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

Jump to content

Hide message Show message
Welcome to the Duke4.net Forums!

Register an account now to get access to all board features. After you've registered and logged in, you'll be able to create topics, post replies, send and receive private messages, disable the viewing of ads and more!

  • 17 Pages +
  • « First
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Duke Nukem

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#451

Different series/games are known for different things and require different approaches to a sequel. I don't think Wolfenstein: The New Order would have been sufficient as a Duke Nukem sequel.
0

User is offline   spessu_sb 

  • 65

#452

View Postaxl, on 09 August 2017 - 05:09 AM, said:

Hmmmm... Doom 4 was a very successful game and was no way near as revolutionary as the original Doom... There are lots of examples of succesful games that don't raise the bar in any way.

A new Duke game can be successful in many ways... it can be just a retro-kinda-like FPS where everything just works... (like the new Doom or Wolfenstein) or, it can, as you say, be a highly revolutionary game that raises the bar as much as Duke Nukem 3D did back in the day.... However, the latter seems, at least in my opinion, very difficult to achieve. What was the last truly revolutionary shooter? The only game that pops in my mind is Half-Life 2...


Most likely. HL2 is pretty much the last proper PC-designed FPS game. Afterwards everything was more or less made as multiplatform console-designed, heavily utilizing mechanics popularized by CoD 4.
1

User is offline   Adekis 

  • 8

#453

View Postspessu_sb, on 09 August 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

Most likely. HL2 is pretty much the last proper PC-designed FPS game. Afterwards everything was more or less made as multiplatform console-designed, heavily utilizing mechanics popularized by CoD 4.


Yeah, I honestly think that what enabled games to be revolutionary was improvements in technology. All that remains is optimizing pre-existing elements to a desired end. Duke should find the end it wants (preferably "fast-paced side-strafing alien-bashing key-card-hunting world-saving slaughter spree") and then pursue the means to that end. It doesn't have to be the greatest game ever made, but it does kind of have to go for the same audience as Doom and Wolfenstein.
0

User is offline   Altered Reality 

  • 150

#454

View Postspessu_sb, on 09 August 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

Most likely. HL2 is pretty much the last proper PC-designed FPS game. Afterwards everything was more or less made as multiplatform console-designed, heavily utilizing mechanics popularized by CoD 4.

What about the two Prey games? The 2006 game didn't have the two weapons limitation, and the use of portals and variable gravity was one of its strong points. The 2017 game, instead, is set in a persistent world you can freely explore, it has a high interactivity and ti confirms what I always said: the amount of things you can to in the game besides shooting is more important than the shooting itself.

If your brain tells you one thing and your heart tells you another, get rid of those silly doubts and listen to your brain.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#455

View PostAltered Reality, on 09 August 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

What about the two Prey games? The 2006 game didn't have the two weapons limitation, and the use of portals and variable gravity was one of its strong points. The 2017 game, instead, is set in a persistent world you can freely explore, it has a high interactivity and ti confirms what I always said: the amount of things you can to in the game besides shooting is more important than the shooting itself.

Prey 2006 was a badass FPS, Prey 2017 is a spiritual successor to System Shock... with bad shooting. A shooter should be about shooting, the depth comes from the many ways you can dispatch your enemies and that's why I did not get bored of Doom 2016 for 4 playthroughs and I still jump back in once in a while to check out the best SnapMap content.

Based on this I really think that the next Duke game should be based around a careful analysis of Duke 3D, other Build games and to a lesser extent DNF. What elements should be kept, what should be improved, what should be left out, etc.

For example what did DNF do right?

- Putting the pipebombs and trip mines to hotkeys: great feature, should be in the new Duke!
- Multiple types of pigcops where RPG cops and berserkers were good additions: should be in the new Duke!
- Tougher octabrains with telekinetic abilities: finally they have a purpose, should be in the new Duke!
- Physics: should be in the new Duke!
- Enemy specific one liners, "Take those tentacles back to Japan, you freak!" - should be in the new Duke!
- Some of the bossfights were more then just "circle strafing and shooting till it dies": should be in the new Duke!
- Better HoloDuke, better use of steroids, booze as an armor bonus: should be in the new Duke, just don't blur my vision please!
- Health is EGO, Duke gets EGO through interactivity, executions recharge EGO: should be in the new Duke, just don't make it regenerate and make me able to calculate my health better.

What did Duke 3D do right?

- Complex, not fully linear level design with many secret areas and key hunting: should be... okay, I'm bored of this sentence now.
- Destructible environmental objects, destructible walls: games stopped doing this nowadays somewhy so it could be a feature that feels fresh now.
- A nice big number of enemies.
- Simple but effective interactivity: Duke doesn't need badly designed minigames, Duke needs to say and do funny shit about a lot of things and just get back right into the action afterwards.
- Duke can carry all the weapons because he is the love child of Arnold and Sly.
- Duke's Might Footy instead of generic weapon melee.
- Music all the damn time: cool guys kill shit while listening to music, just make it dynamic instead of the old school looping stuff BUT I think that the idea of Duke really listening to music while killing aliens would be a cool thing to have. Give the guy a music player, a "jukebox" or a "DukeBox" with some licensed rock music or with remixes of classic Duke 3D tunes the player can optionally turn on and listen to.

What did other Build games do right? Personally I think Blood has some elements Duke could use, for example:

- The ability to dual wield certain weapons.
- Alternative firing modes for certain weapons.
- A new take on the traditional invulnerability powerup with reflective shots: explosives can still kill you but bullets are going back to their senders.
3

User is offline   spessu_sb 

  • 65

#456

View PostAltered Reality, on 09 August 2017 - 03:16 PM, said:

What about the two Prey games? The 2006 game didn't have the two weapons limitation, and the use of portals and variable gravity was one of its strong points. The 2017 game, instead, is set in a persistent world you can freely explore, it has a high interactivity and ti confirms what I always said: the amount of things you can to in the game besides shooting is more important than the shooting itself.

Prey 2006, I totally forgot about this. Personally I think it's a cool game but one does have to admit that it's not the same kinda pace game as HL2 is though. Doom 3, Quake 4, FEAR, Far Cry and Prey while imo all cool, still are much more slower style games than HL2. Also wasn't it said somewhere that Scott and George based the DNF end development on outcome of Prey? Supposedly it was their first console style design push and because it did well, they decided to adapt that into the DNF development aswell.

Prey 2017 I have no experience with and personally I think the game looks kinda very generic. It certainly wasn't made primarly for the PC that I do know about it.

View PostZaxx, on 09 August 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

Based on this I really think that the next Duke game should be based around a careful analysis of Duke 3D, other Build games and to a lesser extent DNF. What elements should be kept, what should be improved, what should be left out, etc.

For example what did DNF do right?

- Putting the pipebombs and trip mines to hotkeys: great feature, should be in the new Duke!
- Multiple types of pigcops where RPG cops and berserkers were good additions: should be in the new Duke!
- Tougher octabrains with telekinetic abilities: finally they have a purpose, should be in the new Duke!
- Physics: should be in the new Duke!
- Enemy specific one liners, "Take those tentacles back to Japan, you freak!" - should be in the new Duke!
- Some of the bossfights were more then just "circle strafing and shooting till it dies": should be in the new Duke!
- Better HoloDuke, better use of steroids, booze as an armor bonus: should be in the new Duke, just don't blur my vision please!
- Health is EGO, Duke gets EGO through interactivity, executions recharge EGO: should be in the new Duke, just don't make it regenerate and make me able to calculate my health better.

It most definitely needs to understand why Duke3D was so great and still is after all these years.

Hotkeys are PC-centric design, so yes.

I agree that the varied Pigcops is a good choice since it creates more different gameplay possibilties.

I agree that the Octas can be more than just the Duke3D ones which only can hurt on closecombat typically. Painkiller and Serious Sam 3 uses an enemy that hurts if it has direct sight to you for long enough time. I think octas could have something like this aswell as well as the "being able to throw environments objects at Duke" of DNF.

Physics is an obvious thing, it's a standard in todays games. We don't want to hold back natural evolution of technology but just the natural "evolution" of gimped gameplay, such as weaponlimit, regen health, aimdownsights slowing down gameplay..

Enemy specific one-liners go with the varied pigcop thing so I can agree with this.

Agreed on bossfights

I didn't really like how Stereoids now just were a complete ripoff of Doom's Berserker powerup pretty much. Stereoids should behave only as in Duke3D because speed is enough of powerup, plus it would help differentiate this game from the less original titles out there by being FAST.

Duke should also collect hp kits though because he's that big of a badass that he runs around killing everyone and carries a medkit which he heals himself with while in middle of combat, or by finding the occasional medicabin. Realism doesn't matter about why they heal him instantly. They heal him because its a better gameplay choice than full regen. But I too wanna see the original vision DNF EGO system being properly invented instead of just being turn into a cheap regen based thing.


View PostZaxx, on 09 August 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

What did Duke 3D do right?

- Complex, not fully linear level design with many secret areas and key hunting: should be... okay, I'm bored of this sentence now.
- Destructible environmental objects, destructible walls: games stopped doing this nowadays somewhy so it could be a feature that feels fresh now.
- A nice big number of enemies.
- Simple but effective interactivity: Duke doesn't need badly designed minigames, Duke needs to say and do funny shit about a lot of things and just get back right into the action afterwards.
- Duke can carry all the weapons because he is the love child of Arnold and Sly.
- Duke's Might Footy instead of generic weapon melee.
- Music all the damn time: cool guys kill shit while listening to music, just make it dynamic instead of the old school looping stuff BUT I think that the idea of Duke really listening to music while killing aliens would be a cool thing to have. Give the guy a music player, a "jukebox" or a "DukeBox" with some licensed rock music or with remixes of classic Duke 3D tunes the player can optionally turn on and listen to.

What did other Build games do right? Personally I think Blood has some elements Duke could use, for example:

- The ability to dual wield certain weapons.
- Alternative firing modes for certain weapons.
- A new take on the traditional invulnerability powerup with reflective shots: explosives can still kill you but bullets are going back to their senders.


Non-linear level design is a must because if you take that away from classic fps games, they don't necessarily even work that well afterwards either. The way they are built, really requires the actual map design where you do have to have navigational skills to proceed.

Destructible environment should be in, indeed.

Now here is where one needs to be extremely careful. It doesn't need huge number of enemies all the time because that's actually more of the nu-school design ála Painkiller and Serious Sam. I like to call these style games Horde Shooters just to seperate the style between Duke3D-like and Painkiller like because they aren't really that similar if we look at stuff like map design, individual enemy placed gameplay, level progression.. Horde Shooters focus on Hordes, while classic fps focused on multiple things.

Occasional Billiard/8Ball is fine imo but not over focus on minigames unless they are actually legitimately fun, which most of the stuff in DNF wasn't.

All weapons is a must because it's simply how classic fps works. I really don't understand why this industry thinks theres only room for one type of design (until Doom 4 and Quake Champions came) which is ofcourse the weaponlimit design.

Mighty Boot is a must

I prefer the old constantly looping music but I'm fine with other options aswell.

This post has been edited by spessu_sb: 11 August 2017 - 03:26 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#457

View Postspessu_sb, on 11 August 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

I didn't really like how Stereoids now just were a complete ripoff of Doom's Berserker powerup pretty much. Stereoids should behave only as in Duke3D because speed is enough of powerup, plus it would help differentiate this game from the less original titles out there by being FAST.

Honestly I don't really see the point of Duke 3D steroids in a more modern design (admittedly steroids were designed for multiplayer even in Duke 3D): I never really used them because the running speed was more than enough compared to how slow enemies were. Movement speed needs to be fast, sure but I think it helps balance and gameplay too if you're fast all the damn time instead of having to rely on a powerup. Steroids being a version of Doom's berserk really fits Duke I think.

Quote

Duke should also collect hp kits though because he's that big of a badass that he runs around killing everyone and carries a medkit which he heals himself with while in middle of combat, or by finding the occasional medicabin. Realism doesn't matter about why they heal him instantly. They heal him because its a better gameplay choice than full regen. But I too wanna see the original vision DNF EGO system being properly invented instead of just being turn into a cheap regen based thing.

Oh yeah, the medkit you can carry with you is a really Duke thing to have but anyway yes, an inventory of special items is a must.

Quote

Non-linear level design is a must because if you take that away from classic fps games, they don't necessarily even work that well afterwards either. The way they are built, really requires the actual map design where you do have to have navigational skills to proceed.

When I said "complex, not fully linear level design" I basically meant Duke 3D level design. It my be only me but I don't like to call old school FPS level design non-linear because essentially that's a linear level design, you just have freedom in getting from point A to point B. A corridor shooter is something Duke should never be, this is the thing that bothered me the most in DNF.

Quote

Now here is where one needs to be extremely careful. It doesn't need huge number of enemies all the time because that's actually more of the nu-school design ála Painkiller and Serious Sam. I like to call these style games Horde Shooters just to seperate the style between Duke3D-like and Painkiller like because they aren't really that similar if we look at stuff like map design, individual enemy placed gameplay, level progression.. Horde Shooters focus on Hordes, while classic fps focused on multiple things.

I agree, my comparison was based on DNF where you very rarely fought more than 3 enemies at a time. Anyway I'm not against locked down arenas if they are something like how Doom 2016 did things: the arenas were huge and environmentally interesting (lots of hidden powerups, a large focus on verticality etc.), it's an element that can add variety to the game design. Just don't use them too much. :D

But back to the enemy numbers: honestly the ideal number depends on the enemy design. In Doom 2016 you never really fought a very huge number of enemies but on the other hand enemies were fast, smart and their attacks were varied. I think that type of design would be ideal, the one thing I'd change is adding a different type of throwaway monsters: the zombies in Doom 2016 were just useless, they were basically health dispensers which is fine but I think they should have used a bit more potent but still very weak enemy type.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 11 August 2017 - 06:09 AM

2

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#458

View Postspessu_sb, on 11 August 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

Prey 2006, I totally forgot about this. Personally I think it's a cool game but one does have to admit that it's not the same kinda pace game as HL2 is though. Doom 3, Quake 4, FEAR, Far Cry and Prey while imo all cool, still are much more slower style games than HL2. Also wasn't it said somewhere that Scott and George based the DNF end development on outcome of Prey? Supposedly it was their first console style design push and because it did well, they decided to adapt that into the DNF development aswell.

What they learned was that, at the time, the money was on consoles. It wasn't so much a preference as a perceived necessity.

Quote

I agree that the varied Pigcops is a good choice since it creates more different gameplay possibilties.

I would argue this is bad game design. Different enemies should be easy to tell apart both from a distance and at a quick glance, in order to allow the player to handle them correctly. This ties in with the old-school weapon balancing etc also. The enemies in Duke 3D all have distinct colors, shapes, sounds and movements, allowing the player to be prepared to handle them.
If you want to have more mutant enemies, spin-offs like Manhattan Project, Land of the Babes and Duke Xtreme had other mutants which were similar but had different looks, making them stand out more from each other.

DNF's pig variants were, IMO, too similar, even though the RPG pigs were larger. The muted color palette also added to this being something of an issue.

Quote

Agreed on bossfights

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with classic style pattern-avoid-bossfights. Some DNF bosses,like the Queen, were a bit too gimmicky to be much fun replaying IMO. Others, like the Battlelord, didn't really have anything modern about them other than shoehorned-in fatality prompts and immunity to bullets.

Quote

I didn't really like how Stereoids now just were a complete ripoff of Doom's Berserker powerup pretty much. Stereoids should behave only as in Duke3D because speed is enough of powerup, plus it would help differentiate this game from the less original titles out there by being FAST.

Steroids already made you stronger in Duke 3D - kicking while on steroids does something like 3x the damage. The reason why you're locked to fists while on steroids in DNF probably has something to do with controllers and that the fists aren't equip-able normally.

Quote

Duke should also collect hp kits though because he's that big of a badass that he runs around killing everyone and carries a medkit which he heals himself with while in middle of combat, or by finding the occasional medicabin. Realism doesn't matter about why they heal him instantly. They heal him because its a better gameplay choice than full regen. But I too wanna see the original vision DNF EGO system being properly invented instead of just being turn into a cheap regen based thing.

I thought it worked pretty well in Manhattan Project and Land of the Babes, where your main source of health was pickups, but you were given a small amount (5 points or so, less than to recover from even one hit) for killing enemies. This was a good system, IMO, as it allows some additional leeway and prevents the player from getting into unwinnable scenarios, rewarding taking risks (if you play skillfully), while at the same time avoiding to take away the consequences of mistakes.
Recharging health, on the other hand, rewards cowardice or completely removes risk and tension, depending on the situation.

As for the portable medkit-style item, I wouldn't mind if it was slower to use. That would make it somewhat more tactical, rather than just serve as an additional health pool. The Predator's healing kit in AvP 1999 was very cool. I think this didn't work well for the beer or steroids in DNF, but those are items that really should be used in the heat of combat. The medkit becomes somewhat cheap if used like that, IMO.

Quote

Now here is where one needs to be extremely careful. It doesn't need huge number of enemies all the time because that's actually more of the nu-school design ála Painkiller and Serious Sam. I like to call these style games Horde Shooters just to seperate the style between Duke3D-like and Painkiller like because they aren't really that similar if we look at stuff like map design, individual enemy placed gameplay, level progression.. Horde Shooters focus on Hordes, while classic fps focused on multiple things.

I'm not entirely sure whether Zaxx meant huge encounters with many enemies at the same time, or a cast of a large number of different enemies (edit: he clarified while I wrote this). If the latter, I absolutely disagree with him, because having a small but varied and easily identifiable is a staple of old school design. Pouring tons of mostly similar enemies (or weapons) into a game does little more than muddy it and make it more difficult (in the bad sense) to play.

If he meant huge encounters, I agree with you. That was never a part of this style of game, although more than three at a time every once in a while would be nice.

Quote

Occasional Billiard/8Ball is fine imo but not over focus on minigames unless they are actually legitimately fun, which most of the stuff in DNF wasn't.

I think we would have liked the minigames far more if the game actually had come out on time and been less over-hyped. I think somewhat advanced interactivity actually goes hand-in-hand with the level design in making the levels a place rather than just a setting. Though, of course, don't spend the whole budget on it.


View PostZaxx, on 11 August 2017 - 06:07 AM, said:

When I said "complex, not fully linear level design" I basically meant Duke 3D level design. It my be only me but I don't like to call old school FPS level design non-linear because essentially that's a linear level design, you just have freedom in getting from point A to point B. A corridor shooter is something Duke should never be, this is the thing that bothered me the most in DNF.

I agree here. I understand what people mean by "non-linear", even though it wasn't really. Sandbox/open world style levels, like some fans have requested, isn't at all the same thing and would recapture the magic for me at all. Most importantly, I think, - and this goes with the openness - it that the levels were places. Places you had to explore and understand, and places you could experience. The way they were mostly self-contained and looped around made them easier to grasp and navigate.

Quote

I agree, my comparison was based on DNF where you very rarely fought more than 3 enemies at a time. Anyway I'm not against locked down arenas if they are something like how Doom 2016 did things: the arenas were huge and environmentally interesting (lots of hidden powerups, a large focus on verticality etc.), it's an element that can add variety to the game design. Just don't use them too much. :D

I think arena encounters generally doesn't fit in Duke because it goes against the level design, which allows you to explore and take different approaches. It fit in Doom 4, but Doom 4 would have been a bad Duke game.

Quote

But back to the enemy numbers: honestly the ideal number depends on the enemy design. In Doom 2016 you never really fought a very huge number of enemies but on the other hand enemies were fast, smart and their attacks were varied. I think that type of design would be ideal, the one thing I'd change is adding a different type of throwaway monsters: the zombies in Doom 2016 were just useless, they were basically health dispensers which is fine but I think they should have used a bit more potent but still very weak enemy type.

I think the assault troopers in Duke 3D worked real well as a low-tier enemy. They could do a bit of damage, but their laser projectiles were possible - and relatively easy - to dodge, which still made them interesting to fight. Their flying capability could have made them annoying, since flying enemies can be tough to hit or avoid, but their low health pool meant you didn't have to hit them too many times.

This post has been edited by necroslut: 11 August 2017 - 07:22 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#459

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I would argue this is bad game design. Different enemies should be easy to tell apart both from a distance and at a quick glance, in order to allow the player to handle them correctly. This ties in with the old-school weapon balancing etc also. The enemies in Duke 3D all have distinct colors, shapes, sounds and movements, allowing the player to be prepared to handle them.

I singled out the berserkers and RPG pigcops for this reason actually. Berserkers were very easy to identifiy because of their behaviour and animations and RPG cops were larger and usually armored too making them stick out more. The ones with dual pistols were kinda useless and wonky, I'd throw those out.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#460

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Doom 4 would have been a bad Duke game.

I somewhat agree but trust me, I'd been very happy with a game like that instead of DNF. :D

I don't think arenas are the reason Doom 2016 would not be a truly great Duke game however because 90% of the arenas Doom 2016 had would actually fit the Duke design (Painkiller or Serious Sam arenas wouldn't, that's a given). What would bother me in a Duke game is the absolute lack of hitscan enemies: this works really well in Doom because even in the old game the hitscan based enemies missed a lot of shots (though Romero's new E1 map hw released last year made me fear them a lot, it was a very interesting take on Doom level design) but Duke is a bit more tactical and slower paced than Doom. Duke sometimes has to use cover to avoid hitscan based attacks and those situations provide you with a lot of opportunities to use pipe bombs well so basically a good Duke game needs hitscan. Not all the time, but it needs it.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 11 August 2017 - 07:40 AM

0

User is offline   spessu_sb 

  • 65

#461

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I would argue this is bad game design. Different enemies should be easy to tell apart both from a distance and at a quick glance, in order to allow the player to handle them correctly. This ties in with the old-school weapon balancing etc also. The enemies in Duke 3D all have distinct colors, shapes, sounds and movements, allowing the player to be prepared to handle them.
If you want to have more mutant enemies, spin-offs like Manhattan Project, Land of the Babes and Duke Xtreme had other mutants which were similar but had different looks, making them stand out more from each other.

DNF's pig variants were, IMO, too similar, even though the RPG pigs were larger. The muted color palette also added to this being something of an issue.

I totally get your point on this and I actually never liked the way how there is no color coding in DNF, because all are basically just a different degree of grey. When initially playing, it can create quite alot of confusion about what enemy is what and what do they do.. But this is one of the "We don't want to hold back natural evolution of technology..". Would it really change gameplay too much if a pigcop were able to go berserk rage mode too (travelling fast running and jumping towards the player) as opposed to being only slow and with the shotgun? I think if done properly, this kinda change can very much enhance the classic fps gameplay without changing the core experience.

I think the bigger pigcops were indeed not that useful because they were essentially the same enemy but with just different stats and that's just quantity over quality. But I'm talking about normal pigcop being able to forexample go berserk mode or maybe even climb small boxes/obstacles so that the player cant just cheaply develop some exploitive tactic and take advantage of their primitive AI like that. Aka, natural evolution of tech pretty much.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with classic style pattern-avoid-bossfights. Some DNF bosses,like the Queen, were a bit too gimmicky to be much fun replaying IMO. Others, like the Battlelord, didn't really have anything modern about them other than shoehorned-in fatality prompts and immunity to bullets.

I guess I should have been more precise here. I didn't really like the Queen forexample or the fact that you could kill bosses only with explosives but I think the original Battlelord on the otherhand was somewhat good change because it traveled relatively fast so you couldn't actually circlestrafe it. So you had to utilize the pillar in the middle to evade from the monster. This did change the way this fight carried out compared to Cycloid Emperror.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Steroids already made you stronger in Duke 3D - kicking while on steroids does something like 3x the damage. The reason why you're locked to fists while on steroids in DNF probably has something to do with controllers and that the fists aren't equip-able normally.

I actually didn't know about Stereoids affecting your damage amount aswell if kicking. So thats interesting.

I think the stereoids shouldn't be a Doom berserk powerup though.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I thought it worked pretty well in Manhattan Project and Land of the Babes, where your main source of health was pickups, but you were given a small amount (5 points or so, less than to recover from even one hit) for killing enemies. This was a good system, IMO, as it allows some additional leeway and prevents the player from getting into unwinnable scenarios, rewarding taking risks (if you play skillfully), while at the same time avoiding to take away the consequences of mistakes.
Recharging health, on the other hand, rewards cowardice or completely removes risk and tension, depending on the situation.

MP LotB are ones I've played less or at all. MP I've finished once years ago and Land of the Babes I've never completed since I've never owned that one. Played only very low amount. Stuff like 1point per kill sounds reasonable though, also possibly the system DNF was originally gunning for?

Regen health afaic, is complete bs in an Duke Nukem game.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

As for the portable medkit-style item, I wouldn't mind if it was slower to use. That would make it somewhat more tactical, rather than just serve as an additional health pool. The Predator's healing kit in AvP 1999 was very cool. I think this didn't work well for the beer or steroids in DNF, but those are items that really should be used in the heat of combat. The medkit becomes somewhat cheap if used like that, IMO.

Yeah perhaps a slight cooldown time on the hp applying for the same sense as pigcops that support berserk modes, more varied gameplay and natural evolution of tech.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I'm not entirely sure whether Zaxx meant huge encounters with many enemies at the same time, or a cast of a large number of different enemies (edit: he clarified while I wrote this). If the latter, I absolutely disagree with him, because having a small but varied and easily identifiable is a staple of old school design. Pouring tons of mostly similar enemies (or weapons) into a game does little more than muddy it and make it more difficult (in the bad sense) to play.

If he meant huge encounters, I agree with you. That was never a part of this style of game, although more than three at a time every once in a while would be nice.

I think that an classic fps game should have indeed a fairly low amount of overall different types of enemies in the game but the actual enemies should do now more than they did 20years ago because that is such innovation that doesn't get in the way of classic fps but only goes to enhance it. Such example is the pigcop berserk mode.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I think we would have liked the minigames far more if the game actually had come out on time and been less over-hyped. I think somewhat advanced interactivity actually goes hand-in-hand with the level design in making the levels a place rather than just a setting. Though, of course, don't spend the whole budget on it.

I'm not sure if even had DNF been the 2001 DNF and had it included the 2011 DNF pinball physics that I would still have any reason to have liked such minigame. The minigames in DNF most just were borderline of plain broken or just dull/annoying. Throw basketball into the hoop once (with those basketball physics..) and never again do it or forexample use the weights once and never do that again either.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I agree here. I understand what people mean by "non-linear", even though it wasn't really. Sandbox/open world style levels, like some fans have requested, isn't at all the same thing and would recapture the magic for me at all. Most importantly, I think, - and this goes with the openness - it that the levels were places. Places you had to explore and understand, and places you could experience. The way they were mostly self-contained and looped around made them easier to grasp and navigate.

I think arena encounters generally doesn't fit in Duke because it goes against the level design, which allows you to explore and take different approaches. It fit in Doom 4, but Doom 4 would have been a bad Duke game.

Imo something is non-linear if you forexample have multiple T junctions and thus overall multiple paths to B from A. on l1m1 alone already you have choice. You can go in to the theater by getting the rpg and blowing up the wall. You can go into the theater through the backdoor entrance. Or you can go take the stereoids, jump accross from the window to the otherside of street and proceed from there to exit. 3 choices as opposed to to just one. Later levels can be complex to navigate for some.

Non-linear is just what it says, non linear, meaning you have other options aswell instead of just having to go forward in a pipe-like level layout. I don't see how something isn't non-linear if you literally have multiple ways to go and even multiple routes to same place?

Agreed that openworld wouldn't be at all the same. I really don't see whats the big fuzz about whole openworld thing since usually all the openworlds are just bunch of empty space that doesn't really have anything cool in it. Far Cry 2, Fallout 3 or Blood Dragon are great examples. Blood Dragon has awesome scenary in the places that are part of the story but if you go explore random caves or stuff like that, theyre just bunch of empty caves with nothing interesting to offer.

I would despise a Duke game to have Doom 4 like locked arena gameplay of Painkiller/Serious Sam since that kinda gameplay is so boring and repeative.

View Postnecroslut, on 11 August 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

I think the assault troopers in Duke 3D worked real well as a low-tier enemy. They could do a bit of damage, but their laser projectiles were possible - and relatively easy - to dodge, which still made them interesting to fight. Their flying capability could have made them annoying, since flying enemies can be tough to hit or avoid, but their low health pool meant you didn't have to hit them too many times.

Assault troopers are a very well fitting enemy for different situations indeed. Sure they can fly and even teleport around but the flying forexmaple.. they aren't too fast and teleporting is more random and they never go to any great distance from you when doing so.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#462

View Postspessu_sb, on 11 August 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I totally get your point on this and I actually never liked the way how there is no color coding in DNF, because all are basically just a different degree of grey. When initially playing, it can create quite alot of confusion about what enemy is what and what do they do.. But this is one of the "We don't want to hold back natural evolution of technology..". Would it really change gameplay too much if a pigcop were able to go berserk rage mode too (travelling fast running and jumping towards the player) as opposed to being only slow and with the shotgun? I think if done properly, this kinda change can very much enhance the classic fps gameplay without changing the core experience.

I don't think differentiating between multiple types of pigcops would be hard to make easy for the player. Berserkers could be shirtless (like they are in DNF but some of the other ones appear shirtless too, that's the problem) or their body could just turn red when they are enraged for example as a way to notify the player of the immediate threat. Sound design is great these days too so they could roar and stuff too.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 11 August 2017 - 09:46 AM

0

User is online   Commando Nukem 

  • Judge Mental
  • 1,951

#463

Easy enough to make them distinct in a naturalistic way.

Normal pig cops are in tactical armor/blue police uniforms, bezerkers are shirtless with blood smeared on their chest and mouth. Like a feral version. Distinction being blue vs red. Easy. Now you get two distinct variations of the same creature and they are easily identifiable. Standard pigs could also move at more shambling pace like their Duke3D counterparts, while the bezerkers are charging and rampaging around the place.

Duke Nukem The Series onYoutube Facebook and Duke4net!
Come Get Some!
0

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#464

View PostCommando Nukem, on 13 August 2017 - 10:26 PM, said:

Easy enough to make them distinct in a naturalistic way.

Normal pig cops are in tactical armor/blue police uniforms, bezerkers are shirtless with blood smeared on their chest and mouth. Like a feral version. Distinction being blue vs red. Easy. Now you get two distinct variations of the same creature and they are easily identifiable. Standard pigs could also move at more shambling pace like their Duke3D counterparts, while the bezerkers are charging and rampaging around the place.

Color variations are much less visible in dark areas though, or with colored lights, or under water, or any other situation where something messes with the colors. Which is why differences in shape and body language is also useful.
I don't even see the need to have half the enemies be variations of pig cops - that was never a staple in the Duke series before. Duke II had a ton of different enemies, all very distinct. That is more interesting to me anyway than a dozen different pig cop variations.

I don't think it makes sense from a "realism" point of view even - why would the aliens only use pigs for mutation purposes? Give me the entire TMNT villain lineup instead. --

This post has been edited by necroslut: 13 August 2017 - 11:57 PM

0

User is offline   Flesh420 

  • 17

#465

View PostAltered Reality, on 09 August 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

He is perfectly right. We'll have to see if he is capable to live up to his promises, but what he says is correct. That was the ONLY reason why Duke Nukem 3D was so successful. For the first time, the protagonist of an FPS made sarcastic quips, insulted the enemies he killed, blew up inanimate objects, he could swim, he could fly and he moved in a world that was way more interactive than anything that was ever done.
In order for a new Duke game to be successful as well, it must raise the bar as much as Duke Nukem 3D did back in the day.

Doom 4 did not "go back to the roots" in the sense that it was a completely nostalgic throwback. It removed the LIMITATIONS that appeared again and again in modern games (corridor levels, weapon limit) and introduced new mechanics to the series (finishers, weapon upgrades). It even gave an in-universe explanation for everything that happened, to increase the immersion and give the player a reason to "be there".


The reason Doom made such a splash in '93 was because of the new leap in GFX. I've watched dozens of blind streams of Doom '16 and not a single person gives two shits as to why they're killing demons. Id took the basic combat and turned it into something that's infinitely replayable.
About the only thing Duke could do that would be of '93 Doom's equivalent would be VR, and there's simply not yet a big enough market. There isn't anything that hasn't been done in shooters today. We're past the point of creating something new, unless it's in VR. The market is littered with shit shooters and Duke could easily ride off the back draft of Doom '16 by doing everything he did in '96. There still isn't a game like Duke3d. He could easily come back using the strengths of solid game design of '96 with a modern twist. Instead of holding back for consoles like Doom '16 did he could push forward as PC king (and Console king with solid vision of the developer). It would require considerable monetary risk, but it could work if the game is developed correctly and marketed right. He could be the reason a person would want to get into PC gaming.

Or maybe this is all just wishful thinking.

This post has been edited by Flesh420: 14 August 2017 - 12:33 AM

1

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#466

View PostFlesh420, on 14 August 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

The reason Doom made such a splash in '93 was because of the new leap in GFX. I've watched dozens of blind streams of Doom '16 and not a single person gives two shits as to why they're killing demons. Id took the basic combat and turned it into something that's infinitely replayable.
About the only thing Duke could do that would be of '93 Doom's equivalent would be VR, and there's simply not yet a big enough market. There isn't anything that hasn't been done in shooters today. We're past the point of creating something new, unless it's in VR. The market is littered with shit shooters and Duke could easily ride off the back draft of Doom '16 by doing everything he did in '96. There still isn't a game like Duke3d. He could easily come back using the strengths of solid game design of '96 with a modern twist. Instead of holding back for consoles like Doom '16 did he could push forward as PC king (and Console king with solid vision of the developer). It would require considerable monetary risk, but it could work if the game is developed correctly and marketed right. He could be the reason a person would want to get into PC gaming.

Or maybe this is all just wishful thinking.

I think it is honestly: I see only one franchise that could get by with a PC exclusive sequel and that's Half-Life. HL has no missteps in its history, it's hailed as one of the holy grails of game design, both games in the series were made as PC shooters and it has the backing of Valve who became the demigods of the PC market through Steam. I really think you need all that if you want to produce a very high budget project only on PC.

Gearbox is lacking in this regard and most of their audience is on consoles.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 14 August 2017 - 01:32 AM

0

User is offline   spessu_sb 

  • 65

#467

View PostFlesh420, on 14 August 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

The reason Doom made such a splash in '93 was because of the new leap in GFX. I've watched dozens of blind streams of Doom '16 and not a single person gives two shits as to why they're killing demons. Id took the basic combat and turned it into something that's infinitely replayable.
About the only thing Duke could do that would be of '93 Doom's equivalent would be VR, and there's simply not yet a big enough market. There isn't anything that hasn't been done in shooters today. We're past the point of creating something new, unless it's in VR. The market is littered with shit shooters and Duke could easily ride off the back draft of Doom '16 by doing everything he did in '96. There still isn't a game like Duke3d. He could easily come back using the strengths of solid game design of '96 with a modern twist. Instead of holding back for consoles like Doom '16 did he could push forward as PC king (and Console king with solid vision of the developer). It would require considerable monetary risk, but it could work if the game is developed correctly and marketed right. He could be the reason a person would want to get into PC gaming.

Or maybe this is all just wishful thinking.

Doom 4 indeed did show alot of console design choices in it. Such as "why cant we carry all guns in mp?" because pace would get too frantic to play on an controller since it would be unfair if online play supported the time slowingdown weaponwheel mechanic. Glorykill walking healthbubble design instead of the game relying on non-linear level design and fully level based health pickups. They figured it's safer to have the enemies give you health instead. So that it's not necessary to really explore the maps if you don't want to. In Duke3D etc it was necessary to explore because in the words of TB, "exploring the levels was directly tied into your survival" especially on harder difficulty levels.

Doom 4 also had the floaty movement and hangtime jumping. Doom 4 jump compared to Duke3D, Doom 3 or HL2 jump, clearly will show that it was designed so that the player would have more time to make a decision while in the air. Like in Halo series. Lack of editor also somewhat hints to consoles eventhough I know it also involves megatextures and how they aren't ideal for your average modder. However their E3 speak was kinda misleading as they talked about the modding of past Doom games and then went and presented the SnapMap "un-compromizing depth and capabilities.." You can even clearly see that the foundry map was made un-necessarily linear compared to the E3 demonstration. There were added some additional locked doors to help not getting lot.

Duke Nukem needs to be an un-appologetic true PC fps game because there is still market for such. Everyday I see some people talking about how there isn't really anything offered anymore that would be like Duke3D or the Classic Dooms, because those new Shadow Warriors and Serious Sam games simply ain't the same thing. Their level design is either completely openworld (Shadow Warrior 2) or linear (Serious Sam) but never non-linear where it's possible to get lost, go circles around same places.. aka having to actually think to survive.
Something I've noticed devs now use in these AAA "old-school" games where in the automap screen they really want to create the illusion that levels are actually more than 1-way roads. If you look at the Wolfenstein 2014 maps and Doom 4 maps, you may notice that there have been actually linear segments put right next to eachother and the trick this.. these parts are on different floors lol. So when you see it from topdown view, it may look non-linear but there never really is multiple connecting paths to location B from location A. Like in this automap from the Nazi castle attack.

Posted Image

Sure it kinda looks nice but really it progresses completely in a linear way. For you to get back from that exclamation mark place to the farthest of leftside.. you would literally have to walk all the way that you see the map parts connecting. No multiple connecting paths there aside from some really minor cases like going up stairs instead of using a "secret" passage thats glows yellow behind a painting.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#468

View Postspessu_sb, on 14 August 2017 - 02:57 AM, said:

Doom 4 indeed did show alot of console design choices in it. Such as "why cant we carry all guns in mp?" because pace would get too frantic to play on an controller since it would be unfair if online play supported the time slowingdown weaponwheel mechanic.

It looks like you did not try playing Doom 2016 with a controller so I'll tell you how it goes: pretty well actually. The weapon wheel is basically optional because you can use it "blindly" by putting in the button and direction combination for the weapon you want very quickly. The game was designed for allowing this so if you do it this way the weapon wheel doesn't appear and it won't slow down time. I don't remember the exact buttons now but let's say you switch to the shotgun by holding RB and then moving the right stick to the left in order to select the weapon icon. If you memorize that and know where the weapon is then you can do this combination in a split second, you just switch to the shotgun and never see the weapon wheel.

I'm not used to playing FPS with a controller but I played a few hours of Doom just to test how it works and it's basically perfect, compared to how other FPS games handle on consoles you can really feel that the guys at id did everything in their power to fine tune the whole thing. Basically if a current gen controller meets up with good game designers and a 60 fps framerate you can have an experience that is 90% of what you'd get on the PC. It's simply not an issue anymore, controllers have come a long way so I think the multiplayer had loadouts and weapon limits simply because Bethesda wanted to play it safe.

I also don't agree with what you think about the jumping: sure, it was an intentional design choice but keep in mind that the game has a lot of verticality and general platforming. Platforming in an FPS is the worst but Doom changed that by adding the grappling mechanic along with jumping that is easier to calculate. It worked out really well, platforming in Doom is smooth as silk, I never missed a jump.

And yeah, a lot of people did not like SnapMap but at the end, after all the updates the system got it's clear that id won even there: there are more good player created content for the game after just a year than what we've seen for Doom 3 in 10 years. When it comes to mapping modding is dead in the water for today's technically complex games, partially that's the reason why you see so many new content dropping for old games like Doom 2 or Duke 3D even these days. Id reacted well to this change but I hope that the next Doom's SnapMap will be more extensive because the potential is clearly gargantuan.

But to get back to the whole PC vs. console thing: I just don't think it matters anymore. You can create a game that uses modern PCs to their full potential but then you'd get something like Crysis: a giant flop because the majority of the audience simply won't be able to run the game. What did that got CryTek? Sure, the game was hailed as a technological masterpiece but it was way less open than Far Cry because those graphics had a price, the game took off after such a long time when it comes to sales that by that period CryTek was already designing the sequel with consoles in mind, etc. The point is that there will always be a limitation you have to keep in mind. Half-Life 2 sold exceptionally well not only because it was the sequel to a very popular game but also because it simply ran on everything. If you want to make a successful PC exclusive game your market is not the high end but rather the mid range. The idea that shooters would be better if they were designed exclusively to PC held some water 10 years ago (not because of hardware limitations but because of the controllers) but these days it's nothing more than a myth.

On the other hand consoles are important and they were important even if you look back to those precious "PC-only" FPS games. Doom 1 was ported to everything and arguably it would not have changed the video game industry if it hadn't been (some console ports of the game were done by Carmack himself). Just like in the case of Duke 3D the PSX version of Doom has become a classic because a lot of people did not have access to PCs that could play those games so they spent their money on the console versions.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 14 August 2017 - 04:52 AM

-1

User is offline   axl 

  • 69

#469

Apart from the discussions here, there's one more very important element that, in my opinion, makes Duke Nukem 3D such a strong title and that is its level variety. There's just no FPS around there that made you visit such a large variety of levels: cinema's, stripclubs, prisons, military facilities, factories, submarines, space stations, the moon, banks, flooded cities, sewers, football fields, theme parks, restaurants, canyons, movie sets, metro stations, police stations, ...

Its level variety makes it stands above titles as Doom and Quake and even its fellow build titles who were more restricted to one or a few themes (Blood, Shadow Warrior and Redneck Rampage).

A new Duke Nukem game should definitely incorporate a wide diversity of levels.
3

User is offline   spessu_sb 

  • 65

#470

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

snip

I must say that I pretty much whole heartedly disagree but I will try to break it down why.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

It looks like you did not try playing Doom 2016 with a controller so I'll tell you how it goes: pretty well actually. The weapon wheel is basically optional because you can use it "blindly" by putting in the button and direction combination for the weapon you want very quickly. The game was designed for allowing this so if you do it this way the weapon wheel doesn't appear and it won't slow down time. I don't remember the exact buttons now but let's say you switch to the shotgun by holding RB and then moving the right stick to the left in order to select the weapon icon. If you memorize that and know where the weapon is then you can do this combination in a split second, you just switch to the shotgun and never see the weapon wheel.
Youre right, I haven't tested it with a controller but that is pretty much irrelevant. It working on controller proves nothing, because that's exactly what I said about the game "it's been designed very much consoles as primary focus" so.. ofc it will work with a controller? The thing is that you cannot handle classic PC fps flawless on an controller because it's just simply the way how this input device was never designed for this sort gameplay. Believe me.. if the multiplayer were to have had no weaponlimit, some people would have complained about the complexity of it. It is completely different to compare your own pace acted singleplayer to an realtime online multiplayer with other real humanbeings. It wouldn't be that easy to handle multiple different weapons per situation in an deathmatch game on a pad.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

I'm not used to playing FPS with a controller but I played a few hours of Doom just to test how it works and it's basically perfect, compared to how other FPS games handle on consoles you can really feel that the guys at id did everything in their power to fine tune the whole thing. Basically if a current gen controller meets up with good game designers and a 60 fps framerate you can have an experience that is 90% of what you'd get on the PC. It's simply not an issue anymore, controllers have come a long way so I think the multiplayer had loadouts and weapon limits simply because Bethesda wanted to play it safe.
Whenever you go and watch real esports competitions of CSGO/Quake on PC and compare the fluidity of aim and movement to console version esports of Halo or Call of Duty.. you will notice that the gameplay is always clumsier on the console. This is no hate, it's just the way your arm can do more precice movements (bigger) with a mouse than what thumbs can with analog sticks. It's just the difference of these input devices. And whenever you're gonna make an entire game that will be fully functional on the pad, you will witheld some PC features because the pad isn't capable of responding at fast/acceptable enough rate.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

I also don't agree with what you think about the jumping: sure, it was an intentional design choice but keep in mind that the game has a lot of verticality and general platforming. Platforming in an FPS is the worst but Doom changed that by adding the grappling mechanic along with jumping that is easier to calculate. It worked out really well, platforming in Doom is smooth as silk, I never missed a jump.
That's personal preference, I quite enjoy the punishing and challenging nature of platforming in Duke3D or Half-Life forexample. And here it is again.. There is reduced difficulty in jumping in Doom 4 just because the pad would struggle with the raw version of it. Everything does not need to work on everything. Everyone accepts that you don't play 1on1 fighting games with a keyboard, you play them with the superrior control device that is Gamepad. So why is it so hard to accept that the gamepad just ain't the ultimate control device for FPS games, especially PC designed classic fps games?

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

And yeah, a lot of people did not like SnapMap but at the end, after all the updates the system got it's clear that id won even there: there are more good player created content for the game after just a year than what we've seen for Doom 3 in 10 years. When it comes to mapping modding is dead in the water for today's technically complex games, partially that's the reason why you see so many new content dropping for old games like Doom 2 or Duke 3D even these days. Id reacted well to this change but I hope that the next Doom's SnapMap will be more extensive because the potential is clearly gargantuan.
SnapMap did improve from compared to it's launch state (people managed to find ways to create custom geometry) but it still has too many limitations really. Doom 3 was never publicly accepted by everyone. I quite like Doom 3 but the guy next might not like it. So the editing was never really a thing and also when D3 came, it was quite a powerhungry game. Not mention the editor isn't the smoothest of editors either. When I was interested in trying it, it crashed just like the Rage's id-studio did. I've mapped quite bit for Quake 4 so it seems q4 may have a more solid version of the editor there as it has never crashed instantly when you start it.

If Doom II (dear lord I really hope they don't name it that..) will have another version of SnapMap, that's not a good thing. It basically means they have entirely forgotten something called PC modding. Supposedly even their very game the idea came from thanks to a popularized Classic Doom mod called Brutal Doom. If they really will offer no real editor with Doom II aswell, then that just proves how this industry all about the business really anymore :/

What will id/bethesda do if 2K decides to release the modding tools for Duke Nukem Forever? if they do that, that will be seen as a really respectful act in the eyes of gamers.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

But to get back to the whole PC vs. console thing: I just don't think it matters anymore. You can create a game that uses modern PCs to their full potential but then you'd get something like Crysis: a giant flop because the majority of the audience simply won't be able to run the game. What did that got CryTek? Sure, the game was hailed as a technological masterpiece but it was way less open than Far Cry because those graphics had a price, the game took off after such a long time when it comes to sales that by that period CryTek was already designing the sequel with consoles in mind, etc. The point is that there will always be a limitation you have to keep in mind. Half-Life 2 sold exceptionally well not only because it was the sequel to a very popular game but also because it simply ran on everything. If you want to make a successful PC exclusive game your market is not the high end but rather the mid range. The idea that shooters would be better if they were designed exclusively to PC held some water 10 years ago (not because of hardware limitations but because of the controllers) but these days it's nothing more than a myth.

Crysis is one badly optimized game. The game still to this day looks good but it also was really badly optimized as you can't play it flawlessly even this day with hw way more powerful than what the game was ever designed for. Meanwhile Far Cry, Doom 3, Half-Life 2.. runs no problem at all. Crysis also never was gameplay-wise any PC specfically designed fps since it was fully regen health etc featured game.

When I say PC-designed, I'm not necessarily talking about visuals at all because I quite happen to think that 2004/5 level of visuals are good enough for me since Doom 3 did the last drastic graphical jump we ever gonna have anymore. I'm talking about raw actual designed gameplay and amount of features. Theres no other way to prove this but to show games that are direct hard ports from PC version to console, how you simply cannot play a PC designed fastpaced (keyword here) fps game with a pad as smoothly as you can with mouse and keyboard on a PC.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

On the other hand consoles are important and they were important even if you look back to those precious "PC-only" FPS games. Doom 1 was ported to everything and arguably it would not have changed the video game industry if it hadn't been (some console ports of the game were done by Carmack himself). Just like in the case of Duke 3D the PSX version of Doom has become a classic because a lot of people did not have access to PCs that could play those games so they spent their money on the console versions.

You're giving console way too much credit here.

PC was primarely known back in the day for having it's specific genres it specialized in and did the best. These genres were including Firstperson Shooters, RealTime Stragtegy games, Point & Click games.. while consoles primarely excelled at Fighting games, Racing games and Platforming games. Also the big difference of Duke3D and Doom ports on consoles were, that these games were first and foremost 100% designed for the PC. Only later down the road there would come secondhand ports of these games for consoles, often not even by the same developers who created the original PC versions but by some additional devs instead. In the case of Duke Nukem Total Meltdown, a company called Aardvark Software did the porting. These console ports would also lack signficant amount of features and framerate/visual quality wouldn't either be even comparable to the PC equivalents.

This post has been edited by spessu_sb: 14 August 2017 - 12:51 PM

0

User is offline   axl 

  • 69

#471

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

On the other hand consoles are important and they were important even if you look back to those precious "PC-only" FPS games. Doom 1 was ported to everything and arguably it would not have changed the video game industry if it hadn't been (some console ports of the game were done by Carmack himself). Just like in the case of Duke 3D the PSX version of Doom has become a classic because a lot of people did not have access to PCs that could play those games so they spent their money on the console versions.


Doom changed the video industry the moment it was launched on PC in 1993. Sure, porting it to other platforms made it more accessible to people, but didn't make it even more important. Also these ports can't light a candle to the original. Doom on PSX, while being one of the better ports of Doom back in the day, has severe cuts in its levels and suffers from framerate issues (not to mention Duke Nukem on psx).

Nothing against consoles, but there's no denying that certain gamegenres are suited better for certain platforms. In this case: FPS, strategy games, ... --> PC.
0

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#472

View Postaxl, on 14 August 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

Doom changed the video industry the moment it was launched on PC in 1993. Sure, porting it to other platforms made it more accessible to people, but didn't make it even more important. Also these ports can't light a candle to the original. Doom on PSX, while being one of the better ports of Doom back in the day, has severe cuts in its levels and suffers from framerate issues (not to mention Duke Nukem on psx).

Nothing against consoles, but there's no denying that certain gamegenres are suited better for certain platforms. In this case: FPS, strategy games, ... --> PC.

Not to mention Doom for PSX came two whole years after the PC version. That Doom was a success/influential because it was released for other platforms is complete nonsense. If the multiplatform ideology of today had been dominant back in the day neither Doom, Duke 3D, Sonic the Hedgehog or a great number of other important titles would never have been made.
-1

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#473

View Postspessu_sb, on 14 August 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

Whenever you go and watch real esports competitions of CSGO/Quake on PC and compare the fluidity of aim and movement to console version esports of Halo or Call of Duty.. you will notice that the gameplay is always clumsier on the console.

But that's irrelevant: there is no crossplay in FPS games so the two playerbases never play against each other. The comparison never happens so it just doesn't make sense to use it. You can play Doom perfectly fine with a controller, sure it's not the best control method but it's fully functional. Just look at the Quake 3 video you linked to with a different mindset: is it as smooth as on PC? Of course not. Is it still fast-paced compared to console shooters? Yes. Does it play like Quake? Absolutely. If you started playing Quake on PC you'll laugh on a video like that of course.

Quote

There is reduced difficulty in jumping in Doom 4 just because the pad would struggle with the raw version of it.

Wut? Reduced difficulty in platforming... in an FPS? :D Bring the pitchforks, people, there is an FPS where platforming works as it should, such heresy! :D Sure, theoretically it's easier but I really don't think that platforming should be shit in an FPS simply because the jumping mechanics work like shit... and that's nearly all FPS titles. If a game does something right I think it's not healthy to start bashing it just out of bias which is what you seem to be doing. Nothing was "consolised" when it comes to the jumping, it's simply how they fine tuned it.

Where I see the point of a complex jumping mechanic is classic style multiplayer arena FPS but the Doom series is simply not that game. In Quake Doom 2016's jumping would feel bad, I fully agree with that but thankfully id knows this too so Quake Champions is using the classic jumping.

Quote

SnapMap did improve from compared to it's launch state (people managed to find ways to create custom geometry) but it still has too many limitations really.

Yeah, the limitations exist of course but people started to overcome some of those and the features were extended a great deal. I think the biggest problem for SnapMap currently is that most people just have no idea how to make maps for Doom 2016: I play SnapMap regularly and most of the content is just bad, for example in the last couple of weeks I played a lot of campaigns and only around 20% of them were good. You literally have to shovel your way through the shit if you want to find the good content but I found some real darlings and a few campaigns that could have been made by id itself.

Quote

What will id/bethesda do if 2K decides to release the modding tools for Duke Nukem Forever?

Nothing? Releasing modding tools for a failed game like DNF would not really change anything. Anyway Randy said they won't do it because the game is a jumbled mess technically.

Quote

Crysis is one badly optimized game.

By today's standards it pretty much is but when it came out it actually was okay, it's just that the "vision" of CryTek did not connect with people. Crysis is meant to be played on 20-30 fps and CryTek wanted to overcome this by the excessive use of motion blur, something PC gamers were never really fond of. As for the optimization the mistake CryTek made was that they miscalculated where technology will go: Crysis would benefit a lot from increased CPU clock speeds but instead the industry went in the direction of adding more cores to CPUs. Crysis can't benefit from that so it will run like ass for eternity / a remaster / CPUs get released with significantly higher clock speeds.

Quote

Crysis also never was gameplay-wise any PC specfically designed fps since it was fully regen health etc featured game.

Sure but when it comes to the technical aspect Crysis was the height of PC gaming 10 years ago. Honestly I'm happy it failed, I did not like that game design either.

Quote

You're giving console way too much credit here.

Not really, I mean we all know that for example in the US gaming was based around consoles in the early 90s, it still mostly is. Consoles were the way how Doom reached the kids. The PC gamers of the time? I think this video gives you a good estimate on that demographic:
https://www.youtube....h?v=LXw6BkZ-gdY
As others have pointed out the PSX version of Doom was a late port... still sold more than half a million copies. Basically we are the first generation of gamers that could call the PC their main gaming platform and most of us were still a bit late to the party when it comes to Doom, hell I even only played Duke 3D in 1998 for the first time.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 14 August 2017 - 11:24 PM

-1

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#474

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

[...]
Not really, I mean we all know that for example in the US gaming was based around consoles in the early 90s, it still mostly is. Consoles were the way how Doom reached the kids. The PC gamers of the time? I think this video gives you a good estimate on that demographic:
https://www.youtube....h?v=LXw6BkZ-gdY
As others have pointed out the PSX version of Doom was a late port... still sold more than half a million copies. Basically we are the first generation of gamers that could call the PC their main gaming platform and most of us were still a bit late to the party when it comes to Doom, hell I even only played Duke 3D in 1998 for the first time.

Yes, it wasn't really until some time into the 90's this changed, largely in part to Doom, Duke, Quake and other big 3D titles. Then PC was a major platform for some years until it hit a slump again. Things have not been constant here, so it's downright incorrect to say "it still mostly is". It was, and it is, but that wasn't really the case for all the time in between.

Doom was huge long before it came to consoles. It was ported to consoles because it was a huge hit and not the other way around. - people got PC's to play Doom. The console ports in large were gimped and not nearly as good as the original. Doom 1 was, however, quite playable on a controller due to it's simple controls and 2,5D nature. The same wasn't true for Duke which was a much more complex game, and as such had a considerably more complex control scheme.

That controllers are inferior when it comes to 3D FPS games and require sacrifices in order for it to play well should really be quite obvious. The reasons that console shooters don't suck as much today as they did in 1999 is because post-Halo nearly every single FPS released has been simplified, slowed down, made easier and generally nerfed for the sake of consoles and multiplatform thinking.
Thumbsticks, mostly because of their far smaller size, cannot possibly have the same degree of precision and speed as a mouse. The compromise of speed/precision is always present, even with a mouse, but with a thumbstick the threshold is so much lower. You can have fast movement with a thumbstick, but then it will be very imprecise - you'll constantly and unavoidably overshoot your target. Or you can have precise movements, but then it will be very slow. Controlling like this in a traditional shooter will make the game nearly unplayable, because the enemies will kill the player either because fumbling with the aim for too long, or because he can't even turn to face the enemy quick enough. Halo "solved" the lack of precision with auto-aim, but this wasn't enough, so the game was very slowed down in order to give the player time to react with very slow controls. Still this wasn't enough, the clumsy controls made the player largely unable to avoid taking damage, which is why the recharging shield was added to give the player a greater margin of error without having to either completely litter the level with healthpacks or lower enemy damage to the point where it would be ridiculous.

Also for lack of buttons, the player was only allowed to carry two weapons at a time. Because this removed the possibility to store up ammo for different weapons, ammo refills were changed to give almost full ammo with a single pickup in order to not restrict the player from changing weapons freely. But in order for this not to lead to having almost infinite ammo with powerful weapons, ammo caps for example the rocket launcher were lowered to a very small amount, making it in essence a disposable weapon.
Two, I think, rather good outcomes of this was the melee button and grenade buttons - this was likewise implemented due to not having enough buttons on the controller to select them, and scrolling through to them would have been too slow. A negative outcome from the standardization of these buttons though it that post-Halo shooters very rarely will have multiple melee or thrown weapons.

This goes on.
- Why are vehicle sections and cover shootouts viewed from third person perspective? Because the controls are too slow to let the player quickly peek around corners, as he would with a mouse.
- Why do melee attacks do a ton of damage and "snap" to a nearby player? Because in order to press the face button, the thumb must be removed from the aim stick.
- Even linear, simplified levels relate to this. Normally, a player will orient himself by peeking around. With the slow aiming/turning of controllers, this is not practical, and as a result console players get lost and lose their direction more frequently.
- Quest markers, beacons and minimaps for the same reason.
- Lack of verticality because aiming up/down is clumsy and slow.
- As mentioned before, low gravity and floaty jumping to allow the player time to act in the air despite controls really being too slow for this.
- Scripted scenes "magnetically" draw your focus or lock your view because otherwise players wouldn't be able to home in on them before they are over, or would simply not do it out of laziness because even moving the camera with a controller is somewhat of a chore that you might not bother with if skipping won't kill you.

This is the reason why shooters today play rather well on a controller - not that the controllers have evolved to being great. They are essentially the same as they were 10 or 15 years ago. The class does well in school because the material has been simplified to accommodate the retarded kid.

I don't hate consoles, or controllers. What I hate is the multiplatform doctrine causing everything to be limited by the lowest common denominator. Controllers are great for other kinds of games, but for 3D shooters or first-person action games they are not suited for this - they simply does not reach up to the requirements..While this might seem a bit off-topic in a thread about Duke's future, as long as this doctrine is not broken I don't think a good Duke game can be made. Duke 3D was a great successor to Doom because it expanded on and advanced its formula, resulting in a very complex, dynamic and sophisticated game. You cannot do this if you have to slow down for the sake of "retards". It's really that simple.

This post has been edited by necroslut: 15 August 2017 - 03:24 AM

0

User is offline   spessu_sb 

  • 65

#475

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

But that's irrelevant: there is no crossplay in FPS games so the two playerbases never play against each other. The comparison never happens so it just doesn't make sense to use it. You can play Doom perfectly fine with a controller, sure it's not the best control method but it's fully functional. Just look at the Quake 3 video you linked to with a different mindset: is it as smooth as on PC? Of course not. Is it still fast-paced compared to console shooters? Yes. Does it play like Quake? Absolutely. If you started playing Quake on PC you'll laugh on a video like that of course.

You don't seem to understand something here. No one has talked cross-play of platforms but what is very much relevant here, is that because you make a game entirely within the limits and possibities of what contorller can handle, this means that PC will be left in the dark essentially. PC could handle more but because controller is the focus here, that will be also the most the game has to offer. Again, has absolutely nothing to do wiht cross-play here. So I have no idea why you even brought it up. My linked video simply shows that PC and console play will always differentiate and this is why you will never be able to play a classic fps on console as naturally as on a PC because arena shooters and classic old school fps are by their nature really fastpaced action games. Reason controllers have "evolved" is because instead of them actually changing in anyways, the source was instead made fit the controllers. Controllers still struggle with classic gameplay because as I mentioned.. That specific input device was never meant for such type gameplay and as such.. they had to come up with all of these mechanics that ultlimately simplify the genre from how it first appeared on PC.

  • Aimdownsights removes speed aspect from games because instead of you being able to move and shoot, you have to slowdown to a crawl speed essentially to be able to fire accurately. What does that mean? Means you're literally gonna be a sitting target=suitable for controllers.

  • Sprint removes the frantic pace of the game aswell because instead of you being able to be mobile and attack, you can only have one. You either move fast or you practically stay still and shoot accurately, can't have both. Less complexity=suitable for controllers.

  • Regenerating health removes tactical aspect entirely since instead of you needing to think about your resources, you can just keep moving forward and never worry about running out of hp. You can just duck behind cover wait few secs and be all fine again=suitable for controllers.

  • Weaponlimit removes the possibility of you fumbling with the weaponselection and possibly choosing wrong weapon. Instead you can just press B or whatever key to switch from your primary to your secondary=suitable for controllers.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

Wut? Reduced difficulty in platforming... in an FPS? :D Bring the pitchforks, people, there is an FPS where platforming works as it should, such heresy! :D Sure, theoretically it's easier but I really don't think that platforming should be shit in an FPS simply because the jumping mechanics work like shit... and that's nearly all FPS titles. If a game does something right I think it's not healthy to start bashing it just out of bias which is what you seem to be doing. Nothing was "consolised" when it comes to the jumping, it's simply how they fine tuned it.

Where I see the point of a complex jumping mechanic is classic style multiplayer arena FPS but the Doom series is simply not that game. In Quake Doom 2016's jumping would feel bad, I fully agree with that but thankfully id knows this too so Quake Champions is using the classic jumping.

Reduced difficulty, now don't try to belittle things here since it's literally that. Halo style jumping is alot more forgiving to you than Duke/PC style jumping and this is why the hangtime jumping was invented. So that controllers that aren't as precise as mouse and keyboard, could more better handle the platforming aspect jump sections by literally having more time to think while in middle of air.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

Nothing? Releasing modding tools for a failed game like DNF would not really change anything. Anyway Randy said they won't do it because the game is a jumbled mess technically.

They won't do it? Lol, he specfically stated he is interested in releasing some sort of Duke collection thing that could include unreleased material of DNF and did hear how Fred and folks would be very much willing to spend the time on getting the editor ready for the public. He literally said that he would be willing to release them but that it's up to 2K Games ultimately and that "he's working on it" to get the meeting with 2K Games to talk with them about possibly releasing the Duke Nukem Forever level editor.

If this were to happen, id/beth's acts of not releasing Doom editing tools would be pretty badly seen then as DNF happens to be a major game same as Doom. Editor is an editor, you can't deny that. Snapmap isn't a true editor but more of an simplified map assembler due to all it's limitations it has.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

By today's standards it pretty much is but when it came out it actually was okay, it's just that the "vision" of CryTek did not connect with people. Crysis is meant to be played on 20-30 fps and CryTek wanted to overcome this by the excessive use of motion blur, something PC gamers were never really fond of. As for the optimization the mistake CryTek made was that they miscalculated where technology will go: Crysis would benefit a lot from increased CPU clock speeds but instead the industry went in the direction of adding more cores to CPUs. Crysis can't benefit from that so it will run like ass for eternity / a remaster / CPUs get released with significantly higher clock speeds.

Agreed on crytek fucking up here.

View PostZaxx, on 14 August 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

Not really, I mean we all know that for example in the US gaming was based around consoles in the early 90s, it still mostly is. Consoles were the way how Doom reached the kids. The PC gamers of the time? I think this video gives you a good estimate on that demographic:
https://www.youtube....h?v=LXw6BkZ-gdY
As others have pointed out the PSX version of Doom was a late port... still sold more than half a million copies. Basically we are the first generation of gamers that could call the PC their main gaming platform and most of us were still a bit late to the party when it comes to Doom, hell I even only played Duke 3D in 1998 for the first time.

Here in Europe I was 6-years old when Duke and Quake came. I grew up on consoles and PC's. I had Doom and Wolf on my DOS based PC back then and I would need the help of my father to launch those games since I didn't understand DOS. I did play Quake on my uncle's.. My friends very much also did have both PC's and consoles so we talked about games of every system pretty much (except Sega, that sucked always :D )

As others said, Doom shocked the industry the moment it landed on PC. Those console releases had shit do with it's success. They did affect positively ofc but to try and belittle Doom's impact just because one like's consoles, is very silly. Game was unlike anything else. It was Wolf3D x10 times because it was nothing that had ever been seen yet. I still remember watching a game show about Duke3D and how it looked truly amazing to me. It's visuals were very good, it basing on real world environments such as streets etc.. The possibities to destroy environment (walls..) and to interact with the world via lights etc was just mindblowingly un-heard of. You're telling me that Doom, which in sense did even more since it went from "primitive" visuals to believable visuals and architecture etc, didn't cause shit eventhough it literally was unlike anything else? That's just plain bs plain and simple.

PC and console will never be the same and thus should be separated from eachother as some genres simply perform clearly better on one system than the other.

This post has been edited by spessu_sb: 15 August 2017 - 06:24 AM

2

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#476

View Postspessu_sb, on 15 August 2017 - 06:02 AM, said:

You don't seem to understand something here. No one has talked cross-play of platforms but what is very much relevant here, is that because you make a game entirely within the limits and possibities of what contorller can handle, this means that PC will be left in the dark essentially. PC could handle more but because controller is the focus here, that will be also the most the game has to offer. Again, has absolutely nothing to do wiht cross-play here. So I have no idea why you even brought it up. My linked video simply shows that PC and console play will always differentiate and this is why you will never be able to play a classic fps on console as naturally as on a PC because arena shooters and classic old school fps are by their nature really fastpaced action games. Reason controllers have "evolved" is because instead of them actually changing in anyways, the source was instead made fit the controllers. Controllers still struggle with classic gameplay because as I mentioned.. That specific input device was never meant for such type gameplay and as such.. they had to come up with all of these mechanics that ultlimately simplify the genre from how it first appeared on PC.

Here's the thing: when differences between controllers and mouse and keyboard setups come up multiplayer always gets dragged into the equation and I think the reason why that happens is pretty clear: because the actual classic single player FPS gameplay works perfectly fine with a controller so in order to justify their reasoning people tend to drag multiplayer into the discussion. That's the only place where the difference really shows (but not to a practically important degree, that's what my crossplay example wanted to shed light on) but playing with a controller and playing with a mouse and keyboard are actually two very different beasts. To really understand this one has to have experience with both and where the playing field gets evened out is single player. There are a lot of reasons for that but I'll try to come up with a comparison that tries to scratch the surface.

For example necroslut correctly said that mouses win in aiming precision hands down... but with a controller that does not matter because the analog stick wins in movement precision. If you're moving in an FPS with a keyboard you're using the WASD setup meaning that you can move in only 8 directions at a fixed movement speed. On the other hand if you're using an analog stick you have 360 degrees of movement freedom and your movement speed will depend on how much you're pushing the stick in the direction you're moving. This means that what arena shooter players call "lazy aim" will be more precise. "Lazy aim" means aiming without moving the mouse and on PC shooters that is the technique a good player will use in an arena FPS when his objective is to shoot distant moving targets (for example when using the sniper rifle in Unreal Tournament). Playing an FPS with a controller uses the same philosophy but to a much higher degree: since movement with the analog stick is more precise "lazy aim" will dominate the gameplay so basically you're going to make quick camera movements with the right stick while the precision of your aim will come through movement by using the left analog stick.

Overall thanks to the precision of lazy aim on a controller you will be able to aim very precisely with a controller but because your aiming will come through what is essentially tracking the motion of the crosshair you will be a tiny bit slower. That tiny bit is what gets exaggarated when you put controller aiming next to mouse and keyboard in a multiplayer comparison and that's why a controller player would suck in multiplayer if he was going against a mouse and keyboard player... but - again: crossplay example - that never happens. In single player this means a negligable difference in player skill which simply does not matter in a hardcore shooter: the skill ceiling will be lower but in order to complete a single player FPS even on the hardest difficulty you don't even have to scratch the surface of that ceiling.

The typical console shooter is not less skillful because of the need to use controllers but simply because those types of games are aimed at the absolute mass market where every bit of handholding counts.

As for the game mechanics discussion I really don't want to get into that because we'd move massively off the topic.

Quote

They won't do it? Lol, he specfically stated he is interested in releasing some sort of Duke collection thing that could include unreleased material of DNF and did hear how Fred and folks would be very much willing to spend the time on getting the editor ready for the public. He literally said that he would be willing to release them but that it's up to 2K Games ultimately and that "he's working on it" to get the meeting with 2K Games to talk with them about possibly releasing the Duke Nukem Forever level editor.

If the DNF collection will include the editing tools that's a great thing but I remember Randy being especially reluctant to confirm anything like that. I think it will be just a documentary, a somewhat remastered version of DNF and playable versions of some portions of the cancelled versions of DNF. Honestly though the day I'll start believing anything I hear from Pitchford will be the day Gearbox releases the World Tour source code, then we'll know they are capable of doing something just for helping the Duke community and not for monetary gain (though I guess more people would buy World Tour if 100% EDuke32 compatibility was a sure thing).

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 15 August 2017 - 08:06 AM

0

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#477

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

Here's the thing: when differences between controllers and mouse and keyboard setups come up multiplayer always gets dragged into the equation and I think the reason why that happens is pretty clear: because the actual classic single player FPS gameplay works perfectly fine with a controller so in order to justify their reasoning people tend to drag multiplayer into the discussion. That's the only place where the difference really shows (but not to a practically important degree, that's what my crossplay example wanted to shed light on) but playing with a controller and playing with a mouse and keyboard are actually two very different beasts. To really understand this one has to have experience with both and where the playing field gets evened out is single player. There are a lot of reasons for that but I'll try to come up with a comparison that tries to scratch the surface.

For example necroslut correctly said that mouses win in aiming precision hands down... but with a controller that does not matter because the analog stick wins in movement precision. If you're moving in an FPS with a keyboard you're using the WASD setup meaning that you can move in only 8 directions at a fixed movement speed. On the other hand if you're using an analog stick you have 360 degrees of movement freedom and your movement speed will depend on how much you're pushing the stick in the direction you're moving. This means that what arena shooter players call "lazy aim" will be more precise. "Lazy aim" means aiming without moving the mouse and on PC shooters that is the technique a good player will use in an arena FPS when his objective is to shoot distant moving targets (for example when using the sniper rifle in Unreal Tournament). Playing an FPS with a controller uses the same philosophy but to a much higher degree: since movement with the analog stick is more precise "lazy aim" will dominate the gameplay so basically you're going to make quick camera movements with the right stick while the precision of your aim will come through movement by using the left analog stick.

There is some truth to that an analog stick gives a higher rate of precision when it comes to movement, but precision of movement is nowhere near as important as precision of aim (in an FPS). But even then, you heavily exaggerate the benefits of an analog stick. Sure, in theory you have 360 degrees of movement and 100% control over speed.... but in practice the stick is far too small to execute that level of control with any reliability. Sure, you get more than 8 directions, but really not that much more. And when it comes to speed most games are limited to two, possibly three, speeds anyway (without taking into account the speed reduction when aiming down sights). Two is what you get on PC with a run/walk modifier key. And the age-old "tapping" method for slower/more precise small movements can usually compensate for the rest.
Analog speed and direction does matter in a game such as Super Mario 64 - it plays so much worse with a keyboard - but when it comes to first person shooters it really doesn't matter much.

And it's interesting that you bring up the presence of "lazy aim" as a sign of the strengths of a controller, when what it really tells is that the aiming simply isn't good enough... It's a workaround, a substitute, for not being able to aim well enough, it's not a strength. You can do it with a keyboard too. It's what I did when the trackball in my mouse got stuck mid-game.

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

Overall thanks to the precision of lazy aim on a controller you will be able to aim very precisely with a controller but because your aiming will come through what is essentially tracking the motion of the crosshair you will be a tiny bit slower. That tiny bit is what gets exaggarated when you put controller aiming next to mouse and keyboard in a multiplayer comparison and that's why a controller player would suck in multiplayer if he was going against a mouse and keyboard player... but - again: crossplay example - that never happens. In single player this means a negligable difference in player skill which simply does not matter in a hardcore shooter: the skill ceiling will be lower but in order to complete a single player FPS even on the hardest difficulty you don't even have to scratch the surface of that ceiling.

The typical console shooter is not less skillful because of the need to use controllers but simply because those types of games are aimed at the absolute mass market where every bit of handholding counts.

As for the game mechanics discussion I really don't want to get into that because we'd move massively off the topic.

Well, "the game mechanics discussion" is kinda central to the whole argument - that the inadequacies of controllers have for the past fifteen years (or more even) guided the design and evolution of first person shooters to a great degree. For the longest time now almost every single trend in FPS design have originated from one thing: to serve as a crutch for controllers. Regenerating health, iron sights, snap-to cover, sprinting, funnel level design, quest beacons, moon gravity, double jumps, "help-me-up" in coop, killstreaks, you name it, the list could go on for ages... There might have been other arguments - realism, inclusivity, reducing frustration, elegant simplicity, whatever - but they have all at their core served to compensate for the inability to properly control the game with a controller.

But even after all that, when the game is so heavily rigged in favor of controller players, even then a controller player will generally not be able to keep up with a mouse/keyboard player. That really should say something.

There's also some truth to your argument about "mass market", but you seriously underestimate how huge a role pandering to controllers have played in shaping shooters over the years. Hell, Duke 3D and other classic shooters had a lot of mass-market appeal despite being relatively demanding.

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

If the DNF collection will include the editing tools that's a great thing but I remember Randy being especially reluctant to confirm anything like that. I think it will be just a documentary, a somewhat remastered version of DNF and playable versions of some portions of the cancelled versions of DNF. Honestly though the day I'll start believing anything I hear from Pitchford will be the day Gearbox releases the World Tour source code, then we'll know they are capable of doing something just for helping the Duke community and not for monetary gain (though I guess more people would buy World Tour if 100% EDuke32 compatibility was a sure thing).

I agree it probably wouldn't affect id/Bethesda much if anything if the DNF tools were released now. DNF is now more than six years old, partly forgotten and partly disliked, it's too late for it to gain any major modding momentum. It would have been a different thing when the game was new and, despite being shat on by critics, was actually quite popular. Though it has indeed happened before that an initially passed-over or poorly received game has gained something of a second wind a few years down the line, when people start to see it for what it actually has to offer rather than how it was perceived at launch. But even in such a best-case scenario I can't see it having a noticeable effect on id/Bethesda.

I don't think EDuke32 compatibility has done much to affect the sales of World Tour really - what everyone has been bitching about is Megaton, not EDuke32.


But to go back to where this "debate" originated: I too think it would be ideal to make a new Duke sequel PC exclusive or PC-first, where it wouldn't have to make concessions to console limitations of various kinds. Could it be done? I'm not sure. It at least seems much more realistic to do it today than it did 5-10 years ago. PC gaming is more popular now than it has been in a long time.
The extremely high game budgets these days do pose a problem. For a number of reasons I think it would be wise to try and find an art direction other than "photorealistic" for a new Duke game. Definitely because it can be cheaper to develop, but also because it can actually help the gameplay by being more clear and easier to read, as well as cheaper to render, leaving more computing power to do other interesting things that can push this stagnated genre forward.

This post has been edited by necroslut: 15 August 2017 - 10:58 AM

0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#478

View Postnecroslut, on 15 August 2017 - 10:36 AM, said:

I don't think EDuke32 compatibility has done much to affect the sales of World Tour really - what everyone has been bitching about is Megaton, not EDuke32.

People bitch about Megaton partially because that was 100% compatible with EDuke32: EDuke32 automatically detects it and you can play all the content without copying a single GRP file. As a source port Megaton was quite bad so no value was lost there, what mattered a lot more is that it was a full package that included all the important expansions + it was really cheap so overall it was a great release even if the source port itself was garbage. WT is expensive even at 20 bucks because the game was released so many times before digitally that the only two things valuable in WT are the quality source port and the new episode.

As for the controller thing: it really takes a good developer to come up with good controller right stick aiming overall so it's not that simple. There are lots of additional factors here:

- Framerate: Actually fps is very important, basically to have precise aiming on a controller you need 60 fps. Very few games can deliver on this.

- Good stick acceleration: A lot of console shooters mess this one up. Acceleration is very important to make camera adjustments that are easy to calculate, fast if need be but still give way to more precise adjustments.

- Customization: Mainly the customization of acceleration: people have different tastes and feel different setups comfortable. The only game I can come up with that does this perfectly is not even an FPS but GTA 5. There the options are so great that with a bit of experimentation and practice I could win deathmatches in free aim mode against mouse and keyboard players.

- Controller quality: Again something where consoles lag behind. If you want really good aiming you have to spend money on your controller and the standard one just won't cut it - not because it's bad (for example the Xbox One controller's sticks are very impressive and they provide a huge jump in precision compared to the 360) but because most games don't provide the customization you'd need. Premium controllers do.

- FoV: FoV matters even on consoles yet the only FPS I know of that lets you change the FoV on consoles is Doom 2016.

Most developers are just lazy, they slap aim assist and auto aim systems on their games and don't mess around with fine tuning regular aiming, they don't give a fuck about a 60 fps target framerate and give you pointless eye candy instead and mostly that's why playing shooters on consoles suck.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 15 August 2017 - 11:59 AM

0

User is offline   necroslut 

  • 141

#479

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

People bitch about Megaton partially because that was 100% compatible with EDuke32: EDuke32 automatically detects it and you can play all the content without copying a single GRP file. As a source port Megaton was quite bad so no value was lost there, what mattered a lot more is that it was a full package that included all the important expansions + it was really cheap so overall it was a great release even if the source port itself was garbage. WT is expensive even at 20 bucks because the game was released so many times before digitally that the only two things valuable in WT are the quality source port and the new episode.

Eh, I have to say I think you're just speculating here. I've never seen anyone claim this before. And the basic game data from World Tour, excluding the new episode, is fully compatible by and autodetected by EDuke32, just like with Megaton. If it was just about the content then people should be bitching about the 3D Realms Anthology version which included even more content and at a even lower price.. But they don't, because that's really not what it's about.

View PostZaxx, on 15 August 2017 - 11:56 AM, said:

As for the controller thing: it really takes a good developer to come up with good controller right stick aiming overall so it's not that simple. There are lots of additional factors here:

- blah blah blah

Most developers are just lazy, they slap aim assist and auto aim systems on their games and don't mess around with fine tuning regular aiming, they don't give a fuck about a 60 fps target framerate and give you pointless eye candy instead and mostly that's why playing shooters on consoles suck.

With every point you bring up in favor of consoles/controllers you only prove the same thing - the fact that you have to do all these things you list in order to have somewhat decent controls pretty much proves in itself that controllers simply are not a good fit for the genre. While that wouldn't really be a problem if, like in the 90's, most shooters were made for PC first and then adapted to consoles if possible, whatever sacrifices being necessary to get it to work only affecting that console port rather than the original or other versions. Doom came out for SNES, Jaguar and PSX, but id didn't simplify or dumb down the original PC version to be on par with the console versions. That's what's done today, that's what''s been done for the past decade and more, and that's the problem. As long as the consoles problems stay on the consoles, I wouldn't care. But they don't.
0

User is offline   Zaxx 

  • 17

#480

View Postnecroslut, on 15 August 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

Eh, I have to say I think you're just speculating here.

Not really, I did my fair share of bitching too when Megaton was removed just like a lot of other people.

Quote

And the basic game data from World Tour, excluding the new episode, is fully compatible by and autodetected by EDuke32, just like with Megaton.

Someone will correct my if it's not the case for the majority but I sure as hell can't run World Tour on EDuke32 without using Hendricks' stopgap and even then a lot of mods for EDuke32 won't be compatible (for example if you want to use the voxel pack for World Tour the maphacks won't work so the voxel models will be placed incorrectly).

As for the controller thing (but for the last time because I feel we've really exhausted the topic): I'm not defending controllers, I merely tried to correct certain misconceptions people have when it comes to controller aiming / console shooters. It's important to understand why they suck but I don't agree with the notion of "it sucks and it's hard to nail it so FPS should not be on consoles" not only because decades of FPS point in a whole different direction but because stuff like this evolves. Controllers and consoles have come a long way since the days of Goldeneye and they still have quite a climb to accomplish but they will get there, stuff will evolve and become standards and at the end we'll get rid of the so called "console shooter" game design. Just think about how long it took for PC FPS to get from keyboard controls to proper mouse aiming: around 10 years.

And the thing about the multiplatform philosophy: it won't go away, the days of different gaming systems with unique libraries of video games are over. Developing games got too expensive.

This post has been edited by Zaxx: 15 August 2017 - 12:59 PM

0

Share this topic:


  • 17 Pages +
  • « First
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


All copyrights and trademarks are property of their respective owners and all comments are owned by their posters. Yes, our forum uses cookies. © 2004-2017 Duke4.net and Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options