Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Duke Nukem Forever could be out-done by the original Duke Nukem 3D just by updating the graphics.

I didn't pay a cent for DNF and i still feel ripped off simply because i spent the last 10 years watching the periodical hype and speculation on this bloody game.

I played the original Duke Nukem 3D, i played the crap out of that game and i still think DNF is a steaming pile of rubbish.

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I kinda noticed from the demo videos at PAX (I think it was PAX) that it was going look crappy. I think I said in another thread that Gearbox Software simply brought the Duke Nukem IP and basically finished DNF off and left it how it was...

This is what you get when a developer/designer (George Broussard) can't make his mind up on designing the game, putting in items that he saw in other games...changed the game engine on from Quake 2 Engine to Unreal Engine and it basically drove 3D Reams broke...13 odd years of devleopment would do that. (if you notice in DNF some of the one liners Duke says are very old dating back to events during the devleopment timeline)

From what I heard that Gearbox Software has stated that they will develop DLC for DNF a start working on a brand new Duke Nukem game using the lastest graphics and what not..

Only problem is that Duke Nukem (in terms of one liners and stuff) is very old and needs to be updated somewhat

How much of the game have you guys played? The first half hour is shithouse.

I'll admit I felt the same as you guys until last night when I actually gave it a decent go. The fun factor is definitely there... After you look past the average graphics and primitive engine.

That being said, it shouldn't take a good hour to get "into" a game.

Hopefully the next Duke will be made properly.

You know duken nukem forever is 11 years old right?

lets go back to games that are 11 years old and compare it to that?

Quake 3?

It was released this year, it is not 11 years old.

An 11 year old game would be freeware by now, not $90.

It is in the price bracket of a brand new game, it is being marketed as a brand new game therefore it is to be compared to other brand new games.

Let me rephrase...Development on DNF started around 11 years ago. By a company going broke (3d Realms)...then proceded to go broke...5/6 years later it (3d Realms) was bought out and DNF was released with only a few minor changes to that 11 year old game.

So by all accounts it should have been released 2002/2003 and would've been on par with games of the time.

I havent bought the game simply to preserve my memories of DN 3D, because after playing all the console versions of the game PS1 and PS2 etc they were rubbish

Let me rephrase...Development on DNF started around 11 years ago. By a company going broke (3d Realms)...then proceded to go broke...5/6 years later it (3d Realms) was bought out and DNF was released with only a few minor changes to that 11 year old game.

So by all accounts it should have been released 2002/2003 and would've been on par with games of the time.

You will be hard pressed finding a gamer over the age of 20 who does not know that already.

It is no excuse for releasing a sub-par game.

Edited by Chappy

bros the current build actually dates from ~2006, pls disregard anything previous.

also duke 3d was released in the same era as quake with vastly better graphics, yet still held its own through awesome level design, gameplay and interactivity, unlike the consolised piece of shit sequel (the last build of it specifically, the 99 and 2001 demos looked awesome for their times).

You will be hard pressed finding a gamer over the age of 20 who does not know that already.

It is no excuse for releasing a sub-par game.

What game ever has reached expectations though...Ive been dissapointed in every game released in the last few years

and "any gamer" who was expecting DNF to be absolute top notch has their head in the clouds.

Hell look at all the teaser videos...they told me staright away that the game was going to be a bit "meh" and wouldn't appeal to non Duke die hard Fans

What game ever has reached expectations though...Ive been dissapointed in every game released in the last few years

and "any gamer" who was expecting DNF to be absolute top notch has their head in the clouds.

Hell look at all the teaser videos...they told me staright away that the game was going to be a bit "meh" and wouldn't appeal to non Duke die hard Fans

Anything released by THQ recently.

Go check out the thread for Space Marine, i don't see anybody there expressing disappointment.

And DNF is not just a letdown from peoples expectations (i personally didn't have any) but it is a complete failure in comparison to any other FPS on the market today.

The game is downright boring, it is a chore just to keep going in the hope that it might get fun.

This game is not just bad, it is painful.

You can't justify this by saying it is really a game from 2006, the development time is completely irrelevant. You wouldn't buy a 2006 model car today at the brand new price for the 2011 equivalent, so why is it ok to do the same with a game?

This game is marketed and sold as a brand new game released in 2011, therefore it should be judged by 2011 standards.

If it went straight to the 'classics' bin on the day of release and sold for $15, people would not be nearly as hard on it, but it didn't.

No amount of excuses or explanations can make up for the fact that this game is a complete failure in everything they set out to achieve.

Completely agree Chappy, if you are using the argument that it is based on a game brought in development from years ago, then maybe the price should also reflect that.

As far as modern games go, i think Deus Ex has risen the gaming bar for me again. looking forward to the next Mass Effect as well. Gears of War 3 on PC maybe in the near future, then there is Skyrim coming soon etc etc There is plenty of good modern games out there at the moment.

well thankfully it's now priced at $40 at JB so whilst it may not be worth $90 it's probably fairly priced at $40 given it only just came out recently.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...