[thatguy]

Bloodshot, on 20 January 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I know that fixing the pacing and all would be a lot of money, but improving the gunplay is something they still could've done and it wouldn't have cost them a ton.

I guess I can agree with that. Honestly, everyone would prefer to have a game like the 2001 version, so I don't think the game could be saved all that much with better gunplay.

[Micky C]

Mad Max RW, on 20 January 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

The day Gearbox bought DNF and the license to make future Duke Nukem titles it became their responsibility to put out a great game. Instead they spent a year hyping and lying to fans before selling a sub-par console cash grab at AAA prices.

Exactly, let's not forget they had it for a YEAR, and it came out lacking basic functionality. I'm not talking about gameplay, which is very difficult to change without throwing balance off in the game, I'm talking about other things. What about the complete lack of video options? "post special effects: on/off" WTF? And it would have been so good to have manual saves and multiple save slots. I'm sure these things are possible.

And what about how they replaced with the kick-ass pissed off Duke model with the young douche Duke Nukem?
Then we can get into all the basic story and character related faults, like how people yell at Duke and tell him what to do, and he doesn't bat an eyelid, the very douchie box art, Duke's voice, and the overall humour of the game. There were times when characters would say something, and then say something meant to be a dumb joke in a different tone or with a delay that really made it sound like it was added in afterwards. It's almost like they sold Duke out.

But the actual game related stuff in the first paragraph really should've been there.

[thatguy]

Wait, people have a problem with the duke model? I think he looks absolutely great!

[Micky C]

There's nothing technically wrong with the model, but check these out:





Now he looks like a "look at me I'm cool" baby, and a lot of his muscle's gone too:




Now I can imagine the top guy having a deep voice that is Duke's, however I simply cannot imagine the bottom guy having such a deep voice.

[thatguy]

Sorry, the top one looks like a 'I'm a big muscly dude' instead of giving him a duke look. The one used has personality, better clothing design, and just plain sexy. Can't say he looks like a baby at all. The character of his voice looks like the character of his physical being.


Your preferred character would not be able to capture his personality at all in various situations.

The muscle guy looks like he spends more time in the gym than saving the world and taking the babes. I'm glad they didn't go for the generic muscle man look. Actually generic exaggerated muscle man fits the top one a bit more.

So much better than this crap

[Micky C]

"That crap" you're talking about is 5 years old. Of course newer stuff looks better than older stuff. I'm not talking so much about which model looks better than what, I'm talking about Duke's appearance. Duke is supposed to be some huge muscle Dude, he doesn't have to be the sexiest guy in the world, women are simply attracted to him because he's the Duke, and he radiates masculinity.

Check out his scowl in the top pic: Now that is Duke.

[LeoD]

Micky C, on 20 January 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Check out his scowl in the top pic: Now that is Duke.

Exactly. The other one is Douche Nukem.

[----]

s.b.Newsom, on 20 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

The point was to buy the rights, release the game, and then relax so they can focus on making a better Duke game...

What makes you think that they want to do a better game? The IP is in the hands of that dude who worked on "The Birth" and whose company is known for no mod tools at all (that could be a 2K policy, but since they have the publishing rights for future DN games ... well).

Doesn't sound too good to me.

[Ronin]

ReaperMan, on 20 January 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Ignoring it or not its still Duke 4. Lets just hope Duke 5 isn't hyped to shit and then turns out to be trash.

YEAH.

[Micky C]

s.b.Newsom, on 20 January 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

You know I just noticed something ironic. Obviously you tried to pick out a good looking image of the new Duke model to prove your point. But the thing is, I'm 90% sure that that's one of the pictures of the Duke model in the Source engine! That means much better lighting, better bump mapping, and better facial (and body for that matter) animation, resulting in his expression. Man you picked a bad image for comparison there

[Stabs]

yeh but brushes are so unfriendly to map with, fucking leaks

[Tea Monster]

I'm not that up on the Source Engine's abilities, but I'm pretty sure that the latest incarnation of UE3 probably trumps it on useability and graphical features.

The big thing about porting it all over to another engine is that it is a hell of a lot of work that will almost certainly result in a C and D order.

Davox - how easy would it be to edit shaders for DNF in the unlikely event that we do get an SDK? Maybe if they do issue an editor, it might be possible to fix some of the strange graphical issues.

[thatguy]

Micky C, on 22 January 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

You know I just noticed something ironic. Obviously you tried to pick out a good looking image of the new Duke model to prove your point. But the thing is, I'm 90% sure that that's one of the pictures of the Duke model in the Source engine! That means much better lighting, better bump mapping, and better facial (and body for that matter) animation, resulting in his expression. Man you picked a bad image for comparison there

Actually you missed the point. Any other version of the duke model won't capture the level of personality and character of his personality so well. Looks good in lighting? Well its a great duke model. I know a bunch of models that looks shit in Source....though its rare since almost all games look great in source.

DanM, on 22 January 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

yeh but brushes are so unfriendly to map with, fucking leaks

Ummmm, in my whole life of mapping for any source engine project, I've never had leaks. Learn to map. Its like you're mapping as if (like in build), the vertex grid snapping is off and you are getting angry over the fact nothings working.

Tea Monster, on 22 January 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

I'm not that up on the Source Engine's abilities, but I'm pretty sure that the latest incarnation of UE3 probably trumps it on useability and graphical features.

The big thing about porting it all over to another engine is that it is a hell of a lot of work that will almost certainly result in a C and D order.

Davox - how easy would it be to edit shaders for DNF in the unlikely event that we do get an SDK? Maybe if they do issue an editor, it might be possible to fix some of the strange graphical issues.

I can say that unlike the unreal2.5 engine, UE3 is far more capable design wise for developers than Source. The tools are completely unified and at your fingertips. Not to mention the shader support allows for a lot more dynamic settings, at times looking like Source, or surpassing it. Sure, I still prefer the facial system in source, but most if not all games are finally reaching the facial expressions now that were on par to Half-Life 2 back when it was released. lol

But Gearbox won't issue an editor. They never have. Seriously, why mod it? Its not a great game anyways. Could just use UDK and work with a much better engine.

[Tea Monster]

Facial rigging you can do now in EDuke. The engine won't respond to the jaw moving (no bones in MD3), but you can rig and animate your character and even have two of them having a 'conversation' if you do it correctly.

I'm investigating the Duke models from DNF at the moment. Got to say the new one looks miles better in the way of texture quality, though I see what people mean about it looking more 'Dukeish'. But how much of that is due to the humour, lines and expression, and how much is due to the actual look of the character?

[thatguy]

Tea Monster, on 22 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Facial rigging you can do now in EDuke. The engine won't respond to the jaw moving (no bones in MD3), but you can rig and animate your character and even have two of them having a 'conversation' if you do it correctly.

I'm investigating the Duke models from DNF at the moment. Got to say the new one looks miles better in the way of texture quality, though I see what people mean about it looking more 'Dukeish'. But how much of that is due to the humour, lines and expression, and how much is due to the actual look of the character?

Concept Artists and designers love to make characters look the way they act. The way Duke acts is nothing like a steroid junky muscle brute, but a fit comedic bad ass. Not to mention, Duke originally was made amongst the 90's 'Muscle Man Action heroes'. Now people prefer action heroes with a personality and character....reasons why the disgusting humor of DNF didn't please many people...then again I still laugh at potty jokes. But the point is, Dukeish pretty much means 90's action hero. We are all fans of duke therefore we stick to the original design, even if it just doesn't work anymore. Bruce willis is my favorite action hero and he is no muscle junky brute....you know what, its weird maybe its the fact I never was attracted to the idea of a brute as a hero (except for terminator) and I felt that Duke was the spoof and humor that utilized the dislike toward something fun and enjoyable instead of just being plain serious.


Anyways, I'd like to see a lot of the dnf models used in EDUKE...though how well would the MD3 conersion work?

[Tea Monster]

I don't think we can even use the models (legally), and I think the style of DNF is going to jar with the HRP. Most of the HRP needs an overhaul, but it needs to be overhauled in the style of DN3D, not DNF.

Just for giggles, I got the two DNF Duke models into Blender. The modern one looks a LOT better. I think that those pics you guys are showing around of the older Duke model must be a Max render or something. The one in the .dat files does NOT look like that! Also, the glove diffuse skin is missing. You could recreate them with some work in photoshop, but eh...



Oh, and as for MD3, the answer is...

[thatguy]

Legal or not, it could be a secret like Hot Coffee mod was.

Anyways, if there is one thing Id love to see, its a duke replacement. haha Get that thing skinned and in the game.

[Bloodshot]

I think the one from the 2009 trailer pic above looks like he would fit in with Duke3D and the HRP perfectly. It really reminds me of the D3D box art there.

[rasmus thorup]

I think the duke bloodshot is talking about is a little too buffed. But the face is awesome. But i don't like the face of micky's top picture. He looks like a kid to me. A kid on steroids. Dukes better than that.

[Jeff]

Mad Max RW, on 20 January 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Instead they spent a year hyping and lying to fans before selling a sub-par console cash grab at AAA prices.

I don't know about the price for that BOSE either. It was $100 or so. Yet, an AAA game like Mass Effect 3 is $80 for the Collector's Edition.

[ReaperMan]

Thats what they call milking it, Jeff. Hype it up and overprice the collectors edition.

[thatguy]

Actually I realized Gearbox had nothing to do with a lot of that shit. I think it was 2k that truly fucked over the audience. I recall an article on kotaku from a dev working on DNF that said the game will be just as it was when they received it from 3d Realms, minus finished the game that is. He said it wasn't going to be great. I think it was a twitter post. Anyways, I still stand by Gearbox since 2K were the ones that milked it. Actually they milked it because they lost so much money to 3d Realms.

Recalling the lawsuit between 2k and 3d Realms. I understand why they want to make back their money, but hell they are really effing over their fans by paying for a pile of shite.

[X-Vector]

s.b.Newsom, on 25 January 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Anyways, I still stand by Gearbox since 2K were the ones that milked it.

You have a very selective memory - do the initials "R. P." ring a bell?

[Micky C]

Even if 2K is to blame for all the misfortune, then we're still fucked because they'll most likely have the same mentality about the next Duke game that they had with DNF; no need to make a high quality product that stands out from the crowd, no need to stay true to the original or the fans, screw the PC gamers in as many ways as possible, make money.

[thatguy]

Micky C, on 26 January 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Even if 2K is to blame for all the misfortune, then we're still fucked because they'll most likely have the same mentality about the next Duke game that they had with DNF; no need to make a high quality product that stands out from the crowd, no need to stay true to the original or the fans, screw the PC gamers in as many ways as possible, make money.

How long did DNF take to make? That was 3d Realms. How long would it take a normal company to make a game and not milk the cash flow? Big differences.

[Gambini]

People are here talking about Source as a paramount regarding game engines. Well, here´s the opinion of somebody that has been working with Source for almost four years now: It is a great framework to work with, friendly and well designed. It has aspects that are still above average, like the expressions system and physical interactions. But it is nowhere an up to date engine, neither better looking than whatever were used to create DNF (basically a lot of lighting effects used in the game are impossible with Source). That image of Duke taking a dancer for the ass has not been taken using Source. That´s impossible because it doesn´t have per pixel lighting in models.

Quote

Facial rigging you can do now in EDuke. The engine won't respond to the jaw moving (no bones in MD3), but you can rig and animate your character and even have two of them having a 'conversation' if you do it correctly.

Source uses multiple animations blending combined with AI that has control over some characters´ bones, like eyeballs and neck, not to mention lipsync and speech semaphores. If setting up a scripted sequence in Source is already difficult, i can´t imagine how hard would be doing something similar in Eduke32.

[Tea Monster]

You are not doing it in EDuke, you are doing all your rigging, animating and physics in Blender and baking it down to an MD3. All the engine can do is to tell the model to display a particular animation at a particular time.

Yeah, Source is getting a little long in the tooth, but it's still a 'modern' engine, while EDuke is definitely not.

[thatguy]

Gambini, on 29 January 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

People are here talking about Source as a paramount regarding game engines. Well, here´s the opinion of somebody that has been working with Source for almost four years now: It is a great framework to work with, friendly and well designed. It has aspects that are still above average, like the expressions system and physical interactions. But it is nowhere an up to date engine, neither better looking than whatever were used to create DNF (basically a lot of lighting effects used in the game are impossible with Source). That image of Duke taking a dancer for the ass has not been taken using Source. That´s impossible because it doesn´t have per pixel lighting in models.

No thats Source. You do realize Source updates continuously, same with Garry's Mod's use of the Source engine. I would think you would of know all of this since you used it for Four years. Almost as if, you never used it, just installed it.

[Tea Monster]

Got to take some of what I said back about the old Duke Model. Yeah, it dosen't look that hot, but I fiddled with the textues a bit (read: A LOT). Now it dosen't look too bad. I've created a new glove diffuse as well, so it's now 'complete'.

Fersure it is NOT the one in the pics that Micky C posted. It's probably the high-poly that this model was created from, but it seriously is not the same model.

[Micky C]

That face looks horrible. He also needs to be more muscular. Oh I give up, we're never going to get a Duke model that's just right. It's probably not even possible.