Duke4.net Forums: No Dnf In 2007! - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

No Dnf In 2007!

User is offline   St3amb0 

#1

the scott miller podcast: http://podcast.next-gen.biz/
is so sad....the essence no DNF in 2007 because its probably a couple of years away!!! :) Im totally depressed, thats the worsed news in years!!!
0

User is offline   kaisersoze 

  • Honored Donor

#2

St3amb0, on Oct 18 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

the scott miller podcast: http://podcast.next-gen.biz/
is so sad....the essence no DNF in 2007 because its probably a couple of years away!!! B)  Im totally depressed, thats the worsed news in years!!!
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Of all people, you'd think I'd be blowing a gasket over this but I'm not. B)

I'm just happy that 3drealms has finally addressed the game and some of the recent
issues regarding it.

Scott leveled with us and that means alot to me(at least). That's all I've wanted
recently...for 3dr to simply let us know the status of the game. It's set my mind
at ease.

And when you break it down, they restarted in early 2003. By 2008 it will have been basically 5 years of solid development. (Anything before 2003 is basically useless anyways)

If the game is a couple years out there's a really good chance we'll finally see the hype beginning late 07(10-12 months out from completion).

At this point, we just have to hope that the internal management process on getting things done at 3drealms as Scott alluded to is indeed changing which will mean the wheels will finally get traction and take them somewhere instead of spinning away in the mud. :)
0

User is offline   Cerberus_e 

#3

Did anyone expect the game to ship in 4 years anyway?
0

User is offline   Nihilanth 

#4

What couple of years mean compared to eternity?
0

#5

St3amb0, on Oct 18 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

the scott miller podcast: http://podcast.next-gen.biz/
is so sad....the essence no DNF in 2007 because its probably a couple of years away!!! :)  Im totally depressed, thats the worsed news in years!!!
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Scott in no way said that DNF woulnd't come in 2007, the only thing he really said was that it would definetly NOT be 3 years, he basicaly said that that was their window of oppurtunity.

Personaly this podcast made me really excited again. Not such much because of the DNF stuff he said but all the non-DNF stuff, like the digital distribution stuff, the management stuff(Yeah kinda DNF related but still, mor of a business thing) and most of all the things he said about 3rd party development, especially the little tidbit he mentioned 14 minutes and 39 seconds into the podcast, that was pretty cool. I say about time B)

Edit:

I almost forgot to ask, but Cerberus_e what did you think about his opinion about episodic gaming ?
0

User is offline   Jamin 

#6

I agree, I feel better now just having ANY idea when it may come out and where things are in development. I wish we could see it next spring, and that is dissapointing but....... At least I am not as discouraged by the ups and downs of not knowing anything. We have not asked to see the game, (well, not all of us) all we have really wanted is a basic time frame. "we are about a year and a half away, but of course when its done." Or "we are solidly half way through the development cycle, and puts us some time in 2008." Thats all we have wanted. I feel better.
0

User is offline   avatar_58 

#7

Not that I expected any different, but I was hoping 3DR wouldn't put it off any more. By late 2007 we'll have Crysis, Bioshock, UT2k7 and god knows how many unannounced games for 2008. The competition and expectations of the general gaming public is going to rise significantly, so if they think they can ignore 2007 and still get away with the same tech they have now then they are in for a surprise.

I can't feel optimistic about this. Personally I would play it even if it looked dated and released in 2009, but frankly I doubt it would be a commercial success by then without some major work redone. I fail to believe a game being developed "now" can stand up to competition 2+ years from now. Its just not that believable, especially for what might just be a standard FPS starring Duke. Here's hoping they deliver.
0

#8

avatar_58, on Oct 21 2006, 10:03 AM, said:

Not that I expected any different, but I was hoping 3DR wouldn't put it off any more. By late 2007 we'll have Crysis, Bioshock, UT2k7 and god knows how many unannounced games for 2008.  The competition and expectations of the general gaming public is going to rise significantly, so if they think they can ignore 2007 and still get away with the same tech they have now then they are in for a surprise.

I can't feel optimistic about this. Personally I would play it even if it looked dated and released in 2009, but frankly I doubt it would be a commercial success by then without some major work redone. I fail to believe a game being developed "now" can stand up to competition 2+ years from now. Its just not that believable, especially for what might just be a standard FPS starring Duke. Here's hoping they deliver.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well what if it where to be released next year how would that contradict what Scott said ?

It really wouldn't.

But anyway, so long as they keep their art assets upto snuff then they should be able to compete even in 2008. I am really not worried about the engine, even if we have to wait until even 2008. I don't see any fundamental shift in the way things are done rendering wise in the next two years.

However if they release in 2008 they would probably atleast have to go the Crysis route in regards to DX10, I don't see how they could get away with not atleast supporting it.

But I seriously don't think there will be anything like say a move to raytracing in that time period or anything like that. When developing games both art asset specs and engine features are set with technology several years down the line in mind.

So for me the question is two-fold:

1)Have they dealt with the DX10 question, if so how ?
2)Are they able to keep their textures at a high enough resultion and keep the polygon counts up to a high enough standard ?

I seriously hope that addind DX10 support either is easy enough or won't be neccesary.

Avatar_58 I wouldn't really worry so much about the three games you mention, I would more worry about stuff like Project Offset.

Even then it would be the art assets I would worry about not so much the engine features.

I think it is pretty clear by now that all the talk in 2004 about DNF competing with HL2 and Doom 3 graphics wise was misplaced in that in the end DNF won't belong to that generation. Both of those games will run on non-DX9 hardware that is not the case with DNF, it is not beeing hold back by DX7 or DX8 hardware.
0

#9

Ohh, btw, it looks like the Geforce 8800, the first DirectX 10 card will be coming out early next month.
0

User is offline   Cerberus_e 

#10

avatar_58, on Oct 21 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

I fail to believe a game being developed "now" can stand up to competition 2+ years from now.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


What do you mean? All games are developed "now", so is Unreal Tournament 2007 and all the rest... what makes you think the graphics are targetted for the current generation? Who says the graphics weren't targetted to 2008 to begin with?

Also, difference in engines is neglible when you have a good artistic direction... the best example I can think of is how Half-Life 2, a very dated game technically, looks better than Doom 3, a very technically advanced game of that time period, to the majority of the people, because they think Half-Life 2's artistic direction is better.
0

User is offline   Cerberus_e 

#11

Kristian Joensen, on Oct 19 2006, 06:53 PM, said:

I almost forgot to ask, but Cerberus_e what did you think about his opinion about episodic gaming ?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I like how he doesn't like it, but his reasons are more from a company's perspective than a gamer's perspective, so my reasons episodic content is terrible are different :)
0

User is offline   Nihilanth 

#12

I'm probably one of the very few people who appreciates D3s "artistic direction" a lot more than the one in HL2. Architecture in HL2 was very simple, it looked good because it showed environments that you can see in the real world (especially architecture in City 17), but overally I think it wasn't impressive. On the other hand most people hated D3 because it took place in claustrophobic, closed spaces and thus, they said architecture was very bad. But the amount of details there was staggering. You won't find an empty, cube-like room, there. All the stuff, shapes of walls, small details, working machines, tubes and cables created to me a very realistic look. Especially all the machines, I haven't seen anything like this in any other game. I don't know, people go crazy with this "dark and plastic" look of the game but personally I felt it was and still is very legitimate (and definetly not dark and plastic). In my oppinion D3 made an incredible use of technology, all the architecture was constructed in a way that made the best use of it. [BTW: I don't know how can people find characters in D3 plastic and at the same time don't find UE3 characters plastic]

However it's still simply different point of view, different people find beauty in different things, but I agree that the artistic part is not only extremely important in the process of game development but even critical. Technology can be dated but as long as the use of it is proper, overall effect will be satisfying. UT07 is an example for me of how technology itself can't help the visuals, I saw some trailer of one of the maps recently and it was completly not groundbreaking, it looked very simple. That's because of architecture, so even a game with UE3 may look bad because of that. Now let's take a look at some shots from Recall to Hell (D3 modification), these guys perfectly know how to use the type of architecture that D3 introduced, very rich and detailed indoor places:

http://recalltohell....eens/shot31.htm
http://recalltohell....eens/shot10.htm
http://recalltohell....eens/shot14.htm
http://recalltohell....eens/shot38.htm
http://recalltohell....eens/shot42.htm

The engine is dated by now but still I find these shots a lot better than a lot of scenes from newer games. So the art direction is very important, imo. Also, I don't know whether I'm the only person who thinks like this, let's say Crysis is considered the best looking game ever. It looks great in the open spaces but are indoor places (and other non-jungle scenes) that much better than UE3 for instance, or even X-Ray?

Crysis
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Images/.../Carrier-01.jpg
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Images/.../Carrier-02.jpg
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Images/...chnology-01.jpg
http://www.crysis-online.com/Media/Images/...Vehicles-01.jpg

X-Ray
http://stalker.funda...toalbum/256.jpg
http://stalker.funda...toalbum/286.jpg
http://stalker.funda...toalbum/262.jpg
http://stalker.funda...toalbum/278.jpg
http://stalker.funda...toalbum/261.jpg

UE3
http://www.unrealtec...ns/p_embry3.jpg
http://www.unrealtec...ynamicLight.jpg
http://www.unrealtec...ens/HDRGlow.jpg
http://www.unrealtec...s/EmbryHigh.jpg


My point is that people are way too afraid of Crysis setting a graphical bar so high that no other game will compete. It's not like dx9 games will die right after Crysis. Dx9 will still be able to impress. And proper artistic design will help to achieve a very nice graphical result. Even if DNF gets released in 2008 or later, it's the design that will really matter. Well, of course technology helps but if the design is poor in DNF, it doesn't matter whether it's released today or in 2 years, it will look bad. But if it's nice, technology will be able to hold to the standards. Also it's important to take into account that none of us have actually seen DNF. Just because it's based on dx9, doesn't mean it will look dated.
0

User is offline   Cerberus_e 

#13

I agree with you, I was saying what the majority thinks.
I'll give another example, everyone is masturbating over all these features in Unreal Engine 3, but concerning artistical direction, I have to be one of the very few people that looks at screenshots of that Unreal Tournament 2007 and thinks the game looks just plain UGLY.
0

#14

There are three things that constraints how good looking a game can be:

1)The engine(For this purpose, although not technicaly, including shader code)
2)The specifications of the art, that is the resolution of the textures(including normap maps) and the polygon counts of both the high and low polygonal versions.
3) The art style.

This 3 points are ROUNTINELY mixed especially 2) and 3) that isn't exactly a distinciton you often hear mentioned.

Anyway my point is that best combination of those 3 points, is the BEST engine, the HIGHEST content specification and the BEST art style(IMO a realistic instead of cartoonish, speaking in general terms).

There are many different combinations of those 3) possible, but for any given combination of 2 of them, maximation of the third point will give the best graphical quality and visual immersion possible.

For example if the art style and content specifications of Crysis and DNF are the same, then the winner as far as graphics concerns is the game with the better engine.

If one supports DX10, aswell as has got the same art style and just as high content specifications as the other then the other would have to support DX10 if competetiveness is the goal.
0

User is offline   avatar_58 

#15

Kristian Joensen, on Oct 21 2006, 05:05 AM, said:

Avatar_58 I wouldn't really worry so much about the three games you mention, I would more worry about stuff like Project Offset.


Sales wise, not actual quality. You forget that the majority of customers don't actively hunt down the best games.....they just buy the big names and popular ones. UT2k7 and Crysis, regardless of how they are simply upgrades of Far Cry and UT, will sell like hotcakes.

I've no doubt Duke is an IP that can sell based on name, but the longer they wait and the more competition they recieve is going to lessen the appeal of a 10-15 year old name. Less and less people even know who Duke Nukem is anymore, and in another 5 years he'll be all but forgotten.

Project Offset does look pretty nice, but remember its not a big name. It could blow both Crysis and UT2k7 away quality wise but I guaruntee it won't outsell either of them.

The only reason I care is because I would hate to see DNF lose its community and have minimal support. I want this to be 3DR's grand return, but its looking like they are treading on thin ice.
0

#16

I believe Scott actually addressed that in the podcast when he said that he thought one game(DNF in this case) of suffiecient quality would be enough to re-establish the brand.

Anyways, it looks like Scott has updated his blog with a new entry.

Btw, this forum REALLY needs the ability to highlight a word and add a link to it.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners. Instead of reading this text, you could be playing Ion Fury! ;) © 2019 Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options