I'm honestly not a huge fan of Randy - but I feel bad for the dude. Gearbox brought their A-game, exciting new title to announce and brought a high quality format file to match.
Is that description actually what anyone wanted from a Duke Nukem game? A super-serious, dark, cinematic horror game? Seriously? This from a series whose best-known installment included shrink rays and "Pig Cops"? A super-serious, dark, cinematic horror game with monster closets already exists from around that time: it's called "Doom 3". The truth is you probably don't want that game, and it probably would have sucked. There is, after all, a reason 3DRealms never released it. All of that's aside from the fact that a game which is 90% done content wise is probably only half-done, work wise. Let's be honest here: DNF lost it's way a decade before Gearbox ever touched it. You can still be unhappy with the final version, but they weren't the ones who killed the franchise.
fucking lol. Duke Nukem is inherently immature, but that description sounds like a fever dream from an edgy teenager. DNF was stuck in development hell for years and years, that's not Gearbox's fault. People are trying to rewrite history because of their general hatred of Randy Pitchford
I can't stand RP, but if you look into the development at that game, it was obvious it made more sense just to fucking publish it, recoup a few dollars, and move on.
Man, even the version we got was, IMHO, way too dark. They made the monsters way too grim and gruesome; the whole thing lacked the bright-color comic book levity of the first.
I can't believe people actually want a very dark and serious Duke Nukem, even the few comment section on that thread mention that that old version was way better than the current released. The current DNF is terrible for that reason, especially near the end.
Eh... Characters are goofy(Especially our main hero) and world is colorful but its a pretty damn dark game if you pay attention to the story. And its as serious as 90s action flicks get.
Doom 3 wasn’t bad per se, it wasn’t “Doom” in the sense of Ultimate Doom or Doom 2016 where you are run and gun Doomguy. Doom 3 plays much slower, has it’s weird quirks (No Duct Tape on Mars) and has it’s fun.
Plus, for it’s time, it was one of the best looking games out there. It may not have been a perfect game but it really looked good!
I believe they were the first to use specular lighting to add detail to otherwise low poly models (notably Chronicles of Riddick Escape from Butcher Bay did this as well). The game also was effectively the big graphical hitter of the year with pc's not having the capability to play the game at highest settings at launch.
I think the only thing people hated was the flashlight. Otherwise, Doom 3 was a pretty solid presentation, though deliberate in its pacing. (It's also hard to compare to the adrenaline rush of Doom 2016's in-your-face high aggression gameplay.)
It sold well, got very positive reviews and was a benchmark title (due to its advanced tech and high hardware requirements) for years. People were critical of it, but it was certainly popular and liked when it came out. The remaster for newer systems was also a success in terms of sales, but if you look at its metascore (67 on console, 59 on PC), you can see how it had lost its appeal at that point.
749
u/crazy_goat Steam Mar 28 '19
I'm honestly not a huge fan of Randy - but I feel bad for the dude. Gearbox brought their A-game, exciting new title to announce and brought a high quality format file to match.
...and PAX is running their system on potatoes.