Forums > News > Duke Nukem Forever coming June 14th!
LepricahnsGold (142729) on 6/14/2011 8:27 AM · Permalink · Report
Hail to the king, baby! They finally finished DNF and he will be here on June 14th! Come get some!
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/14/2011 9:07 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Just make damn sure you don't get some on the 360:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-duke-nukem-forever-face-off
LepricahnsGold (142729) on 6/14/2011 12:58 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
From what i read, too true. WHY it is such lower quality is a bit of a mystery as the same company ported it to Xbox 360 and PS3.
LepricahnsGold (142729) on 6/14/2011 4:02 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I wouldn't mind another Duke Nukem but have, maybe, Gearbox make it. They, at least, can get a product out in a reasonable amount of time. DNFs problem was they were working with stuff already done before. In some cases, long before.
LepricahnsGold (142729) on 6/14/2011 4:04 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start LepricahnsGold wrote--]They, at least, can get a product out in a reasonable amount of time. [/Q --end LepricahnsGold wrote--] In other words, "when it's done" is not an acceptable deadline.
Daniel Saner (3515) on 6/14/2011 8:03 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start LepricahnsGold wrote--]I wouldn't mind another Duke Nukem but have, maybe, Gearbox make it.[/Q --end LepricahnsGold wrote--]
I thought Gearbox did effectively make it?
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/14/2011 8:45 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--] [Q2 --start LepricahnsGold wrote--]I wouldn't mind another Duke Nukem but have, maybe, Gearbox make it. [/Q2 --end LepricahnsGold wrote--] I thought Gearbox did effectively make it? [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] To my knowledge, they've never come out and said exactly who worked on exactly what parts.
We know that 3D Realms worked on it until bankruptcy. A couple of die-hards from that team formed Tryptich (sp?) to keep the project afloat. A few years later, Gearbox bought the rights to finish the final product.
Again, who did what and how many iterations it went through - I don't think that's been disclosed. How much of the original project was retained - well, other than the Vegas setting, I don't think that's ever been said.
We know it runs on modified Unreal 2. The graphics personally remind me of the look of Prey. I think it's a fair guess to say most of the game comes from 2005/2006. Exactly what Gearbox added, polished, contributed, altered... unknown.
Rola (8478) on 6/14/2011 11:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Let's get realistic on this one. While the mosf of the script or concept design could remain the same, no way they could use content created 10 years ago (I still have that old trailer! the game looked fairly complete back then), considering how detailed todays 3D models have to be. Items, enemies, weapons, levels - all had to be made from scratch. Not to mention engine-related stuff, like AI scripts etc.
chirinea (47536) on 6/14/2011 11:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]Let's get realistic on this one. While the mosf of the script or concept design could remain the same, no way they could use content created 10 years ago (I still have that old trailer! the game looked fairly complete back then), considering how detailed todays 3D models have to be. Items, enemies, weapons, levels - all had to be made from scratch. Not to mention engine-related stuff, like AI scripts etc. [/Q --end Rola wrote--]Which leads us to the question: how well would if fare, had it been released 10 years ago?
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/15/2011 2:08 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--]Let's get realistic on this one. While the mosf of the script or concept design could remain the same, no way they could use content created 10 years ago (I still have that old trailer! the game looked fairly complete back then), considering how detailed todays 3D models have to be. Items, enemies, weapons, levels - all had to be made from scratch. Not to mention engine-related stuff, like AI scripts etc. [/Q --end Rola wrote--]
...textures? Low-res textures seems to be the biggest complaint. Looking at them, I could believe they reused those.
St. Martyne (3648) on 6/15/2011 11:00 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start BurningStickMan wrote--] ...textures? Low-res textures seems to be the biggest complaint. Looking at them, I could believe they reused those. [/Q --end BurningStickMan wrote--]
They're pretty high-res on PC.
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/16/2011 10:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cavalary wrote--]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13795782 [/Q --end Cavalary wrote--] Now last I heard, Eurogamer tweeted that they had been blacklisted this morning. Giant Bomb's industry gurus say that blacklisting is a common practice, but never talked about or admitted to the public. So the latest suspicion is that 2K fired them for talking about the blacklist, but is moving right ahead with the threat.
Which runs counter to what I was originally thinking was going on. You don't want to send a free review copy to hateful, "Hur Hur, Gearbox took a Duke in the toilet" sites, I can understand that. But I read Eurogamer's review... it was not that. So blacklisting sites strictly for low reviews is a different story.
Robert 'Bob' Jackson on 6/16/2011 10:20 PM · Permalink · Report
It has been releaced I've been lovin the Duke but I can't believe it kinda flopped after 14 years development!
Indra was here (20745) on 6/16/2011 10:42 PM · Permalink · Report
They don't make spindocters like they used to anymore.
PCGamer77 (3156) on 6/17/2011 4:46 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm not very familiar with the Duke games, but most of the early criticisms strike me as over-the-top and/or just plain weird. They seem to range from "It's not Call of Duty!" to "Duke has failed to mature as a character over the past 15 years." The former complaint seems irrelevant; the latter, painfully pretentious.
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/17/2011 5:24 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start PCGamer77 wrote--]I'm not very familiar with the Duke games, but most of the early criticisms strike me as over-the-top and/or just plain weird. They seem to range from "It's not Call of Duty!" to "Duke has failed to mature as a character over the past 15 years." The former complaint seems irrelevant; the latter, painfully pretentious. [/Q --end PCGamer77 wrote--] I could be completely off the mark here, but it seems like the underlying tone of many of these reviews is "look how far we've come." You see the "Duke's a relic" or "the gameplay is outdated" lines and wonder if they're wishing this was this case. Because it isn't in my experience.
"Duke's juvenile for the sake of it, and that has no place in modern games"
Bulletstorm, the game that brought us "I'm going to kill your dick."
"Duke's misogynistic, and that's disgusting. It has not place in modern games."
A recent example, but really, take your pick here.
"Duke's just linear shooting, stuck with a recharging shield and only two weapons, and that's boring"
Etc, etc. I agree, methinks they doth protesteth too much.
Cavalary (11634) on 6/17/2011 5:54 PM · Permalink · Report
I think the issue is that it had a very, VERY tall horse. An indie title made by a couple of people at home, over a year's worth of spare time, will get good reviews if it offers a few hours of fun and/or just has a couple of interesting things going for it. A revival of what for some is a genre icon, after a 14-year development cycle during which a few actual companies tinkered with it, is expected to be a landmark and reference for years to come. When it's not, the reviews reflect that.
(Not that I'd care either way. I stay well clear of FPSs.)
PCGamer77 (3156) on 6/17/2011 6:15 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Cavalary wrote--]A revival of what for some is a genre icon, after a 14-year development cycle during which a few actual companies tinkered with it, is expected to be a landmark and reference for years to come. When it's not, the reviews reflect that. [/Q --end Cavalary wrote--]
High expectations for a genre icon seem reasonable to me--although that doesn't explain the reviewers who seem to dislike DNF because of the Duke character.
As for the 14 year development cycle, well...if you REALLY believe they were "working" on it for the whole 14 years, and you REALLY think that more manhours invested = a landmark game, then you deserve to pay too much for a game.
Robert 'Bob' Jackson on 8/9/2011 11:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Rola wrote--] [Q2 --start PCGamer77 wrote--]As for the 14 year development cycle [/Q2 --end PCGamer77 wrote--] Speaking of it, while browsing my old mags I found 1997 screenshot of ...the Witcher. And believe me it looked nothing like the final product. [/Q --end Rola wrote--] Had the game been releaced nearer 1997 tbh we would not be talking about the game na cos it would be old news!
Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 8/10/2011 1:32 AM · Permalink · Report
Because no one discusses old games here, right, Jacob?
St. Martyne (3648) on 6/18/2011 6:03 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start BurningStickMan wrote--] Etc, etc. I agree, methinks they doth protesteth too much. [/Q --end BurningStickMan wrote--]
Easy target.
Daniel Saner (3515) on 6/18/2011 10:27 PM · Permalink · Report
I agree with that, although the few professional reviews I have read from German sites and magazines read quite different from that. I haven't played the game myself yet, so I can't comment on which side I consider more right or wrong. But their tone generally was not that they expected the Duke to "evolve", but that they're disappointed he lacks the features that made him so successful in '96. They didn't criticise the levels for their linearity, but because exploring them was less fun and exciting than in Duke3D. They didn't criticise the Duke for being primitive or misogynistic or a loud smartarse, but for his lines falling flat and being generally less funny than they used to be. At least these points I can accept as solid criticism, unlike some teenie twitch hipster console gamers who planned to pan the game, and claim it should've been something else, years ago already. The average criticism seems to have been that while DNF is not a bad game, even after 15 years DN3D is probably more fun to play through.
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/19/2011 12:36 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]The average criticism seems to have been that while DNF is not a bad game, even after 15 years DN3D is probably more fun to play through. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] Finished it yesterday, and I'd agree with that. I would not agree that there's not plenty to interact with - because there definitely is - but they do lump most of it into particular levels. Sometimes entire sections go without interactive items, especially toward the end.
It also depends on what kind of player you are. This is not an "old-school" FPS, in the sense that you're not going to blast through the levels in full throttle. People expecting that are going to find the shooting mechanics lackluster. People like me - who even played DN3D slowly and poked around with everything - won't be so bothered.
Think of it like when Doom 64 came out, and everyone hated it because it "wasn't Doom." They played Doom like you'd play Serious Sam or Painkiller. I always played Doom cautiously, as if creeping through a haunted house. That happened to be the same style that D64 was going for, so I quite enjoyed it.
So I guess Duke Forever's biggest flaw is that it doesn't support different styles of play like DN3D did.
Unicorn Lynx (181663) on 6/21/2011 7:44 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, I'm about one-fifth into the game, and... well... err... hum... it's ok. Not as terrible as some reviews make it to be, but... it feels a bit like a fan tribute so far. They clearly tried, what with the cute action set pieces and all, but the whole thing feels cartoony and not very satisfying either as an old-style shooter, or as a modern product.
Plus, I haven't laughed a single time yet. The original Duke 3D is somehow funnier. I think they just tried too hard with this one. It's not about Duke not maturing, it's about him being immature and gross on purpose.
PCGamer77 (3156) on 6/21/2011 8:38 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Jewngguoren wrote--]Well, I'm about one-fifth into the game, and... well... err... hum... it's ok. [/Q --end Jewngguoren wrote--]
OK, glad to know your first impressions...but I'm sure we are all eagerly awaiting a comprehensive review from the MobyReviews Master. :)
Unicorn Lynx (181663) on 6/22/2011 7:56 AM · Permalink · Report
we are all eagerly awaiting a comprehensive review from the MobyReviews Master. :)
Thanks for the compliment; the problem is that I have no idea whether I love or hate this game :) Halfway into it, I experience moments of addiction and goofy delight along with a bad aftertaste.
In short, it's just like McDonalds.
BurningStickMan, give me a hand here! Is this game awesome or does it stink? :)
Cavalary (11634) on 6/22/2011 10:02 AM · Permalink · Report
Does it have to be either/or?
Or you could take a hint from the Resolution Magazine's Risen review, which concluded "That’s the case with Risen, but extended to the point where I can’t even say with any real conviction what I think. There’s no point in masking that, no use in running too far in one direction to the exclusion of reasoned reporting. So, I guess, here’s my review of Risen in a nutshell: it’s a game I like, except when I don’t, and one you might be rather fond of, unless you’re not." :)
Unicorn Lynx (181663) on 6/22/2011 11:43 AM · Permalink · Report
... Well, anyway, I'm writing a review of Duke Nukem Forever right now.
Robert 'Bob' Jackson on 8/9/2011 11:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]... Well, anyway, I'm writing a review of Duke Nukem Forever right now. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Cool well keep us up to date on that 1
BurningStickMan (17916) on 6/22/2011 4:49 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Jewngguoren wrote--] BurningStickMan, give me a hand here! Is this game awesome or does it stink? :) [/Q --end Jewngguoren wrote--] The truth lies somewhere in between. :P
Better than DN3D? No.
Fun and competent? Yes.
A great modern game? No.
A good sequel to DN3D? Sure.
The devil's own festering asshole? No.
Now I wish I'd been playing with my reviewer cap on so I could have added a user review.
Rola (8478) on 6/22/2011 5:05 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Jewngguoren wrote--]Is this game awesome or does it stink? :) [/Q --end Jewngguoren wrote--] If you're uncertain about how to answer this question, it means the game is "meh" (look Ma, I'm using modern slang!). Average doesn't mean bad. But I doubt it will make its place in history (otherwise than being 15 years in developement ;-) ).
