|
|
 |
| [Jun 14, 2011, 1:20 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
2K Games announces the North American release of Duke Nukem Forever, the first-person shooter with one of the longest (if not the longest, period) development cycles in videogame history. The game was released in Europe last week, is now on North American store shelves, and can also be had through the magic of digital distribution from Direct2Drive, GamersGate (save 10%), Green Man Gaming (save 27%), and Steam, and is also available for 20% off through Woot with the code "EMCKDJF85" (thanks nin). According to their possibly biased assessment, the saga behind the game's creation is a story of heroes and legends: From the game’s inception, the legendary George Broussard and his team of immensely talented and passionate designers, artists and programmers at 3DRealms devoted themselves to bringing Duke Nukem Forever to market. When all appeared lost, a small team of dedicated developers, known as Triptych Studios, saved Duke Nukem Forever from what seemed like vaporware death and resurrected the King. Their heroic efforts alongside Gearbox Software, Piranha Games and many other contributors finalized the legacy by bringing the full-featured triple-A title to retail.
Apologizing to no one, Duke Nukem Forever is the high-octane video game equivalent of a Hollywood summer blockbuster. Starring the legendary lady killer and alien slayer, Duke Nukem Forever introduces gamers to a blastastic time filled with head-popping, bone-rattling action, brazenly crude humor, impossibly statuesque women dying for affection, and catchy one-liners that will have you laughing out loud.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 57. |
Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever |
Jun 14, 2011, 23:34 |
Teddy |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 23:14:
I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.
It depends on what you consider evolution. Games have "evolved" into accessible and cinematic experiences rather than deep or challenging ones. While this is certainly good for business, it's not so good for hardcore gamers.
In recent years, the shooter genre has completely stagnated. Everybody is copying CoD. It's like the stagnation that was seen in the early 90's when everybody was copying Doom, except at least the Doom clones were slightly different from one another. Military shooters are the second least creative genre out there (second only to sports games). They all have the same enemies, weapons, vehicles, settings, etc.
Evolution has never meant "better for me". People liked to attribute that term to it, they like to believe it means that things have changed in a way that THEY wanted them to. Evolution simply means different, the same base with some alteration. Cover mechanics are an evolution of the genre. So is regenerating health. So is the 'cinematic' nature of the games lately.
It doesn't matter whether it's what I want or not. Denying evolution because you don't like the result is silly. Deny progress if you like on some sort of esoteric level, but then I'd counter with the fact that the games that people like to point at and say how terrible all the mechanics in them are, still end up being amoung the highest selling titles of all time. If evolution means changes to the base of something that remain when they are successful, then yes, FPS games have very much evolved since the time of Half-life.
I agree they've become stagnant since the most recent changes, (cover system in single player and unlocks in multiplayer). But there are some changes on the horizon. Larger scale and more detailed destruction in BF3 and the two examples I provided in the previous post. Whether or not they prove successful, and thus don't vanish into history is another matter entirely, but the possibility for change in a positive direction is there.
As for the final statement, I'll agree that military shooters have more in common than most genres (which isn't surprising since it's really a sub-genre in itself), I have to disagree with your final bit.
The enemies are generally the same, in that they're always soldiers, occasionally from different countries or made up collectives. The weapons are only the same if you are looking at modern day military shooters only. Taking into account, WW2, Vietnam, and Modern day, then you can't rightfully say the weapons and vehicles are the same, nor the settings. From desert terrain, to middle east villages/cities, to jungles in vietnam, to first world cities in games like Homefront or Rainbow Six Vegas 1/2.
The variety is there in all those things. Of course it's not as varied as games where you can create your own world to fit the game you want to make, but that's the expectation in a sub-genre like this.
This comment was edited on Jun 14, 2011, 23:41. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
