Talk:Duke Nukem Forever/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Missing Reference to Steam Time

There is a major reference in the gaming industry to DNF that isn't listed in this article. Here is the link : http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time

[edit] DNF Trailer Tommorrow!

http://www.3drealms.com/news/2007/12/dnf_teaser_video.html

[edit] Cost

A cost estimate might be useful to post. Assuming 22 people working for 10 years, at $120,000 per person (salary+office space+benefits), the cost is $26 million. Assuming a discount of 7% per year, the effective cost is $37 million.

Not unless you have a source. As it stands it's complete OR Nil Einne 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] THERE IS NO OFFICIAL RELEASE DATE

From 3D Realms staff themselves: http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23939

Please refrain from adding 3rd party release dates to the page.

Also, see: http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/

Yes, stop adding dates. 23rd September removed. - Green Gecko

Best Buy's website currently shows December 1, 2007 as the release date. 71.174.183.251 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)davefisher

    Who cares about Best Buy's release date? Its irrelevant. Click on the links above.--63.253.246.206 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup - December has come and gone and look, it hasn't been released yet. 71.127.43.127 (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Party Release Dates

Since it's been such a back and forth item on the main page, I figured it was time to have a documented Talk about items such as the Amazon.com release date predictions and their inclusion in the page. The main issue is "Should these things be included?". I say no and the reasons are 1) 3D Realms has been very clear that release dates shouldn't be believed until 3D Realms itself releases one, and even then it's subject to change and 2) They happen so often that they truly are irrelevent. There is a new release date prediction every 6 months at the very minimum.

The Amazon.com prediction got some attention, but it was nothing special compared to the other cases of that happening, and thus not very interesting. It adds nothing *informative* to the actual history of the project and just clutters up the outline. Especially if future items were included of a similar nature.

If people do want it included, then please explain why it's of interest and isn't already addressed by the plethora of other information in the article regarding delays and release dates?

Finally, to the guy who said I have a personal agenda on this subject... yes that's true. I like seeing this page be as accurate and helpful as possible to anyone that comes reading it. If you feel I've abused this or acted in some form of self promotion, by all means take it up with the Wikipedia guys and let them decide. I'm trying hard to make sure the page represents the project in the most accurate way that is also true to what people on the outside know and will find informative. Clearly if I had an agenda of improving the image for the project or company, there are much more damaging bits that I'd try to change. :) Charlie Wiederhold 10:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] swearing

You've explained, in no uncertain terms, the meaning of STFU. Is swearing allowed on Wikipedia? Couldn't you just give a Wikilink so those who don't know can click and find out themselves?

No, wikipeda includes lots of "encyclopedic" cursing, just check the article Fuck and all the pages that link to it. There is no reason why it shouldn't be used, because it isn't meant as a curse HERE. --217.83.207.107 05:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is swearing allowed on Wikipedia? YGBSM! WP:CENSOR, my friend. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Realms forum policy

I don't see any 'proof' that release or delay related discussion is banned solely because 3D Realms would like everyone to forget what happened. If I was the forum administrator I would restrict it too, because otherwise the forum would be flooded with release date discussion. I'm glad the policy is in effect.


Also, not related to the point above, the article doesn't really address 3DR's justifications. So gamers are skeptical, are they skeptical that the team was only 20 or so members for most of the project (compared with Valve's 30 - 40 man team which took 5 years)?. Or that in 1999 there were only 2 programmers? This seems like a perfectly valid justification.

Again with the restarts. Most gamers seem to want to believe 3DR has restarted the project multiple times. There has only ever been one engine change and yet people are talking about 3DR switching 3 or 4 times.

When the article says that "They show examples of games with a much shorter development time which have been commercial and critical successes (Doom 3, the Unreal Tournament series, among others)" that isn't directly relevant to these points because 3DR admit that the development is taking longer than neccesary. That's why their justifications are that they had too few people on the project, and they couldn't get the tech stable. In other words the development is long because they fucked up and they admit it.

The article currently implies that gamers don't accept this justification, or at least that's how it reads to me.

Subtlesnake 12:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please leave as of 2004 links on time-sensitive statements -- it makes it easier to find and update things so our great big 'Pedia doesn't get too far behind! See Talk:As of 2004 and Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly for more details. Thanks! --Catherine 22:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Holy shit, look at George Broussard's comments in those two threads. I honestly don't know what to say at this point.

[1]

[2]

I fixed the links, they were breaking the page. Check again the second page. His comment "Still looking at 3.5 years form the best team in the industry with arguably the best technical director. If it takes them 3.5+ years, then it's easy to understand the rest of us taking a little longer as we take our lumps and learn some things the hard way." referred to id Software spending 3.5+ years on Doom 3. It doesn't mean DNF will take 3.5+ years more.

Yes, it does. If he says that it will take 'the rest of us a little longer', then that means it will take them longer than the 3.5 years it took 'the best team in the industry with arguably the best technical director', since that was what he was referring to.

He means it takes them longer (meaning the 7 years that passed). Read the sentence again. Paranoid 23:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The difference here is that the Doom 3 team did at no point completely discard everything they had and start from scratch, so they were actually working on the same program for 3.5 years, whereas Broussard's 3.5+ statement comes after he admits that they restarted from a clean slate in 2003.

Oh well, I hope I am misunderstanding something here; we'll see how it turns out.


They restarted in 2002 and not in 2003, in 2003 they where basicly done with the engine.

This page is/was full af anti-DNF propaganda and 3D Realms slander.

I agree with the anonymous contributor somewhat. Particularly the "Things that have happened since DNF was announced" part was clearly not needed and not encyclopedic, so let it be removed. However, I reverted other changes, because there was no evidence for them and because it was an oversimplification (the 4 reasons part.) Paranoid 21:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The quotes from 3D Realms are taken out of context. The reason for lateness that I gave was not an oversimplification it is the simple truth, the following is taken from a forum thread everybody is supposed to read before they post in the DNF forums
""What's taking so long?" Lots of things. We had too few programmers early on. Some tech took too long to do. We switched engines. We started over a time or two. And a bunch of other stuff. Point is, we know it's late, and you know it's late. Let's stop talking about it, ok?
We're not going to debate development with you. Our job is to deliver the best game we can. Your job is to buy it or not, based on many factors. We don't have to listen to you telling us how we're doing everything wrong, in the process We're old and stuck in our ways, and you won't change our minds, so just accept that."
Plus the current wording has alot of unnecessary references to claims and uncertainty
sincerely Kristian Joensen 21:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? What quotes are out of context? As for the reasons, the list makes it look like there is no big deal (just like the Brussard's post and others that I saw at the forum). But it is a big deal and deserves more explanations. 1 and 3 are already covered elsewhere in the article. 2 is questionable because a long time has passed since "early one" - it could have explained a 1-year delay, but not what happened. 4 is a great point, but it's not a reason for such a prolonged development. A lot of development houses made excellent games while DNF is still in development. Doom 3 was made, HL2 was made. Max Payne 1 and 2 were made (with 3D Realms participation), many other great games were made and it didn't took that long.
As you noticed, I also restored the Vaporware category. This is not an attack on 3D Realms, but just another fact. As is noted, DNF won Wired Vaporwire award 3 time, so it makes sense that it belongs to the category. Paranoid 23:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Being egotistical, the original modifier speaks out, with a fancy divider thing

As the original guy who put the "Since DNF was announced..." information on here, I'd just like to say that I didnt think people would/should have updated the list as time went by, and agree with the whole don't-add-new ones edict someone wrote into the html for the page. I removed a few of 'em myself, in fact. I wanted a reaser to understand just how much in gaming/human history took place at the time the original article was written, and it did it the best out of any number of articles which did the same.

As for me using George's comments out of context... I've only quoted George when he's been speaking of the matter. The "out of context" defense may work on the 3DRBB, but it doesn't fly anywhere else. -Scumbag 21:25, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

As a followup to this topic (since it got put in again), I think an external link to the list is a great idea. It should not be in the middle of the article though as it takes up too much space and distracts from the direct information about the game itself. It's an interesting and informative list, but it shouldn't be included in the direct article. Charlie Wiederhold 03:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
And as a double followup, I think the list that user 64.65.172.65 made early on Sept. 1st has some informative and useful bits. However, it needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic in nature and less conversational before it should be included. Remove references to "to the best of the author's knowledge", fix punctuation, capitalization, spelling, add the bare level of WikiLinks, less observational and POV content (either good or bad) and just sticking to the pure facts or referencing speculation as exactly that instead of saying things like "I don't think anything happened". Charlie Wiederhold 03:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
If you think the list should be improved, then the way to get that done is not to remove it, as that way no one will see it and it will never get done. As to putting the list in another article, do we really want to have an article devoted solely to a timeline of DNF's delays and random interesting trivia about the length of it's development? (Or by "External Link" do you mean put the information on a non-wikipedia site and link to it? I don't think that is a good idea, either the information should be on wikipedia or it shouldn't.) Maybe the list can be trimmed, but I am for its inclusion, but it definately needs to be improved, and should be included so that that can happen. Qutezuce 05:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
By external link I mean the list of things such as "Events that have happened since DNF was started". That information, while interesting, is not encyclopedic and shouldn't be included at all. I'd like to take the original author's timeline and make it appropriate and was thinking about it already... but it was in such poor shape it would require an entire rewrite. A "timeline" is a good idea, but most (all?) of the content the author had included was already in the article or wasn't appropriate to be included at all (such as "I don't think anything happened"). The timeline would allow much of the main article to be trimmed down as well to make it easier to follow and understand. I'll go ahead and put in the stuff that works as is and we'll all sort it out over time I guess. Charlie Wiederhold 05:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I've re-included the original concept of the author's list... including things I could find an appropriate link to back up the information, or things that are already well covered. This will hopefully allow the good parts of a timeline to grow without the POV commentary that was there before. Most of the quotes he originally had were just being recalled from memory instead of quoting the true quotes, so I tried to correct those. That work ok? Charlie Wiederhold 06:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Much better, thanks for fixing it up. One thing, you don't need to put underscores in wikilinks, the wiki software will automatically change spaces to underscores for the link (but will leave the spaces in for the readable text on screen). Qutezuce 07:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] When did development start?

It's noted in the article that an intended release date was 1998, so development started when exactly? It should be noted in the article, whenever it was. The first dates mentioned in the article are the years it's been awarded as vaporware. Anyway. - 128.184.2.1 01:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick rummage uncovers December 1997 [3]. – Quoth 06:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Scott says that development officially started in January 1998.--Subtlesnake 15:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It started long, long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Cowboy Neal was thin back then and completely innocent of the Slashdot ways. Project2501a 00:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future product

Wtf??? seems like someone's messing with the article (in a good way, too!) do i revert? do i leave it be and hope my grand-childred will be able to play it? *LOL :) Project2501a 00:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language conflict

I changed the sentence "Daikatana was a ... bomb" to "Daikatana was a ... failure" because here in the UK, "to go down a bomb" means "to succeed" or "to be received enthusiastically" (see American and British English differences). Just thought folk might like to know that it's a phrase they should consider avoiding, if they don't want to be misunderstood.  : ) Wooster 09:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

when is this game going to be release who has seen the preview, i saw it the graphics looks plain, like Halo's graphics and Dukem Nukem: Mahattan Project But all new games are comin out with sick graphics, like Halo2 and Half Life 2, but anyway its Duke Nukem gameplay that counts not graphics, but if the graphics has some shading for realistic, it will be much better and seem relaity><ino 19:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You must be new around here... Project2501a 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

How come this article has got MANY more mentions of/references to its long development time than the Team Fortress 2 article ? Why the double standard ?

>> Simply because more of us grew up with Duke Nukem blowing up LA and hunting hookers then we did playing capture the flag with engineers and medics. - Ghostalker

[edit] Wow..

You know it's bad when the page on Wikipedia looks incredibly similar to Uncyclopedia's page... Dan 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well...what do we sugggest we do?
The makers an't giving any damn details about the cheap game!

>x<ino 23:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, what that means is that Unencyclopedia has failed to satirze it well. Obviously it's still too laden with facts to really be good satire. I'm disappointed as well - the number of jokes and parodies about htis game is amazing. I was totally expecting something like "God created DNF as the salvation of all 3D games" or something like that; as someone mentioned on an AFD for this article, it's the second most famous example of vaporware, behind the Second Coming. Hbdragon88 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dig a faliure?

Where it says "Other similar failures included Dreamworks' Jurassic Park: Trespasser, The Dig, Ultima IX: Ascension and such historical 8-bit titles as Mike Singleton's Eye of the Moon and Ultimate's Mire Mare, both which were eventually cancelled" it is made to say Teh Dig was a faliure, yet it was actually a successes (' The game was, however, met favorably by the press and gamers alike upon release.' from The Dig's page)

[edit] E3

Now E3 is coming this May, upcoming on new games, consoles and ect.
Now if no news on Duke Nukem arrives. Then likely they have stoped and cancelled this so called "project".
Because back at the trailer, the graphics was pretty plain, but gameplay seems really big. New games are coming out each month, with bigger graphics. It as been announced that this game will be using unreal Engine 3!? How come Unreal Tournament 2007, is already making progress and it takes long to get those details in that game. What can be taking the developers long to create such a game!?

They're trying for the ultimate creation using a powerful engine of sorts, that's why it's taking so long for the game to be made. Don't worry though it's coming, hopefully worth the wait. 24.188.203.181 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now all we do is wait for E3!

>x<ino 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


A photo from E3 1998 for you to enjoy :) http://www.planetquake.com/photos/e3_98/e398wend030.jpg 207.81.187.49 07:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant E3 2006!

>x<ino 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Un)intended humour?

March: Scott Miller, CEO of 3D Realms, announced that the company intends on developing a sequel to Duke Nukem Forever.

And they can bundle it with Daikatana 2. Confusing Manifestation 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They'll call it "Duke Nukem: Forever and ever and ever... 100 years in the making".--71.236.97.221 07:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How about #1 piece of vaporware of all time :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demo

The problem is that when we show it, people are going to be like, 'Yeah, whatever'. Honestly, at this point we just want to finish it.

Broussard also demonstrated samples of the game, including an early level, a vehicle sequence, and a few test rooms [17] So...where is the cheap demo? I went to the site and nothing shows anything about a video:/

>x<ino 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


It was not anything you can download. 3drealms has not released anything to the public for years. No pictures, no movies, nothing. So it is obvious you won't find shit from their site. -El_Ucca

[edit] A citation is necessary for which game engine DNF is going to use

I've not seen anything that suggests the Unreal Engine will be used here. And even if it is, it's likely going to be 3 and generate ANOTHER rebuild. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Who knows, man? The place is a zoo! --AlexWCovington (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNF started dev'ing in '96, not 97

Or is the article going by some formal date the game entered development? Because I remember hearing about the game way back in '96. 159.218.12.106 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to add some kind of verifiable citation to support that... as far as I can tell the sources already in the article only support development as far back as '97. - Blah3 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, never mind then. I stand corrected. The only thing I can find is what lead what would become DNF, but not that it formally started before '97. I was sure I had heard about something on this way back when. Must have gotten it confused with something else. Sorry. 159.218.12.106 14:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It could very well have started in '96, I don't mean to say you're wrong. Just that it'd need to be cited to some kind of reliable source if so. - Blah3 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
He did hear about it before 97. Before 97, DNF was going to be a side scrolling Duke game. They were also working with the Quake 1 engine for the Duke sequel, but I don't know when that occured. 69.69.74.140 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Under devlopment tag

Come on.... Macktheknifeau 10:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to subst the template and say "forever under devleopment" but I abstained. Hbdragon88 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd laugh. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of platforms?

It might be entertaining to include a list of platforms the game has been up for release on. I remember a lot of hype about how the PS2 would be powerful enough to play the game, for example. Sockatume 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.

The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows:

“ I feel that this article might be too excessively negative, and I need another person to review and pick out loaded language or any other neutrality issues. Hbdragon88 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ”

On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any excessive negativity here. The history of the project is laid out in clear neutral detail. If that detail serves to make the project seem like a bad joke, blame the developers - not the article. Ribonucleic 19:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have noted that I am the main user working on this article, and filed the report because I just nominated this as a Good Article and I wanted a second opinion. GA reviewers also raised some issues with Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing )a failed GA nom, also worked on) as well, so I was concerned. Hbdragon88 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Broussard

Who is this? From context it seems he's someone high up in 3D Realms, not sure if he's the president, team lead for this project or what. He is suddendly quoted in the "change to unreal engine" section but is never introduced ("Broussard estimated that around 95%...") Maracle 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Ok, I added in a link to him at the first reference with a short clause identifying his significance. I haven't made many edits at wikipedia previously, how frequently should a person's name be a link to their page? Every instance, just the first, something else? Maracle 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Requirements

Here are the criterion for a Good Article that I currently feel that this article is failing. Please make these changes in the next week, or the article may not pass the Good Article criterion.

1a. [The article] has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers; Some wordsmithing and tense changes are needed, as well as a short explanation of the Duke Nukem "universe" and about what video game engines and physics engines are.
1b. [The article] follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); The "Plot" section needs some rearranging. Also, it is a little hard to understand the plot section until after reading the section about development.
4a. Viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; 4b. all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic. As noted on the article page, there is some POV in this article, especially regarding 3D Realms and Take-Two.
6a. The images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions; The caption "A screenshot" is not very informative, especially for a game with drastically different shots based on point in development.

-AtionSong 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have some concerns about point 5 from the Good Article criteria also, namely that the article be stable. This is a great article about a game in (never-ending?) development, but its status as an article about a work in progress means that it will change substantially once the game is actually released as the focus would necessarily change. JRP 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's almost been ten years (April 1997 - January 2007 so far). Nothing - not any footage, screenshots, videos, or anything - has been released since 2001. Its release date of "when it's done" has been listed since at least 2001. I consider this article to be pretty stable because of both factors. As for the rest, I'll work on that. Probably a good idea to start with expanding the lead per WP:LEAD. Hbdragon88 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have failed the nomination for this article. Point 4a and 1a were slightly corrected, but the other points remained. However, keep trying, and this could potentially reach GA status. In the future, attempt to correct these before renomination. Good luck. -AtionSong 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had a maximum of seven days, which started from the day the user put it on hold, not when I originally nominated it (otherwise it would have failed on January 6, and I've seen some GA nominees wait for more than w eek before being acted on) but it really doesn't matter that much to me. This gives me more time to work on it. Hbdragon88 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dnf1.jpg has no fair use rationale.--SeizureDog 08:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

done. Hbdragon88 09:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this screenshot the real deal?

http://thelastboss.com/index.phtml?s=duke+nukem&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go&dt=

The screenshot at the above link claims to be an in-game shot, supposedly confirmed by Broussard. I want to eventually add that info to the article. However, since nothing has appeared on the official [DNF page at the 3D Realms site, I'll wait until something shows up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CardinalFangZERO (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The major gaming news sites have been saying it's real. It would hurt too many peoples' credability for it not to have been an official release. However, some searching indicates that it's a macro shot of a Duke Nukem action figure. This one, specifically: [4] (That image originally came from http://www.3drealms.com/actionfigures/images/acfig4.jpg but the site bandwith-protects images from remote server links. Copy and paste to a new browser if you like.) Awa64 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, GameSpot picked up on it. That's reliable enough for inclusion in this article. Hbdragon88 08:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)\
Real or not, the widespread suspicions of it being fraudulent are too common not to mention. Let the readers know the facts - That it was vouched for, and that it is highly suspected of being fake, both - and let them form their own opinion.ShadowHare 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The accusations are irrelevent unless they are mentioned in a reliable source; i.e. a GameSpot article that says that either the author thinks it's fake or that fans think it's fake. (And even then it might be considered undue weight per WP:NPOV). Readers who do pick up on the GameSpot article will see the user comments below, which indicates the level of believability, of waht the fans think. Hbdragon88 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this "screenshot" is complete and utter BS. Take a real close look at it, I recognized it in seconds. Guess what it is? It is a PLASTIC ACTION FIGURE of Duke. You can see the molding and painting detail clearly. Also note the thumb holding him up (to the left) and the armchair behind him. The very first site I saw it at, someone had done an enlargement on it and it made it even more obvious. All they did was put a light at a dramatic angle and took a picture, nothing more. Someone at 3D Realms is either screwing around with people, or trying to amusing (and failing) by running the game in the BACKGROUND (note the blurred monitor) and taking a pic of an object in the foreground, while the background is blurred beyond recognition (this has been done before, and it means technically they can say it IS a screenshot, just not of the foreground object.) Action figures of Duke and various other creatures from previous games HAVE been released before. Also note the pistols he is holding and the (lack of) detail in them. They are obviously molded out of soft plastic with no paint details whatsoever. A comparision with the figure in the picture and the available figures showed slight differences in modling details, but since the pic apparantly came from 3DRealms, it is a very real possibility they have custom figures themeslves. I vote the picture be removed. Draknfyre 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, for some reason, the Internet makes everyone an expert. Your analysis takes many liberties, the most outrageous of which being your complete dismissal of the fact that this supposed "action figure" looks nothing like any action figure available out there. The original action figures were manufactured by Resaurus, which went out of business a number of years ago. I highly doubt that 3D Realms, a software company, would have gone through the trouble of having manufactured a custom action figure from another company, for the sole purposes of taking a low resolution photograph of it and distributing it as a screenshot, when they could just render an image of Duke Nukem using their own software rendering facilities. Your ridiculous explanation goes far out of the way to discredit this screenshot, when the simplest explanation is that it is a low resolution screenshot of a poorly rendered character from a game that will never come out. Brash 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination - on hold

Almost all the concerns from the previous GA nomination have been addressed. I think I can pass it, but please address these concerns first:

  • There are a couple stray improperly formatted citations.
  • A quick blurb on what a game and physics engines are. What role does it play in development? What are the consequences of having to switch engines?

Carson 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got the stray citations fixed. I added a line of explanation of what the game engine is for, and the concern with DNF went from Unreal to Epic. Hbdragon88 06:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Promoted to GA status. Congratulations! Carson 06:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone should add this

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/1820_scott_miller_-_the_man_who_would_be_king-page1/

Apparently, he admits that they screwed up the development. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.163.158 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NOTE TO ALL YOU CLEVER VANDALS

Dear Clever Vandals,

Yes, we know you want to change the release date to "Never."

Or "The end of time."

Or make some other sarcastic, would-be witticism about the OBVIOUS point that DNF has had an extremely protracted development.

Well! You might as well know 3-4 people have the exact same brilliant, incisive, clever idea EACH AND EVERY WEEK.

Yes, all of us haggard, jaded, bored editors are giving you the big thousand-pound-hands applause for your genius.

Oh, and have you considered stand-up?

Bianvara1 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLZ REVERT THE LATEST SPAM.--207.233.79.24 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're glad you approve. We'll keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.49.33 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWFF?

Im removing the paragraph about Awff, maybe if the site was larger than 30 members it would have a reason to stay, but no one knows about it, and it doesn't justify a paragraph about an inside joke.

Edit: Check out the AWFF page if you need more information about how small a site this isn't.

Edit: I checked it out, damn that is small

A comedian, impressive.

[edit] Screenshots

The article has 2 screenshots from the 1999 (Unreal engine) version and none from the 1998 (Quake 2) version. I would rather have 1 screenshot for each version, so the evolution of the game is more evident. I'd replace the first one (General Graves and the rocket) with one of the official shots from the Quake 2 version (either the hummer on the bottom of the canyon, Gus in the ghost town or the Nevada Test Facility). What do you think? Devil Master 07:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff that should be added

I know I could add this myself, but since I am in exeprienced at editing Wikipedia, I thought it would be better to mentions these things here, here are some things I think should be mentioned in this article:

*this news item on Duke4.net, if that is appropriate, if not I can give you more appropriate sources

*this post on the 3DR forums notice it was a reply to this post

*this shacknews post, in relation PC Gamer making it sound like DNF would be featured in the July 2007 issue

*this 3DR forum post in relation to the same thing

*Maybe this as well, but since PC Gamer noted on their site that there is nothing about DNF in the July issue, it isn't all that relevant

*this post notice it was a reply to this post.

*this post is a must, IMO

*this shacknews post it should be noted that it is a response to this one

*this one it is an answer to this question

*this post is also interesting as it impugnes upon both technology and system requirements it is an answer to this question

Finally there is:

*this post which was an answer to this question Kristian Joensen 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

What happen? We used to have a little thing about that foxtrot comic

Plus ask a ninja did a podcast that mention it.

"Remember 10 years ago we were waiting for DNF? Now its almost out" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] The Engine

For a long time this article has stated that the game uses the Unreal Engine 2.5 this is nothing but a completely wrong internet rumor, heck even saying it is using the Unreal Engine at all is s truth with a HECK of a lot of modifications. It creates the false impression to its readers that the game will be limited to the features of Unreal Engine 2.5 and won't be able to compete with next-gen games. Here are some quotes about the engine to back up what I am saying:

"I think we split off around Unreal 2 level tech and wrote our own rendering, and a lot of other things." - George Broussard, February 15th, 2005. Unreal 2 uses Unreal Engine 2.0 NOT Unreal Engine 2.5 so if this article is gonna claim any use of the Unreal Engine it should say Unreal Engine 2.0 NOT Unreal Engine 2.5. However as noted in that quote they wrote their own renderer a pretty DAMN important piece of information that should NOT be left out from the information table. But the rnderer wasn't all they replaced:

""We have nothing to do with Unreal, 2k3/4 rendering and we've 100% written our own rendering, lighting and visibility for DNF. Apples and Oranges.

We will be visually competitive. " - George Broussard, May 14th, 2004.

"Everything is different. Our visibility, rendering, everything. You could bring in raw geometry, but there's no guarantee it would ever run, as any level made in Unreal may be apples to oranges to what you would do, or how you would do it with out stuff." - George Broussard, April 13th, 2004.

"Yeah, but just the overall structure. Editor, scripting language, networking etc. We've completely gutted and written our own AI system, rendering, particles, skeletal animation and more so it won't look/feel like an Unreal game at all I don't think. In hindsight, I don't think licensing an engine was a smart move for us. We're pretty uncompromising in what we want to do, so we don't like having limitations. What killed us was not having the programming staff to do what we wanted to do effectively and not recognizing that for a long time. Chalk that up to inexperience. " - George Broussard, January 7th, 2004 (Notice he mentions the editor, scripting language and the the netcode as the things they kept, the EXACT sub-systems that I listed in the info box earlier as the only kept systems, yet that was labelled "nonesense" by the moron that removed it).

"Unreal. But we basically rewrote 100% of the rendering and it's all different now. The game won't look like U2 or UT2k3 or Splinter Cell. We still use the backbone of the Unreal engine (editor, scripting language, etc), but all the visuals are redone. Hopefully it's worth it " - George Broussard, April 17th, 2003.(Notice again that listing of editor and scripting language). I can potentially supply more quotes if need to back up my case, but bottom line is that I am correct at hbdragon88 is totally, completely, utterly wrong. Kristian Joensen 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

100% agreed, and it certainly wasn't nonsense like hbdragon88 added in his reason for the revert. But since DNF is so controversial because it has been delayed for so long, people tend to get emotional about the topic. It's a pitfall we should avoid.
Since 3D Realms never renamed their engine (probably because the core still is the Unreal engine "We still use the backbone of the Unreal engine (editor, scripting language, etc)...") it is correct to say in the infobox that the engine used is Unreal Engine 2.0. So, keep it short in the infobox: for example something like Unreal Engine 2.0 (Heavily Modified). Put a link in the 'heavily modified' to a section in the article explaining the differences between the two versions, using the quotes you so generously supplied as references. DaSjieb 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I shouldn't have said "nonsense," that was the wrong term. But the infobox is for a succulent summary of the game, not for listing every caveat known to man. I suppose I should have shuffled it off into an "engine" section, or whatever. hbdragon88 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We could call it the 'Duke Nukem Forever' Engine! (shorthand, DNF Engine)! Or is that original research? 72.49.194.69 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
Um, why does it say it uses the Unreal Engine 2.0? I thought it was 2.5? 72.49.194.69 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

[edit] Image

Both the caption of the image "Gama duke.jpg", and the summary of the image itself states pretty clearly that the image is of the character Duke Nukem himself, in-game. The actual image, however, shows some sort of pig-creature. It seems like it's been like that since January, and no-one's noticed. Is the creature an actual enemy from the game? Call me crazy, but, if it is, shouldn't it say so? Following the image's source link leads to a GameSpot page; the image is nowhere in sight. There is, however, an actual capture of Duke Nukem from the game: an image which much more accurately fits both the summary and the caption.
Any comment on this? Knyght27 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We are here to merely report on what other sources have said. Broussard claims that it's an in-game shot, so we use his words and say what he claims it to be. Now, if another major, sourcable viewpoint said that it was a fake – such as a magazine article or what-not, not merely reader comments – we could include that. hbdragon88 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hbdargon88,, Knyght27 didn't claim that it is was fake, he is only pointing out that the caption currently says that is actually a picture of Duke himself instead of a pig cop 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)~
I changed the caption Kristian Joensen 23:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Someone uploaded a dupe image. I've reverted to the correct version. hbdragon88 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't a dupe image it was the screenshot of a pig cop that they released in two job ads over at Gamasutra. Kristian Joensen 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG Assessment

Responding to a request on WP:VG/A. This article is already GA-class.

  • The lead is too short and ill-formatted. See WP:LS
  • The plot section refers to sources (E3 videos, PC gamer issue) without supplying sufficient information to view or read these sources for the reader. A link to an article based on the videos, and the publisher of PC Gamer plus the issue number is needed.
  • Too much detail on the 2001 video. Summarize, remove the list.
  • The proseline template on the development section is correct.
  • Remove fansites from external links.

This article barely fits GA-standards, and I will not promote it to A-class. --User:Krator (t c) 14:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks very much. I'll get to work on improving it and resubmit it later for more review. hbdragon88 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing proseline

This is a perplexing problem. I absolutely don't know how to fix this problem. Removing the dates does no good; that will only confuse the reader. However, how else to write out all the changes without it looking like proseline? Perhaps we need to throw some of this out. We aren't here to dole out every detail, as tempting as it is (WP:NOT#NEWS). Maybe the Shacknews incident needs to be cut out. The SEC filing with Take-Two is huge, in my opinion, but is the "Broussard tells Take-Two to STFU" really that important? It doesn't appear to have any long-term notability, three years later, other than just a skirmish between them. Is this relevant because of the apparent strained relations during the 2006 500k bonus incident?

I've reserrected my old User:Hbdragon88/Temp page and rearranged all the paragraphs, sectioning them under "engine development" "screenshots and movies" (I really need help renaming this; "release of screenshots"?) and "publishers and conflicts" (again, this could use some more wordsmithing). On the surface, it looks better. But does rearranging the chairs on the Titanic really do anything? Is it still just as proselined as it was before? hbdragon88 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Reference

"In December, they released a second batch of screenshots that showcased Forever on the Unreal engine for the first time.[9]" This sentence uses a pronoun "they" to refer to 3D Realms, and then references a different company's release date. Said screen shots were released November 1, 1999, as archived at 3D Realms. Miqrogroove 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaporware

It's been over a decade without a release date, and over six years since a real screenshot was released, I think dding a Vaporware disclaimer is completely relevent, and should be included in this article, specificly for the curious looking for information.

Saying its unencyclopedic is complete garbage, and theres no real argument against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemtype (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Take any definition of "Vaporware" and this meets or exceeds it by years. I don't think it is unreasonable that it would be portrayed as such in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.163.180 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Released

The article does not mention that this game has been released on the Atari 2600. Link 69.177.214.184 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The 2600 version was made as a gag. All the cartridge does is show Duke's face on the screen. That's it. CardinalFangZERO 08:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Management

The definition of poor: lacking in specific resources, qualities or substances; "a poor land"; "the area was poor in timber and coal"; "food poor in nutritive value"

According to 3DRealms in a press release here: http://www.3drealms.com/press/devrule.html, the development of DNF involves almost no management. By definition, a lacking of management is poor management.

Hbdragon88 keeps trying to edit the page so as to minimize fault of 3DRealms for the games development problems. Unbiased facts with referenced sources paint a different story, and unbiased facts is what wikipedia is all about.

Chemtype (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor for me connotates "bad" as well, not just in the "lack of resources" definition, which is why I thought it was a bit POV to include it. Wikipedia is not about unbiased facts. Wikipedia is about verifying all facts. It is my opinion that inferring that DNF has no management from another press release is kind of pushing the envelope...sure, it might be their modus operandi on other programs, but they don't directly, explicitly say that they have no management. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel

I made this change [5] as it was misleading to suggest the CEO said if we finish it we'll begin a sequel (suggests even he's not confident they'll ever release it). He said when we finish it we'll begin a sequel. Despite the fact this appears to be vapourware and if is probably a more accurate word, we shouldn't mislead readers. Instead I've just change it to a direct quote. Besides that, the reader should already know the situation from the rest of the article Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reassessment

I am tagging this article for a Good Article Reassessment. While the development section has a timeline concern but could be improved, the news from the last few days basically makes this a standard "pending" game instead of the classic example of "vaporware"; thus this article is no longer "stable" or appropriately "broad" until after the game has been released and critically commented on. --MASEM 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development/Announcement date?

Does anyone know the exact date development started on DNF? Also, does anyone know exactly what date it was announced? I'd love to see exactly what time it was announced, but that might be too difficult at this point... TheUncleBob (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas Business Journal Article

This article is being disputed by 3D Realms, according to shacknews. Might need to be removed as an unreliable source. 66.28.71.162 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is still no release date, the official site says so: http://www.3drealms.com/news/2008/02/duke_nukem_forever.html --blm07 01:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Gamasutra is also posting the dispute. The reference to a 2008 release date should be removed.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17270 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjmfan (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The listing shouldn't be removed, it should be just be noted that the article has been challenged by 3drealms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus05 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)