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 30th, 2011, 12:40 pm

[QUOTE=ActRaiser][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.
[/QUOTE]

So 2K's reputation is worth risking over taking a monetary hit that they'll probably recoup on NBA 2K12 alone this year?  You are right that it will sell a bit initially on its name recognition alone, but it won't last and that's also what happened with E.T. on the Atari 2600, and we all know how that ended up.  And yes, I'm going on the record by saying that this game is as big a disaster as that game was, which is interesting when you consider that one had perhaps the shortest development cycle ever (5 weeks) and one had the longest (15 years).  In fact, on that basis, you could argue that E.T. had more justification for being as bad as it was.

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, 5:15 pm

[QUOTE=Michael D]So 2K's reputation is worth risking over taking a monetary hit that they'll probably recoup on NBA 2K12 alone this year?[/QUOTE]

Um, you mean the same company that coded Hot Coffee?  The same company that's probably been picketed more than anyone for its Grand Theft Auto franchise?  Gaining increased health from a lady of the evening before doing a mission, didn't exactly hurt their reputation.

They'll do just fine.  If anything any type of press seems to merely enhance Take Two's reputation (or infamy).

Michael D

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Michael D » June 30th, 2011, 8:06 pm

[QUOTE=ActRaiser][QUOTE=Michael D]So 2K's reputation is worth risking over taking a monetary hit that they'll probably recoup on NBA 2K12 alone this year?[/QUOTE]

Um, you mean the same company that coded Hot Coffee?  The same company that's probably been picketed more than anyone for its Grand Theft Auto franchise?  Gaining increased health from a lady of the evening before doing a mission, didn't exactly hurt their reputation.

They'll do just fine.  If anything any type of press seems to merely enhance Take Two's reputation (or infamy).
[/QUOTE]

Not a bad point, but the people who go after Take Two often are revealed as those who have an agenda and show a complete unwillingness to look at the contexts of what they were attacking.  That, and those elements were in the service of generally good games.  In this case, they aren't and the context is clearly being looked at before being criticized, as is the game itself.  I think they'll be fine, too, but just as people are vowing not to buy another Capcom game over the save game thing in Resident Evil Mercenaries, there certainly is a risk of people going to that length here, too.

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

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby ActRaiser1 » July 1st, 2011, 8:40 am

[QUOTE=Michael D] I think they'll be fine, too, but just as people are vowing not to buy another Capcom game over the save game thing in Resident Evil Mercenaries, there certainly is a risk of people going to that length here, too.[/QUOTE]

No one vows to avoid buying a game from a publisher with a single bad game.  It's not like they're Acclaim and they put out crap for years on end. 

As for Capcom's recent Internet Outrage of the Week!, anyone vowing to never purchase another Capcom game is an idiot.  Idiots can do whatever they want and the market will be just fine.  Thankfully, the world isn't completely full of them.

NOTE:  I wasn't talking about any of the forum posters here at the VGC, as no one here is an idiot - just everyone outside our happy little forum.

PacMan000

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby PacMan000 » July 1st, 2011, 11:55 am

[QUOTE]   You are right that it will sell a bit initially on its name recognition alone, but it won't last and that's also what happened with E.T. on the Atari 2600, and we all know how that ended up. [/QUOTE]

Well developers can forget, can't they?

Actually, I think Atari had internal problems in the early 80's.   That combined with unlicensed 3rd party releases (which they made no money on, this was before licensing fees) did more damage than Pac-Man, E.T., or the entire Swoprdquest series.

bluemonkey1
Posts: 2444
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby bluemonkey1 » July 1st, 2011, 2:23 pm

[QUOTE=Leo]

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.

[/QUOTE]

Really?  Which triple A games are these that took less than 18 months to develop?

If nothing else the release keeps Duke's presence up, starting over completely would have delayed this and stagnated the raise in profile after the recent re-releases on the download networks.

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

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Leo1 » July 2nd, 2011, 2:19 am

Like I keep a database here with the time for each game from start to finish?

Games are routinely started and finished in 12-24 months. And that doesn't just include shovelware. Suggesting that they deserve a pass from any blame when it's been in their hands the past year and a half is nonsense.

Games with long gestation periods like console Zelda titles from Nintendo or Half-Life releases from Valve are exceptions, rather than the rule.


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

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby ActRaiser1 » July 4th, 2011, 7:41 pm

[QUOTE=Leo]

Like I keep a database here with the time for each game from start to finish?

Games are routinely started and finished in 12-24 months. And that doesn't just include shovelware. Suggesting that they deserve a pass from any blame when it's been in their hands the past year and a half is nonsense.

Games with long gestation periods like console Zelda titles from Nintendo or Half-Life releases from Valve are exceptions, rather than the rule.

[/QUOTE]

Not AAA games, which you specifically pointed out.  Few if any games of significant quality take less than 2 years.  And that's on a very, very tight deadline.  The exceptions are when the development studio may reuse assets, net code, engines, etc. 

Duke Nukem Forever is a brand new game with disparate assets from 12 years and what 4 development houses?  If anyone truly expected a AAA game in such a short period of time, maybe you should work in development.  Just sayin'

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

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Leo1 » July 5th, 2011, 1:27 pm

There are relatively few games that are in development for two years or more. The vast majority of game projects don't have any sort of a budget that would even allow for that to be an option. Only a few major releases, such as modern Elder Scrolls titles, are in development for extended periods of time. And when it comes to the first person shooting genre, long gestation periods are even more uncommon. Heck, even the lauded Call of Duty games are on ~20 month or so development schedules and they're viewed by many individuals as the cream of the crop for the genre on consoles.

But perhaps me specifying AAA games wasn't the best choice of words I could've used (Although I'm sure there are AAA games over the past two console generations that have came to fruition in under two years, even if I haven't been keeping track). The point I was trying to make was that 18 months is ample time for a developer to have had a significant effect on the product they're working on. 

And they've been quite open that things had been thrown out and the project had been restarted several times over the years. So I'm quite sure Gearbox wasn't tossed with a hodgepodge of things dating all the way back to the 1990's that they had to incorporate into a final product (3D Realms employees were even talking like they were on the home stretch when I was reading things about it the other day as I was replying in that other thread here about the game). And I could care less what this game reviewed at or what it earned since I've had little interest in it from day 1. So if it earned a ~90% Metacritic score or a 60 is of little importance to me.

I'm just saying that to claim that Gearbox should be absolved from any sort of blame on how the final product turned out when they're the studio that was handling it for the past 18 months and were the party that brought it to market, just isn't correct.

Samael

Why Has Gearbox Gotten A Pass On Duke Nukem Forever?

Postby Samael » July 12th, 2011, 11:07 pm

I used to do stand-up comedy. You don't want the tragic tale of why I stopped, but I remember enough about making audiences laugh to know that allowing a violent autistic movie geek to hold a piece of a bathroom log while women fell over themselves to taste his cock was going to be a hard sell in any world where Portal and God of War exist.

Duke's appeal is that he's a genuine rogue. He can offend people. We want to see him hang out with perverts, blow up fascist pig cops from another planet, and keep a smile on his face throughout - things that everyone should try to do at least once in their lives. 

When his first game came out, it was a shock of reality in the 1st person genre. Play Doom and Ultima:Underworld, then compare the very first level of Duke Nukem 3d. Suddenly, you're fighting for the same planet you live on. That makes it personal.

When women flash you, it even makes sense, vaguely, because they're flashing you, the player, and reminding you, the player, that women have a power they're usually denied in videogames. It was one more example of breaking the unwritten rules.

Too bad you were encouraged to kill them for it.

If you wanted to kill all the aliens in a level, you needed to make strippers explode. Only then would they show themselves - as if they couldn't believe you were this evil.

But it gets worse.

If a woman was kidnapped, you'd encounter her stripped naked and begging for death. Killing her in the only interaction you're allowed.

It seems that our rogue had serious issues he needed to work out. Not to mention our game designers. What the hell, people?

Flash forward to the present day. Duke is a celebrity. Fans are waiting for his sequel, which can only be a good natured kick in the pants to Space Marines vs. Neoconservative wet dreams.

Many of us begged for it to happen.

And that's exactly what we got.

We saw a kick to the pants of modern gaming.

And then Duke Nukem broke a hip.

The game was horrible. It was the worst of old design ( Let's get lost in mazes!), here to remind us what gaming really used to be like.

And I guess that's why Gearbox gets a pass. Many of us are feeling deeply ashamed we ever liked Duke Nukem in the first place...



Return to “Modern Gaming”