[Damien_Azreal]

Kathy, on 18 March 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

That's a matter of taste really. I don't necessary see the problem with having Duke Nukem game ala, for example, Call Of Duty's gameplay and presentation. Sure, I won't like that kind of game, but the main problem would be in following a CoD's trend and not being different in style/gameplay/etc.

And I do agree in some ways.
The notion that people are trying to use "The new game doesn't have this thing the old game had, so it sucks" as a defense when trying to explain why a new game is bad... is laughable in a way.
Just because a "feature", gameplay mechanic... design.... was in an older game, doesn't mean it would work in a newer game.

And, I find it funny that when people are trying to explain or defend why a new entry/reboot sucks. It's because it's different.
It's not because it's broken, boring... got a terrible story, bad controls...
It's because it's different. It doesn't play like the original, it... looks different. The characters are different. It's hilarious. People scream that CoD sucks because it's nothing but the same thing over and over, but... when another series tries to reinvent itself... it's a bad thing because it's different.

I love the Devil May Cry series. And you know... DMC 2 uses a lot of the same features and gameplay mechanics of the first game, and guess what? It's fecking horrible. It's. A. Bad. Game.

With a new Duke game, I hope it's different. I hope they try to evolve the series. I don't want them to go the linear to a fault/on rails design of CoD. But, there's definitely room to some growth in Duke... and really, he needs it.
That's what Flying Wild Hog did with Shadow Warrior. They took the game and evolved it, they grew that character and game and made it better.

Jimmy, on 18 March 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

TTK is okay, but it's no where near as good as Zero Hour.

Agreed.
If there was a way to bring Zero Hour to PC... I'd be beyond thrilled. That game is great.

[Kathy]

Damien_Azreal, on 18 March 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

And, I find it funny that when people are trying to explain or defend why a new entry/reboot sucks. It's because it's different.
It's not because it's broken, boring... got a terrible story, bad controls...
It's because it's different. It doesn't play like the original, it... looks different. The characters are different. It's hilarious. People scream that CoD sucks because it's nothing but the same thing over and over, but... when another series tries to reinvent itself... it's a bad thing because it's different.

And they still have a point, they are explaining why they don't like the game. And if removal of specific feature annoy them then evaluate game based on that. I don't give a damn if Tomb Raider(2013) has fantastic game mechanics, story or whatever, I don't want to play Tomb Raider dressed as a cover-based violent shooter. That's not the aspect why I played previous entries in a series and rebooting it with emphasis on shooting people disgusts me.

[Damien_Azreal]

Yeah, they are trying to explain why they don't like the game. But are making the mistake of saying it's why the game sucks, and that no matter what someone tries to reply with... the game is still an insult to the series.
If they don't like the game, that's fine.
But, the game is not a slap in the face to the series, or an awful game just because it's different.

An opinion is fine, but when people try to back up their opinions and push them off as if they are objectively, subjectively... right... meh.

[xMobilemux]

How is Tomb Raider or DmC different? They've followed the dark and serious streamlined trend that every game is following these days.
You could put Uncharted and Tomb Raider side by side and there wouldn't be much difference.
Different in gaming is something we haven't seen before or seen in a long time, like have we seen the SW reboots kind of swordplay in a modern FPS before? Not that I know of.
Have we seen what Blood Dragon did in other games? Don't think so.

Metal Gear is a good example of what I'm trying to explain, Metal Gear is the franchise that did something truly different and in the right way, it went in an action spin off direction while not replacing the main series and at the same time gave us the Blade Mode and cut anything gameplay, that's new and different. It also became one of the replacements for Devil May Cry. Metal Gear itself is also moving forward and it's just getting bigger and better by adding MORE each game.

Tomb Raider 2013 is just Uncharted with a sex change and DmC is just DMC downgraded, Shadow Warrior 2013 however is the original SW moving forward.

You say you don't want Duke to become just like Call of Duty, when it's the same thing with Tomb Raider becoming just like Uncharted, Uncharted is like the Call of Duty of adventure games, Uncharted has had 3 games and really they haven't changed anything, all 3 games are more or less exactly the same, yet Tomb Raider becomes exactly the same as Uncharted and is hailed as an amazing and different game.
So really you'd be ok if Duke 5 becomes Call of Duty staring Duke Nukem just like you're ok with Tomb Raider becoming Uncharted staring Lara Croft...... or girl with the same name as Lara Croft cause that bitch ain't Lara Croft.

[necroslut]

A sequel/remake/prequel/"reboot"/whatever can have qualities and enjoyment value as a game while still being bad as a sequel/remake/...etc. If you don't respect what the original did and try to progress within those borders - which is usually possible - then it is disrespectful to primarly the original creator(s) and I would say also the fans. If you're just piggybacking on someone else's achievements and use brand recognition to sell whatever game you want to make, you should be ashamed because that's both lazy and low behaviour even if the game isn't crap. IMO this is what most remakes/reboots do, and claiming it's a "bold reimagining" or something like that doesn't change the fact that if you don't like it and want to continue in the set direction, stay the fuck away from it even if you have the legal right to do whatever you want.
I'm certainly not saying you should just repeat yourself like a sports series, there is almost always great room for improvement, expansion and new things without changing what made it good in the first place, and there's even more possibilities if you go the spin-off route. And if there isn't any remaining potential, why are you still interested in the IP?

[RunningWild]

Yause, on 16 March 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

My inclination is to judge each product on its own merits. One lacking in innovation can compensate with polish, and vice versa.

I never consider polish to be an acceptable replacement for quality gameplay. Afterall... There's a reason the original Apogee games were coveted. Not to mention that Mythbusters did prove you actually can polish a turd.

Damien_Azreal, on 18 March 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

And, I find it funny that when people are trying to explain or defend why a new entry/reboot sucks. It's because it's different.
It's not because it's broken, boring... got a terrible story, bad controls...
It's because it's different. It doesn't play like the original, it... looks different. The characters are different. It's hilarious. People scream that CoD sucks because it's nothing but the same thing over and over, but... when another series tries to reinvent itself... it's a bad thing because it's different.

No, it's because it's been dumbed down ad-reductionist-style for the masses due to needing to recoup larger budgets. When that's done to sufficient degree it ends up something like this :



A lot of classic gamers don't enjoy the insult to their intelligence by being lumped into a group of the typical modern trendy gamer. And frankly I don't blame them.

Damien_Azreal, on 18 March 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

Yeah, they are trying to explain why they don't like the game. But are making the mistake of saying it's why the game sucks, and that no matter what someone tries to reply with... the game is still an insult to the series.
If they don't like the game, that's fine.
But, the game is not a slap in the face to the series, or an awful game just because it's different.

An opinion is fine, but when people try to back up their opinions and push them off as if they are objectively, subjectively... right... meh.

Be careful. You're in danger of becoming a hypocrite.

[Micky C]

So to be on topic for a change about something that's actually relevant to 3DR, what are the odds that we can now get the XBLA Duke source code released? I'm sure there'd be a few interesting bits and pieces in there that some people would like to look at.

Btw I'm sick of people using SW 2013 as the ultimate example, perfect of how a reboot should be done. Sure it was a fun game and was a step forward in some aspects, it was also a step down in other areas. The shift from open areas to closed-off arena combat being the biggest one, which makes the gameplay overall more repetitive and with reduced replay value.

[necroslut]

Micky C, on 19 March 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

So to be on topic for a change about something that's actually relevant to 3DR, what are the odds that we can now get the XBLA Duke source code released? I'm sure there'd be a few interesting bits and pieces in there that some people would like to look at.

Btw I'm sick of people using SW 2013 as the ultimate example, perfect of how a reboot should be done. Sure it was a fun game and was a step forward in some aspects, it was also a step down in other areas. The shift from open areas to closed-off arena combat being the biggest one, which makes the gameplay overall more repetitive and with reduced replay value.

Totally agree, I really liked the game but it's really a big step back in replayability. I also disliked how they removed practically all ninja/tactical/stealth elements.
Could their unwillingness to release source code have had something to do with online cheaters? Though the biggest change in XBLA Duke was the rewind feature, which was a bad idea from the start IMO.

Anyway, since they (most likely) can't do Duke, I hope they try to do a Build style FPS with the advanced level design, inventory, inventive weapons etc. I've always felt Shadow Warrior '97 was a great Duke 3D sequel despite not having Duke.

[xMobilemux]

Shadow Warrior did take some steps back, but it's still the best modern reboot so far, then again that's not much of an achievement because as I said 2 pages back, Shadow Warrior is the one and only reboot that has actually taken some steps forward rather than dozens of steps back and no steps forward like every other reboot in this day and age. When all modern reboots take dozens of steps back and no steps forward, it's easy to think the one that actually bothers to take some steps forward is the best one.

Back on thread topic, something I'd like to see Interceptor and 3D Realms to do down the road is create their own engine. A lot of the big companies and even great indie developers have their own engines and create bitching things on them.
Capcom has the MT Framework, id has the id Tech, Croteam has the Serious Engine, Telltale has the Telltale Tool, Flying Wild Hog has the Road Hog Engine, Platinum Games has the Platinum Engine and Konami has the Fox Engine.
Yeah it won't be cheap, but it would be an awesome goal for them so they won't have to keep on using the Unreal engine for every single one of their games.

[necroslut]

Seeing that programming has been their weakest part sofar I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[RunningWild]

I don't really think their own engine would help much anyways. The style of the early Apogee games and the fun-factor had a lot to do with the quirkiness and simple but solid gameplay. The Build engine ones allowed for exploration which allowed you to see areas you could visit prior to figuring out how to get there, inducing a sense of wonder. Then, finding odd off-references to other games and trends as easter-eggs and funny one-liners added the humor value. Those aspects are what makes the Apogee/3D Realms games have a magic to them that other games do not.

[Tea Monster]

I really don't think they are going to be using the build engine after all these years.

[Damien_Azreal]

I don't think they have any coders or programmers talented enough to build their own property engine.

[Trebor_UK]

Damien_Azreal, on 23 March 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

I don't think they have any coders or programmers talented enough to build their own property engine.

DICE do, and all of their games are bugged beyond all belief.

[Tea Monster]

If they really wanted to, they could hire a talented member or two of the gaming community (the likes of Lord Havoc, Sikk etc) and lock them in a room with some piza and beer and they could mod the heck out of an open source engine and get something really cool at the end of the day.

Look at what has been done to mod the Doom 3 engine and Tesseract renderer for the Cube engine.

Heck, for $19 a month they can get the source code for Unreal Engine 4

[Lunick]

https://twitter.com/...511307809964033

[Frederik Schreiber]

Tea Monster, on 24 March 2014 - 03:57 AM, said:

If they really wanted to, they could hire a talented member or two of the gaming community (the likes of Lord Havoc, Sikk etc) and lock them in a room with some piza and beer and they could mod the heck out of an open source engine and get something really cool at the end of the day.

Look at what has been done to mod the Doom 3 engine and Tesseract renderer for the Cube engine.

Heck, for $19 a month they can get the source code for Unreal Engine 4

We are working with a few external projects, using homebuilt engines.
Really interesting area!

I can safely say that we're going to use UE4 for most of our future titles.
We have been working with the engine for a year now, and are impressed by it's features and brand new way of looking at pipelines.

Just to clarify - The $19 a month model, is only for PC/Mac. We are doing multi platform games, which means that the Indie-Friendly model isn't an option for us.
The new license model is a great initiative though. It's giving a brand new generation of game developers a shot with a heavy-weight engine
It's a huge step in a new future for Epic! I'm very excited about it!

Lunick, your emoticon doesn't seem to like the "New initiatives" tweet?
Thats too bad We are pretty excited about what we have in store for you guys.

[Lunick]

Frederik Schreiber, on 25 March 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Lunick, your emoticon doesn't seem to like the "New initiatives" tweet?

You know damn well know I don't like about that tweet

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Lunick, on 25 March 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

You know damn well know I don't like about that tweet

To analogize it, it's like saying "We're not going to call war 'war' anymore. Instead, we'll call it 'armed engagement.' Because it sounds less destructive."

[Ronin]

Frederik Schreiber, on 25 March 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

We are working with a few external projects, using homebuilt engines.
Really interesting area!

I can safely say that we're going to use UE4 for most of our future titles.
We have been working with the engine for a year now, and are impressed by it's features and brand new way of looking at pipelines.

Just to clarify - The $19 a month model, is only for PC/Mac. We are doing multi platform games, which means that the Indie-Friendly model isn't an option for us.
The new license model is a great initiative though. It's giving a brand new generation of game developers a shot with a heavy-weight engine
It's a huge step in a new future for Epic! I'm very excited about it!

Lunick, your emoticon doesn't seem to like the "New initiatives" tweet?
Thats too bad We are pretty excited about what we have in store for you guys.

You haven't earned the right to use "soon " as an expression like some legendary developer, as if millions of people out there are dying with anticipation like they were with DNF. While you are only being playful it can come across as patronising and arrogant, especially when shoved in the face of Duke fans.

[Frederik Schreiber]

It's a throwback to ROTT, where we used "Soon" literally. As in "You will get to play/see/download xyz in the very near future". WID had no scale or time related to it, which made it a bit frustrating at times.

That's the point of the "Soon" tweet, rather than WID.
It's something substantial, that's right around the corner

[Lunick]

Whenever you guys mentioned "soon" though, nothing would happen for months... I consider that quite a horrible throwback to ROTT.

[Micky C]

IMO "SOON" is worse than WID. WID is kind of like "relax guys we're working on it, you'll get it when it's ready" while SOON is pretty much the same thing plus "guess what it's right around the corner; it could be a few weeks or it could be a year, and we're not going to tell you which " which is definitely more annoying, since the product will always seem to be around the corner, leading to perpetual disappointment and frustration.

The SOON was definitely a fail for ROTT, since the game's release was delayed, and even then it was pretty buggy on release. If you're going to do a throwback, do a throwback to something good. I mean it wasn't even funny/cool the first time Dave said it.

[Tea Monster]

This is the Dukeiverse, where anything that takes less than 13 years to complete is considered to be 'Fast Tracked'.

[mpuone]

"Near future"-eh? I bet on Friday or Monday.

[Jimmy]

Tea Monster, on 25 March 2014 - 04:04 PM, said:

This is the Dukeiverse, where anything that takes less than 13 years to complete is considered to be 'Fast Tracked'.

"Going Down the Fastway" at 15 bpm.

[Person of Color]

FASTWAY is literally the only good thing about ROTT. Tom Hall accidentally the FPS game.

[RunningWild]

Tea Monster, on 23 March 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

I really don't think they are going to be using the build engine after all these years.

I never implied that they should. I simply cited the aspects of the engine for the games that people think of when they think of Apogee/3D Realms as a means of highlighting the aspects that would be important in their choice of engine.

The problem with large engines like Unreal is they're so cumbersome and wieldy that stepping up to their capabilities, especially in resource creation and its priority, that it often leaves lagging holes in the gameplay. The more capable the engine, the harder it is to make use of it all and the more inclined developers get in trying.

Creativity often comes more from constraints than unlimited resources.

[----]

RunningWild, on 27 March 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I never implied that they should. I simply cited the aspects of the engine for the games that people think of when they think of Apogee/3D Realms as a means of highlighting the aspects that would be important in their choice of engine.

The problem with large engines like Unreal is they're so cumbersome and wieldy that stepping up to their capabilities, especially in resource creation and its priority, that it often leaves lagging holes in the gameplay. The more capable the engine, the harder it is to make use of it all and the more inclined developers get in trying.

Creativity often comes more from constraints than unlimited resources.

UE3 is actually much easier and faster to produce with than Unity, IMHO. You for example can easily build BSP which is fully supported (with lightmap, all materials/shaders, etc ...) without PlugIns (like in Unity, which then have less integration than UE) and can easily build whole levels for gameplay testing without touching anything external. Then you only need a set dresser who decorates the levels.
The graphics and animations and shaders are a matter of the game itself you want to do, not the engine you use.

[RunningWild]

fuegerstef, on 28 March 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

UE3 is actually much easier and faster to produce with than Unity, IMHO. You for example can easily build BSP which is fully supported (with lightmap, all materials/shaders, etc ...) without PlugIns (like in Unity, which then have less integration than UE) and can easily build whole levels for gameplay testing without touching anything external. Then you only need a set dresser who decorates the levels.
The graphics and animations and shaders are a matter of the game itself you want to do, not the engine you use.

I wasn't so much judging the engines on ease as I was in terms of capabilities and the tendency to attempt at least to utilize them fully, leading to a lot of graphical bias.

Back when I was more actively involved in the coordination of the local IGDA chapter I saw this over and over again in projects, regardless of the engine; Unreal or Unity. But, especially in Unreal, students and game jam members had a tendency to try to utilize the engine to produce "pretty pictures" whilst forgetting that the aim is to make a game. On a broader scale I see game companies doing the same thing, so my response was an urge for Interceptor to not do that same thing.