Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
Michael D

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Michael D » June 24th, 2011, 9:59 pm

The drama surrounding the release of the infamous Duke Nukem Forever hasn't gone away, from the bad reviews, to the fascistic threats of 2K's PR firm on the press to the "how could this game have happened and turned out so bad" analysis. But I'm really shocked that, in the aftermath of this game's release, it seems that no one has given developer Gearbox trouble over it.

To be fair, they did inherit Duke Nukem Forever from 3D Realms, who are more villainous regarding this game, I'd say, seeing as they teased and taunted gamers with it while they didn't keep their end of the bargain by, you know, actually working on it (it been widely reported that they played World of Warcraft over developing the game and 3D Realms even admitted it).  Also, seeing how they slacked off and sat pretty while other developers (many smaller ones, especially) probably put their heart and soul into games that never saw the light of day, I'd say that the fact that the company went bankrupt and everyone lost their jobs is karma.

That being said, though, Gearbox was in charge regarding the final product and, based on what I've seen, it seems to me that they didn't really care about it. They seemed more interested in getting the game out there so that the whole thing would go away.  My question then is, if that's really all they intended, why didn't they just cancel it?  And do you think that this is the reason why Gearbox hasn't been called out over this game?

If so, that troubles me, as it shows that there's a level of blindness that people and critics share when a game is developed by a studio they like.  If they like the company that makes it, they'll give them the kid gloves treatment, while they'll tear apart most every game by a studio they don't like (one example of this, for me, is hatred of Sonic Team's 360/PS3 version of Sonic Unleashed and the absurd lack of it for the far worse PS2/Wii version developed by Dimps).  

And was I the only one who assumed that, when Gearbox got their hands on Duke Nukem Forever, they'd clean it up a bit, perhaps work on it to try and make something worthwhile out of it?  And how much of this game really is theirs?  Did they work on any of the mechanics? Are any of the failed attempts at humor theirs (if so, I'm even more skeptical of their upcoming Brothers In Arms: Furious Four)?

My point of this all is that there's more than enough blame to go around regarding Duke Nukem Forever and, although I don't know how much they shoulder, I think Gearbox's feet should be being held to the fire more than they currently are. What say you?

ActRaiser1
Posts: 2726
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby ActRaiser1 » June 27th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Nah, they get a pass.  They didn't work on it for 12 years so you can't really blame them.

They did the best they could with what little time they had.  Sure, they could have scrapped everything and started over but what would be the point? 

Blaming these guys is akin to yelling at your wife when you ran over the kids' toys in the driveway.  Sure, you can do it, but it's not like she had anything to do with your piss poor driving or the kids being dolts and leaving crap out.

Note: I'm not married yet, nor do I have kids but am expecting a similar circumstance one day.

N64Dude1
Posts: 1242
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby N64Dude1 » June 27th, 2011, 7:02 pm

Sonic Unleashed for PS3/360 was not by GearBox

The one game they made that had anything to do with SEGA was the control-challenged,but revamped Samba de Amigo Wiimake.

Honestly,give the guys a brake for game they did wrong they've made other decent games.What's next curse Dimps for Sonic Rush Adventure?Despite the good? Call CORE a bad developer becuase Eidos screwed them over with Angel of Darkness despite going strong for at least four games?

Until the bad outweighs the good,and they mess up a game they made,NOT inheritied,then you can strike 'em down.

Leo1
Posts: 2325
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Leo1 » June 27th, 2011, 9:31 pm

Judging by the trailer for the new Brothers in Arms title, I wouldn't be shocked if Gearbox was responsible for many of the missteps in this game.

I can't believe they're set to ruin such a great series like Brothers in Arms.

PacMan000

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby PacMan000 » June 28th, 2011, 11:14 am

[QUOTE] Gearbox was in charge regarding the final product and, based on what I've seen, it seems to me that they didn't really care about it. They seemed more interested in getting the game out there so that the whole thing would go away.  My question then is, if that's really all they intended, why didn't they just cancel it? [/QUOTE]

They did not cancel the game because it would have been too expensive.  If they released the game they could make part of their money back, even if it did not make a profit. Usually things get cancled when it would cost too much to promote the completed product.  Duke Nukem Forever had a full decade of pre-release hype, so that wasn't a problem.

andrew

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby andrew » June 28th, 2011, 1:17 pm

I don't think they should get a pass. 3DRealms begged Pitchford to take on their game and complete it. Pitchford accepeted being a loyal nitwit since the first game he worked on was Duke 3D.

 

When they got the game, levels had to be completed, certain characters and environments had to be rendered, others cleaned up, and physics were added. It was a mess. It still is a horrible mess. Can't polish a turd. 

 

He should have said no thanks but instead he saw Gearbox could make a quick buck off nostalgia alone and feel good that he was responsible for getting Duke Forever shipped.


ShadowAngel1
Posts: 85
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby ShadowAngel1 » June 29th, 2011, 9:01 am

[QUOTE=Leo]Judging by the trailer for the new Brothers in Arms title, I wouldn't be shocked if Gearbox was responsible for many of the missteps in this game.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty obvious, that most of the bad ideas came from Gearbox. For instance, the 2 Weapons-only system, was their idea as was the self-regenerating health. The DNF Build from 2007 shows how much was changed from good to ugly. Even some of the levels were changed.

But then again, i wasn't surprised. Gearbox is a pretty mediocre developer, the Brothers in Arms games turned from the first good game to complete crap, because instead of making their own ideas, Gearbox is running after the market leaders and try too hard to make their games like Call of Duty in terms of Gameplay.

They should've given this game to a better Developer, who knows how to make classic First Person Shooters. Maybe Raven or CroTeam would've been awesome, with the Serious Sam games they prove they know how to make classic fun First Person Shooters.

Michael D

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Michael D » June 29th, 2011, 6:02 pm

So, you think Gearbox took on Duke Nukem Forever for personal reasons? That's interesting and explains a lot, but that only serves to prove my point that they need to shoulder some of the blame, seeing as they wanted in on the project so badly.  

Not to mention the fact that Randy Pitchford is going out there, sticking up for this game by saying that "sometimes we want greasy hamburgers instead of caviar," which infers that the people who hate it are out of touch elitists.  Dennis Dyack tried that with Too Human, another bad and in development forever game and it blew up in his face because it came off as an example of being able to dish it but not take it. Basically, if Gearbox is going to go out there and tell us that this mess of a game is worth our 60 bucks, they should and should be able to take the heat of resistance.

As far as the not cancelling it thing, money has nothing to do with it.  2K's a big company and throwing away work that neither they nor Gearbox invested in wouldn't have cost them anything; the only cost was getting the license, which they can now do with what they want.  And besides, if they did care about this project that much, they could have easily tossed everything and started from scratch (like Nintendo did with that Kirby Gamecube game that eventually became Kirby's Epic Yarn on Wii) or used the two years of development to clean things up.

I also have to question the idea that most games are cancelled because they can't be marketed or that the company won't have enough money to advertise it.  If that was the case, we wouldn't have Wario Land: Shake It, which Nintendo didn't market at all.  And if that's the case, Mega Man Universe would still be alive and Mega Man Legends 3 wouldn't be wallowing in the "maybe we'll release it, despite our already announcing it" category (those two, I'd say, are due to the internal issues at Capcom over Keji Inafune's departure and the questionable viability of the Mega Man series).

As far as my swipe at Dimps, it wasn't to say I hate them, but they're not bullet-proof either, as those Dragon Ball Z Budokai games proved.  It was also to emphasize that, like Gearbox has with Duke Nukem Forever, Dimps gets a total pass on every Sonic game they make, even a horrible one like their PS2/Wii version of Sonic Unleashed, while Sonic Team is always given grief because they're still viewed as the bigger evil because they made Shadow The Hedgehog and Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 (like 3D Realms in the Duke Nukem Forever situation).  

Additionally, I never said Gearbox made Sonic Unleashed for 360/PS3 and I do think that Gearbox is a talented developer who didn't do themselves any favors with Duke Nukem Forever.

ActRaiser1
Posts: 2726
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby ActRaiser1 » June 30th, 2011, 9:05 am

[QUOTE=Michael D]
As far as the not cancelling it thing, money has nothing to do with it.  2K's a big company and throwing away work that neither they nor Gearbox invested in wouldn't have cost them anything; the only cost was getting the license, which they can now do with what they want. 
[/QUOTE]

LOL, whut?  Money has everything to do with it.  It's a business, they need to make money.  Releasing it as fast as possible allows them to recoup their investment as fast as possible or reduce their losses if they don't actually make a profit.  My hunch is this thing actually sells well based on name recognition alone.

Leo1
Posts: 2325
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Leo1 » June 30th, 2011, 12:33 pm

2K Games paid a awful lot for the publishing rights (12 million back in 2000, and I assume they probably paid more as development dragged on for years and years). And Gearbox provided funding out of its own pocket to finish development. They've both invested in it.

And if things failed, Gearbox deserves a lot of the criticism. They're the ones that finished it and they're the ones that have been doing development work on it since late 2009. AAA games have been started from scratch and brought to store shelfs in that amount of time. Its not like they were given 6 weeks to toss things together before shipping.



Return to “Modern Gaming”