Duke4.net Forums: Serious Duke 3D - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Serious Duke 3D

User is offline   necroslut 

#121

View PostTea Monster, on 25 December 2019 - 07:43 AM, said:

Most of the assets have come directly from DNF.

Obviously. Which makes comments of the type "This looks much better than DNF" even more odd.

Quote

SS3 plays open spaces and closed areas well. From what I've seen of Reloaded, Serious Duke is much more graphically polished. SS2, as a way forward for Duke modders has two huge plus points over both Reloaded and DNF - 1. It's actually out and released. It has a fully functioning level editor and embraces modding.

I get that people like being able to do some Duke stuff for a more "modern" engine, but SS3 really does not seem to be suitable for Duke-like gameplay at all, even if we ignore all the odd creative choices. It doesn't just have "some jank", as CN put it above; when it comes to the gameplay it's all jank all around the clock.

This post has been edited by necroslut: 27 December 2019 - 06:40 PM

0

User is online   Jimmy 

  • 1776 World Wide

#122

View PostTea Monster, on 27 December 2019 - 03:50 AM, said:

People who are making sprite based mods will be on EDuke32 as that's a no-brainer. Those who want to do something more modern need something else.

Duke Nukem is more than some one liners and enemy varieties. Serious Duke 3D is just Serious Sam 3 with a thin Duke Nukem paintjob. It's no more Duke Nukem than Duke Nukem Forever or Bulletstorm.

View PostCommando Nukem, on 27 December 2019 - 10:19 AM, said:

I'll try not to take that personally given how much I've been talking about it in the other thread. https://forums.duke4.net/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

You know I love you, bb. That wasn't quite what I meant, I should have been more clear. Anyone talking about Reloaded as if it was some kind of viable alternative is a fucking idiot. The ill-fated GoldSrc Duke mod went farther and was way cooler. I was sad to see that be taken to the woodshed.

View PostCommando Nukem, on 27 December 2019 - 10:19 AM, said:

However, I commend SD3D team for getting something out there that has people enjoying it.

I agree. I have no problem with SD3D existing, but it's not a real Duke Nukem experience. People are free to enjoy it, just as they are free to enjoy Brutal Doom.

View Postnecroslut, on 27 December 2019 - 06:39 PM, said:

I get that people like being able to do some Duke stuff for a more "modern" engine, but SS3 really does not seem to be suitable for Duke-like gameplay at all, even if we ignore all the odd creative choices. It doesn't just have "some jank", as CN put it above; when it comes to the gameplay it's all jank all around the clock.

The gameplay is what I hate about it. It's more like Serious Sam meets Painkiller.

This post has been edited by Jesus is King: 27 December 2019 - 07:55 PM

3

User is offline   necroslut 

#123

View PostHorseDongSub69, on 27 December 2019 - 07:55 PM, said:

The gameplay is what I hate about it. It's more like Serious Sam meets Painkiller.

Crappy, slowed-down SamKiller.
1

#124

Le't's say that the level of the original Duke Nukem 3D is surmountable with the modern engines, both in gameplay and graphics but, actually, looks like there is not so much interess to surpass it.

Respecting everyone's opinion, i'll just say that maybe is not so correct comparing and put DNF and SDuke on the same level.
The first one is a game made by a Big Company, came out during 2011, almost 9 years ago (a point in its favor, ok) and even now its price still around 20$ (discount exceptions).
The second one is a mod made by a FAN and, if you own the requested game, the mod itself is free and, counting that was made by a person and/or a very few persons (excuse my ignorance here) did not take so long to come out and.

The first impression from the trailer, is that i felt like it was at least more interesting than DNF.


Then, personally for me still a good job, obviously i would have preferred that it was more close to the original one, expecially the speed and damages from falling, unfortunately is more like SS3 and not SS TFE.


Anyways, most of the modern games are worst than this, i don't think that we are the only ones feeling like this:





Btw, the decline started even more than 10 years ago (IMHO).

This post has been edited by The Battlelord: 30 December 2019 - 09:53 PM

0

User is offline   necroslut 

#125

View PostThe Battlelord, on 30 December 2019 - 09:43 PM, said:

Le't's say that the level of the original Duke Nukem 3D is surmountable with the modern engines, both in gameplay and graphics but, actually, looks like there is not so much interess to surpass it.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Quote

Respecting everyone's opinion, i'll just say that maybe is not so correct comparing and put DNF and SDuke on the same level.
The first one is a game made by a Big Company, came out during 2011, almost 9 years ago (a point in its favor, ok) and even now its price still around 20$ (discount exceptions).
The second one is a mod made by a FAN and, if you own the requested game, the mod itself is free and, counting that was made by a person and/or a very few persons (excuse my ignorance here) did not take so long to come out.

Then, personally for me still a good job, obviously i would have preferred that it was more close to the original one, expecially the speed and damages from falling, unfortunately is more like SS3 and not SS TFE.

Obviously it's not "fair" to compare a one-mad mod to a commercial game, but there are a lot of people around (I've especially seen those comments on YouTube, but that's retard central on the internet so it's expected) saying it compares favourably to DNF – which it doesn't, in any way. Again, of course it's not fair to demand that, but people getting all giddy over a trashy Serious Sam mod is pretty laughable.

Quote

Anyways, most of the modern games are worst than this, i don't think that we are the only ones feeling like this:
Btw, the decline started even more than 10 years ago (IMHO).

And yes, obviously new shooters are complete trash (on a gameplay/design level rather than technical), and have been so for more than ten years now, but so is this, even if for largely other reasons. I absolutely get that people want what this tried to be – and what it to some extent looks to be in its trailer – but it's just failing so hard.
0

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#126

Doom 2016 has managed to revive the shooter mechanic. Also, the new Wolfenstein games (with the exception of YoungBlood) have provided gloriously entertaining story with it's gameplay. So I disagree that ALL modern day shooters are trash.

Disparaging 'modern' shooters and then holding up DNF as some kind of beacon is very strange indeed. A poster child for both development hell and consolitis, it's so damaged and half-formed on so many levels that it shouldn't be used as an example of anything except how NOT to make a computer game! If SD3D can be played without constantly being dragged out of the narative with exclamations of "What?!" and "OMG, Why did they do this!?" then it can be favourably compared with DNF, which regularly did this to me.

Serious Sam 3D started out as a straight retelling of Duke Nukem 3D, but since then, Syndroid has started to experiment and I'm hoping, that if he continues work on it, SD3D will develop into more of it's own beast.

The other great thing about SD3D is that if you want to make a modern Duke mod, you were kinda SoL. If nothing else, SD3D allows there to be an alternative to just making sprite-based Duke mods. That is, of course, if there is anyone left who wants to do this, which there doesn't appear to be any more.

This post has been edited by Tea Monster: 30 December 2019 - 10:25 PM

2

User is offline   necroslut 

#127

View PostTea Monster, on 30 December 2019 - 10:16 PM, said:

Doom 2016 has managed to revive the shooter mechanic. Also, the new Wolfenstein games (with the exception of YoungBlood) have provided gloriously entertaining story with it's gameplay. So I disagree that ALL modern day shooters are trash.

True. The Wolfenstein's, although overrated, were ok, and Doom 4 was truly good. Even Doom suffers from console concessions and various other "modern" trappings, though. Neither really advance the genre in any way, they're just slightly more old-school shooters.

Quote

Disparaging 'modern' shooters and then holding up DNF as some kind of beacon is very strange indeed. A poster child for both development hell and consolitis, it's so damaged and half-formed on so many levels that it shouldn't be used as an example of anything except how NOT to make a computer game! If SD3D can be played without constantly being dragged out of the narative with exclamations of "What?!" and "OMG, Why did they do this!?" then it can be favourably compared with DNF, which regularly did this to me.

No, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not "holding up DNF as some kind of beacn"; DNF was obviously a failure on many levels, and while it was others who intially made the comparisons, DNF'11 was still a better Duke game than Serious.

Quote

Serious Sam 3D started out as a straight retelling of Duke Nukem 3D, but since then, Syndroid has started to experiment and I'm hoping, that if he continues work on it, SD3D will develop into more of it's own beast.

Yeah, although I wasn't too impressed with his embellishments.

Quote

The other great thing about SD3D is that if you want to make a modern Duke mod, you were kinda SoL. If nothing else, SD3D allows there to be an alternative to just making sprite-based Duke mods. That is, of course, if there is anyone left who wants to do this, which there doesn't appear to be any more.

I get the appeal for someone who wants to say, model hi-detail Duke monsters and weapons; I just don't get it from someone who "wants to play a new Duke game" (at this point, anyway, but I doubt it'll ever get there).

This post has been edited by necroslut: 30 December 2019 - 10:40 PM

0

#128

View Postnecroslut, on 30 December 2019 - 09:57 PM, said:

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Damn i knew it, lol sorry, i tried to translate those words many times too: I meant that with modern engines should be quite easy to do something better than Duke 3D, gameplay, graphics etc... but looks like there is not so much interest/efforts out there to "re-made" the same game in the same way, or even better! (i hope its understandable now :)).

Everyone are in search of a Nirvana, the problem is to find it :lol:.
0

User is offline   necroslut 

#129

View PostThe Battlelord, on 30 December 2019 - 10:58 PM, said:

Damn i knew it, lol sorry, i tried to translate those words many times too: I meant that with modern engines should be quite easy to do something better than Duke 3D, gameplay, graphics etc... but looks like there is not so much interest/efforts out there to "re-made" the same game in the same way, or even better! (i hope its understandable now :)).

Everyone are in search of a Nirvana, the problem is to find it :lol:.

Ok, then I get it. Though honestly, having looked at some of the games that have tried to go more old-school, I'm not so sure it would be easy.
Those old shooters (the good ones, not the trashy shareware games) had simple graphics but a great focus on gameplay – with more detailed graphics gameplay have tended to take more of a backseat. You have levels with more visual detail, but far simpler layouts and physical geometry, and I'm not so sure it can be any other way really. There's only so much information you can push at a player.
0

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

#130

View PostTea Monster, on 30 December 2019 - 10:16 PM, said:

...A poster child for both development hell and consolitis,...


Even if 'consolitis' existed, which it doesn't, then it wouldn't be responsible for most of DNF's many faults. The two weapon limitation, for example, was not forced on the game by consoles, but by George's usual apparent blindness and inability to plan properly. Most console FPSs had and have the ability to hold half a dozen weapons or more at once, and they work really well. And good game developers actually look at how to make multiple weapons easily accessible via a gamepad. If George had actually looked at some of the better console FPSs then he'd have seen things like weapon wheels, being able to pause the game and then take your own time to scroll up and down the weapon list to select the one that you want, use the D-Pad to choose a weapon during gameplay, etc.

The cut down levels were down to the mid-development decision to also put the game on consoles, true, but even then a good developer, if they found it was impossible to put the whole existing levels on an XBox 360 or PS3, would have kept the levels largely the same but with more load points, or at least not totally butchered the levels. These same consoles managed excellent ports of games like Half-Life 2, Crysis, Skyrim, GTA V, etc, so even this fault is down to developer failings rather than a brick wall imposed by a console's hardware limitation.
0

User is offline   necroslut 

#131

View PostKerr Avon, on 02 January 2020 - 09:20 AM, said:

Even if 'consolitis' existed, which it doesn't, then it wouldn't be responsible for most of DNF's many faults. The two weapon limitation, for example, was not forced on the game by consoles, but by George's usual apparent blindness and inability to plan properly. Most console FPSs had and have the ability to hold half a dozen weapons or more at once, and they work really well. And good game developers actually look at how to make multiple weapons easily accessible via a gamepad. If George had actually looked at some of the better console FPSs then he'd have seen things like weapon wheels, being able to pause the game and then take your own time to scroll up and down the weapon list to select the one that you want, use the D-Pad to choose a weapon during gameplay, etc.

The cut down levels were down to the mid-development decision to also put the game on consoles, true, but even then a good developer, if they found it was impossible to put the whole existing levels on an XBox 360 or PS3, would have kept the levels largely the same but with more load points, or at least not totally butchered the levels. These same consoles managed excellent ports of games like Half-Life 2, Crysis, Skyrim, GTA V, etc, so even this fault is down to developer failings rather than a brick wall imposed by a console's hardware limitation.

Lol if you don't believe "consolitis exists", then you're dumber than I thought. It was very clearly the major factor behind many of DNF's least liked design decisions.
1

User is online   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#132

View PostKerr Avon, on 02 January 2020 - 09:20 AM, said:

Even if 'consolitis' existed, which it doesn't,


Yes, it does. It absolutely does.

Poor console ports to PC that reflect the banal nature of development of certain kinds of games for consoles over developing for PC first, that's consolitis.
First Person Shooters stricken with regenerating health, limited weapons, very linear and simpler levels? Consolitis.

The term exists for a reason, because this shit happens a lot. A LOT. And whether we think the solutions are smart or whatever, that is why the developers made those choices more often than not, to solve perceived issues with making an FPS game on a fucking console.





View Postnecroslut, on 02 January 2020 - 10:54 AM, said:

Lol if you don't believe "consolitis exists", then you're dumber than I thought. It was very clearly the major factor behind many of DNF's least liked design decisions.


Yep. We know for a fact that there were issues with memory mapping that forced them to limit things. It's a shame that the prevailing wisdom now is to make all ports of a game almost identical. They could have made the PC game at least a little more bearable and fun if they hadn't put the choke hold on so many aspects of the game.
2

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

#133

View Postnecroslut, on 02 January 2020 - 10:54 AM, said:

Lol if you don't believe "consolitis exists", then you're dumber than I thought. It was very clearly the major factor behind many of DNF's least liked design decisions.


I don't see that at all. The major factor behind *all* of DNF's bad decisions was the incompetence of the project managements. Making the game run on consoles forced NO limitations on the PC version, as George and co. could have either stuck to the original aims for the PC version, and only made the cutbacks for the consoles versions, or they could have actually did whatever was necessary to actually the get the full game working on both the PC and consoles. There's no law that says the PC version of a game has to be identical to console versions. As I said above, far more ambitious games were realised very well on the XBox 360 and PS3, because they were designed and programmed properly, with great skill and care.





View PostCommando Nukem, on 02 January 2020 - 11:07 AM, said:

Yes, it does. It absolutely does.

Poor console ports to PC that reflect the banal nature of development of certain kinds of games for consoles over developing for PC first, that's consolitis.
First Person Shooters stricken with regenerating health, limited weapons, very linear and simpler levels? Consolitis.


But none of that is down to consoles themselves. Poor console ports are down to apathetic or rushed work on the part of the people doing the porting. If they want to do a good job then they take the time and effort, and improve the game to take advantage of the PC's higher capabilities. You can't blame an inert box of hardware for the failings of people who choose to make a quick port of a console's game, when if they instead chose to (and were allowed to, by their bosses), they could make a port that was enhanced for the greater machine's strengths.

And there are many great console FPSs that have no weapon carrying limits, no rechargeable health, levels that are the same as the PC original's levels etc. The limitations that Halo imposed were a deliberate design decision, not something imposed by hardware restrictions. The fact that (to me and lots of other people) these decisions were to the detriment of the game and that it's to the *massive* detriment of modern FPSs since so many of them now have a weapon carrying limit, rechargable health, check-points, etc, doesn't alter the fact that none of these faults are down to consoles themselves. It's down to the companies that make the games/ports. They make the decisions. And they so often don't seem to care what their customers actually want in a game.

I mean, console games used to be released almost entirely bug free, because they had to be. Otherwise the game company would receive bad publicity and might well have to spend a lot of money recalling and replacing bugged cartridges with working versions. So it was in the games developers' interests to test the game games as much as they reasonably could before they released the game. The advent of CD's made product replacement cheaper, but wouldn't lessen bad publicity much. Whereas on the PC, since PC games were installed to the hard drive, and so the data on the hard drive was alterable, games companies came to realise that they could save time and money by not testing the games properly, and could instead provide post-release patches on the internet and magazine cover-discs. PC gamers essentially became unpaid testers. And the bugged-release issues have gotten much worse over time.

And starting with the original XBox (and maybe the original PS2, I don't know), consoles began to see their games released in a bugged state. The first XBox Live! game, Unreal Championship, had a post-release patch that fixed eleven issues, IIRC. Still, on the original XBox, game patching was pretty rare, but on the XBox 360 it went up to PC levels, and today console owners are used to day one patches to fix very noticeable bugs.

So does that mean that the PC caused console games to need patches? Should we blame the PC? Should we blame bugged console games on PC-itis? Of course not. It's a *human* problem. The people who run games companies want to make as much profit and spend as little time as possible. Console games could still be released fully tested, but they aren't, and that's because of human greed, not because of the PC.



Quote

The term exists for a reason, because this shit happens a lot.


But to me the term is utterly misleading. The problem is down to human failings (greed, lack of ambition, lack of time or programming/design skills, etc), and these factors affect all sorts of PC related areas, so to name it after one thing (a console) that is connected to the problem but doesn't actually cause it, is surely wrong.


Quote

A LOT. And whether we think the solutions are smart or whatever, that is why the developers made those choices more often than not, to solve perceived issues with making an FPS game on a fucking console.


Do you really believe that Bungie really thought that a console FPS couldn't handle more than two weapons at once? And that a console FPS couldn't handle health packs. That Bungie really were so ignorant that they actually based those two decisons on, as you put it "perceived issues with making an FPS game on a fucking console"?

And then why did so many other console games companies adopt those weapon carrying limits and rechargable health in so many later console FPSs? Even the games companies that, up to that point, had actually made console FPS games that allowed you to carry more than two weapons and use health packs?

And what about subsequent FPS games on the PC? Any first person shooter that's designed exclusively for the PC has no unavoidable reason for having a weapon limit, or recharging health. Even a console FPS that's ported to the PC, or a game that's developed simultaneously for PC and console, has no necessity for having such limits. And in fact if the console version of a FPS had these limits, but the PC version didn't, then I think a lot of people would prefer the PC version (I know I would).

So why do PC FPSs, either PC exclusive or ported from consoles, share the Halo-esque limited weapon carrying, and rechargeable health? It's because the people making the game/port choose to make the games that way. It's nothing to do with consoles themselves, the fact that Halo itself first came out on a console is irrelevant. Halo came out, sold massively, and became the template that so many games designers and marketing men want to copy because it's an easy to understand formulae that's easy to plan out when first designing a game. If Halo had come out first on the PC, and sold massively, we'd still be inundated with Halo wannabees, regardless of what platform it debuted on.

And look at all the PC exclusive games coming out nowadays. Mostly indie or smaller teams (which isn't a great loss for PC gamers, as AAA games are in rut, I think), but there are many excellent modern PC games. But I've not seen one that wouldn't work on a console. Of course I've not seen 99% of the best games nowadays, but if consoles were holding back PC gaming, then amongst the countless PC exclusives we have access to then we'd see some amazing new things since these games are free of console hardware constraints. But I've not seen even one PC game where you can have a really convincing conversation with an NPC, or with a game world that has absolutely real and believable destructibility, or a companion who you could really believe was real because of the way they can intelligently think and act in a wide variety of ways. People still say Elizabeth from Bioshock: Infinite is a full believable character, but even at launch she was transparently just an indestructible NPC who's purpose was to act or speak a given way at a given trigger or point in the game, and to magically find ammunition or salt when you needed it during combat. She was better done that most, maybe all, of her peers, even today, but that's still a very low bar indeed.

We don't see major landmarks in games simply they would be too much hard work to make, for too little return. No one buys a game for the intelligence of it's NPCs, or because you can go into every single house in a new GTA game, or because you could intelligently debate your proposed strategy with your companions in an RPG or RPG/strategy game.

Instead, every time a new Medal of Duty: Cutscene Reds game comes out, with it's cliched story, it's linear levels, it's emphasis on realism (i.e. your recharging health that all real life soldiers apparently have), it's imagination-free range of weapons, and it's admittedly amazing graphics, then it either comes close to, or actually manages to, break all sales records, and almost becomes a cultural event, it's launch is so massive.


Quote

Yep. We know for a fact that there were issues with memory mapping that forced them to limit things. It's a shame that the prevailing wisdom now is to make all ports of a game almost identical. They could have made the PC game at least a little more bearable and fun if they hadn't put the choke hold on so many aspects of the game.


I also hate how fewer and fewer PC FPSs are moddable. My favourite thing about PC gaming is the modding scene, it's why I love the PC so much. I mean, even DOOM 2016 wasn't moddable. A Doom game (and an absolutely excellent one at that). SnapMap is OK to us to kill a bit of time, but it wasn't nearly as good as it should be. And if the game did support external modding, then some of the mods would have been incredible. Bioshock 1 and 2 are two more games where I was massively disappoint with their inability to support mods. Plus Titanfall, Vanquish, and the Batman Arkham games, amongst many others.

And Timeshift, a variable quality FPS would have been monumentally improved by talented modders. Timeshift's time manipulation abilities (which were superb but underused in the game) could have been used in some magnificent game mods, but sadly not.

Edit: Forgot to add Prey 2017. That game is so close to superb that it almost hurts when you think of it's problems. None of it's problems are fatal, but added together they really bring down the game. The enemies, for example, are too predictable, don't wander too far, and aren't nearly as dangerous as they should be. And like System Shock 2, Prey 2017 randomly spawns enemies to give the illusion that there are always enemies wandering around, but whereas System Shock 2 does this to excellent effect, Prey 2017's enemies tend to stay close to where they spawn, and aren't nearly as creepy or unnerving as System Shock 2's enemies. Making the different enemies more varied in their looks would help, too. And add more possessed humans for you to fight or cure, especially in the later parts of the game. Actually add more enemies, more threats, and if possible give more feeling/dialogue to the surviving, untouched humans, as they are very unconvincing and don't engage your interest or concern at all.

Prey 2017 also lacks System Shock 2's threatening atmosphere, and the ambience that says things have gotten really bad. And more randomisation in subsequent throughways would have improved the game a lot. More weapon variety would be nice, more randomisations in the quests to help the replayability, and a real ending, both gameplay-wise and in the final cutscene (the existing final cutscene tells you almost nothing, and instead just raises many more questions).





Sorry this post is so long, BTW. I'm trying to get some work done, collating work reports, but it's boring, so I'm eager for things to distract me.

This post has been edited by Kerr Avon: 04 January 2020 - 11:10 AM

0

#134

daily reminder that consolitis absolutely affected DNF: https://www.shacknew...anchor_26031903
"Except dnf uses the dpad for items like holoduke, duke vision, etc. There are only so many buttons. Add to that, that consoles represent 70% of game sales today, and that the two weapon scheme has worked and been STD since halo in 2001 and it's really not an issue.

The levels have weapons spread all over them. It's actually good gameplay to decide what to carry at any given time. Choices and consequence are good things in a game. I don't personally think it's good to carry 10 guns anymore, but that opinion is made irrelevant by the existence of consoles. It's not really worth the dev effort to support two different weapon switch schemes for pc vs controller, to say nothing of level and gameplay balance if one version of the game let's you carry 10 guns, and another, 2. The levels were all balanced with ample weapon drops and caches.

In the grand scheme of playing the full game it's really not a big deal.

Yes, the original game let you carry all weapons, but you do adapt to modern standards in some areas." - George Broussard

This post has been edited by Futuretime23: 04 January 2020 - 12:03 PM

2

#135

Can anyone think of any major/AAA game in recent years with modding support? In particular as extensive mod support as Duke3D, Quake or Quake 2 had?
0

User is offline   gemeaux333 

#136

I really think VR can give Duke Nukem a new bold departure...

imagine : with the knuckles you would be able to interact more and more directly with the environment of Duke's world, punch things in aliens balls and faces among other...
1

User is online   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#137

View PostFuturetime23, on 04 January 2020 - 12:03 PM, said:

daily reminder that consolitis absolutely affected DNF: https://www.shacknew...anchor_26031903
"Except dnf uses the dpad for items like holoduke, duke vision, etc. There are only so many buttons. Add to that, that consoles represent 70% of game sales today, and that the two weapon scheme has worked and been STD since halo in 2001 and it's really not an issue.

The levels have weapons spread all over them. It's actually good gameplay to decide what to carry at any given time. Choices and consequence are good things in a game. I don't personally think it's good to carry 10 guns anymore, but that opinion is made irrelevant by the existence of consoles. It's not really worth the dev effort to support two different weapon switch schemes for pc vs controller, to say nothing of level and gameplay balance if one version of the game let's you carry 10 guns, and another, 2. The levels were all balanced with ample weapon drops and caches.

In the grand scheme of playing the full game it's really not a big deal.

Yes, the original game let you carry all weapons, but you do adapt to modern standards in some areas." - George Broussard


Sorry, I got so pissed off reading George's quote I hit down vote. Oops.

View PostKristian Joensen, on 04 January 2020 - 12:18 PM, said:

Can anyone think of any major/AAA game in recent years with modding support? In particular as extensive mod support as Duke3D, Quake or Quake 2 had?


Doom 2016 is probably the closest thing we've had. maybe fall out or Skyrim.

Unreal Engine as a platform....Cry Engne as a platform?
2

#138

View PostCommando Nukem, on 04 January 2020 - 02:12 PM, said:

Sorry, I got so pissed off reading George's quote I hit down vote. Oops.


Doom 2016 is probably the closest thing we've had. maybe fall out or Skyrim.

Unreal Engine as a platform....Cry Engne as a platform?


No worries dude, I also would have the same reaction you did lol.
0

User is online   Jimmy 

  • 1776 World Wide

#139

View PostKerr Avon, on 04 January 2020 - 10:22 AM, said:

There's no law that says the PC version of a game has to be identical to console versions.

There may not be a law, but it's standard operating procedure for publishers to demand shit like this. This is precisely why Watch Dogs looked like shit across the board.
0

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

#140

View PostFuturetime23, on 04 January 2020 - 12:03 PM, said:

daily reminder that consolitis absolutely affected DNF: https://www.shacknews.com/chatty?id=26031903#itemanchor_26031903"Except dnf uses the dpad for items like holoduke, duke vision, etc. There are only so many buttons.


Consoles don't force a game to have weapon carrying limits. That laziness/bad judgement/ignorance of whoever is making the game, there's no hardware necessetity for it, therefor it is not consolitis.



Quote

Add to that, that consoles represent 70% of game sales today, and that the two weapon scheme has worked and been STD since halo in 2001 and it's really not an issue.The levels have weapons spread all over them. It's actually good gameplay to decide what to carry at any given time.


I really don't agree, and I think the vast majority of players wouldn't either. I don't remember anyone playing a FPS where you can carry all of the weapons at once, and them saying "You know what would make this game more fun? Only being able to carry two weapons at a time?" Yet I've known many people say they wished Halo, Bioshock: Infinite, and other games didn't have a weapon carrying limit. Even DNF's weapon carrying limit was doubled in a post-game patch (the PC version, anyway), because of people complaining about the weapon carrying limit.



Quote

Choices and consequence are good things in a game. I don't personally think it's good to carry 10 guns anymore, but that opinion is made irrelevant by the existence of consoles. It's not really worth the dev effort to support two different weapon switch schemes for pc vs controller, to say nothing of level and gameplay balance if one version of the game let's you carry 10 guns, and another, 2. The levels were all balanced with ample weapon drops and caches.In the grand scheme of playing the full game it's really not a big deal.Yes, the original game let you carry all weapons, but you do adapt to modern standards in some areas." - George Broussard


No offense, mate, but quoting the bloke behind DNF isn't really going to support your point if you are in any way agreeing with him, I would have thought. And consoles have never forced a game to have limited weapon carrying in-game. A weapon wheel is very good for selecting weapons, as is clever usage of the D-Pad (for example, Half-Life 2 allows you to select any of it's dozen or so weapons via the D-Pad, with three or four weapons on each D-Pad direction, this is fast and very convenient), and even pausing the game and moving forwards and backwards through the weapons list works, though other methods are preferable.

Regarding mods, I can't think of one game in recent years that I really liked that supported real, fan-made mods. I still have my folders for games like the Duke Nukem 3D, Doom 1 and 2, the Half-Life series, Carmageddon 1 and 2, Unreal Tournament 99 and 2004, Blood, the Thief series, the GTA series, Skyrim, Crysis, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the original Star Wars: Battlefront 1 and 2, System Shock 2, etc, set up with many working mods, and it's amazing. Something you just can't get on consoles, and some of the mod scenes are still producing really good mods, level packs, single maps, etc, even today. And it's not just playing the mods that's fun, just idly looking through the forums and seeing what's being made, or just what's being discussed, can kill a few hours too.

I do really miss the days when so many of the best game releases supported mods. That's something that younger gamers might never get to experience, unless the trend somehow reverses itself some time.
-3

User is online   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#141

View PostKerr Avon, on 06 January 2020 - 08:09 AM, said:

Consoles don't force a game to have weapon carrying limits. That laziness/bad judgement/ignorance of whoever is making the game, there's no hardware necessetity for it, therefor it is not consolitis.


Jesus H. Christ he's still not getting it.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. NOBODY IS SAYING THAT.


You rant and rant for a novels length and are completely missing the point!

NOBODY is SAYING that THE CONSOLES DEMAND THEY DO THE STUPID SHIT THAT THEY DO, ALRIGHT? THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY *THINK* ITS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. COMING FROM THE HORSES OWN FUCKING MOUTH; Bungie, George Broussard, RARE, et al! HENCE ; CONSOlE-MOTHER-FUCKING-ITIS.

Do YOU GET IT YET?

One developer says: "Here are the problems we seem to have: Controllers have less refined aiming, fewer buttons than a keyboard. Our PC game does not fit the framework of the consoles architecture or hardware limits. We need solutions." Another fires back with the ideas: "Um... Okay, we'll limit the number of weapons so we won't need as many keys, we'll add in auto aiming to compensate for the less precise control. We'll reduce the FOV, slow the player down, and truncate the levels to improve performance and load times." "What about saving?" "We'll get rid of that and use check points at fixed locations."
3

#142

View PostKerr Avon, on 06 January 2020 - 08:09 AM, said:

Consoles don't force a game to have weapon carrying limits. That laziness/bad judgement/ignorance of whoever is making the game, there's no hardware necessetity for it, therefor it is not consolitis.





I really don't agree, and I think the vast majority of players wouldn't either. I don't remember anyone playing a FPS where you can carry all of the weapons at once, and them saying "You know what would make this game more fun? Only being able to carry two weapons at a time?" Yet I've known many people say they wished Halo, Bioshock: Infinite, and other games didn't have a weapon carrying limit. Even DNF's weapon carrying limit was doubled in a post-game patch (the PC version, anyway), because of people complaining about the weapon carrying limit.





No offense, mate, but quoting the bloke behind DNF isn't really going to support your point if you are in any way agreeing with him, I would have thought. And consoles have never forced a game to have limited weapon carrying in-game. A weapon wheel is very good for selecting weapons, as is clever usage of the D-Pad (for example, Half-Life 2 allows you to select any of it's dozen or so weapons via the D-Pad, with three or four weapons on each D-Pad direction, this is fast and very convenient), and even pausing the game and moving forwards and backwards through the weapons list works, though other methods are preferable.

Regarding mods, I can't think of one game in recent years that I really liked that supported real, fan-made mods. I still have my folders for games like the Duke Nukem 3D, Doom 1 and 2, the Half-Life series, Carmageddon 1 and 2, Unreal Tournament 99 and 2004, Blood, the Thief series, the GTA series, Skyrim, Crysis, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., the original Star Wars: Battlefront 1 and 2, System Shock 2, etc, set up with many working mods, and it's amazing. Something you just can't get on consoles, and some of the mod scenes are still producing really good mods, level packs, single maps, etc, even today. And it's not just playing the mods that's fun, just idly looking through the forums and seeing what's being made, or just what's being discussed, can kill a few hours too.

I do really miss the days when so many of the best game releases supported mods. That's something that younger gamers might never get to experience, unless the trend somehow reverses itself some time.


"No offense, mate, but quoting the bloke behind DNF isn't really going to support your point if you are in any way agreeing with him, I would have thought. " Fuck no, no way in hell do I agree with George, especially when weapon wheels are a thing, and have been a thing long before DNF was out (hello Resistance 1, hello Bioshock 1, both shooters on consoles that had no weapon limits)
0

User is offline   Kerr Avon 

#143

View PostCommando Nukem, on 06 January 2020 - 02:44 PM, said:

NOBODY is SAYING that THE CONSOLES DEMAND THEY DO THE STUPID SHIT THAT THEY DO, ALRIGHT?


I know that they don't. And the fact that consoles don't necessitate the changes proves that it is not 'consolitis'.




Quote

THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY *THINK* ITS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. COMING FROM THE HORSES OWN FUCKING MOUTH; Bungie, George Broussard, RARE


So it's because of *human* decisions. Bad human decisions. That means it's down to human failure, not consoles. As you've just explained yourself, consolitis doesn't exist, other than a misnomer for bad decisions or laziness by humans.

If George and co. had, for example, decided to make DNF only work on Nvidia cards, and not on AMD cards because that would have required some alterations to the game's code, would you blame that on GFX-carditis? Of course not, you'd say it was down to laziness and stupid *human* decisions. And that's the same situation with DNF and the cuts and stupid decisions made when it was decided to bring the game to consoles. A good company would have not needed to compromise the game at all. A bad company would have made lazy and hugely flawed decisions, implemented them badly, and, well, we know the rest.

Anyway, we're not going to agree about this, so let's drop it, eh?. There are are countless more interesting things to discuss on the forums, including non-Duke Nukem-related things like the possibility of the escalation in the Middle East due to the events of the past few days, and how the obscenely rich oil companies are already using it as an excuse to up the prices of petrol, and the cost of my commute to work will no doubt go up very shortly. No situation is ever so bad that a few really rich people can't get even richer from it.

This post has been edited by Kerr Avon: 07 January 2020 - 07:55 AM

-1

User is offline   necroslut 

#144

View PostKerr Avon, on 07 January 2020 - 07:54 AM, said:

So it's because of *human* decisions. Bad human decisions. That means it's down to human failure, not consoles. As you've just explained yourself, consolitis doesn't exist, other than a misnomer for bad decisions or laziness by humans.

You just don't get it. Amazing.
0

User is online   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#145

View PostFuturetime23, on 06 January 2020 - 07:03 PM, said:

"No offense, mate, but quoting the bloke behind DNF isn't really going to support your point if you are in any way agreeing with him, I would have thought. " Fuck no, no way in hell do I agree with George, especially when weapon wheels are a thing, and have been a thing long before DNF was out (hello Resistance 1, hello Bioshock 1, both shooters on consoles that had no weapon limits)


Hello Turok, 1 2 3 Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

Nobody said it was the only solution, it IS the one that most developers adopted for shooters on consoles.l People can stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la" all they want, but those developers looked at the consoles and felt the best solutions were these changes.
0

User is offline   Lazy Dog 

#146

View PostKerr Avon, on 07 January 2020 - 07:54 AM, said:

I know that they don't. And the fact that consoles don't necessitate the changes proves that it is not 'consolitis'.






So it's because of *human* decisions. Bad human decisions. That means it's down to human failure, not consoles. As you've just explained yourself, consolitis doesn't exist, other than a misnomer for bad decisions or laziness by humans.

If George and co. had, for example, decided to make DNF only work on Nvidia cards, and not on AMD cards because that would have required some alterations to the game's code, would you blame that on GFX-carditis? Of course not, you'd say it was down to laziness and stupid *human* decisions. And that's the same situation with DNF and the cuts and stupid decisions made when it was decided to bring the game to consoles. A good company would have not needed to compromise the game at all. A bad company would have made lazy and hugely flawed decisions, implemented them badly, and, well, we know the rest.

Anyway, we're not going to agree about this, so let's drop it, eh?. There are are countless more interesting things to discuss on the forums, including non-Duke Nukem-related things like the possibility of the escalation in the Middle East due to the events of the past few days, and how the obscenely rich oil companies are already using it as an excuse to up the prices of petrol, and the cost of my commute to work will no doubt go up very shortly. No situation is ever so bad that a few really rich people can't get even richer from it.


If you're designing something that is expected to run on 2 completely different machines, you design it to work on the "weakest" one, the one with the weakest hardware, the least buttons, etc. That means a lot of concessions.
You can have 10 weapons, on PC you switch them with the 1 - 0 keys, but on console? you have to cycle through them, you don't have enough buttons for every weapon. It's a chore.
Limiting the player to only 2, makes it easy, you only need 1 button. I agree that it's somewhat lazy, but it works, and you know what they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it"...

They could have gone with a weapon wheel, but i honestly don't know if that was a thing back then :)
But you need to remember, George was following trends, if he saw something in a game he decided that DNF needed that.

...And at some point the gaming industry collectively decided that the console and PC versions of any given game had to be exactly the same... :lol:

This post has been edited by Lazy Dog: 08 January 2020 - 07:46 AM

1

User is offline   necroslut 

#147

View PostLazy Dog, on 08 January 2020 - 07:34 AM, said:

They could have gone with a weapon wheel, but i honestly don't know if that was a thing back then :lol:
But you need to remember, George was following trends, if he saw something in a game he decided that DNF needed that.

Weapon wheels go back further, though back then they seemed to be much more common with third person shooters than in first person ditos. I could almost swear they go back to like the PS2 era (GTA III?), but I can't find any example.
Still, a weapon wheel is still clumsier than a single button press, especially if there are many weapons.
0

User is online   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#148

View Postnecroslut, on 08 January 2020 - 12:38 PM, said:

Weapon wheels go back further, though back then they seemed to be much more common with third person shooters than in first person ditos. I could almost swear they go back to like the PS2 era (GTA III?), but I can't find any example.
Still, a weapon wheel is still clumsier than a single button press, especially if there are many weapons.


Pretty sure all the Turok games had weapon wheels. Turok 2 for sure, it had two modes of switching weapons. Either scrolling vertically, or opening up one of two weapon wheels.
2

User is offline   Player Lin 

#149

View PostCommando Nukem, on 04 January 2020 - 02:12 PM, said:

Doom 2016 is probably the closest thing we've had. maybe fall out or Skyrim.



Hmm, console modding is not very the same as PC, that's for sure and... saying about TES5SE and Fallout 4...

XBox-One has 5 / 2(Fallout 4)GB for modding files and PS4 has only...1GB...and no external assets allowed.


No, if you want modding, PC still is better idea then consoles. :rolleyes:
(And because of these limitations on consoles, some mod authors just gave up on console version of their mod so it did limited how many mods on consoles, still, most important and not too big ones still in consoles.)

This post has been edited by Player Lin: 19 January 2020 - 05:50 AM

0

User is offline   Fauch 

#150

I think ratchet and clank had weapon wheels. Well, I played the 3rd and gladiator. On PS2
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options