The issue is various builds have various stages of development or "content" and content that "works", so some guy has access to a random build which would be random in what would be playable. The obvious answer as I think Wieder mentioned was to release ALL builds from around that time and have the fan community put together the most complete version showing everything that would make up a game.
Which is why I'm convinced he will never release anything from DNF 2001. If he does, then whatever he releases will be met with rage from fans who will accuse him of holding on to the REAL stuff, and he will look like shit. Equally, if he stated that he doesn't want to release anything, he would look like shit. But Randy doesn't want to look like shit, and the easiest way to achieve that is not to release anything, while promising to and never revealing when.
How about instead of saying "Release DNF 2001" We say "Release DNF builds from 1997 to 2003" Because if we keep on saying the "release DNF 2001" Gearbox or whoever will only give us DNF 2001. What we want are All of the builds from 2003 down to 1997, If they have them of course.
mrDUKE!zone, on 04 September 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:
How about instead of saying "Release DNF 2001" We say "Release DNF builds from 1997 to 2003" Because if we keep on saying the "release DNF 2001" Gearbox or whoever will only give us DNF 2001. What we want are All of the builds from 2003 down to 1997, If they have them of course.
I agree here. DNF 2001 was certainly the most hyped version because of the trailer (a textbook example of vertical slicing), but I'm much more curious to know what 3DRealms was doing before switching to Unreal, learn what ideas they attempted with the much more limited Quake and Quake2 engines, knowing in more detail what blocked them, besides a generic "Quake2 cannot do the outside of the Hoover Dam".
I'm personally more interested in the idtech version of dnf. My personal belief is that version is more complete, and if Gearbox can get those assets and code released, I think the community will be able to get something together.
Considering the Q2 engine version was literally around 6 months of work - I don't think it would really be worth looking into IMO.
That's not entirely correct. Work on an id Tech-based version of DNF started in January 1997, when 3D Realms bought the rights to the Quake 1 engine. This is the version we saw in the infamous 1997 PC Gamer article, this is the version we saw for the first time in a photograph of a level designer working with QuakeEd and the first official DNF screenshot. According to the PC Gamer article, 3DRealms was already testing ideas with the Quake 1 engine and implementing them in Quake C, expecting to be able to easily port them to Quake 2's DLLs, and artists were also working on models and textures according to the specifications of Quake 2, while testing them in Quake 1 with less colors.
There was much more done that just "six months of work", and it can't be "not worth looking at", just like there are no archaeological findings that are not worth looking at.
Is it safe to assume that the Q2 version used the same assets as the Q1 version or are there anything we've seen in the Q1 version screenshots that look different in the Q2 version screenshots/E3 1998 trailer?
Hmm... we have no proof that they shared assets, except maybe for two locations, but even then, those locations would have been at least retextured.
1) Quake 1 textures have less colors than Quake 2 tetxures, so they wouldn't technically be "the same assets", and they would look visibly different even if they were the result of a simple conversion.
2) We've seen a canyon setting in both the Quake 1 incarnation (first screenshot, PC Gamer screenshots) and the Quake 2 incarnation (1998 trailer, French magazine video, Gus screenshot, Computer Gaming World screenshots), and the rocks look different in the two incarnations: Quake 1 rocks have horizontal bandings and are a beige color; Quake 2 rocks are redder and resemble Duke Nukem 3D rocks.
3) We've seen a rocket launcher and a shotgun in the Quake 1 version, as opposed to the Quake 2 version containing an M16 and a pistol with a scope. George told PC Gamer that at the moment, DNF included a shotgun, a "chaingun" and a rocket launcher. It remains to be seen whether George meant the M16 when he said "chaingun".
4) The two version share two level themes: the canyon and the inside of a mine (which could maybe have the same BSP structure in Quake 1 and 2, although we have no proof). All other locations are different: The Quake 1 version has an external city area and the inside of a casino. The Quake 2 version has Morningwood, the Nevada Test Facility, a hangar, a highway, Lake Meade, a strip club, and maybe Area 51, if it's not the same thing as the Nevada Test Facility.
5) The only enemy shown for the Quake 1 version is a robot, while the Quake 2 version shows the Army Ants.
In short, we have an incomplete picture, different aspects of the game were shown, and only by having those builds and comparing them we could say how much of one was ported over to the other.
Altered Reality, on 06 September 2018 - 01:58 PM, said:
That's not entirely correct. Work on an id Tech-based version of DNF started in January 1997, when 3D Realms bought the rights to the Quake 1 engine. This is the version we saw in the infamous 1997 PC Gamer article, this is the version we saw for the first time in a photograph of a level designer working with QuakeEd and the first official DNF screenshot. According to the PC Gamer article, 3DRealms was already testing ideas with the Quake 1 engine and implementing them in Quake C, expecting to be able to easily port them to Quake 2's DLLs, and artists were also working on models and textures according to the specifications of Quake 2, while testing them in Quake 1 with less colors.
There was much more done that just "six months of work", and it can't be "not worth looking at", just like there are no archaeological findings that are not worth looking at.
I never saw the QuakeED DNF screenshot before, thanks for sharing!
This post has been edited by icecoldduke: 07 September 2018 - 05:25 AM
The 2001 build would be tight, it looks pretty dope. Apparently Runny Shitfart wants to make money off it instead of just releasing it to the public. You'd think he would want to get in the fans' good books after the utter cancer that was the DNF 360 port
This post has been edited by justLMAO: 08 September 2018 - 05:32 AM
The 2001 build would be tight, it looks pretty dope. Apparently Runny Shitfart wants to make money off it instead of just releasing it to the public. You'd think he would want to get in the fans' good books after the utter cancer that was the DNF 360 port
Running a game company takes money. It will cost gearbox more then a 100k to do this(remember a senior game developer makes > 100k a year). How many senior developers will it take, and how long, to get the 2001 demo in a state were non dev types can use it? As a fan I get were your coming from, but blaming Randy for wanting to make recoop a > 100k investment is silly.
Maybe one of us should win the lottery, buy the IP back from Randy/Take Two and release everything.
icecoldduke, on 08 September 2018 - 05:48 AM, said:
Running a game company takes money. It will cost gearbox more then a 100k to do this(remember a senior game developer makes > 100k a year). How many senior developers will it take, and how long, to get the 2001 demo in a state were non dev types can use it? As a fan I get were your coming from, but blaming Randy for wanting to make recoop a > 100k investment is silly.
Maybe one of us should win the lottery, buy the IP back from Randy/Take Two and release everything.
There's also the matter of 2K having publishing rights. They're very unlikely to want to release any old DNF materials unless there's something in it for them, even if Randy would be game.
There's also the matter of 2K having publishing rights. They're very unlikely to want to release any old DNF materials unless there's something in it for them, even if Randy would be game.
I'm sure Take Two could be persuaded if the price is right. Take Two lost a lot of money to 3drealms, and they are perfectly within there right to want a nice cash offer to help offset there loss(even though they made all of that back....and more....with the earnings from GTA 5).
Edit:
Remember were talking about Take Two not 2K, two different publishers .
This post has been edited by icecoldduke: 08 September 2018 - 07:18 AM
I really think that any kind of monetisation of this is going to lead to disaster. Gearbox are going to have to pay people a lot to make it non-nerd friendly. To be brutally honest, everyone on this forum would love to see this, but how many "normal" people, even gamers who fondly remember Duke Nukem 3D, are going to want to pay money to be able to look at this stuff? Seriously? This is for die-hard Duketards only. Trying to pedal this in Game for 30 quid with a half-assed documentary is going to lead to yet another financial black-mark against the franchise. They are going to be damn lucky to make over 4 figures in sales.
They should have just released it 'as is' onto a Github repository with a note "For tech-heads only. It is what it is". The people who are slavering for this can have the peak of their existence and everyone else can continue their lives in blissful ignorance. Nobody needs to try and phone-in some bogus content to fill up a DVD. No headlines reading: "Yet Another Duke Bombs At The Charts". Randy doesn't have to go cap in hand to 2K, 2K doesn't have to try and shoot down the whole thing for (quite rightly) thinking that it will bomb as a commercial project. EVERYONE is happy.
They can then put all the money that they would have wasted on this malarkey into paying someone to make a brand-new Duke Nukem game.
This post has been edited by Tea Monster: 08 September 2018 - 07:42 AM
Tea Monster, on 08 September 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:
...
The problem is Take Two is going to want some cash offer for there sign off. Then the codebase couldn't go up "as-is", any third-party plugins(such as Bink) would have to be removed, which means engineering has to go in and remove that shit from the codebase. Or Gearbox could pay off those parties. Once that garbage is resolved, then someone from art and legal have to go in and remove temp content that 3dr didn't have rights to use.
This isn't going to be a fast or cheap process to get a build up on DNF 2001 build github, and all of that effort put into something they can't really make money on. Maybe they might include the build in the next Duke game as insensitive for people to buy the "collectors edition".
This post has been edited by icecoldduke: 08 September 2018 - 07:51 AM
JumpJuneJump, on 03 September 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:
100% Randy truly without any hesitation or doubt wants to Make Duke Great Again.
He's got a harder task than Trump.
I believe this as well. But whether he is actually capable of this... I don't know.
JumpJuneJump, on 03 September 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:
Not true once ever. At *most* a railroad laying earth moving foundation providing premonition of Brian Hook. And a LOT of code/UnrealScript that doesn't belong in polite company.
Nope... account perfectly balanced. I will overtly reject more.
You're a gaywad but you're my favourite gaywad.
Altered Reality, on 04 September 2018 - 02:44 PM, said:
Which is why I'm convinced he will never release anything from DNF 2001. If he does, then whatever he releases will be met with rage from fans who will accuse him of holding on to the REAL stuff, and he will look like shit. Equally, if he stated that he doesn't want to release anything, he would look like shit. But Randy doesn't want to look like shit, and the easiest way to achieve that is not to release anything, while promising to and never revealing when.
This is only makes sense in the context of the short term. You can't exactly get called out for hoarding something if you actually release it. Your cynicism is preventing your little brain from thinking critically. The greatest thing Randy could do is release DNF prototype materials and 'crack' DNF for modders. 2K is clearly up to their typical tricks here.
This post has been edited by Jimmy 4k: 08 September 2018 - 11:40 AM
You can't exactly get called out for hoarding something if you actually release it.
- Randy releases DNF 2001
- DNF 2001 is revealed NOT to be the best game ever, but people don't accept that
- People convince themselves that what was released was not the REAL DNF 2001... because DNF 2001 is the best game ever, and what was released isn't, so it clearly cannot be the true game
- People accuse Randy of purposefully releasing shit and holding onto the good stuff
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
This post has been edited by Altered Reality: 08 September 2018 - 05:11 PM
Altered Reality, on 08 September 2018 - 05:09 PM, said:
- Randy releases DNF 2001
- DNF 2001 is revealed NOT to be the best game ever, but people don't accept that
- People convince themselves that what was released was not the REAL DNF 2001... because DNF 2001 is the best game ever, and what was released isn't, so it clearly cannot be the true game
- People accuse Randy of purposefully releasing shit and holding onto the good stuff
Altered Reality, on 08 September 2018 - 05:09 PM, said:
- Randy releases DNF 2001
- DNF 2001 is revealed NOT to be the best game ever, but people don't accept that
- People convince themselves that what was released was not the REAL DNF 2001... because DNF 2001 is the best game ever, and what was released isn't, so it clearly cannot be the true game
- People accuse Randy of purposefully releasing shit and holding onto the good stuff
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
You nailed it. If DNF hadn't been released, to us it would've remained the best FPS ever that never got to see the light of the day. But once it came out, it turned out to be an utter disappointment.
Game developers have always had this practice where they patch together a trailer or a demo that pieces together the best portions of a game to give gamers the illusion that it's a whole lot more than what it actually is. The DNF 2001 trailer kind of falls under that category.
Why would I care about other people?
I still just want whatever possible connected to that 2001 trailer. I am 30yo now and it is still the best trailer ever.
The 2003 version with hard shadows also looks pretty interesting. They shared a video in DNF bonus materials
Okay, I tried posting this yesterday. For reasons beyond me, it didn't "stick." Now, I have a strong opinion, but I didn't communicate it with strong *language,* so I'm going to chalk that up to a bug (the internal server error message I got after the post would support this theory). So I'm trying again.
-
lol Batman & Robin. While I was watching bad movies and playing Zombies Ate My Neighbors, developers in some dark cubicle somewhere were eating bad food and coding the coolest game that never was.
I've read this thread cover-to-cover now, so I sort of have a "sense of the room" regarding 2001 DNF. That said, there were some points that I wanted to address.
Spoiler tag enabled for those who don't care (which is definitely fair enough).
Spoiler
First and foremost, I gotta say: Gearbox DNF wasn't bad because it was "too modern." It was bad because it was a hodgepodge of selectively-sampled gameplay aspects with no clear rhyme or reason behind any of it. The initial two-weapon limit, for example. There was no reason for it at all. No gameplay imperative. It was just slapped in there because someone in the development team thought they should have it, because it was contemporary. Weapon limits aren't even a bad idea, so long as the game is designed around them. DNF wasn't, and neither was its "final" version.
The game wasn't "consolized" or "too mainstream." It was just put together by wildly incompetent people who really weren't thinking any of their ideas through, and were just ticking off the boxes they thought needed to be ticked. It makes the "power armor is for wusses" thing that much more hilariously ironic, come to think of it, when the devs ended up taking gameplay mechanics straight out of Halo for no real reason at all, other than it made them feel comfortable to mimic a successful contemporary. In other words, it was an amateur effort. If Gearbox can be described in one word, that one would do perfectly.
Secondly, there's no doubt at all that the mood and setting was established based on the OBB doctrine. Um, that's Obvious Borderlands Bullcrap, for those not in the loop (or haven't played those games). For all the controversy, Duke was never that raunchy (at least not in his official appearances). The humor was sometimes crude, but tame as all hell even by '90s standards. Duke was a grizzled, alien-blasting action hero with a mildly chauvinistic (but mostly benign) penchant for babes. D3D was all about cheesy one-liners, occasional movie references, a boob here and there, and gibby explosions.
Gearbox turned Duke into a creepy rapist, and the whole experience was a cringefest. DN3D's Duke is male power fantasy - fun, self-aware, chuckle-worthy. Gearbox Duke is a manbaby MGOTW with a sack of Cheetos, hammering away at posts on 4chan bragging about nonexistent conquests, never having gotten their first kiss and feeling very bitter about it.
I *highly* doubt 3D Realms' original vision for the game prevalently featured this style of "humor" (though if someone in the know could set me straight, that would put paid to a whole lot of my frustrations with the final game for sure). To clarify, I'm not saying I believe the original was PG-13 or anything, but I'm sure it wasn't so puerile, so cringy, so *gross* and childish, like everything else Gearbox does when it thinks it's being funny.
I think more than anything it's what DNF did to the character that disappointed so many fans. It's personally my biggest reason for despising the game, actual gameplay shortcomings notwithstanding.
Another thing I'd like to touch on is the notion that a DNF "redux" would be wasted, because purists would whine that it's not exactly like DN3D. Such people - and their complaints - certainly do exist, I'm sure, but they're niche as can possibly be, and therefore utterly irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of Duke fans, I'm sure, would love to see the original vision of DNF completed and playable (yay!) or at the very least, shown the light of day for preservation and posterity's sake (also yay, but without the exclamation mark, I concede).
If the argument is that the endeavor is wasted just because some people disagree, I guess we'd all better just throw in the towel and accept that the future of the industry is Fortnite and Overwatch, because that's what's "it" right now, and nothing else should ever be made or attempted.
Me, personally? Well, I think there's no better time for Duke to make a comeback. Someone needs to make fun of today's weirdo, super-sensitive-snowflake society, and Duke's the man to do it. But then he'd have to make fun of himself first to clear the slate, as a sort of apology for DNF.
I'm serious, though. Today's pop culture is *such* parody bait, and nobody so far had the balls to step up to the plate and make fun of it. We all know that if anyone's got balls...
-- BALLS OF STEEL --
It's Duke Nukem. We could have a sort of "pod people" kind of plot, where the aliens have taken over and the average androgynous people-creature is too stupid and careless to notice. Duke wakes up from a coma (which resulted in a years-long nightmare that we realize is Gearbox DNF), shakes off the alien conditioning, and...well, I think I'm going off-topic here.
If I do want to get something out there, it's this: someone mentioned that if the 2001 DNF *did* get released and *did* end up being awesome, that it would be the end of Randy Pitchford's career. He got laughed off, but hey - to a point, he's right. No, seriously, he *is* right. Maybe not to the extent of "ending Randy Pitchford's career" (people *will* buy whatever Borderlands junk Gearbox squeezes out, so Gearbox - and by extension Randy Pitchford - will be just fine), but yeah, but those of us from the '80's, 90's, (and beyond!) are probably gonna take notice if the mood, tone, and intent of the unfinished product are drastically different.
But even then, that won't matter in the big scheme of things. Why? Simple, because the kids playing Borderlands today probably don't know who Duke Nukem is, let alone why DNF was a disappointment, and they probably don't care. The only thing that would make them care about Duke is a brand-new Duke game, but even then, they won't care about ye-olde Duke.
There's a "put up or shut up" kind of thing going in this situation. One side says DNF circa 2001 was friggin' awesome, and almost good to go barring some internal setback or another. The other says it was a ghost of a shadow, that it was never really what anyone would call "playable."
So, I say "prove it.: Release the beast, and let God sort 'em out. Either way, only us old guys really remember or care. It's not going to really affect the Duke brand one way or another (any more than the released DNF did, to be sure), but the old fans would like to settle that score. Personally, I think Randy's blowin' it out his wazoo, and DNF sucked because Gearbox sucks. I'm happy to risk the embarrassment of being wrong if it means a definitive answer.
Help
Jimmy 4k, on 28 August 2018 - 04:54 PM, said:
.
Duke4.net
DNF #1
Duke 3D #1
