[johnnythewolf]

Lazy Dog, on 17 March 2019 - 11:29 AM, said:

can you honestly say that if a new Duke Nukem game came out tomorrow sjw or feminists or any other idiots that can't distinguish a videogame from reality wouldn't start complaining? do we live on the same planet?

I can honestly say that you sound like you are only one step away from shooting up a mosque...

spessu_sb, on 17 March 2019 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'd just like to point out that yet you're here. Kinda funny for a guy who doesn't miss Duke, you happen to be on the Duke Nukem community forum.

Flying Techbot, on 17 March 2019 - 12:29 PM, said:

Having the option to kill NPCs, who mainly women, would set people off, but I always try to keep the NPCs alive so I can interact with them.

I admit I do kill them whenever I get the chance, but only because doing so rewards the player with more enemies to shoot at...

Why the developers thought this would somehow dissuade players from killing NPCs is beyond me.

Flying Techbot, on 17 March 2019 - 12:29 PM, said:

Also, johnnythewolf, I'm sorry the other members are giving you such a hard time. I've tried to reason and talk with them too, but a lot them are set in their ways, and I think they have trouble telling the difference between someone who is genuine and someone who is a confrontational dick. I don't know why some of the guys here are so angry. Maybe it's the years of waiting for DNF. Maybe there are other things in their life that make it difficult to talk to people. Maybe it's just personality differences. I don't know. I've seen some of the crazier members make scapegoats out of members with more liberal opinions, and it just makes everything unpleasant.

Thank you! This means a lot to me.

As for why some people are being so angry, I believe I know the reason, although I get the feeling that merely saying it will cause this thread to implode...

[DisgustedGrunt]

johnnythewolf, on 17 March 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

I can honestly say that you sound like you are one step away from shooting up a mosque...

No. You see, i have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe, my problem is when they rub it in my face. "Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one, but nobody wants to hear about yours" people seems to have forgotten that phrase.

[Ninety-Six]

johnnythewolf, on 17 March 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

I can honestly say that you sound like you are only one step away from shooting up a mosque...

okay wow what the fuck

[MusicallyInspired]

Well aren't you quite the contrarian, johnnythewolf.

[johnnythewolf]

What can I say? I am still not convinced that Duke Nukem was ever this strong of a franchise to begin with; again, Duke Nukem 3D seems to be the only game to have achieved mainstream success.

That does not mean the other games are all bad, of course, but to me, it suggests that the brand mostly appeals to a niche audience.

[DisgustedGrunt]

johnnythewolf, on 18 March 2019 - 01:11 PM, said:

What can I say? I am still not convinced that Duke Nukem was ever this strong of a franchise to begin with; again, Duke Nukem 3D seems to be the only game to have achieved mainstream success.

That does not mean the other games are all bad, of course, but to me, it suggests that the brand mostly appeals to a niche audience.

Well,pretty much everything after 3D was made to "hype" people for DNF.

[johnnythewolf]

Also, looking at Time To Kill/Zero Hour/Land of the Babes, I just do not understand why they had to be Tomb Raider clones in the first place. Why could they have not been first-person shooters like Duke Nukem 3D, since that is what the franchise is best known for? The original Tomb Raider games really did not age well and even back then, they were infamous for their awkward gameplay.

In fact, I am surprised that there has not been any attempt as far as I know to reimagine the third-person Duke Nukem games into Duke Nukem 3D episodes.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yes, Duke3D was the first Duke game to achieve overwhelming success and rocketed it into stardom. That's why they took so long on DNF because they wanted to do it justice and outdo it in every way. DNF was supposed to come out within a couple years at first, then in 2001, then it was "any day now" and then it just kept never happening. The third-party licensed Duke games were just there to keep hype for Duke alive and to generate more revenue for DNF's development. None of those other Duke games were made by 3DR at all. In any capacity. Duke was on track to being a monster franchise and it just never happened because DNF never happened until nobody cared anymore. Everyone knew the other games weren't "part of the series" and were just stopgaps to have a bit of fun and distraction to tie us over. Looking back, yeah those other games weren't really great, but they weren't meant to be. DNF was supposed to be coming out. 3DR had a great potential success on their hands and they just overthought it and hesitated too much when they should have jumped on it. Saved newer innovations for a future game instead of holding off and trying to stuff it all into one giant product which was year after year not going to live up to expectations.

[PsychoGoatee]

I think it's worth noting, Time to Kill was included in the Playstation Greatest Hits line, with the classic green label on the side. It was a hit, I think Zero Hour and the console Duke 3D ports were as well, they helped keep Duke in the zeitgeist, and he was over on the cover of game magazines and whatnot. It was a solid game for the time, better than your average PS1 third person adventure. Maybe didn't age too well, but it was a solid choice for a side game in the franchise at the time.

And needless to say, the franchise could be a hit again. It has several games that have done well, one monster hit, all it takes is one solid game well delivered and it's back on top. Much like Doom after close to 15 years on a break etc. The appeal is there, certainly less memorable franchises have made comebacks.

[johnnythewolf]

I would not talk about a comeback in Doom's case, as the franchise never faltered quite like the Duke Nukem franchise did; it is just that Id Software took its sweet time with Doom 4.

[PsychoGoatee]

In general what you're saying is a bit surface level and lacking foresight. You said how the series only appeals to a niche audience, just because only one title was a full on slam dunk. That doesn't say anything about the appeal of the franchise, if it had several mechanically terrific titles and didn't sell, that'd be one thing. A new title would get reviewed on it's own merit, and if it's cool it'd get buzz. God of War had Ascension which had a very lukewarm reception, came back years later with a huge hit. RE6 got terrible reviews (though it sold well - though also DNF did make a profit in 2011, and has surely sold reasonably well by now), and RE is back on top. In general it's clear there's an audience for a more classic inspired style of shooter, with big production values, like DOOM 2016, and Duke could easily have a game that does well along those lines. We could keep giving info, make examples, try to explain why it's clear somebody could make a hit with this series, but believe what you'd like.

[MusicallyInspired]

3DR took their sweet time with DNF too. The end result was just way too much of a copycat of everything else instead of breaking new ground. It also didn't help that it was shoddily frankensteined together with little rhyme or reason piece by piece and some crap dialogue writing thrown on top.

[johnnythewolf]

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 02:54 PM, said:

3DR took their sweet time with DNF too.

But the Doom series remained consistently good throughout the years whereas the Duke Nukem series just got worse, culminating with the release of Duke Nukem Forever and Critical Mass.

[MusicallyInspired]

I don't agree that they got worse at all. They were just mostly average to pretty good and stayed on an even keel level lower than Duke3D. Doom had more actual hits (Doom 64, for instance). And I'd argue that Doom 3 was a bit of a step down and didn't please a lot of people. It still did well and it has its fans (I'm one of them, not a big fan, but I appreciated it).

[johnnythewolf]

From what I can see, past 2002, all Duke Nukem games were either re-releases or outright stinkers like Duke Nukem Forever and Critical Mass, not to mention Bombshell had it been released as "Duke Nukem: Mass Destruction" as initially planned. I also read that the reportedly terrible Vivisector: Beast Within was also supposed to be a Duke Nukem game...

[necroslut]

johnnythewolf, on 19 March 2019 - 04:05 AM, said:

Also, looking at Time To Kill/Zero Hour/Land of the Babes, I just do not understand why they had to be Tomb Raider clones in the first place. Why could they have not been first-person shooters like Duke Nukem 3D, since that is what the franchise is best known for? The original Tomb Raider games really did not age well and even back then, they were infamous for their awkward gameplay.

In fact, I am surprised that there has not been any attempt as far as I know to reimagine the third-person Duke Nukem games into Duke Nukem 3D episodes.

After Duke 3D, DNF has been the only main-line game. All the other titles, well-received or not, was second-tier efforts at best. Not as ambitious, not as advanced, not as widely available. For your Doom comparison, they are better compared to the likes of Doom 64, Final Doom or Doom RPG than Doom 3 or Doom 2016.

TTK/Lotb/ZH were made into slower, simpler third-person shooters to play better on consoles. Did you ever try any of the old console ports of Duke 3D? I mean, they worked, but it was certainly not the game at its best.

[MusicallyInspired]

I don't know. Duke Nukem 64 was one of the best console ports I've ever played.

[necroslut]

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 04:52 PM, said:

I don't know. Duke Nukem 64 was one of the best console ports I've ever played.

Can you honestly say it controlled as well as D3D on PC? Well, worked way better than the PlayStation version, that's for sure...

[johnnythewolf]

necroslut, on 19 March 2019 - 04:29 PM, said:

After Duke 3D, DNF has been the only main-line game. All the other titles, well-received or not, was second-tier efforts at best. Not as ambitious, not as advanced, not as widely available. For your Doom comparison, they are better compared to the likes of Doom 64, Final Doom or Doom RPG than Doom 3 or Doom 2016.

Doom 64 is pretty damn legendary, though, and Final Doom is just two fan-made mapsets that were originally meant to be released for free.

necroslut, on 19 March 2019 - 04:29 PM, said:

TTK/Lotb/ZH were made into slower, simpler third-person shooters to play better on consoles. Did you ever try any of the old console ports of Duke 3D? I mean, they worked, but it was certainly not the game at its best.

That does not seem like a good excuse, given the success of Turok and Goldeneye 007 around the same time.

[Kathy]

PsychoGoatee, on 19 March 2019 - 02:42 PM, said:

God of War had Ascension which had a very lukewarm reception, came back years later with a huge hit. RE6 got terrible reviews (though it sold well - though also DNF did make a profit in 2011, and has surely sold reasonably well by now), and RE is back on top. In general it's clear there's an audience for a more classic inspired style of shooter, with big production values, like DOOM 2016, and Duke could easily have a game that does well along those lines. We could keep giving info, make examples, try to explain why it's clear somebody could make a hit with this series, but believe what you'd like.

These are not good examples. RE and GoW are two very successful and established franchises. Latest main entries in RE or GoW was bad? No problem, people could tap into previous entries to be excited about the next being better than the last. Duke doesn't have that luxury, as a franchise it never really took off. Sure, the next one could be good, but the hype might not be there to facilitate more sales. And if it's bad, then it obviously won't be saved, like DNF was.
GoW and RE franchises surely might fall from grace if they start to release crappy games, although financially there might be a long way for them to become irrelevant.

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 04:52 PM, said:

I don't know. Duke Nukem 64 was one of the best console ports I've ever played.

It's still Duke Nukem 3d. Not some new game in the main series.

[PsychoGoatee]

Kathy, on 19 March 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

These are not good examples. RE and GoW are two very successful and established franchises. Latest main entries in RE or GoW was bad? No problem, people could tap into previous entries to be excited about the next being better than the last. Duke doesn't have that luxury, as a franchise it never really took off. Sure, the next one could be good, but the hype might not be there to facilitate more sales. And if it's bad, then it obviously won't be saved, like DNF was.
GoW and RE franchises surely might fall from grace if they start to release crappy games, although financially there might be a long way for them to become irrelevant.


It's still Duke Nukem 3d. Not some new game in the main series.

We can compare stuff, make more examples, it's just to illustrate a different point of view on how a new Duke game might do. To me it just makes sense that a new Duke game could be successful. Stranger things have happened, it is a brand with some recognition and I think it'd do well, provided the game is solid. All we can do is speculate. And I disagree that the franchise didn't take off, it had several hit games. For us as PC FPS fans I could see that though.

On saying Duke can't be saved if it has another game that doesn't hit, even that I don't think is necessarily true. So many brands have misses, and somebody tries it again, even decades later. Since somebody owns the brand who as nutty as they may be, they seem like they want to use it, and have licensed it out for small things like cameos so far etc. I think we'll see more Duke games, and if they do it well we could see a hit game. I can see why somebody would think otherwise, that makes sense too.

[Ninety-Six]

johnnythewolf, on 19 March 2019 - 05:22 PM, said:

Doom 64 is pretty damn legendary, though

Only really within the scope of us classic FPS fans. To the modern zeitgeist, it doesn't even exist. (Probably in part due to a really bad choice of name).

[johnnythewolf]

PsychoGoatee, on 19 March 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

And I disagree that the franchise didn't take off, it had several hit games.

But with the exception of Manhattan Project, which honestly I have never heard anyone talk about outside of the Duke Nukem community and only learned of its existence on some abandonware website years ago, those "hit games" were exclusive to Playstation 1 and Nintendo 64. Even if they were to be re-released right now, they would only appeal to a niche audience of nostalgic gamers; if they get a proper remastering with improved controls and all, they may get the attention of a few newer players, but as Kathy pointed out, Duke Nukem is a brand that never really took off outside of Duke Nukem 3D and is now mostly viewed as a laughing stock for how much of an embarrassment Duke Nukem Forever turned out to be and how utterly cheesy and dated Duke Nukem himself is as a character.

Ninety-Six, on 19 March 2019 - 06:26 PM, said:

Only really within the scope of us classic FPS fans. To the modern zeitgeist, it doesn't even exist. (Probably in part due to a really bad choice of name).

I never claimed the opposite. But even in that context, I feel like Doom 64 is better known than the Duke Nukem third-person shooters.

[Kathy]

PsychoGoatee, on 19 March 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

We can compare stuff, make more examples, it's just to illustrate a different point of view on how a new Duke game might do. To me it just makes sense that a new Duke game could be successful.

I never said it couldn't. It's just that franchise is in bad shape right now. It had one great game that now is in the "retro" category, it not relevant. The new game would need to stand on its own.

Quote

On saying Duke can't be saved if it has another game that doesn't hit, even that I don't think is necessarily true.

I meant to next game(DNF2, if you will) couldn't be saved by hype, like DNF was. Everyone knew DNF was a safe bet in terms of sales, regardless of reception. Next game is not.

[MusicallyInspired]

I think one of the reasons why Doom 2016 did so well was because nobody expected it to be that good. Especially with how long it was taking to make. So when it finally came out and was actually impressive it was a pleasant surprise. There was no hype train. Even the public multiplayer beta was disappointing to almost everyone. Then the single player hit and blew everyone away. I know the trailers looked good, but I think most people were still on the fence until they actually tried it for themselves.

DNF had way too much hype. I think if they sat down and thought up something for a new Duke game and came up with something that was fresh and actually good, like Doom 2016, I think it could have the same effect. All bets are off as far as the future goes. Who would have thought that anybody could have taken Shadow Warrior of all things in this day and age and make it a hit? Enough to warrant a sequel? Just because DNF was a laughingstock doesn't mean Duke is dead and buried. I think the people who matter still remember what Duke was and deep down would be happy to see it shine again even if they were turned against the franchise because of DNF. Any Duke sequel will be in the same position Doom 4 was and it has a chance. It just needs to be good.

necroslut, on 19 March 2019 - 05:13 PM, said:

Can you honestly say it controlled as well as D3D on PC? Well, worked way better than the PlayStation version, that's for sure...

What console port ever works as well or better than on a PC control-wise? As far as ports go it was an example of one done extremely well.

Kathy, on 19 March 2019 - 05:27 PM, said:

It's still Duke Nukem 3d. Not some new game in the main series.

I never said it wasn't. I was responding to necroslut's comments about Duke3D ports specifically being below average.

Also, I never heard a thing about Doom 64 at the time. I heard all about Time to Kill and Land of the Babes and Zero Hour (the big 3 at the time). But I only saw Doom 64 on the shelf once or twice and thought "oh hey, they made a port for the N64. Neat." I had no idea it was a completely different experience altogether and I doubt many others did as well. It certainly wasn't as household a name as Goldeneye or Turok on the N64. It was just another Doom port I think in most people's minds, because all the others were. Heck, I rented Quake 2 for the N64 once and was completely taken by surprise that it was a totally different campaign. The id console ports were not very notable at the time. At least as far as my experience went. I'm not saying they were good or bad, I'm just saying it wasn't as big of a thing as all the new Duke games (which everyone KNEW were new) were. Especially Doom 64.

[Ninety-Six]

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 08:57 PM, said:

Also, I never heard a thing about Doom 64 at the time. I heard all about Time to Kill and Land of the Babes and Zero Hour (the big 3 at the time). But I only saw Doom 64 on the shelf once or twice and thought "oh hey, they made a port for the N64. Neat." I had no idea it was a completely different experience altogether and I doubt many others did as well. It certainly wasn't as household a name as Goldeneye or Turok on the N64. It was just another Doom port I think in most people's minds, because all the others were. Heck, I rented Quake 2 for the N64 once and was completely taken by surprise that it was a totally different campaign. The id console ports were not very notable at the time. At least as far as my experience went. I'm not saying they were good or bad, I'm just saying it wasn't as big of a thing as all the new Duke games (which everyone KNEW were new) were. Especially Doom 64.

This is how I see things too. I think the console Duke games are slightly more remembered than Doom 64 explicitly because they were remembered as actually being different games, whereas even today most people (casual fans) still probably assume Doom 64 was just a port.

[necroslut]

johnnythewolf, on 19 March 2019 - 06:32 PM, said:

But with the exception of Manhattan Project, which honestly I have never heard anyone talk about outside of the Duke Nukem community and only learned of its existence on some abandonware website years ago, those "hit games" were exclusive to Playstation 1 and Nintendo 64. Even if they were to be re-released right now, they would only appeal to a niche audience of nostalgic gamers; if they get a proper remastering with improved controls and all, they may get the attention of a few newer players, but as Kathy pointed out, Duke Nukem is a brand that never really took off outside of Duke Nukem 3D and is now mostly viewed as a laughing stock for how much of an embarrassment Duke Nukem Forever turned out to be and how utterly cheesy and dated Duke Nukem himself is as a character.

Of course the franchise never really "took off" - it took 15 years for the next mainline game to be released (and then it didn't exactly set the world on fire).

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 08:57 PM, said:

What console port ever works as well or better than on a PC control-wise? As far as ports go it was an example of one done extremely well. [...]
I never said it wasn't. I was responding to necroslut's comments about Duke3D ports specifically being below average.

I never said they were below average (as ports go - Duke 64 is probably still the best Duke port) - I said they weren't the game at its best, and that being (at least one of the reasons) why the spin-offs were developed to play somewhat differently from Duke 3D.

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 08:57 PM, said:

Also, I never heard a thing about Doom 64 at the time. I heard all about Time to Kill and Land of the Babes and Zero Hour (the big 3 at the time). But I only saw Doom 64 on the shelf once or twice and thought "oh hey, they made a port for the N64. Neat." I had no idea it was a completely different experience altogether and I doubt many others did as well. It certainly wasn't as household a name as Goldeneye or Turok on the N64. It was just another Doom port I think in most people's minds, because all the others were. Heck, I rented Quake 2 for the N64 once and was completely taken by surprise that it was a totally different campaign. The id console ports were not very notable at the time. At least as far as my experience went. I'm not saying they were good or bad, I'm just saying it wasn't as big of a thing as all the new Duke games (which everyone KNEW were new) were. Especially Doom 64.

Yeah, I didn't discover Doom 64 until N64 emulation came along and I don't think I'm alone there, I thought it to be another port like Quake 64, Duke 64, Hexen 64, Carmageddon 64 etc.
Sure, it has something of a cult status now - especially in the Doom scene - but while I don't have any sales figures it seems to have been rather overlooked at the time; lacking marketing and dull title probably helped see to that.

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 08:57 PM, said:

I think one of the reasons why Doom 2016 did so well was because nobody expected it to be that good. Especially with how long it was taking to make. So when it finally came out and was actually impressive it was a pleasant surprise. There was no hype train. Even the public multiplayer beta was disappointing to almost everyone. Then the single player hit and blew everyone away. I know the trailers looked good, but I think most people were still on the fence until they actually tried it for themselves.

DNF had way too much hype. I think if they sat down and thought up something for a new Duke game and came up with something that was fresh and actually good, like Doom 2016, I think it could have the same effect. All bets are off as far as the future goes. Who would have thought that anybody could have taken Shadow Warrior of all things in this day and age and make it a hit? Enough to warrant a sequel? Just because DNF was a laughingstock doesn't mean Duke is dead and buried. I think the people who matter still remember what Duke was and deep down would be happy to see it shine again even if they were turned against the franchise because of DNF. Any Duke sequel will be in the same position Doom 4 was and it has a chance. It just needs to be good.

Absolutely. Though it could be in a Duke game's disfavor that the last game is widely perceived to be really bad; even though Doom 3 is far less liked than it was at release, its rarely called "the worst game ever". In a worst case scenario, that could make people skip over a new Duke game unseen.
I believe there's enough quality components in the Duke DNA to make a great - even amagzing - game, if competent people give it a serious try.

[knopparp]

Great. Go away from email for a couple of days. Come back to an explosion of replies to this thread. Hopes for old build at fever pitch. Excitement building forever.

Log on...

No. Just people arguing on the internet.

[johnnythewolf]

MusicallyInspired, on 19 March 2019 - 08:57 PM, said:

I think one of the reasons why Doom 2016 did so well was because nobody expected it to be that good.

Which I still do not get, as again, the Doom franchise never really faltered and in fact several years prior to Doom 2016's announcement made it back into the spotlight quite spectacularly thanks to mods like Brutal Doom and Andrew Hulshult's remake of the soundtracks.

Honestly, I just cannot see how Duke Nukem could become a hit again at this point. As I said, I do not think the character could still draw in a mainstream audience, as players nowadays tend to prefer protagonists that are either more realistic and have some depth to them or grimdark edgelords who literally do not joke around. The Duke Nukem Bullestorm DLC gave us a perfect example of just how silly he would look in this day and age, especially if he is to be portrayed as he was in DN3D and DNF, i.e. as an unoriginal narcissistic douchebag who somehow still manages to be idolised by practically everyone. If anything, Duke Nukem Forever's failure felt in many ways like the character finally getting his comeuppance for his hubris and his unwillingness to get with the times.

While I liked Shadow Warrior 2013 for the way it managed to reimagine a horribly racist stereotype into an actually likeable protagonist and get him to embark on a pretty compelling quest, I cannot deny that it is still kind of a mediocre game, in part due to being essentially a spiritual successor to Flying Wild Hog's fairly average Hard Reset. I did not like Shadow Warrior 2 as much, but it still sold much better and was technically a superior game. While it would be definitely interesting to see Duke Nukem be given a similar treatment, I do not think it would be enough to make it another blockbuster.

I can sort of see a Duke Nukem game done in the style of the new Wolfenstein games, but not how it could avoid coming across as a complete rip-off, and not just because its incarnation of BJ Blazkowicz already looks so much like Duke Nukem without his sunglasses.

Finally, I just cannot imagine a Duke Nukem game done in the style of Doom 2016. I am not saying it is not possible, but I just cannot see how it would work.

[Kathy]

I don't remember, but did DNF have not first-view cutscenes? Bulletstorm's Duke looks stupid because it doesn't belong there(script wasn't change aside from Duke talk, right?) and because cutscenes are not from his(first-person) perspective.
And, once again, this is why I'd prefer to keep personality to absolute minimum anyway. And yeah, interaction with other characters is a point where it might become stupid.