Are you counting Duke Nukem 3D in that first line, or just DNF?Jegsimmons said:
'Cos I found 3D incredible, as did a lot of people.
Poll: You think Gearbox could've done better with Duke Nukem or if they were the right ones to handle it?
- Thread starter Hectix777
- Start date
Recommended Videos
'Cos I found 3D incredible, as did a lot of people.
Know who should have gotten the rights to Duke? ID. (DOOM, Quake). Why? Duke Nukem and DOOM are biological cousins. It is no coincidence their similarities, since 3D Realms was created by former ID people who made DOOM.
The real problem though, was trying to modernize the game in the wrong ways. Personally, I just wanted Duke Nukem 3D with better graphics. Health regen, cover fighting and all that that is in general shooters is not what I want in Duke. In 3D my cover was skidding across the ground at high speed while spamming my chain gun and Devastator.
The real problem though, was trying to modernize the game in the wrong ways. Personally, I just wanted Duke Nukem 3D with better graphics. Health regen, cover fighting and all that that is in general shooters is not what I want in Duke. In 3D my cover was skidding across the ground at high speed while spamming my chain gun and Devastator.
Then I shall answer your question for you!Jegsimmons said:
The game may be a "modified doom game" to you, but so were pretty much all shooters back then.
The genuinely funny humour in the game stands out for a lot of people, the badass weapons, the excellent gameplay. The fact that you could look up and down *gasp!*. The general personality and charm it brings. The excellent gameplay.
It may remind you of one of those types of jocks, but the whole point was that he was a larger than life parody, not meant to be some serious douchebag.
From what I hear, DNF was made by the remnants of 3D Realms (A.k.a like 10-14 people) working outside of an apartment and putting mortages on their houses to found the project. Gearbox only really ported it to consoles. Apparently they said they had the opportunity to change some things, like the health and guns, but ultimately decided to leave it in.
So I guess if everything they said is to be true, the game isn't half bad for being made in a house by a 10 man team.
So I guess if everything they said is to be true, the game isn't half bad for being made in a house by a 10 man team.
I don't know much about Duke Nukem, but I've followed this game a bit because I loved Borderlands. What people wanted sounds like something Gearbox could have delivered but didn't. So, I don't think a different dev would have helped unless they gave it more time.
Yea, the poll is down.Hectix777 said:
I haven't actually played DNF yet so I can't really comment on what's wrong with it.
How bad is it and what kind of bad is it? Is it New Vegas buggy as bait shop and as crash prone as an old lady in a big car? Or is it blatantly unfinished like No More Heroes; like they were onto something good but stopped, said ?good enough,? and sent it off? Or is it just rotten to the core and should?ve been rebuilt from scratch?
I think that before we crucify Gearbox, we should let them build their own DN game from scratch. DNF has passed hands so many times that I didn?t think anyone was expecting it to be any good. This doesn?t excuse them if the game is extremely buggy or blatantly unfinished, it only reinforces my call for a lemon law/panel (like the esrb but for quality control). However, if this game is just plain not good from top to bottom, that?s the fault of the last few studios who went out of business working on it.
I really like Borderlands (it might be one of the most played game on my ps3) so I?m confident in Gearbox?s abilities but I have to say I wasn?t expecting much out of DNF when I heard that it was being released so soon after they acquired it. If they really screw up on the next one, then we should talk about who gets the IP next.
I'm reasonably comfortable in saying that NO company would have been able to make it the awesome game people wanted. Nobody. The game has been floating around so long that the best any company could do is duct tape the various parts of it into one piece to actually get it to have somewhat a cohesive story.
So, I think that yes, Gearbox did as good a job as I could expect with what they were given.
So, I think that yes, Gearbox did as good a job as I could expect with what they were given.
People Can Fly would be best suited. See Painkiller if you don't believe me (so glad I watched the ZP review of it). Simple run and gun murder fun. Replace the guy who I don't care enough about to remember his name with Duke and the result would be gold.
DNF should have been an old school monster spam gibfest. Regenerating "ego" could have worked if they made the ways to regen it better. Like killing enemies, looking at magazines with Duke on the cover (basically Health Packs is disguise), etc.
DNF should have been an old school monster spam gibfest. Regenerating "ego" could have worked if they made the ways to regen it better. Like killing enemies, looking at magazines with Duke on the cover (basically Health Packs is disguise), etc.
Passing judgements on a game you haven't played? Look, I thought 3D was stupid too, until I actually played it very recently. I honestly have no nostalgia for the series, and while I find the one-liners and humor groan worthy, it's a well designed and fun game.Jegsimmons said:
I wish Gearbox would have just started from scratch rather than trying to polish up the unfinished mess left by 3D Realms.
For the first part, if Gearbox had delayed the actual release it would've gone to the same stupid shit of irrational consummers believing the product wouldn't come out at all... I mean, they did delay it for what? Like a month? And everyone was like yeah the game's never coming out! Imagine what would have happened if they delayed it like Valve does. The little interest that came with the revival of Duke when Gearbox took the project into their hands would have been lost completely.Xzi said:
Also yeah, the game is bad by our standards. I can only imagine if this game came out on... I don't know... 2000? I would have been considered ground breaking and genre defining... As it stands its just a 2011 game that is actually more like a 2000 game with plenty of humor (subjective matter, you either laugh or don't) and some effort from a company that had nothing to lose by bringing "the Holy Grial" to the consummers.
People are going to play this game, wether you agree or don't and it's going to be popular. Maybe it will be forgotten in a couple of years, but as of now it's going to generate a lot revenue for Gearbox who bought the rights for the Franchise of Duke Nukem games. So hopefully they will be able to make Yahtzee's version of the game and this one will be simply thought as quaint.
Also one thing, talking about Yahtzee, he did call it. "If this game doesn't cure at least one type of cancer, me and every other reviewer are going to saw its buttocks off".
I do totally agree with you, but you know, they probably just wanted to shove it out cause they have plans for a proper duke game, but they had to get the 12 year old one out so they could start on the new one...Kakulukia said:
Honestly, I totally agree, they shouldn't have released it, but it seems they did because they wanted to respect 3d realms... maybe?
Of course they could have....they made Borderlands a great game, which is why I was expecting better with Duke then we actually got...
In reality though, the only way Gearbox could have made it better was to spend at least a year of so revamping the game - a lot more was needed to be fixed then was actually done, which is why the current incarnation of Duke sucks so bad...
In reality though, the only way Gearbox could have made it better was to spend at least a year of so revamping the game - a lot more was needed to be fixed then was actually done, which is why the current incarnation of Duke sucks so bad...