[OpenMaw]

While i can agree with many who say Duke didn't really have strong story ties, the fact remains he did have some continuity from game to game. Very small, but it was still there.

A Duke Nukem reboot which would do to Batman what Begins did to the audience perception of Batman is really what a reboot/remake would be in this case. Duke would still be Duke, but in a far different enviroment. Something that took advantadge of the ability to immerse the player in the world like it hasn't in many years. Something that would set the bar again, like Duke3D did in 1996.

I think a lot of very interesting thoughts have been thrown around in here though. It seems to be a pretty mixed bag.

[thatguy]

Commando Nukem, on 16 January 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

While i can agree with many who say Duke didn't really have strong story ties, the fact remains he did have some continuity from game to game. Very small, but it was still there.

A Duke Nukem reboot which would do to Batman what Begins did to the audience perception of Batman is really what a reboot/remake would be in this case. Duke would still be Duke, but in a far different enviroment. Something that took advantadge of the ability to immerse the player in the world like it hasn't in many years. Something that would set the bar again, like Duke3D did in 1996.

I think a lot of very interesting thoughts have been thrown around in here though. It seems to be a pretty mixed bag.

Yeah, like I said. Though this shouldn't be confused with 'spin-offs' that do things very differently while in very different stories.

In regards for setting bars, they don't have to be reboots. Traditionally that was what sequels were suppose to be. Setting the bar even higher while continuing the story. Well at least that was how it was in game development before the general business practice was to use everything the same and just change the story. I'm looking at you Call of Duty (not saying I don't like COD though). Got to love Modern gaming. Although lets be honest, films were the same way. Abusing IP's and making shit films. *cough*Batman Forever*cough*Batman & Robin*cough*.

Duke Nukem Forever didn't raise the bar nor did it even do a good job at translating Duke 3D into modern gaming. (i'm going to be honest, modern gaming is a bad term to describe the horrible nature of shitty games since there are plenty more great games that come out than shitty ones)

[Micky C]

The reason why Duke Nukem Forever was shitty is because it originally promised to have revolutionary new features, and also expected to have old school gameplay. When it came out and people realized that it wasn't new and revolutionary or old school, just a poor imitation of everything else out there, that's when the shit hit the fan. The game had absolutely no redeeming features that made it stand out from the crowd.

If the next game wants to be successful, it has do so something that no, or very few other games are doing.

[thatguy]

I still want the 2001 version. :*(

[OpenMaw]

Amen.

[xMobilemux]

s.b.Newsom, on 16 January 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

I still want the 2001 version. :*(

Who doesn't want the 2001 version?

[necroslut]

Commando Nukem, on 16 January 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

While i can agree with many who say Duke didn't really have strong story ties, the fact remains he did have some continuity from game to game. Very small, but it was still there.

A Duke Nukem reboot which would do to Batman what Begins did to the audience perception of Batman is really what a reboot/remake would be in this case. Duke would still be Duke, but in a far different enviroment. Something that took advantadge of the ability to immerse the player in the world like it hasn't in many years. Something that would set the bar again, like Duke3D did in 1996.

Of course there is some continuity, but not enough for them to really be confined in any way by it. For the first three Duke games, the only things appearing in all were Duke, guns, security cameras, the atomic health powerup and walls that could be destroyed to find secrets (though when I think about it, I'm not even sure there were any in the first game).
There were an entirely new enemy force everytime (even if a couple or so returned) with a new leader, new weapons, new inventory and gadgets, new settings, new features and eventually a whole new genre.
Sure, the games take place after each other, and the past events are sometimes mentioned in the later games, but they don't affect each other to nearly the extent where rebooting would be necessary to rid yourself of limitations set in the past. There isn't really a story that is worth retelling or that people (in general) really remember either, so remaking/rebooting/reimagining isn't warranted from that perspective either. What they remember is the settings, which could be reused without any problems at all. If you still wanted to retell previous events, you could use the time travel that has been in the series even since the first game, and relive those events that way.
Or you could have the old aliens or mutants or whatever returning. If they wanted to bring back Dr. Proton again, they could do that as well because he's a fucking cyborg doctor and I'm sure he could figure something out.
I guess my point is that Duke has never really had enough story to make it necessary to reboot it. Most of the story or events was always told through the action anyway, not through the short text screens between episodes.
That said, I don't see a problem with just calling the next game "Duke Nukem", and pretty much ignore what happened in DNF (as the previous games did) - not retcon it out but just don't mention it much, which would make it a reboot of some kind I guess. We never played Duke for the story anyway, I prefer it to be kept simple and told through the action .

[sebabdukeboss20]

I want to see a shooter game (1st or 3rd person) that follows the games of the 90's where it takes some brains to figure out how to get past a level rather than Point A to B and then Cut scene. I'm sure everyone is familiar with that graphic.

With games today with as big levels as they have, I don't see why they can't make large challenging levels that aren't restricted to a linear system that tells you EXACTLY where to go. It took some thinking in games like Duke 3d to figure out levels with all the back tracking.

I also want to see a lot of over the top stuff too. And of course kidnaps babes.

Edit:

For those that misunderstand, I'm NOT saying we should get rid of all the new games and their mechanics and hit the time machine button and make everything exactly like Doom and Duke 3d. I'm just saying why can't we plug in elements of the older games into the newer ones? I like good graphics and story and cooperative play.

[thatguy]

sebabdukeboss20, on 17 January 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

I want to see a shoot game (1st or 3rd person) that follows the games of the 90's where it takes some brains to figure out how to get past a level rather than Point A to B and then Cut scene. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the graphic.

With games today with as big levels as they have, I don't see why they can't make large challenging levels that aren't restricted to a linear system that tells you EXACTLY where to go. It took some thinking in games like Duke 3d to figure out levels with all the back tracking.

I also want to see a lot of over the top stuff too. And of course kidnaps babes.

Brains? I'm sorry but this is the biggest misconception known todays. Shooters back then didn't require brains. Where else did the stereotype of 'Killing everything and nothing' else came from? There is more complexity in shooting games today than anyone could of thought of back in the 90's.

[OpenMaw]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Brains? I'm sorry but this is the biggest misconception known todays. Shooters back then didn't require brains. Where else did the stereotype of 'Killing everything and nothing' else came from? There is more complexity in shooting games today than anyone could of thought of back in the 90's.

Hah, no. No there isn't. In presentation and production value sure. But in terms of gameplay? They've cut most of the gameplay away entirely from FPS games. Keycards? Nope. Hidden areas and secret passages? Nope. Alternative routes? Nope. The ability to save anywhere you want? Nope. Hints, quick time events, and cinematics every five seconds is not "more complex." It's more cinematic, sure, arguably more immersive, but we're not here to watch a movie. We're here to play a game. Shoot things.




and




Pretty much demonstrate the truth of modern FPS games without fault. Some people say its hyperbole but it's really not at all.

And this is where Duke really went wrong. Everything is a STRAIGHT PATH, any side areas to explore are literally one room off the beaten path, and that's it.

[thatguy]

More ignorance. What games are these videos based on? Well the most linear games. Have you not played many games at all? Halo, Bulletstorm, Rage,

I agree there are not many secrets in games nowadays but that is changing. In terms of you saying everything lacks complexity, well that can be argued that complexity in level design doesn't equal 'fun' or good. Who wants to go in every effin room of the whole giant based when you are playing a Shooter and not a RPG.

Linear games, well guess what? You are playing nothing but Call of Duty if you agree with this. Seriously, it gets me so irked when people thing that is how modern gaming is. Not it is not. From Arkham City to Skyrim to Witcher 2 to Saints Row to Serious Sam 3. Modern gaming is a term that is raped because people are pissed off at games that get a lot of attention. Guess what? What made Doom special? Shooting monsters, random secrets that offer nothing more than additional ammo, no story, shoot shoot, carrying a billion weapons, kill more bad ai monsters and more. Seriously, what makes older games better than modern games (excluding the stupid linear FPS games that run the modern gaming stereotypes).

The only thing I can complain about modern gaming is the lack of 'just be silly and fun'. Saints Row 3 was the last game I played that was just shit crazy fun, from the first mission to the last.

Seriously, those videos are funny but its pure BS. I would like to see a great comparison on why older games are better without saying words that relate to emotion.


Oh and on the DLC argument that is had by gamers.......seriously? You are just bitching about a concept that has been around for ages. DLC = Expansion packs, except shit ton cheaper and you don't have to wait forever for one. Instant buy and you are playing. DLC hate is subjective.

These complaints are no more than Trolling with ignorance.


EDIT: One last thing. Modern gaming == You can do more than just run around than shooting stuff. Ignorant gamers == Modern games lack complexity....they don't just let you run around and shoot stuff like a maniac.

[Jimmy]

Dude, they're talking about First Person Shooters.

[thatguy]

Captain Awesome, on 17 January 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Dude, they're talking about First Person Shooters.

No, the guy I replied to original said FPS or TPS.

In terms of FPS games, you have Bioshock 2, STALKER, MAG, Metro 2033, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Call of Duty Black Ops, Crysis, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Rage, etc.

[Micky C]

Commando Nukem, on 17 January 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Videos

Ha, never saw the Doom one before, that was good. Somebody should make a "What if Duke 3D was made today" video parodying DNF. There'd be a hundred of the same posters all over the corridors, two weapon limit, regenerating health, weapons which only hold like 5 shots, NPCs you can't walk past until they've told you what they ate for breakfast, and levels which repeatedly and unexpectedly end after 10 seconds before you actually get a chance to fight any aliens

[Jimmy]

Other than Sebab, my point still applies, especially to the videos. The thing is that market is saturated with big-budget linear experiences, and the less linear games still don't come off as old school at all.

[thatguy]

Again modern gaming == games that offer more than just mindless killing and at times logical level design.

Break down of old FPS games
1. Collect keys to open locked doors
2. Shoot random clone monsters in every room.
3. Avoid getting killed by ever so dynamic AI
4. Find secrets come from....walls moving or passing through walls?
5. Click switch for next level.
6. Still linear. You go from level to level.

Am I missing anything? Oh these games are so complex.

Modern gaming
1. Complex stories, sometimes in which offer emotional struggle, and or choices to change the story......getting the player to care for something more than killing
2. You can use the 'use' key to not only open doors, but interact with computers, stealthely assasinate enemies, launch a cruise missle, engage in conversations with NPC's, pick up objects, etc
3. Enemies that don't stand around looking at you until you move into their range of vision to attack....enemies that can dodge, take cover, move in squads/groups.
4. Play detective, explore environments, find secrets, etc without the fear of a billion bad ai enemies that have no point of being a room just for the sake of offering players more killing.
5. Voice acting, cinematics that aren't static images, in-game cinematics that don't take away from player control,
6. Complex and creative user interfaces, menus, etc.
7. Dynamic music changes
8. Direct X 11
9. RPG elements and strategy elements mixed into action/fps elements.
10. Modern gaming is a mix of everything gamers want. Freedom to make whatever you want.

Captain Awesome, on 17 January 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

Other than Sebab, my point still applies, especially to the videos. The thing is that market is saturated with big-budget linear experiences, and the less linear games still don't come off as old school at all.

But that comes to the point of gaming. Are they trying to make games like the old school ones, or just pushing the experience further with proper game design?

Let alone we do have Doom made today. Doom 3. A lot of the basic doom elements are their, but they focused more on technology than what made Doom awesome. A bunch of monsters, non-linear levels, locked doors, etc.
The only issue was the lack of monsters, flashlight (especially not attached to weapons) and the fact they focused more on being a horror game instead of a silly action nonstop romp to fuck over hell. Thats a design and story choice.


I posted a game called 'Retroblazer' in the game discussion forum and some people found it boring.....guess what? That game is exactly how old school gaming worked? Boring? Well thats what you're fighting for instead of logically looking at how games are just different and age doesn't matter.

[Jimmy]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Again modern gaming == games that offer more than just mindless killing and at times logical level design.

LOLOLOL.

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Break down of old FPS games
1. Collect keys to open locked doors
2. Shoot random clone monsters in every room.
3. Avoid getting killed by ever so dynamic AI
4. Find secrets come from....walls moving or passing through walls?
5. Click switch for next level.
6. Still linear. You go from level to level.

So what if they're 'clones'? Recognizable enemies is KEY to strategy. In modern FPS games like Call of Duty I often can't differentiate enemies from bushes, much less each other. You have no idea what weapon or tactics these enemies will employ. In Doom you can easily tell apart the different human enemies, and employ different tactics to defeat them. If they all looked different you'd have no idea what to do, which can be frustrating if it turns out there are hundreds of chaingunners and shotgunners. And once again, this is a fucking video game, who cares if the secrets are from moving walls or whatever? You don't find that unbelievable when you watch Indiana Jones. Reality is overrated. And there are plenty of old games where you don't hit a switch to end the level, such as Half Life or Deus Ex. And the argument of linearity has absolutely no basis on going from 'level to level' and even that is irrelevant because HeXen was a hub-based game where you'd go back and forth from many levels. Most of your arguments are shot to shit under any scrutiny.

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Modern gaming
1. Complex stories, sometimes in which offer emotional struggle, and or choices to change the story......getting the player to care for something more than killing
2. You can use the 'use' key to not only open doors, but interact with computers, stealthely assasinate enemies, launch a cruise missle, engage in conversations with NPC's, pick up objects, etc
3. Enemies that don't stand around looking at you until you move into their range of vision to attack....enemies that can dodge, take cover, move in squads/groups.
4. Play detective, explore environments, find secrets, etc without the fear of a billion bad ai enemies that have no point of being a room just for the sake of offering players more killing.
5. Voice acting, cinematics that aren't static images, in-game cinematics that don't take away from player control,
6. Complex and creative user interfaces, menus, etc.
7. Dynamic music changes
8. Direct X 11
9. RPG elements and strategy elements mixed into action/fps elements.
10. Modern gaming is a mix of everything gamers want. Freedom to make whatever you want.

Stories are overrated, yet once again they are plentiful in old games. Half Life and all of its expansions, Deus Ex, Aliens Vs Predator 1 and 2, HeXen, Strife: Quest for the Sigil, Tomb Raider, Blood, etc. Your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth arguments are asinine and completely bullshit, especially when concerning legitimate technical limitations, and you know it. Dynamic music changes are nothing special, but were perfected in Deus Ex. And once again, RPG elements are ever present in games from Strife to Deus Ex.



And the boringness of Retroblazer likely arises from the fact that practically everyone, even fans of Wolfenstein, will you that Wolfenstein is boring. RetroBlazer has a long way to go, since there is no vertical gameplay and the level design will get boring after two levels.

[thatguy]

Ok i'm done. Its quite obvious older games aren't better. You just prefer EXTREMELY simplified gameplay.

Again, you shouldn't be protecting 'old games', but protecting good games. You say wolfenstein is boring, but again, you are protecting old games. The point is, do discriminate when everyone's points are nothing more than fanboyism or ignorance.

There are amazing old games, there are also amazing new games.

The point is, majority of modern games are as linear and simple as everyone points out. A stupid stereotype. Same goes with old games. Not all of them were about nonestop killing and extremely simplified gameplay.

Look at Eradicator or Blood or more so Duke 3d. Great games, broke the mold.

[Kathy]

I wonder why shooter like Serious Sam is called "mindless fun" and "old school" in the vein of Doom 2 if shooters of the past required brains to figure out how to pass a level? I don't remember requiring much brains in Wolf3d. Levels of course were like labyrinths which is what different from many modern shooter games.

[Jimmy]

I'm only talking about First Person Shooters, which as a genre I actually don't care much about. My favorite games of all time other than Doom and Duke3D are Contra 3, Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Earthbound, Diablo, and Planescape: Torment.

[thatguy]

Captain Awesome, on 17 January 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

I'm only talking about First Person Shooters, which as a genre I actually don't care much about. My favorite games of all time other than Doom and Duke3D are Contra 3, Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Earthbound, Diablo, and Planescape: Torment.

Good taste in games. Especially Earthbound and Planescape.

Again, its all about the developers and what they want to do.

Guess what? You can make a retro game, like RetroBlazer or Bulletstorm or Serious Sam 3. They count as modern games just as much as any other game. Then agian, Serious Sam was made when technology really has gotten pretty far.

In terms of Labyrinth levels in old games. Very true, but then we got games like Duke 3d, Goldeneye, and Blood. Sad to say, even Quake felt like a labyrinth. The design was too muddy and felt like a retro 3d game....which isn't bad, but I wouldn't find myself trying to beat the game if my goals are nothing more than killing enemies and seeing what the boss looks like.

Stories are far from overrated mainly because its the best tool to get the player to care about beating the game, even if the gameplay sucks. Thats why I loved Black Ops. Game sucked, story was absolutely great.

[Jimmy]

I dunno, what can I say, I'm a graphics junkie, but not in the common sense. I don't see DNF as being particularly beautiful. I find Raven games too look great, or Capcom games. Not too big on these new games with photorealistic textures and such.

[ReaperMan]

Personally, i think that alot of modern FPS games fail to be just a raw First Person Shooter. All a good FPS needs is a basic story, map designs that are semi-linear that are open and allow the player to explore without forcing them to go in the same direction as everyone else, a good selection of weapons that complement each other, secrets and other fun stuff that reward the player, art/animation that don't distract the player and easily distinguishable enemies.

[thatguy]

ReaperMan, on 17 January 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Personally, i think that alot of modern FPS games fail to be just a raw First Person Shooter. All a good FPS needs is a basic story, map designs that are semi-linear that are open and allow the player to explore without forcing them to go in the same direction as everyone else, a good selection of weapons that complement each other, secrets and other fun stuff that reward the player, art/animation that don't distract the player and easily distinguishable enemies.

Agreed, but then again, what you are describing is pretty much an arcade FPS. Complete nonsense with no reason to do anything but kill. We agree thats awesome, but thats like saying 'i can live off of poptarts' and not think of repercussions or logic.I think that is a horrible idea if you want that to be the norm. People beat more modern games than retro and that is great for the industry. Then again, i'm a game junky, not just graphics, sound, levels, mechanics, etc. I want my games to be an experience, not an arcade shooter.

Then again, that whole statement is the reason why adventure games went no where. Things need to evolve else they just die off.

[Micky C]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Modern gaming
1. Complex stories, sometimes in which offer emotional struggle, and or choices to change the story......getting the player to care for something more than killing
2. You can use the 'use' key to not only open doors, but interact with computers, stealthely assasinate enemies, launch a cruise missle, engage in conversations with NPC's, pick up objects, etc
3. Enemies that don't stand around looking at you until you move into their range of vision to attack....enemies that can dodge, take cover, move in squads/groups.
4. Play detective, explore environments, find secrets, etc without the fear of a billion bad ai enemies that have no point of being a room just for the sake of offering players more killing.
5. Voice acting, cinematics that aren't static images, in-game cinematics that don't take away from player control,
6. Complex and creative user interfaces, menus, etc.
7. Dynamic music changes
8. Direct X 11
9. RPG elements and strategy elements mixed into action/fps elements.
10. Modern gaming is a mix of everything gamers want. Freedom to make whatever you want.

The AMC TC has a lot of these things while still maintaining old school gameplay.

Immersion, cinematics and story are not tied in with modern gameplay mechanics, and can be used with any game style, however modern developers choose not to use them.
I found a really good quote recently:

Quote

Modern games rarely challenge me. And when they do, the difficulty is cheaply frustrating. I miss the days when mastering a game's complex mechanics and refining your reflexes and tactics were the only way to reach the satisfaction of completion.

[thatguy]

Micky C, on 17 January 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

The AMC TC has a lot of these things while still maintaining old school gameplay.

Immersion, cinematics and story are not tied in with modern gameplay mechanics, and can be used with any game style, however modern developers choose not to use them.
I found a really good quote recently:

The only issue with that statement is one thing. Where did those ideas come from? All the features in AMC is nothing more than the product of Modern Game Development. Why does it still feel old school? First of all, its using the build engine. Its easy to get that feeling without using polymer and keeping the core mechanics in it (low quality textures/sprites, basic ai, menu, etc).

You also say old school gameplay, but a lot of the design techniques are modern. Old Engine =/= Old School Gameplay. Remove the pretty graphics of all the new games and you have 'old school gameplay'.

[ReaperMan]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Things need to evolve else they just die off.

The fact remain though that alot of modern FPS's haven't evolved, if anything alot of them have devolved with very little differences, COD and MOH, BF, etc. for instance have been in the same modern warfare rut for a while now and alot of games make reloading gun a basic requirement as well as regenerating health, when they don't need to be. They need to break the mold by doing things differently, but they shouldn't shy away from the basics.

[thatguy]

ReaperMan, on 17 January 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

The fact remain though that alot of modern FPS's haven't evolved, if anything alot of them have devolved with very little differences, COD and MOH, BF, etc. for instance have been in the same modern warfare rut for a while now and alot of games make reloading gun a basic requirement as well as regenerating health, when they don't need to be. They need to break the mold by doing things differently, but they shouldn't shy away from the basics.

You just named of some of the most generic games in history...not to mention all that spawned from one thing. The mass of world war 2 games.

[ReaperMan]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

You just named of some of the most generic games in history...not to mention all that spawned from one thing. The mass of world war 2 games.

I could go into all the other games of today that have problems but that would take ages, so how about one you picked?

Bullet storm, has low replayability with its extremely linear maps, there are little to no secrets that reward the player, the enemies give little to no challenge what so ever even on harder difficulties, and it has too many useless cut scenes that explain a basic and uninteresting story. The game does however mange to break the mold in several areas which creates some unique game-play aspects but this is not enough to make up for the obvious flaws which is why it is an average game, not bad but not great enough for people to play 20 years later.

I could do more, but i think you get the point.

[Micky C]

s.b.Newsom, on 17 January 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

The only issue with that statement is one thing. Where did those ideas come from? All the features in AMC is nothing more than the product of Modern Game Development. Why does it still feel old school? First of all, its using the build engine. Its easy to get that feeling without using polymer and keeping the core mechanics in it (low quality textures/sprites, basic ai, menu, etc).

You also say old school gameplay, but a lot of the design techniques are modern. Old Engine =/= Old School Gameplay. Remove the pretty graphics of all the new games and you have 'old school gameplay'.

By oldschool gameplay, I mean
1. Complex levels that require exploration (and some degree of backtracking).
2. A medkit system which forces you to play well because your health isn't going to come back like a bad rash if you get injured.
3. A full set of weapons that allows diverse gameplay, and more advanced tactics because you need to figure out enemies' weaknesses and use the appropriate gun.

Points 1 & 3 not only make the game more fun, but also add much, much replay value. Linear corridor shooters with two weapons are dull enough the first time around let alone trying a second. When I buy a game, I'm not just paying for a once-off playthrough and some multiplayer, I'm paying for a quality singleplayer campaign that should permit several playthroughs, or at least it should.