Duke Nukem 4ever? will it come out?

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
Get your head away from sales figures and discuss the quality of the game - as that's what we're talking about here. Undoubtedly the hype around big games will boost their sales, but it also places the dev teams under huge pressure - and the quality of the game will inevitably suffer as a result.

And I suppose poor sales couldn't affect the dev teams, and by extention, the quality of the game, and future games? I'd certainly argue that good sales would allow more scope for the developement of better games.

So seeing as there's no game to speak of to discuss the quality of in the first place, it's a completely null-point you're pushing there. So we're pretty much left to speculation on whether the game can be any good.

Lets not forget that todays gaming is leaning far more towards multiplayer, and a decent multiplayer community can pretty much make a game succeed. Low sales, less popularity, and therefor feck-all community! Any intrest in making a decent mod for the game is also killed from the off because of this.

It's pretty evident that popularity is a factor here, and by extention, sales... So on this issue, there's no way I'm getting my head away from any such figures.

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
Well, exactly. I don't think anybody is doubting that they've a fair portion of the game in the can. But again, just because they have something to show, it doesn't meant they want to show it. This is going around in circles a bit, isn't it?

Of course it's going around in circles! We can only guess whether or not there is anything to show or not, and we could indeed continue this back and over for ages. It's just my opinion that they haven't anything to show, as they're still playing catch-up with todays games and technology.

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
As it happens, I'm actually non-plussed about DN4E, just presenting the other side of the argument. As for believing jargon that's 'constantly being spewed' by PR men, well... when's the last time you've heard anybody from Take2 or 3D Realms talk about the game? Excluding the sporadic forum posts by people! actually! working! on! the! game!, I can't really think of anybody. And I dare say that they know a teensy bit more than a small blind hedgehog living in somewhere whacky and hilarious. Indeed, Take2 are so silent and removed on the game, it's not on their release schedule, nor is it mentioned in any press packs, financial reports or profit forecasts.

I wouldn't expect that you're anything but non-plussed about this. This is after all, only a discussion board, and that's exactly what's so fun about it in the first place. The contrary position of the arguement will always be a lot more interesting than a few guys going 'Yup' at various points made.

As for the 'PR Men' comment, I meant that more in the rhetorical sense of the general every day PR Man who's constantly spewing jargon, and that your comments of "No expectations/preasure/hype/whatever" sounds like pure PR spin, rather than based on any factual spin. The metaphysical PR man, if you will.

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
Well, I think we have to face facts and realise that unless the game features all the bump-mapped, real-time lighted, rag-doll physiced bells and whistles, the graphic-whoring PC game buyers aren't going to be that interested. They cannot release a game running on old tech in this market, especially with the likes of Doom3 and HL2 around the corner. It would be madness.

I accept your point that they've somewhat tarnished the Duke Nukem brand with their other output, though.

When that lovely E3 vid that looked like a completely finished game was released, there was no such things as rag-dolls physics, or any of the graphical features of the games of this era. I'd say you're completely missing the point by re-itterating that fact! I'm not saying they should release the game they had then into todays market, but that they probably should've released it then when it looked like it was a really decent game. Who cares if it still needed a few tweaks? Most games need constant patching for quite some time after their release, so why not Duke?

My only thoughts on why they didn't is that they must have had a severely sub-standard product back then, and decided to scrap it altogether, and start from scratch.

And seeing that they went ahead and released two extremely sub-par games with the 'Duke' name brand, without any such bells-and-whistles of todays shooters, the 'Missing' Duke of years past must've been one really ****e game for them not to release it! Despite how cool the video did look.

This is all speculation and personal opinion of course, but going on what's available, and that there's no real information to the contrary, I think it's quite a reasonable point of view.

And seeing as you accept that the Duke brand has been tarnished with the previous sub-par releases, would you not agree that the holding back, and presumably scrapping of Duke Nukem Forever has also tarnished the franchise?

Dont be at yourself

And I suppose poor sales couldn't affect the dev teams, and by extention, the quality of the game, and future games? I'd certainly argue that good sales would allow more scope for the developement of better games.

But seeing as the sales will only happen after the game is released, they won't have much of an influence on the quality of DN4E. They will perhaps have an influence on support (patches and mod community support and whatnot), but then DN4E isn't going to be rushed out a la most PC games, so instances of bugs should be fairly minimal. And by the sounds of things, it's a fairly single-player focused game. Indeed, last I heard, (which was around the time of the E3 trailer, I reckon), multiplayer wasn't even confirmed.

So seeing as there's no game to speak of to discuss the quality of in the first place, it's a completely null-point you're pushing there. So we're pretty much left to speculation on whether the game can be any good.

And to take it a step forward, how likely it is to be good.

I fully accept that there is a possibility of Duke Nukem 4Ever being a terrible Daikatana-esque game, but, to my mind, it will probably be a good, if not great, game - for reasons mentioned above.

Lets not forget that todays gaming is leaning far more towards multiplayer, and a decent multiplayer community can pretty much make a game succeed. Low sales, less popularity, and therefor feck-all community! Any intrest in making a decent mod for the game is also killed from the off because of this.

There's still very much a market for single-player centred games, though. The likes of Far Cry, the upcoming S.T.A.L.K.E.R and even Doom3 are far more focused on single-player than multiplayer.

As for the 'PR Men' comment, I meant that more in the rhetorical sense of the general every day PR Man who's constantly spewing jargon, and that your comments of "No expectations/preasure/hype/whatever" sounds like pure PR spin, rather than based on any factual spin. The metaphysical PR man, if you will.

If by that you mean I'm sounding somewhat like an eternal optimist with regards to this game, then I absolutely agree with you. But while my argument is laced with optimism, yours is equally as steeped in pessimism!

When that lovely E3 vid that looked like a completely finished game was released, there was no such things as rag-dolls physics, or any of the graphical features of the games of this era. I'd say you're completely missing the point by re-itterating that fact! I'm not saying they should release the game they had then into todays market, but that they probably should've released it then when it looked like it was a really decent game. Who cares if it still needed a few tweaks? Most games need constant patching for quite some time after their release, so why not Duke?

I don't think anybody wants to see a half-baked game requiring months of patches released onto the market. The game obviously wasn't finished (not to a state that they were happy with it, in any case) back then, or it would have been released.

And seeing that they went ahead and released two extremely sub-par games with the 'Duke' name brand, without any such bells-and-whistles of todays shooters, the 'Missing' Duke of years past must've been one really ****e game for them not to release it! Despite how cool the video did look.

The other two Duke games were basically money spinners to finance the development of Duke Nukem 4Ever, weren't they? So while their quality was questionable, so was 3DRealms' effort invested in them. I don't think, after 7 years, anybody can question the effort they're putting into Duke Nukem 4Ever though.

And seeing as you accept that the Duke brand has been tarnished with the previous sub-par releases, would you not agree that the holding back, and presumably scrapping of Duke Nukem Forever has also tarnished the franchise?

I don't know. Duke Nukem is one of PC gaming's greatest characters really, and I think everybody accepts that Duke Nukem 4Ever is the successor to Duke Nukem 3D, and they, by in large, block out the other games - or at least accept them for what they are, spin-offs of the series.

The lengthy development cycle of DN4E has obviously damaged the brand though, as evidenced by this very thread.

Is1ldur

Originally posted by tman
no.
remedy made the game, they have a good relationship with 3drealms after using the old build engine to make a game (exhumed)
3d realms just offered a bit of guidance for the development of max payne 1 & 2.

DNF is one game that i won't be getting excited about until it's actually gone gold.

As far as I am aware, Exhumed was made by Lobotomy Software, now sadly deceased....It did use the Build engine as you say, though.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
But seeing as the sales will only happen after the game is released, they won't have much of an influence on the quality of DN4E. They will perhaps have an influence on support (patches and mod community support and whatnot), but then DN4E isn't going to be rushed out a la most PC games, so instances of bugs should be fairly minimal. And by the sounds of things, it's a fairly single-player focused game. Indeed, last I heard, (which was around the time of the E3 trailer, I reckon), multiplayer wasn't even confirmed.

Every single game out there has bugs up the wazzoo, and reguardless of how well-developed the game might be, it will still require patching after release. Warcraft 3 still gets a regular patch every so often, as did Diablo 2, and just about any other well-developed game you can imagine. Furthermore, Blizzard are a pretty big and respectable company, who don't exactly have the preasure of smaller companies on their heads, and can indeed take their time on projects.

My point is, you could spend forever fine-tuning and trying to iron out all the bugs imaginable, but that just isn't going to happen. And no matter what size test team they might have, they're not going to be able to find as many bugs as Joe Public and his feedback.

To suggest the notion of 'Minimal Bugs' is just being downright niave.

As for the lack of multiplayer... If there was more proof needed that the developers were quite inept, then that's it! The multiplayer possibilities of the game, considering Duke's interesting array of weapons, are quite broad in scope.

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
There's still very much a market for single-player centred games, though. The likes of Far Cry, the upcoming S.T.A.L.K.E.R and even Doom3 are far more focused on single-player than multiplayer.

I don't doubt there's a market for it... in fact, my game of choice would be moreso singleplayer than multiplayer, and a nice RPG that I can play away on for hours is definetly something I love.

So don't get me wrong on this, and my above statement...
I just think that Duke with good multiplayer would be a very solid plan.
Doom3 on the other hand, while I'm certainly looking farward to it, I can't really see what multiplayer would add to the game. Certainly we all have fond memories of being scared out of our wits with the previous Doom games, and that's obviously what ID are trying to re-capture, albiet in a more up to date game.

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
If by that you mean I'm sounding somewhat like an eternal optimist with regards to this game, then I absolutely agree with you. But while my argument is laced with optimism, yours is equally as steeped in pessimism!

This is true.

And in fact, this is probably the entire arguement right here.
A Cynical outlooks Vs. an Optimistic one.

I generally keep a little motto in mind, which goes something along the lines of "Always expect the worst, so if things go wrong you're not as bothered, but if something goes your way, you're twice as happy!"

So with that said, I'd gladly eat my words if Duke was any good at all.

But I do think you've hit the nail on the head there with that one, and without any definite game we could agree on, it's all speculation doused in opinion and which outlook you'd take. So I don't think I'd really bother arguing this point anymore, but it was a great arguement thus far!

I'll just finish off by commenting on this last bit I've quoted.

Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan
The other two Duke games were basically money spinners to finance the development of Duke Nukem 4Ever, weren't they? So while their quality was questionable, so was 3DRealms' effort invested in them. I don't think, after 7 years, anybody can question the effort they're putting into Duke Nukem 4Ever though.

Perhaps that could be said for Manhattan Project, but I do think that A Time To Kill was released quite some considerable time ago, so that's debatable. Either way, money-spiner or not, that's no reason for releasing such unbeleivable sub-standard games.