Duke Nukem Forever

Shapey Fiend

Thank you. At least in this game the weapons don't feel like peashooters. I came into this game with modest expectations and I think it surpassed them for the most part. Solid but not spectacular. Aside from somewhat dated graphics I don't see how anybody would think it's unfinished. The pacing and balance is pretty spot on.

Doge

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

The vehicle sections were boring as **** in HL2. Remeber the awful floaty indistinct hovercraft? The Duke jeep is much more fun to use. The boosting over ramps and stuff on this at least stopped it being too dull.

I really enjoyed some of the level design. The shrunken Duke levels in particular.

I hated the hovercraft level in HL2, and the level before it.

Was extremely boring and tedious.

I think HL2 got progressively better as you played through though.

Thought the final battle was epic.

pixelburp

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

The vehicle sections were boring as **** in HL2. Remeber the awful floaty indistinct hovercraft? The Duke jeep is much more fun to use. The boosting over ramps and stuff on this at least stopped it being too dull.

I really enjoyed some of the level design. The shrunken Duke levels in particular.

I can't agree with this at all. I thought the level design was horrendously bad in places. Some of the levels just felt carelessly thrown together, with no great thought behind how to steer the player through them. And then they compounded things by including some platform jumping too. Yeesh.

thebman

I must be one of the few people that like FP Platforming then especially when implemented well like it is here albeit a bit on the easy side.

Where exactly is the lack of steering of the player though? I thought the whole experience pretty much constantly directed the player except at times when you were supposed to figure things out for yourself.

I thought the kitchen was great for that. It didn't just hold your hand through it but wasn't really difficult, you just had to stop and think for a second about how to achieve your goal.

cython

pixelburp wrote: »

I can't agree with this at all. I thought the level design was horrendously bad in places. Some of the levels just felt carelessly thrown together, with no great thought behind how to steer the player through them. And then they compounded things by including some platform jumping too. Yeesh.

Admittedly I haven't played DNF yet, but I warrant that if a reskinned version of some Duke 3D levels were to be released in any random game now people would have the exact same complaint about it. Level design in modern games (especially FPS) has tended towards very clearly defined routes through levels most of the time, which means that when a game goes back to a formula where the player has to explore to find their way, and this is atypical for the genre (again, FPS being guilty here), then we get a raft of complaints about bad level design. Of course there is the ever present audience who actually want less linear/clearly defined routes, and this style appeals to them when it is employed. The simple fact is that with polar opposite camps like this, you're never going to appeal to everyone with everything.

pixelburp

cython wrote: »

Admittedly I haven't played DNF yet, but I warrant that if a reskinned version of some Duke 3D levels were to be released in any random game now people would have the exact same complaint about it. Level design in modern games (especially FPS) has tended towards very clearly defined routes through levels most of the time, which means that when a game goes back to a formula where the player has to explore to find their way, and this is atypical for the genre (again, FPS being guilty here), then we get a raft of complaints about bad level design. Of course there is the ever present audience who actually want less linear/clearly defined routes, and this style appeals to them when it is employed. The simple fact is that with polar opposite camps like this, you're never going to appeal to everyone with everything.

Good point, and funny you should mention it because that's precisely what I did prior to DNF coming out. I contrived to put my hands on a copy of Duke 3D, and then downloaded a high-res patch that added larger textures, models etc.

So yes, your hand wasn't held in each Duke3D level, but you had a map to help you & arguably these were large, open-world levels that encouraged exploration rather than the series of corridors you see now in modern FPS games.

So I don't think it's fair to compare like-for-like as both games were built on differing design principles. One was an open treasure hunt, the other's a series of gun-ranges. If you're building a simple A2B shooter ala DNF, then your levels need to be well-crafted to make the game flow naturally. DNF (imo) didn't do this: the levels were messy & incoherent at times, with no sense of guiding the player to the next point of interest. In places they felt like a fan's first level made in the DNF map-editor.

Shapey Fiend

To me the DNF levels are about as linear as Half Life 1. Most modern games take the linearity to an absolute extreme. I got stuck a couple of times but I just tabbed out and checked an FAQ and I was missing something obvious.

Duke 3D was quite confusing. I used get lost all the time. I'd prefer if they went down this route a bit more nowadays but modern gamers would HATE that stuff.

thebman

pixelburp wrote: »

Good point, and funny you should mention it because that's precisely what I did prior to DNF coming out. I contrived to put my hands on a copy of Duke 3D, and then downloaded a high-res patch that added larger textures, models etc.

So yes, your hand wasn't held in each Duke3D level, but you had a map to help you & arguably these were large, open-world levels that encouraged exploration rather than the series of corridors you see now in modern FPS games.

So I don't think it's fair to compare like-for-like as both games were built on differing design principles. One was an open treasure hunt, the other's a series of gun-ranges. If you're building a simple A2B shooter ala DNF, then your levels need to be well-crafted to make the game flow naturally. DNF (imo) didn't do this: the levels were messy & incoherent at times, with no sense of guiding the player to the next point of interest. In places they felt like a fan's first level made in the DNF map-editor.

Which points exactly, I can only remember one that slowed me down for any length of time and it was because I accidentally walked past the machine that makes you large again.

Ironically I didn't see it because it was too big :P

Doge

pixelburp wrote: »

And then they compounded things by including some platform jumping too. Yeesh.

Duke 3D was pretty platform heavy in places too.

It helps mix things up a bit.

I personally loved the shrunken levels, bring so much more fun to the game.

Monotype

I think the duke 3d maps were linear enough, but you often had multiple ways towards a goal. You might occasionally get stuck finding a keycard or miss a turn, but secret passageways helped you get farther and you could move across a map with ease many ways if you knew it well. I liked Ep1 and 3 best for the map styles. I always found Ep 2 to be a bit harder to navigate.

I haven't checked out DNF yet, maybe I might get it free with DN5.

I don't mind a little bit of jumping here and there, it adds to variety. So long as it's not a complete bunny tracks map.

Modern games suffer from weak map design covered up with incredible visuals and to disguise the plainness.


http://www.duelinganalogs.com/image/2010/11/08/first-person-shooters-then-now/


Of course, levels don't have to be sprawling to be original...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBmZkELaJQ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPEnxekqdmU

SirLemonhead

Monotype wrote: »

Oh dear god when will people stop posting that

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

when it stops being depressingly relevant

Monotype

Sorry to offend you. I don't trawl through every thread so I don't see everything! Obviously styles have changed and most games don't suit winding staircases in multiple directions, but I think the general observation of a shift towards linear routes remains valid.

thebman

It is correct that games are more linear but linearity isn't always a bad thing.

It depends on the game and each game doing its own thing that works for its story and direction is best for everyone.

Trying to basically clone the same game over and over and swapping textures and CG scenes isn't getting us anywhere though. Gears of War is a good example of a franchise evolving I think. You can't leave the route your supposed to go but it still tries to mix up gameplay.

But shoot, 2 seconds of walking, another gun fight and repeat with some CG until end of game is just mediocre gaming. The original COD games were a refreshing change from the MOD series that had fallen into this trap. However later versions of COD seem to be about as bad as the later MOD series games except with online to try to keep people interested until the next crappy single player campaign is released.

hooradiation

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

when it stops being depressingly relevant

So it never should have been posted in the first place?
Great. Glad we got this cleared up.

deathrider

Monotype wrote: »

Of course, levels don't have to be sprawling to be original...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBmZkELaJQ0

This particular level always makes for some very interesting deathmatchs.

JohnMarston

I am against linearity in games, especially fps games. I mean, think about games like Doom. You had to explore to get all the secrets of a level. You had room to run away if your health was low and explore to find health.

Whereas DNF, well, linearity or no linearity wasn't gonna save that one.

Doge

Duke is 20 years old today!




Happy Birthday! :P