Calm Down About "Duke Nukem Forever"
- Thread starter Austin Howe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Austin Howe said:
Nice DBZ pun.
Anyways, I agree.
It's clear that Gearbox has no issue with having more than two weapons or non regen health, as seen in borderlands.
Who says there isn't an element of long-term strategy in a multi-weapon scenario?ilovemyLunchbox said:
Hell, I recall saving up rounds for the rocket launcher back in Doom for really nasty fights, or saving my pipebombs in Duke 3D to open potential secret walls up. Sometimes, I had to improvise even when I *did* have all the weapons, simply due to different weapons being more effective on different enemies, or in different environments.
Recognizing how and when the situation has changed is no less relevant than when you have 2 weapons as when you have 10 (assuming the game isn't horribly skewed for difficulty).
See, there isn't a strictly-superior version for gameplay mechanics; just what is appropriate for your game at that given time. Trends change, but that doesn't mean you won't come back to an older gameplay mechanic just for the sake of nostalgia.
Left 4 Dead was one of the only solid health-bar-n-pack shooters released mainstream in the last 4 years. Was it for nostalgia? Of course not! Would it have been better with regenerating health? Definitely not!
People seem to get stuck in thinking that Old Gameplay Mechanic = Inferior just because it is bad. Graphics scale with time. Audio scales with time. But whats big in mechanical design comes and goes; it doesn't ever become "better" or "worse" except when it is applied in a new way (which may or may not suck. Compare the games Geist and Mindjack to see this in action.)
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
are you kidding? they sure as hell are known for halfassing, the pc version of borderlands was half assed out the ass, the multiplayer didnt work for most people till a few months after the release then they finally fixed it and the interface was shit, they did nothing to take any advantage of a mouse wheel or give the game a better interface for a pcJoJo Bizzaro 7 said:
Take my opinion with a grain of salt, 'cause I wouldn't have bought the game anyway (just not my kind of soup).
I watched some LPs of it and came to the following conclusion:
The reasons why DNF turned out like it did go deeper then just "OMG I can only carry 2 gunz at a time!!"
or "Gearbox ruined it!"
The Developers didn't have a proper goal when they started their work, they didn't have the right team for it, the project management failed and so forth. The Project was doomed to fail when they decided that they couldn't realize their initial goal with the technology they had at the time and decided to change the technology instead of the goal.
From the end result, it seems they spent way too much time thinking about Individual tidbits that would be interesting and radical to teenagers of the late 90s and constructing something around those nuggets of humor to hold it together somehow. Obviously they didn't think it through too much, or they would have noticed that they where building a First person shooter without much control over yourself and with little shooting.
If it was Gearbox that forced regenerating Health and a restriced Weaponloadout, then what in blazes where the developers doing before ? If there had been strong arguments for more weapons or "classic" health, then I bet that the Developers who spend at least 8 hours a day on that game could tell you WHY they did things the way they do and How exactly it impacts on the player.
If your publishers can just come in at the last minute and tell you that you got to conform to the norm because your product just has been renamed "Call of Duke" and you can't argue about that decision, then maybe youre initial system was flawed.
You see these systems in modern shooters a lot for a reason. They make Money. People like em. If you want your product to sell well - think about going with the norm.
The implementation of these modern features was beyond abysmal from what I could tell. Health beeing tied into interaction with your surrounding without any clue about wheiter or not a specific result would have an effect ? Not good enough.
Forcing players to use specific guns over long periods through ammunition? Not good enough.
Compare DNF to Gears of War 2. Only 2 (Main-)Weapons there either, but vastly superior design around that choice.
DNF stands as a tragic example how bad design can ruin a solid idea. We can only hope that the financial side of things reflects our views. Gearbox obviously just cashed in a good IP prematurely, with as little investment as possible.
Now customers have to show Gearbox that the amount they invested wasn't good enough to make a profit. We deserve better games than this, and the Duke does too.
I watched some LPs of it and came to the following conclusion:
The reasons why DNF turned out like it did go deeper then just "OMG I can only carry 2 gunz at a time!!"
or "Gearbox ruined it!"
The Developers didn't have a proper goal when they started their work, they didn't have the right team for it, the project management failed and so forth. The Project was doomed to fail when they decided that they couldn't realize their initial goal with the technology they had at the time and decided to change the technology instead of the goal.
From the end result, it seems they spent way too much time thinking about Individual tidbits that would be interesting and radical to teenagers of the late 90s and constructing something around those nuggets of humor to hold it together somehow. Obviously they didn't think it through too much, or they would have noticed that they where building a First person shooter without much control over yourself and with little shooting.
If it was Gearbox that forced regenerating Health and a restriced Weaponloadout, then what in blazes where the developers doing before ? If there had been strong arguments for more weapons or "classic" health, then I bet that the Developers who spend at least 8 hours a day on that game could tell you WHY they did things the way they do and How exactly it impacts on the player.
If your publishers can just come in at the last minute and tell you that you got to conform to the norm because your product just has been renamed "Call of Duke" and you can't argue about that decision, then maybe youre initial system was flawed.
You see these systems in modern shooters a lot for a reason. They make Money. People like em. If you want your product to sell well - think about going with the norm.
The implementation of these modern features was beyond abysmal from what I could tell. Health beeing tied into interaction with your surrounding without any clue about wheiter or not a specific result would have an effect ? Not good enough.
Forcing players to use specific guns over long periods through ammunition? Not good enough.
Compare DNF to Gears of War 2. Only 2 (Main-)Weapons there either, but vastly superior design around that choice.
DNF stands as a tragic example how bad design can ruin a solid idea. We can only hope that the financial side of things reflects our views. Gearbox obviously just cashed in a good IP prematurely, with as little investment as possible.
Now customers have to show Gearbox that the amount they invested wasn't good enough to make a profit. We deserve better games than this, and the Duke does too.
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".
Let's just agree that DNF doesn't count as a Duke Nukem game. I call this "The Matrix technique".
It wasn't that they didn't bring it to market, they just refused to compromise. They didn't want to "just release the game" unless it was a GOOD game!Golden potatoe said:
That's why it got delayed over a decade, if it was any other project it would have just died but 3D realms refused to give up on it and refused to accept compromise.
See, HAVE Gearbox ACTUALLY released Duke Nukem Forever? I don't mean technically is it the intellectual property of Duke Nukem Forever. I mean what our expectations are, what the game deserves to be from its legacy and the standard it has set, and also what type of game it is supposed to be relative to all the other games. Is this game REALLY the Duke Nukem Forever we expected or is just more like Halo: Duke Nukem Edition?
I'd rather wait for a game to be good than have it released in a compromised generic form.
And if you can't do it right, don't bother at all.
I thought this was about people stop complaining about the regen, weapon limit and such. I have the game, have had it since June 9th, and while it's a huge disappointment and in no way a Duke game, it's not a bad game[/]. If you just forget about those 14 years, it's pretty good. Not the best game I've played by a long shot, but it's good, I like it.
And also, I'd be surprised if he didn't do E3 this week and DNF next week.
I was thinking that as well! And he's gonna reference his fake one, but most time will be about the time it took. I also don't think he's gonna hate on it as much as people think.vrbtny said:
And also, I'd be surprised if he didn't do E3 this week and DNF next week.
Am I the only one who has the 'my face when' reaction to DNF sucking? Or people's reactions to it? Like, when people harp and warble about how it's the worst game to game about games game game, I shrug. It's been in production for 14 years. Before that, so many different hands all over 3D realms had been all over it like a Taiwanese whore on a military base. It's a fucking miracle it's playable. The trailers alone speak for the ineptitude of the title, in that what was the (quaint, ripoff laden) humor of the game was down played, the colorful monsters and action had been replaced with the big fucking words BROWN and GREY. I haven't played it, but I could see immediately that it wasn't any good. So my reaction was essentially an indifferent shrug.
But then I had the 8o of Simon Pegg at a village Shakespearean sendup whenever I hear someone bellyache that they're disappointed. What did you fucking expect? 14 years in development is not a good thing in anything. Typically speaking when the words 'development hell' touch a title in any medium, you can mostly stick a fork in it. Did Too Human not teach you knobs anything? Did you forget about The Wolfman?
But then I had the 8o of Simon Pegg at a village Shakespearean sendup whenever I hear someone bellyache that they're disappointed. What did you fucking expect? 14 years in development is not a good thing in anything. Typically speaking when the words 'development hell' touch a title in any medium, you can mostly stick a fork in it. Did Too Human not teach you knobs anything? Did you forget about The Wolfman?
Oh, massive amounts of denial... yeah that's healthy.Inkidu said:What comment?Speakercone said:I deny that I read that comment.Inkidu said:
...and so on and so forth
I'm betting 10$ on the fact the expectations from fans were too high and it will be called an "under-rated gem" in like 2 years.
Note* I'm also willing to bet that someone will respond saying you're going to lose.
Note* I'm also willing to bet that someone will respond saying you're going to lose.
I'm just saying that nothing can ever be perfect and I totally get that 3D just wanted to make the best game that they could, but as more and more time passes, our expectations will go up and we will want our product to be worth the wait. But to find out that after ages of tinkering and so called improvements, it can be very disheartening to learn that the product which you've waited 10 years for has been cancelled or put into limbo. Gearbox took the game with two aims, finish the work on the nearly finished game and get it to the consumer! The same consumer that has waited 10 years, and Gearbox actually managed to do that. For this I thank them. It may not have been the game worthy of the name of DUKE NUKEM, but those design decisions which you mentioned were implemented by the fathers, creators of Duke Nukem, 3D realms. Anyway, after 10 years I was personally expecting 14 discs, lolTreblaine said:
The annoying thing I find about that is that isn't even optimised for consoles.not_you said:
It's optimised for simpletons.
Console controls are fully capable of managing a multi-weapon interface with their 8-direction d-pad, which is totally analogous to the number keys on a PC keyboard to select so many weapons.
Now I'm not saying all nor even a majority of console gamers are simpletons, but clearly developers think they cannot alienate the minority of simpletons on both console and PC who can't handle an inventory of more than 2 weapons!
This has nothing to do with speed either. You can have an 8-weapon inventory and can still use the Y-button to quick switch between the 2 most recently used weapons. Just like Half Life 2 the default Q key does that.
It isn't realistic either to absolutely limit to only 2 weapons regardless of size or weight, how can a 2 pound pistol be treated the same as a 24 pound machine gun with 13-lbs of belted ammo? It can't it's pure contrivance.
4-weapon limit. Just Saiyan!Jabberwock xeno said:Austin Howe said:
Nice DBZ pun.
Anyways, I agree.
It's clear that Gearbox has no issue with having more than two weapons or non regen health, as seen in borderlands.
God I love DBZ: Abridged.