[citation][nom]AbdullahG[/nom]It's nice that they realized that their latest release sucked and now they WANT to correct their mistakes. More game developers should learn from this.[/citation]
THEY were contracted to put the game together, NOT make the game. THEY barely touched it.
[citation][nom]SmileyTPB1[/nom]If they have to ask you wonder how in touch they really are with what makes a good game.I get where they are coming from but DNF's problems should be quite apparent without asking for feedback on why it sucked.[/citation]
duke 3d came out in 96, 15 years later... forever.
this isnt like a normal game franchise, it didnt evolve over time, it was a 15 year gap, and the fan base of duke is mostly from 15 years ago. what they are looking for is this.
do you want a good throw back game
or
do you want duke completely modernized in every facet of the game.
now with this game its a valid point to bring up, should it be modernized, because it would most likely become a military fps with weird weapons, or a gears of war style cover game.
[citation][nom]linford585[/nom]"...its fate sealed by game franchises like Gears of War and Call of Duty which injected unique elements of gameplay into the FPS genre that's become standard over the years..."Is it just me, or does there seem to be some distance between author's opinions here at Tom's? Don't get me wrong, I still love the site. However, when I see things like this, which imply that only large console shooters have changed the genre, or how PC gaming is "dieing" (soon to be followed up with articles on how it's not dieing), I begin to wonder.I understand where this statement was going, I just don't entirely agree with it's implications.[/citation]
what games, sense half life, change the shooter...
they were all console games. halo brought regenerating health, which i despise. it also brought the small load out outside of realistic military games. there are others, but i cant recall them by name due to not playing fpses on consoles.
[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]the game was fine, people were expecting the jesus of games, or already decided they weren't going to love it before they even played it.It was an average shooter, overhyped so it got bad ratings, what's to know?[/citation]
do not send the game out to feminists next time.
or anyone who cant take realy crude humor
dont spend more than 4 years on the next game
focus on single player, as thats the main selling point of the duke
and don't lock out mods, duke could easily have long legs if you allow for total conversion mods in multiplayer.
[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]Any game dev will have a natural bias towards the games they make. It's not like they purposely wanted to release a shitty game. Those who are bashing gearbox for asking the brutally honest quest of "WTF went wrong?" are jackasses. This is EXACTLY what we need game developers asking.[/citation]
lets be clear, gear box put it together, and are asking what people want, a throw back or a modern game out of it for the next one.