[toilet alien]

Hi Duke fans,

I've read some articles on the internet that it was more than 90%, Ive seen the screenshots and trailer,but I don't want to look at the leaked documents and major spoilers in case the game will actually get released somehow,but the fans that have seen them seem to agree that the game was at a very high level of completion at the time of the 3d Realms shutdown.

[kingjolly]

It's a bit hard to tell. From the in-game pics I saw...it didnt seem to look as good as other games, but it looked shippable.

[dino]

Nobody of the community knows. Only the devs do and they never officially spoke about it so there is no answer so far.

Everything else, all the numbers are wild speculations.

[Danukem]

dino, on May 16 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

Everything else, all the numbers are wild speculations.

Or educated guesses.

I believe they would have been given more funding if they were more than 80% finished and making good progress. Their recent progress seemed good, so it's likely they were less than that. But the movie and other stuff we have seen clearly shows a game that was at least 65%. I'm guessing it wasn't much more than that, because the leaked stuff shows it in a good light (they can't show stuff that isn't there...).

Based on all this, I would say...

70%

[kaiser1982]

According to the world map document that was on this website, the game was 60.8% fully complete. There were lots of levels that were 90% complete and some others that weren't started on at all.

[dino]

DeeperThought, on May 16 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

Or educated guesses.

Which do never start with "I believe"

Are you 100% sure that the footage you saw was the very latest? You're probably not so even an 'educated guess' could be far off and won't help anyone really.

[necroslut]

kaiser1982, on May 17 2009, 05:16 AM, said:

According to the world map document that was on this website, the game was 60.8% fully complete. There were lots of levels that were 90% complete and some others that weren't started on at all.

Wasn't that document last updated a year ago?

[OpenMaw]

necroslut, on May 17 2009, 12:36 AM, said:

Wasn't that document last updated a year ago?

Yep.


We have no idea. But I think DT got it about right, around 70%.

[Psyrgery]

I know it could mean nothing, but I made some findings with Excel based on the dates of the leaked document with info on the maps and % completion:

Psyrgery, on May 12 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

Didn't no one notice the the dates of the file?

Take a look at this:



I know it's in Spanish, but below are the translations:

Organization: 3D Realms
Creation date: 09/03/07 0:28
Last modification date: 29/07/08 23:04(Marked in red)
Last printed: 29/07/08 22:50

By that time, the supposed percentage of the game levels was about 60,8%

I've been playing with these dates on Excel, and found out this:



If I'm right, the last day developers were able to work on the game was on 05/05/09 (The previous day before 3DR closed down). If the dates in that file are correct and if we take them as reference (From the first day it was created, until the last day it was modified), in 508 days a 60,8% of the game had been developed. That is an approximate average of 0,119% from the total of the game levels creation per day.

It's been 280 days since the last update of that file on 29/07/08. If we follow the approximate level creation average per day, we'd obtain that an aproximate 30%~35% of the total of the game levels have been created by the day 3DR closed.

That is, ladies and gentlemen, the state of the levels was about 90%~95% finished the day 3DR shut down!!!

I can't believe they left the game when there was only 5%~10% of content left.

Your opinions are welcome

[Raziel]

George Broussard said around a month or so ago that 71 tasks remain (and that they started with 800-900)... So over 90% complete. Also, I would scrap the word 'was', the game hasn't been cancelled yet. Everyone just assumed it is cancelled since 3DR closed its studio, but until George says it's cancelled, it's not. That's why I think it would be quite funny if Scott just says 'It's not cancelled' at the trial because that woul instantly kill their entire case which assumes it is cancelled.

[EviL AnGeL]

Raziel, on May 17 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

George Broussard said around a month or so ago that 71 tasks remain (and that they started with 800-900)... So over 90% complete.

I keep seeing this taken out of context over and over again. Here is Georges twitter.

"Closing out a milestone this week. 71 more tasks to do and we started with probably 800-900. Been a good push. Next one starts Monday."

The bit everyone seems to overlook is the bit at the end. Been a good push. Next one starts Monday. This means that the 800-900 tasks are only part of reaching that 1 particular milestone, it will be closed out this week and there are 71 remaining to do before the end of the week.

That milestone is probably just an internal target and who knows how many more milestones there are before the end. It doesn't show anything about the state of the game except that it hints they are pushing hard to get it done.

[Raziel]

EviL AnGeL, on May 17 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

I keep seeing this taken out of context over and over again. Here is Georges twitter.

"Closing out a milestone this week. 71 more tasks to do and we started with probably 800-900. Been a good push. Next one starts Monday."

The bit everyone seems to overlook is the bit at the end. Been a good push. Next one starts Monday. This means that the 800-900 tasks are only part of reaching that 1 particular milestone

You might be right. But even then you can still go with the extrapolation estimate and the fact that x employees have stated they were really close to release. Either way I suspect we'll know for sure once this goes to trial.

[Redcard]

Raziel, on May 17 2009, 06:00 AM, said:

You might be right. But even then you can still go with the extrapolation estimate and the fact that x employees have stated they were really close to release. Either way I suspect we'll know for sure once this goes to trial.

True.. but employees were saying they were close back in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007..

I don't know if they even know how to professionally develop this game. It might take an outside expert appointed by the court to look at things and determine what indeed is going on there.

I know I won't believe 3DR.. and I won't believe TT.. at least not on estimation. Both have a vested interest in seeing that number go their way

[hornoxe]

Raziel, on May 17 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

stated they were really close to release

also depends how you define close, how many times has Scott (and George?) said that you should starting a media campaign around 6 months before release, solely based on that the game was not to be finished in at the very least 6 months. Anyone thinking they were weeks or 1-2 months away is fooling themselves.

Now if we should beleive that got who was the brother of an employee, who mentioned the hard cutoff date for the end of this year, and release around quarter 1 2010, that means they were aiming for that. A game developer finishing ahead of their own projected dates is unheard of, even less so 3DR, so "close" to release likely isn't as close as some like to believe.

[dalbrech]

Let's face it. Broussard's statements about how near completion DNF is..or was..have very little creditbility left after 12 years.
But since the level of completion of the game is a major point in the lawsuit we will find out.

[Reaper_Man]

Those graphs and that timestamp is such bullshit. People need to stop posting it.

[Benjamin Foley]

You would have seen DNF in less than 9 months. The game was in the polishing stages.

[EviL AnGeL]

Benjamin Foley, on May 18 2009, 01:31 PM, said:

You would have seen DNF in less than 9 months. The game was in the polishing stages.

And you know this how?

[dino]

so the educated guesses go from 70% to 90% over to timeframes in which it would have been released.

[OpenMaw]

msleeper, on May 17 2009, 11:53 PM, said:

Those graphs and that timestamp is such bullshit. People need to stop posting it.

What is bullshit about the timestamp? What is bullshit about any of the excel document for that matter? Explain yourself.

[Redcard]

Commando Nukem, on May 18 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

What is bullshit about the timestamp? What is bullshit about any of the excel document for that matter? Explain yourself.

I think his point is, we have no context for that document.

We don't know if it's even used now. We don't know what the percentage numbers MEAN. We don't have the benefit of having someone explain it to us.

[ShXIII]

There is no such thing as "How Completed" who fucking knows how far along it was. Giving 3dr's bullshit track record it could all be scripted gameplay we saw, Yes Jace Hall got to play it apparently.... what almost 2 years ago, so who knows where it was at before they closed, probably another engine swap and more Cheetos diving for all we know.

My opinion on how completed it was..... zero percent because the game is not in our hands or installed on our pcs after 13 years of 3dreams stretching our rectums

[Redcard]

Commando Nukem, on May 18 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

What is bullshit about the timestamp? What is bullshit about any of the excel document for that matter? Explain yourself.

BTW, your signature has a website that's been suspended.

[PokeThePower]

Redcard, on May 18 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

I think his point is, we have no context for that document.

We don't know if it's even used now. We don't know what the percentage numbers MEAN. We don't have the benefit of having someone explain it to us.

The elephant in the room is IF the guy was using it for his portfolio and THAT was the most recent version of it, then that is an even less positive sign because it means that that document is no longer relevant to the work they've been doing the year since. If nothing had changed then why wasn't the document updated within even the last month?

It could also mean that they switched to a different method of tracking that he couldn't get a copy of, or perhaps it was just something they used once to get a sense of where they are, etc... but basically you are correct... we have no context.

[Redcard]

Wieder, on May 18 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

The elephant in the room is IF the guy was using it for his portfolio and THAT was the most recent version of it, then that is an even less positive sign because it means that that document is no longer relevant to the work they've been doing the year since. If nothing had changed then why wasn't the document updated within even the last month?

It could also mean that they switched to a different method of tracking that he couldn't get a copy of, or perhaps it was just something they used once to get a sense of where they are, etc... but basically you are correct... we have no context.

Yeah, I'm in this industry.. and I didn't want to mention this.. but that document looks like a "burn down" chart. This is a place where people post their estimates, their task lists, and then start working the numbers down to zero.

The problem is, it looks like they used it for six months, then never touched it again.

If it REALLY were an accurate burndown chart, you'd see it used every day, with trackable numbers going to zero. As it stands, who knows what it was used for?

[hornoxe]

maybe he just checked out an older version to not give away too much current information, since being the most up to date version has no value as a portfolio item.

the possibilities are endless..

[Redcard]

hornoxe, on May 18 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

maybe he just checked out an older version to not give away too much current information, since being the most up to date version has no value as a portfolio item.

the possibilities are endless..

So you're saying that the portfolio item from two or so years ago would be more important than one from a week ago?

And burndown charts are often not kept in source control. They're often kept in file servers and updated frequently.

[hornoxe]

Redcard, on May 18 2009, 08:33 PM, said:

So you're saying that the portfolio item from two or so years ago would be more important than one from a week ago?

I meant showing a new employer that you can manage a project and do such documents does not necessitate to show them the latest most updated version of a particular project.

[Redcard]

hornoxe, on May 18 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

I meant showing a new employer that you can manage a project and do such documents does not necessitate to show them the latest most updated version of a particular project.

If you walk into an interview with a 1+ year old document that you used for less than 9 months on a 12 year long project, you're not showing me you have good project management skills. You're showing me you have poor grasp of process or poor management skills.

[hornoxe]

That's making the assumption the document wasn't updated anymore, I'm sure said potential employee could clarify that if asked. I still could imagine that putting up all that stuff he might have figured it could be a little too "hot" to use the latest version, but still wanted to display knowledge of doing such documents.

Likewise it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it wasn't updated anymore, the history of DNF isn't exactly a poster child for project management. I was merely adding another possible explaination, not with the intent that it was likely, just to emphasize even more what was already said, that speculating about the date or trying to guess how far along they were based on it is pointless.