Duke4.net Forums: Duke Nukem : The Reboot. - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Duke Nukem : The Reboot.  "What if?"

User is offline   thatguy 

#91

Well if thats the case then i'm out of this discussion. My opinion is better off used in more productive conversations.
0

User is offline   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#92

View PostMikko_Sandt, on 18 January 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Neither am I. If PC gamers want keep playing the games of their youth, then that's their business (hell, I'm doing it myself), but it's their misguided elitist attitude that's objectively wrong and a major source of embarrassment. There's only one thing worse than an ADHD CoD kid and that's a CoD-hating PC gamer who thinks that '90s shooters are somehow objectively better than modern shooters. They're like your dad who thinks that any music after The Beatles is crap or your grandfather who thinks kids should still work at family farms.


You're one to talk. You throw around something that is clearly your opinion and proceed to call it objectively wrong. Stop throwing around hyperbole. At the very least when some of us say "old games are markedly better in the gameplay department" we cite examples that have far and wide been dropped by modern shooters. Saying things like 'People who like older games because they think they are better are a bunch of nostalgia-google wearing, misguided, elitists' is entirely hyperbole. It's also a load of rectal excrement.


New does not equal better.

As far as gameplay goes. No, newer shooters have not been better. With some exceptions. There have been some great modern shooters, but the most popular and most widely produced form of shooters these days PALE by comparison to indie, budget, and retro games in terms of simple game play mechanics. For every Portal, Serious Sam, or Deus Ex, you have a billion Modern Warfares, Halos, and Duke Nukem Forevers. Honestly, most of these twitch shooters have taken the genre backward, not forward. Exploration is all but null, inventories for the most part are entirely gone, most decisions are made for you by the game, weapons are pretty much brain dead and lack any innovation. Though, to be honest, most of these games are modern or period shooter pieces and the opportunity to try new and creative things in those instances is greatly narrowed when you have to stay true to what is real.


I for one hope they do "reboot" Duke. Keep JSJ, the general look of the character, some of the side characters, but revamp and clean up the canon of the series. Give it a fresh coat of paint, organize. Go in on the ground level, get a great engine to power a new game, build a fantastic and fun arsenal of weapons, inject into that the insane levels of interactivity with the environment that modern engines can handle, build a great group of enemies. I think they should really re-do Doctor Proton from the ground up. Do a remake of the original Duke Nukem in an entirely new light. Keep many of the old school bits of the original Duke trilogy. Have a new inventory system. Just really give it a thorough tweaking. Bring it into the 21st century in terms of the technology, but keep the old school mentality. Namely, the one that 3D Realms had just after Shadow Warrior and Duke3D. They wanted the player to be an "agent for change" in games like Prey. They were all about the player affecting the environment. Drop in over the top of that a really good, solid, multiplayer experience with complete customization, and finally, a level and modding SDK, and I think Duke would enjoy a renaissance of popularity. Not to mention they could have their cake and eat it too. DLC, contests, Duke-offs.. etc. Basically, follow in the footsteps of successes like Half-Life and Unreal. Yes, it can still be done today.
2

User is offline   Person of Color 

  • Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland

#93

View PostMad Max RW, on 18 January 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

What we're seeing now with the industry isn't all that different from the years right before the crash of the early-mid 1980's. There's a glut of companies selling tons of the same thing and making it a very difficult place for studios to exist by rushing development. 2011 was a record year for studio closures, and the past 5 years was the worst ever. The only reason we haven't seen a total collapse of the industry is the internet and indie PC gaming always survives.

Rumor has it Sony is opting out of the next generation of consoles. Expect things to get even more watered down than they already are.


I've been saying this since 2005. But you forgot to mention the "race to the bottom" effect the entire industry is facing, or the so called "Call of Duty" effect. This was present in the 1980's as well, except on a much larger scale.

When you have MBA's and industry outsiders dictating the direction of an artistic medium it always ends up sucking. These guys have no passion and are only out to make a buck. Cashing in on a fad replaces innovation. Risks are never taken on new ideas. Employee pay stagnates, morale suffers and in turn the product falters.

If Company X sees that games like Call of Duty are selling well, they won't invest any capital into more complex games like Hard Reset. The whole problem is that people don't buy games like CoD because it fulfills their every desire, they buy it because Activision funnels crazy amounts of money into their marketing department and creates so much hype that people swarm to it like locusts on a corn field.

This creates a new problem: Whoever has the best marketing team can control the direction of large portions of the industry. Since these publishers are run by MBA's, they feel launching a similar product and taking second or third place is a solid idea. This cycle repeats itself endlessly until the market is flooded with crap, and it's the direct result of having accountants and suits in charge of a creative industry. Creative industries are a completely different beast than packaged goods. These people look at the wrong feedback mechanisms, say "hey, we're doing this right" because they are MBA's, not game designers, and it creates a positive feedback loop where negative actions are repeated and innovative titles are defunded or divested (i.e. Brutal Legend).

Publishers now race as quickly as they can to get the #2 spot with a "clone" of an existing game instead of creating a new experience, because it's easier, and after people grow tired of that franchise, they move on to the next fad. It's a never ending game of follow the leader, except the leader is always untouchable, so everyone else is playing grab ass with titles that no one will remember two years from now.

Profit is no longer created with an exciting new franchise, it is achieved by riding on the coat tails of the successful.

In reality, you see much more success if you launch a product in the same genre with a new twist on things. Would you rather play Sonic 2 or a generic Mario knockoff? If you had to buy two racing games in the late 90's, would you rather buy Gran Tourismo 2 and Rush 2, or GT2 and Test Drive? It's two sides of the same coin versus two of the exact same coin.

People don't want knockoffs, they want a unique experience. People love knockoffs because they can't afford the real thing. How about those free Android phones you get with a two year contract?

But here lies the problem with video games: they are all the same price when they come out. In the past, studios cashed in on a craze by doing the same thing differently and adding their own unique twist to an existing concept. This is no longer the case. Until we fix the over consolidation and management problems the industry has, shit isn't going to get better, and frankly, I don't see it happening for a while.

This post has been edited by Descent: 18 January 2012 - 07:04 PM

6

User is offline   Kathy 

#94

View PostCommando Nukem, on 18 January 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

There have been some great modern shooters, but the most popular and most widely produced form of shooters these days PALE by comparison to indie, budget, and retro games in terms of simple game play mechanics. For every Portal, Serious Sam, or Deus Ex, you have a billion Modern Warfares, Halos, and Duke Nukem Forevers.

What exactly is your point here? That most popular and broad mainstream games have shitty gameplay because they crave for masses? Unbelievable!

Why do you exclude modern indie and budget games from comparison with the retro games? Instead you make them into one group to compare with pop-games.
1

User is offline   Jimmy 

  • Let's go Brandon!

#95

View PostDescent, on 18 January 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I've been saying this since 2005. But you forgot to mention the "race to the bottom" effect the entire industry is facing, or the so called "Call of Duty" effect. This was present in the 1980's as well, except on a much larger scale.

When you have MBA's and industry outsiders dictating the direction of an artistic medium it always ends up sucking. These guys have no passion and are only out to make a buck. Cashing in on a fad replaces innovation. Risks are never taken on new ideas. Employee pay stagnates, morale suffers and in turn the product falters.

If Company X sees that games like Call of Duty are selling well, they won't invest any capital into more complex games like Hard Reset. The whole problem is that people don't buy games like CoD because it fulfills their every desire, they buy it because Activision funnels crazy amounts of money into their marketing department and creates so much hype that people swarm to it like locusts on a corn field.

This creates a new problem: Whoever has the best marketing team can control the direction of large portions of the industry. Since these publishers are run by MBA's, they feel launching a similar product and taking second or third place is a solid idea. This cycle repeats itself endlessly until the market is flooded with crap, and it's the direct result of having accountants and suits in charge of a creative industry. Creative industries are a completely different beast than packaged goods. These people look at the wrong feedback mechanisms, say "hey, we're doing this right" because they are MBA's, not game designers, and it creates a positive feedback loop where negative actions are repeated and innovative titles are defunded or divested (i.e. Brutal Legend).

Publishers now race as quickly as they can to get the #2 spot with a "clone" of an existing game instead of creating a new experience, because it's easier, and after people grow tired of that franchise, they move on to the next fad. It's a never ending game of follow the leader, except the leader is always untouchable, so everyone else is playing grab ass with titles that no one will remember two years from now.

Profit is no longer created with an exciting new franchise, it is achieved by riding on the coat tails of the successful.

In reality, you see much more success if you launch a product in the same genre with a new twist on things. Would you rather play Sonic 2 or a generic Mario knockoff? If you had to buy two racing games in the late 90's, would you rather buy Gran Tourismo 2 and Rush 2, or GT2 and Test Drive? It's two sides of the same coin versus two of the exact same coin.

People don't want knockoffs, they want a unique experience. People love knockoffs because they can't afford the real thing. How about those free Android phones you get with a two year contract?

But here lies the problem with video games: they are all the same price when they come out. In the past, studios cashed in on a craze by doing the same thing differently and adding their own unique twist to an existing concept. This is no longer the case. Until we fix the over consolidation and management problems the industry has, shit isn't going to get better, and frankly, I don't see it happening for a while.


You're the KRS-One of video games.
0

User is offline   OpenMaw 

  • Judge Mental

#96

View PostHelel, on 18 January 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

What exactly is your point here? That most popular and broad mainstream games have shitty gameplay because they crave for masses? Unbelievable!

Why do you exclude modern indie and budget games from comparison with the retro games? Instead you make them into one group to compare with pop-games.


Because they crave for masses? I assume you mean that the masses crave them. The masses are easily lead by hype. As Descent just pointed out. He actually pretty much made the argument far more clearly than I did. It's a matter of the wrong people making the choices based on successes. Instead of creative people making creative decisions, we have financial people and businessmen making decisions based strictly on "What made us lots of money." "We want another one of those, because it made money. Now let's advertise the SHIT out of it."

I didn't exclude them. I said they were the exception TODAY. That's where all the creative juices are going, but it's a vastly smaller market. Duke 3D, Doom, and Wolfenstein 3D were the big names in their day. They're not the big name nowadays. Those types of games are more likely to come from smaller companies. Serious Sam, being the most recent, prime example of a modern FPS game with old school qualities.
3

User is offline   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#97

If propaganda can start world wars, it can certainly convince a few teenagers to buy some games.

Edit: ok, that was a harsh comparison Posted Image

This post has been edited by Micky C: 19 January 2012 - 02:09 AM

5

User is offline   Person of Color 

  • Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland

#98

View PostMicky C, on 19 January 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

If propaganda can start world wars, it can certainly convince a few teenagers to buy some games.

Edit: ok, that was a harsh comparison Posted Image


No it wasn't. It was 100% accurate.

I went to buy Battlefield 3 the night before MW3 came out.

There were faggots in tents outside the Best Buy.

They have no idea what they are missing.
2

User is offline   thatguy 

#99

View PostDescent, on 19 January 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

No it wasn't. It was 100% accurate.

I went to buy Battlefield 3 the night before MW3 came out.

There were faggots in tents outside the Best Buy.

They have no idea what they are missing.


MW3 was a good one time player rental for the explosion of singleplayer game.....then I was done. Fun story, just not the time of story like some movies that will get me to come back. Lacks so much.

Battlefield 3, the only multiplayer game I love.
0

User is offline   Mikko 

  • Honored Donor

#100

View PostCommando Nukem, on 18 January 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

You're one to talk. You throw around something that is clearly your opinion and proceed to call it objectively wrong. Stop throwing around hyperbole. At the very least when some of us say "old games are markedly better in the gameplay department" we cite examples that have far and wide been dropped by modern shooters. Saying things like 'People who like older games because they think they are better are a bunch of nostalgia-google wearing, misguided, elitists' is entirely hyperbole. It's also a load of rectal excrement.


New does not equal better.


To think that modern games are objectively worse than old games is stupid. To think that modern games are worse than old games is a matter of opinion.

Quote

the most popular and most widely produced form of shooters these days PALE by comparison to indie, budget, and retro games in terms of simple game play mechanics. For every Portal, Serious Sam, or Deus Ex, you have a billion Modern Warfares, Halos, and Duke Nukem Forevers.


This is how it was in the '90s. It was just one Doom clone after another until online gaming (mainly CS as deathmatch was already going out of fashion) and HL saved the day. For every Doom and Quake you had a billion Chasms, Rise of the Triads, TekWars etc. Oh, and btw, Modern Warfares and Halos are of course in the same league with all the great games you mentioned as evidenced by both their influence, critical reception and incredible sales. It's the Homefronts and Medal of Honors that are cheap CoD clones that time will forget.

Quote

Exploration is all but null, inventories for the most part are entirely gone, most decisions are made for you by the game, weapons are pretty much brain dead and lack any innovation.


I could say the same thing about repetitive level design in Doom, Quake, Quake 2 etc. unimaginative weapons in pretty much every game of the genre back then (shotgun, rocket launcher, plasma gun etc. in every game), simplistic gameplay mechanics and static environments, no NPCs or stories etc.

This post has been edited by Mikko_Sandt: 19 January 2012 - 01:22 PM

-1

User is offline   thatguy 

#101

Gotta admit, no game does creative weapons like Insomniac Games with Resistance and the Rachet & Clank series. :unsure:
2

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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