[Kathy]

Man, many things are getting cut. It's part of the process. And not just in games.

[Jimmy]

The point isn't that things got cut from a game. Anybody who's been to Unseen64 knows that things get cut, but the point is that once the game left 3DR's grip the attitude changed to "Well, lets just release some crap, they'll buy it anyway."

[LkMax]

Micky C, on 15 December 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

(...)
With all the "nothing has been cut from the game to sell as DLC later"(...)

Here's how I see what happened:
Levels were cut from the game because they took this already failed project with one thing in mind: "let's just polish this game and put the levels togeter to sell the game and have some profit. This, this and that levels are only concepts or maps with tons of things to do and we have a short deadline to fix the bugs and put everything togeter". So, in fact, the levels may not have been cut to just sell as a DLC.

Micky C, on 15 December 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

(...)
"all the levels have been made from scratch."
They can't even be honest about the simple things.

They never said it, they said something like "we used some old concepts along with new ones to make the DLC", which could still be true if they needed to actually make/finish the maps that were in early development or even only in concept stage.

Captain Awesome, on 15 December 2011 - 07:15 PM, said:

The point isn't that things got cut from a game. Anybody who's been to Unseen64 knows that things get cut, but the point is that once the game left 3DR's grip the attitude changed to "Well, lets just release some crap, they'll buy it anyway."

When it was on the 3DR's grip the attitude was "Well, lets just make some crap to pretend we are doing something but never release any game". Yeah, that's awesome either.

[Micky C]

LkMax, on 15 December 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

They never said it, they said something like "we used some old concepts along with new ones to make the DLC", which could still be true if they needed to actually make/finish the maps that were in early development or even only in concept stage.

I'm 95% sure that they said that all the levels in the DLC were completely made from scratch. As in they started from nothing. I'm not blaming Gearbox for doing what they had to do to get the game out the door, or accusing them that they intentionally withheld levels to be used for DLC neccessarily, but I am accusing them of lying through their teeth. It wouldn't hurt them if they would just be honest with the fans once in a while. In fact, it might pay off for them.

[zwieback]

normally i would agree micky, but you know, gamers are pretty damn retarded. i don't blame gearbox for that. it's an issue with marketing in general

[Mikko]

Captain Awesome, on 15 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

How, exactly, is 12+ hours too long?

Because people don't want to spend 12+ hours playing a first person shooter just as they don't want to sit through a 4-hour action movie. They have other things to do and other games to play.

And please don't use yourself as an example of how there are players who want their games to be long. This forum consists of hardcore players and as such the opinions presented here don't reflect any kind of a random sample of the gaming public. This is exactly why people like me are needed, people who are capable of retaining their objectivity. If I had been responsible for directing Duke Nukem Forever and the team came to me with a 12-hour game, I'd have told them to cut its length by 2-3 hours.

DNF was not criticized for its length (bearing in mind once again that opinions presented here are irrelevant). In fact, if it had been longer it certainly would have left an even worse impression on reviewers.

[DavoX]

Quote

When I wrote that nothing was held back from the main game to be used later, the emphasis was on "to be used later." Obviously, there are some concepts that 3D Realms had at one point or another that didn't make it into the final game. You've seen some of them on the official Duke Nukem Forever site, in the Art Book, and so on.

What I get from this is that they are using the word "concept" not only for images but also for concept LEVELS that were actually built, like the ones we saw in the book and leaked docs. So They are not really lying to us but they are not being clear about it. If they are guilty of something is being ambiguous.

[MajorTom 2417]

My main questions about this....

1.) Is it true that you get to carry FOUR weapons instead of just two?
2.) Do you have to beat the main game before you can play the DLC?
3.) WHY didn't they include Bombshell instead of Dylan?!

[DavoX]

On pc at least you carry 4 weapons. Most of us don't know if you have to finish the main game as we've all completed it I guess.

And Bombshell is an IP from 3Drealms that still belongs to them. So it would be illegal to use Bombshell.

[Stabs]

Major Tom, on 16 December 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

My main questions about this....

1.) Is it true that broussard can carry FOUR randys dicks instead of just two?
2.) Do you have to beat georges cock in the main game before you can play the DLC?
3.) WHY didn't they include Broussard instead of Dylan?!

i dunno about 1 & 2

but he was just to much of a useless fag to include instead of dylan

yeh thats right, ive had enough of useless mouth noises in this world

put up or shutup faggots!!!!!

[necroslut]

Some of you doesn't seem to understand the different between cutting out planned features that doesn't yet actually exist or are in no way finished, and cutting out already created and completed content to sell later as DLC. When they say the DLC was created from scratch they mean, as I understand them at least, that the actual game resources such as textures, models and levels was created from scratch. If you compare the old screenshot on the EDF base with the one that's actually in the DLC you can cleary see that they haven't just reused the old assets, the design is very similar but the actual level seems to have been built up from scratch. Neither the textures or the "construction" match.
There's no proof at all that they are lying, they were clear from the start that the DLC was based in part on cut DNF ideas.

[LkMax]

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 December 2011 - 04:30 AM, said:

Because people don't want to spend 12+ hours playing a first person shooter just as they don't want to sit through a 4-hour action movie. They have other things to do and other games to play.

And please don't use yourself as an example of how there are players who want their games to be long. This forum consists of hardcore players and as such the opinions presented here don't reflect any kind of a random sample of the gaming public. This is exactly why people like me are needed, people who are capable of retaining their objectivity. If I had been responsible for directing Duke Nukem Forever and the team came to me with a 12-hour game, I'd have told them to cut its length by 2-3 hours.

DNF was not criticized for its length (bearing in mind once again that opinions presented here are irrelevant). In fact, if it had been longer it certainly would have left an even worse impression on reviewers.

Sorry but that's just stupid! You don't have to play the game continuously without sleep, eat or even take a little break, it's not like going to a movie theather avoiding to go outside because you would lost a important scene or something. In that matter, playing a game is more like reading a book or watching a show (like 24, House or whatever) on a DVD, you decide when you want to stop and when you want to continue.

Also, how do "softcore" or "mainstream" players don't want long games? Take The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim as an example, a game that consists of keep fighting against soldiers, bandits and dragons. It's a huge sucess with gigantic sales and an absurd number of players, and the Elder Scrolls series consists of very long games. Take Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike, and other action packed shooters. People keep playing the games they like for hours and with an interesting campaing they could do the same in SP, as you can see in Skyrim, Deus Ex 3 (more or less 40 hours!!), etc.

[MajorTom 2417]

DanM, on 16 December 2011 - 07:07 AM, said:

i dunno about 1 & 2

but he was just to much of a useless fag to include instead of dylan

yeh thats right, ive had enough of useless mouth noises in this world

put up or shutup faggots!!!!!

.......

This is what I get for trying to get a logical answer.

All I wanted to know were the answers to three simple questions, and instead I get a homophobic/George Broussard-fueled rant. I award you no points, and may Duke have mercy on your soul.

[necroslut]

Major Tom, on 16 December 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:

.......This is what I get for trying to get a logical answer.All I wanted to know were the answers to three simple questions, and instead I get a homophobic/George Broussard-fueled rant. I award you no points, and may Duke have mercy on your soul.

Ok, I'll try to answer your questions.

Major Tom, on 16 December 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

My main questions about this....1.) Is it true that you get to carry FOUR weapons instead of just two?2.) Do you have to beat the main game before you can play the DLC?3.) WHY didn't they include Bombshell instead of Dylan?!

1) Yes, but you have been able to do that since the first (IIRC, might have been the second) patch on the PC (it's not on the consoles, with or without the DLC), so it's not a part of the DLC. You have to enable it under the "extra options" menu.
2) Doesn't seem like that, and that would be very strange design decision. You start the DLC campaign from a seperate menu, not from your DNF save or the chapter select menu.
3) Probably because Dylan already existed in the game while Bombshell did not; the DLC is quite short so maybe they didn't feel they had enough space to introduce a new character like that, and using Dylan meant they didn't have to design her, create a model, get a new voice etc. Besides, Dylan pretty much replaced Bombshell in the original DNF game already.
Also, some people have mentioned that Bombshell still belongs to 3DR. I don't recall if that is the case, but if it is, it might have been complicated to get her in the game even if they wanted to.

[Mikko]

LkMax, on 16 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

Sorry but that's just stupid! You don't have to play the game continuously without sleep, eat or even take a little break, it's not like going to a movie theather avoiding to go outside because you would lost a important scene or something. In that matter, playing a game is more like reading a book or watching a show (like 24, House or whatever) on a DVD, you decide when you want to stop and when you want to continue.

There is always an opportunity cost. If you play DNF for two hours, you cannot spend those two hours playing Team Fortress 2. Even a child understands this.

Quote

Also, how do "softcore" or "mainstream" players don't want long games? Take The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim as an example, a game that consists of keep fighting against soldiers, bandits and dragons

I specifically referred to "first person shooters". You're comparing apples and oranges. DNF is neither a role-playing shooter nor a sandbox shooter. Therefore, people expect it to be of average length.

[LkMax]

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 December 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

There is always an opportunity cost. If you play DNF for two hours, you cannot spend those two hours playing Team Fortress 2. Even a child understands this.
(...)

Oh yea yeah.... and if you play DNF for 30 minutes, TF2 for 30 minutes and DN3D for 1 hour you can't spend those two hours walking in the park. A child understands this too, so what? what's the point?

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 December 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

(...)
I specifically referred to "first person shooters". You're comparing apples and oranges. DNF is neither a role-playing shooter nor a sandbox shooter. Therefore, people expect it to be of average length.

That's why I also cited other examples like Counter-Strike (online shooters) and DX3 (single player shooter), but of course it's easier to you to ignore half of the post.

[Micky C]

DavoX, on 16 December 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

If they are guilty of something is being ambiguous.

I guess you're right, that's exactly what they were when asked about the mod tools. But IMO that's even worse, at least if they lied, we could directly accuse them of it.

necroslut, on 16 December 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

3) Probably because Dylan already existed in the game while Bombshell did not; the DLC is quite short so maybe they didn't feel they had enough space to introduce a new character like that,

Unless they're going to put a bombshell-like character in the next game, it would have been a very wise move for Duke to have some kind of real love interest instead of just random babes. Duke can't be romantically involved with Dylan, then again...

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 December 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

There is always an opportunity cost. If you play DNF for two hours, you cannot spend those two hours playing Team Fortress 2. Even a child understands this.

I think what people are trying to say is that if the game is good, then off course the game should be longer to get more enjoyment out of it. However DNF wasn't good enough to justify the extra length.

[Ronin]

Im I the only one who can see how tragic it would be to have Bombshell as a major character in a Duke Nukem game? I mean I understand that she may be fondly remembered from a time when DNF was such an enigma but the last thing a Duke game needs is a woman playable character or even sidekick, call me old fashioned but women and ass kicking don't exactly work for me and anytime playing as Bombshell would be (wait for it) less time playing as Duke, equalling less Duke now how could that be a good thing?
If she was along for the ride not so bad, but I'd stick with Dylan when dismembering ET and Bombshell can stick to polishing my gun.

[Kathy]

She wouldn't have been a major character. She could have playable levels when Duke is captured. It's not like she would steal playable time from Duke.

[ThePinkus]

They were planning on making her a character franchise as big as Duke's

[Micky C]

They only put her in DNF when they decided to cancel her game for whatever reason. I'd still like for bombshell to be in. She wouldn't have to be a playable character. Even something as small as Hellfire's role in SS3 would be good (she probably only had 30 seconds of screen time, haha.)

[MajorTom 2417]

necroslut, on 16 December 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

Ok, I'll try to answer your questions.

1) Yes, but you have been able to do that since the first (IIRC, might have been the second) patch on the PC (it's not on the consoles, with or without the DLC), so it's not a part of the DLC. You have to enable it under the "extra options" menu.
2) Doesn't seem like that, and that would be very strange design decision. You start the DLC campaign from a seperate menu, not from your DNF save or the chapter select menu.
3) Probably because Dylan already existed in the game while Bombshell did not; the DLC is quite short so maybe they didn't feel they had enough space to introduce a new character like that, and using Dylan meant they didn't have to design her, create a model, get a new voice etc. Besides, Dylan pretty much replaced Bombshell in the original DNF game already.
Also, some people have mentioned that Bombshell still belongs to 3DR. I don't recall if that is the case, but if it is, it might have been complicated to get her in the game even if they wanted to.

Thank you.

I'm a bit annoyed that PS3 users can't get the four-weapon patch, but oh well. Carrying two weapons through the whole game isn't that big of deal.

[Sinisterambo]

Anyone else get the bulletstorm dig/reference?

[Psyrgery]

necroslut, on 16 December 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

Ok, I'll try to answer your questions.

1) Yes, but you have been able to do that since the first (IIRC, might have been the second) patch on the PC (it's not on the consoles, with or without the DLC), so it's not a part of the DLC. You have to enable it under the "extra options" menu.
2) Doesn't seem like that, and that would be very strange design decision. You start the DLC campaign from a seperate menu, not from your DNF save or the chapter select menu.
3) Probably because Dylan already existed in the game while Bombshell did not; the DLC is quite short so maybe they didn't feel they had enough space to introduce a new character like that, and using Dylan meant they didn't have to design her, create a model, get a new voice etc. Besides, Dylan pretty much replaced Bombshell in the original DNF game already.
Also, some people have mentioned that Bombshell still belongs to 3DR. I don't recall if that is the case, but if it is, it might have been complicated to get her in the game even if they wanted to.

Bombshell model was created. She can be seen in the Balls of steel book.

[rasmus thorup]

Can i see a picture? I though it was only for the older versions.

Ripemanewone, on 16 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

Im I the only one who can see how tragic it would be to have Bombshell as a major character in a Duke Nukem game? I mean I understand that she may be fondly remembered from a time when DNF was such an enigma but the last thing a Duke game needs is a woman playable character or even sidekick, call me old fashioned but women and ass kicking don't exactly work for me and anytime playing as Bombshell would be (wait for it) less time playing as Duke, equalling less Duke now how could that be a good thing?
If she was along for the ride not so bad, but I'd stick with Dylan when dismembering ET and Bombshell can stick to polishing my gun.

I would choose Dylan over Pamela... uhh Bombshell anytime. Bombshell just doesn't catch me. Dylan catched me mostly becaues he was fun in this DLC. But i might be surprised if i get to play with her ^^

[NightFright]

Just finished the DLC campaign too, and all I can say is that I would have expected Duke's character in the original campaign to be more like it was here. Besides action, it's still about babes ofc, but Duke doesn't take it over the top. The fact that he didn't do it with the doctor in the "Burning Bush" was kind of surprising... xD But well, world saving first, I guess. It wasn't exactly clear to me why Proton wanted to fight against the aliens by himself, some additional explanation might have helped here. Also, confronting him pretty early in the game was a bit disappointing, considering the DLC's title was named after him. I expected him to be the final boss, not some in-between gangbanger.

One way or the other, the atmosphere is great, it's much darker and feels more "adult" than DNF did by itself. It was a good idea to get Dylan back and explore his character a bit more. Couldn't imagine holding a whining Bombshell in my hand while she was shrunk might have been even remotely as funny as a cursing and ranting Dylan with a smurf voice. Reinventing the "Titty City" part during the "Burning Bush" passage was a good idea, more creative than yet another dream sequence which wouldn't exactly contribute to the plot (if you want to call it like that). The space part of the DLC was short, but fun - at first, I didn't get how to make new breathing "stations" and especially how to damage the Queen. Other than that, I never got stuck and could just enjoy the whole thing. I found the mini car driving sequence a bit annoying again, but at least they provided lots of checkpoints there to get you through the whole thing quickly. The new weapons, well, you either like them or not. While the Impregnator is pretty powerful, but difficult to handle, the Expander runs out of ammo quickly and requires two hits to kill. I only used them for as long as I didn't find my standard weaponry (chaingun, shotgun, Devastator and Shrinker or RPG).

The only things I have to criticize:
> DOF effect still cannot be deactivated separately - I thought the fans had complained enough about this until now to change this.
> This DLC should have been part of DNF right away, then many critical reviews might have turned up better ratings.
> Promotion of the DLC should have started sooner than a few hours before its actual release.

All in all, this is a really great DLC. It's fun to play, they got the humor right, the levels are short but well designed, it works well with Dylan as (temporary) sidekick and focuses on those parts of the game that succeeded in the first place (Duke himself, the action and unusual settings/situations). I can give two thumbs up, which translates into "Buy it, don't regret it".

My "Happy Duke face" rating (5 max):
> Original DNF campaign:
> TDHCM campaign:

[Oook]

I've just completed the DLC. Damn, it's good.
It's surprising how Dylan wasn't so hateful as before and Duke was more focused on killing aliens than f***ing babes. Also, General Phil Graves actually fill graves!
This campaign is really enjoyable and provides plenty of ammo to devastate everything you want. There are crates everywhere, which makes the shooting sequences wonderful.
Most of you say everything is better in the DLC but I disagree: the RC car sequence was horrible for me, way too slow. Besides that, the campaign is really fun, and the Burning Bush is much better than Titty City.

Very good DLC, keep'em coming!

[Lunick]

Just finished the DLC in under 3 hours and I wasn't even speedrunning it or anything. I found the campaign to be a little lacking but the humour was there. I felt the final boss was very dull.

[Jeff]

Quote

"Hey, it's the exit! It's just like being born except without the pussy!"

I just LOLed first time I heard that.

[Mikko]

LkMax, on 16 December 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

Oh yea yeah.... and if you play DNF for 30 minutes, TF2 for 30 minutes and DN3D for 1 hour you can't spend those two hours walking in the park. A child understands this too, so what? what's the point?

As I said, people have other things to do and other games to play. Data speaks for itself; only a tiny fraction of people who start a game actually complete it too (10-20%; there was an article on this a couple of months ago).

If there were unmet demand for longer first person shooters, we'd be witnessing a trend toward longer and longer shooters. (This rests on some favorable conditions concerning both elasticity of demand and costs associated with adding more content.) However, this isn't the case at all. While modern shooters are longer than they were in the '90s, the average length might have come down an inch in the past few years (due to multiplayer content), even if it's still above the '90s level (which was admittedly partly due to physical constraints).

Quote

That's why I also cited other examples like Counter-Strike (online shooters) and DX3 (single player shooter), but of course it's easier to you to ignore half of the post.

DNF and CS are not comparable any more than DNF and Skyrim are comparable.