially to blame.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

That's like saying it's not the chef's fault if his vegetables were half-rotten when he got them, but served them to the customer anyway.

Can we please end all these shitty analogies? They don't make your point valid.

But that one made complete sense...

With all the shitty analogies on this forum to make fun of, he goes after the one that makes perfect sense.

It doesn't make sense........but we shall labour the metaphor until it dies an alliterative death.

The chef doesn't have a choice because in this circumstance they've forked out a minor fortune to buy these vegetables believing them to be at least serviceable. However, when they were delivered the chef realised to his horror that the vegetables were not up to standard and now they had hundreds of hungry customers waiting for a meal outside, customers who would be very rude and nasty if they were suddenly told the meal wasn't going to be ready for another few years.

Here lies a tortured metaphor, let us spare it a thought!

 

[ZeroMachine]

That's no excuse, you don't release products until they're great, no matter what state you acquired them in.

You know people need work, right?

Those developers have families to feed, meaning that *GASP* the same people that make all those terrible movie-games and shovelware probably do not have the luxury of being able to work on their dream projects or rejecting a paycheck.

Not every developer can have the infinite funds of Valve or Blizzard.

Failing at your job doesn't always mean you won't get payed.

 

[ZeroMachine]

That's like saying it's not the chef's fault if his vegetables were half-rotten when he got them, but served them to the customer anyway.

Can we please end all these shitty analogies? They don't make your point valid.

But that one made complete sense...

With all the shitty analogies on this forum to make fun of, he goes after the one that makes perfect sense.

It doesn't make sense........but we shall labour the metaphor until it dies an alliterative death.

The chef doesn't have a choice because in this circumstance they've forked out a minor fortune to buy these vegetables believing them to be at least serviceable. However, when they were delivered the chef realised to his horror that the vegetables were not up to standard and now they had hundreds of hungry customers waiting for a meal outside, customers who would be very rude and nasty if they were suddenly told the meal wasn't going to be ready for another few years.

Here lies a tortured metaphor, let us spare it a thought!

Except that makes even more sense considering the situation...

That's like saying it's not the chef's fault if his vegetables were half-rotten when he got them, but served them to the customer anyway.

Can we please end all these shitty analogies? They don't make your point valid.

But that one made complete sense...

Still doesn't make his point valid.

You're right. It just reinforces an already valid point.

Nothing wrong with that.

It isn't valid, it is simplistic, which is the ultimate failing of all analogies.

So because something is simplistic, it isn't valid? What kind of fucked up logic is that? Either way, his point was very valid. Gearbox, apparently, got a shit game. It was there job to release a quality game. If they failed at fixing what was broken, they're just as much at fault.

That really is like a cook using the vegetables that he was given even though they were rotten.

I don't get your issue with this.

Fails to take into account publishers and investors. Guys who poured money into this game for more than a decade. Gearbox simply cannot re-do the game to make it your liking, because that would take time they do not have.

*sigh*

Ok, you're just over analyzing it, I get it now.

 

[Internet Kraken]

That's no excuse, you don't release products until they're great, no matter what state you acquired them in.

You know people need work, right?

Those developers have families to feed, meaning that *GASP* the same people that make all those terrible movie-games and shovelware probably do not have the luxury of being able to work on their dream projects or rejecting a paycheck.

Not every developer can have the infinite funds of Valve or Blizzard.

And his point still stands. You don't release a product when it doesn't live up to a good standard. If for some reason Gearbox did not have the funds to build most of Duke Nukem from the ground up (which is bullshit, they're not a small company) then they should not have bought the rights to the game in the first place. Because really, expecting the Duke Nukem 3D Realms had made to be anywhere near a quality product was just absurd. Gearbox should have built it from the ground up. They have the funds to do it, there's no reason to cling to whatever terrible design decisions 3D Realms made. Their company tanked for a reason.

 

[Cropsy91]

I've been a Duke Nukem fan all my life. Hell, it was one of the very first games I have the memory of playing (I remember playing 1, 2 and 3D around the same time).

Yet, even still, I really don't have any qualms about the demo. It had the humor, over-the-top action, personality and interactivity of a Duke game, and that's really all I need.

As for all the roasting of Gearbox going on, it's like many before have said: Gearbox simply polished up and finish and already mostly-done 3D Realms/Tryptech game. If you really don't like the direction the game took, they're the ones who definitely hold most of the blame.

Also, from all the things I've read, the reason that Gearbox didn't just rebuild DNF from the ground up is simply because they wanted to release the game as 3D Realms had intended, not try their hand at making a whole new game that might not have been in the spirits of 3DR's original plans.

 

[wulfy42]

From what I have seen the game is quite fun and plays very much like DN3d but with way better graphics and more variety/options not less.


Could it have been better? Probably......but are you really saying you wanted them to wait LONGER to release this game? Seriously?


Just from the Demo I can see that the game is going to at least be fun to play through every once and awhile in single player.....and I'm betting multiplayer is going to be a blast as well. It might not be game of the year material or anything, but it certainly doesn't seem like a game you would make you feel ripped off after purchasing it.

I'll hold off final judgement till I have the full game but I have faith in gearbox at this point and I have to give them credit as well for actually finishing this game and releasing it. It might actually be one of the signs of Armageddon, but DNF is actually being released...and that is due to gearbox. Even if the game was utter carp I'd still give them credit for releasing it.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

You know people need work, right?

Those developers have families to feed, meaning that *GASP* the same people that make all those terrible movie-games and shovelware probably do not have the luxury of being able to work on their dream projects or rejecting a paycheck.

Not every developer can have the infinite funds of Valve or Blizzard.

That's a rather silly attitude.

If they put out sub-par products, they are less likely to be paid in future to to a damaged reputation.

If anything, these devs should be working even harder to make sure their product is great as if it fails they're fucked.

 

[Hyper-space]

And his point still stands. You don't release a product when it doesn't live up to a good standard. If for some reason Gearbox did not have the funds to build most of Duke Nukem from the ground up (which is bullshit, they're not a small company) then they should not have bought the rights to the game in the first place. Because really, expecting the Duke Nukem 3D Realms had made to be anywhere near a quality product was just absurd. Gearbox should have built it from the ground up. They have the funds to do it, there's no reason to cling to whatever terrible design decisions 3D Realms made. Their company tanked for a reason.

Yeah! cause screw reality! we have enough funds to spend a lot of money and time on a game AND THEN NOT RELEASE IT.

Failing at your job doesn't always mean you won't get payed.

Yeah, sometimes developers make mistakes or things go wrong, yet they get paid. That's just how real-life works.

 

[Hyper-space]

You know people need work, right?

Those developers have families to feed, meaning that *GASP* the same people that make all those terrible movie-games and shovelware probably do not have the luxury of being able to work on their dream projects or rejecting a paycheck.

Not every developer can have the infinite funds of Valve or Blizzard.

That's a rather silly attitude.

If they put out sub-par products, they are less likely to be paid in future to to a damaged reputation.

If anything, these devs should be working even harder to make sure their product is great as if it fails they're fucked.

Every developer tries to make a great game, but not every developer is given enough time and money to deliver on said game. So its not silly, its simply the cold, hard truth behind video-game development.

Making a great game is easier said than done.

 

[RedDeadFred]

If half the code they received is shit, then they should have started from scratch.

That's like saying it's not the chef's fault if his vegetables were half-rotten when he got them, but served them to the customer anyway.

Hurray for perfect analogy!
In all seriousness though. I'm sure people could have waited another year for this game. Most people I think had lost hope that it was ever going to come out. So really. Would the extra year really have been noticed?

 

[Internet Kraken]

And his point still stands. You don't release a product when it doesn't live up to a good standard. If for some reason Gearbox did not have the funds to build most of Duke Nukem from the ground up (which is bullshit, they're not a small company) then they should not have bought the rights to the game in the first place. Because really, expecting the Duke Nukem 3D Realms had made to be anywhere near a quality product was just absurd. Gearbox should have built it from the ground up. They have the funds to do it, there's no reason to cling to whatever terrible design decisions 3D Realms made. Their company tanked for a reason.

Yeah! cause screw reality! we have enough funds to spend a lot of money and time on a game AND THEN NOT RELEASE IT.

What? You're argument makes no sense. What I'm saying is this; Gear Box should have built the game from the ground up. If the Duke Nukem 3D Realms gave them wasn't something they could work into a quality product, they should have scrapped it and built a new game from the ground up. If for some bizarre reason they did not have the money to do that (why wouldn't they? Borderlands was a pretty successful game), then they shouldn't have bought the Duke Nukem IP in the first place. You can't not blame Gearbox if they release a mediocre product. It's their game now. They are responsible for it.

 

[Korolev]

If gearbox release a bad game, they release a bad game. They could have just as easily decided to NOT release it if they thought it was bad. Sure, maybe they didn't make the bulk of the game - but after seeing it, working with it, developing it, they decided to release it, and whether or not the game is good or bad reflects on their ability to judge quality.

I haven't played Duke Nukem Forever, and unless you work at Gearbox or 3D realms, you probably haven't either. I can't say whether or not the game is any good yet. But Gearbox made the ENTIRELY voluntary decision to resurrect the game from death, so they have to live with whatever reception the game gets, positive or negative.

If you take the angle that they bought the game just so that they could get the IP.... that doesn't make sense. They could have just as easily decided to shutter it the day after they bought the rights to the IP. They aren't obliged to release Duke Nukem Forever.

Regardless, even if DNF turns out to be trash, I won't hold Gearbox responsible for making it trash. I'll hold them responsible for deciding to release it as trash, but the fact of the matter is that 3D Realms was responsible for that joke of a development cycle. Hell, that DNF is even being released in a form that DOESN'T resemble "Big Rigs Over the Road Racing" is a monumental triumph!

EDIT: And if you say that they have to release it "as is" because they bought it and it cost them too much for them to NOT release it..... then why did they buy it without checking the quality? To use the chef example: Imagine if a Chef bought some ingredients without even checking the quality of the ingredients to use in a dish, and then finds out that the ingredients are awful. Straight up, he's a bad chef. If Gearbox bought DNF without checking to see what condition it was in and without being willing to do more work on it if necessary, then they're really.... really..... really stupid. Smart people don't buy things without checking the quality of those things first, and if Gearbox bought DNF blind, then that doesn't speak well of their business practices.

 

[RedDeadFred]

That's like saying it's not the chef's fault if his vegetables were half-rotten when he got them, but served them to the customer anyway.

Can we please end all these shitty analogies? They don't make your point valid.

But that one made complete sense...

With all the shitty analogies on this forum to make fun of, he goes after the one that makes perfect sense.

It doesn't make sense........but we shall labour the metaphor until it dies an alliterative death.

The chef doesn't have a choice because in this circumstance they've forked out a minor fortune to buy these vegetables believing them to be at least serviceable. However, when they were delivered the chef realised to his horror that the vegetables were not up to standard and now they had hundreds of hungry customers waiting for a meal outside, customers who would be very rude and nasty if they were suddenly told the meal wasn't going to be ready for another few years.

Here lies a tortured metaphor, let us spare it a thought!

And they should wait. They would be paying money for a terrible meal that might make them sick.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Every developer tries to make a great game, but not every developer is given enough time and money to deliver on said game. So its not silly, its simply the cold, hard truth behind video-game development.

Making a great game is easier said than done.

If Gearbox couldn't make a good game out of what they were shown by 3D Realms then they either shouldn't have bought it or they should have rebuilt it from scratch. Borderlands was a great in-house game, and quite a success too. It's not like they couldn't do it.

If you buy a used car from a dealership and it falls apart on the first day, you're hardly going to yell at the previous owner.

 

[Vibhor]

So it's not their fault that they blamed consloes for their game sucking? It's not their fault that they said they could take over the project? It's not their fault that they promised it would everything the old fps crowd loved and more? It's not their fault that they're relaesing a game that's obviously not upto their standards?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

GEARBOX NEVER BLAMED CONSOLES FOR SUCKING OR MADE ANY PROMISE THAT THE GAME WILL BE WHAT EVERYBODY WAS WAITING FOR.
These words where spoken by 3D REALMS people at a time 3D REALMS was still working on DNF.

Gearbox just got the game after 3D REALMS bankrupted,fixed the bugs,made the multiplayer,and are now going to release a 3D REALMS game.

Explain why didn't they edited it to make it fun. One year seems long enough time to make a game fun. Especially if its 80% complete.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

That's no excuse, you don't release products until they're great, no matter what state you acquired them in.

QFT, I don't see how people don't get that. People act like they had some incredibly finite date to get the game done by. As it has been said in one of the other bazillion threads about this: Gearbox acquired the game 2 years ago. That is plenty of time to look at what 3D Realms did, and then if it was messed up, they could just start from scratch and use some of the ideas and remap the game to gave such things like health packs and the ability to carry 10 guns.

snip

Snip

As I point out above, they have had the game for 2 years. Most games these days get just around half that and come out fine and have the things that DNF doesn't have and should. And those games are started from scratch, Gearbox got a partial project, they had plenty of time to fix the stupidity of regen health and only getting two weapons at a time "if" it was 3D Realms in the first place that intended it to be that way.

If Gearbox had a problem with 3D Realms' decision on that, they could have easily changed it. By easy I mean plenty of time, and as I said above they even had time to take 3D Realms' ideas and just start from scratch and build a game from 0%.