Talk:Duke Nukem Forever/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

3D Realms logo missing

For leagacy, original creator, and of course credit to it's ex employees , i feel a need there has to be a 3DR logo in the main image or at least in a separate section , not only that , www.dukenukem.com has 3DREALMs logo , that was just 2K advertising crap without 3DR , because as we know those guys had troubled past.

Out of respect , 3DR logo should be there, they had 90% of the game done you know.

USPTO Tess still shows Duke Nukem IP is owned by Apogee Software LTD(3Drealms) , and disclaimers on www.dukenukem.com end up "and used here under license" , which implies that Gearbox is using Duke Nukem trademarks under license. Did you really thought 3DR would sell DN IP without saftey nets :) Xowets (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Impact of DNF reveal at PAX 2010

Various threads around forums

Twitter trending whole world DNF was #1

4Chan: boards.4chan.org/v/res/72189333 (massive 1900 posts thread , but does not exist anymore , moderators applied Duke Nukem 3D main theme music in the background , and the topic was stickied, i filmed the thing and will be available on youtube, historical event!)

Xowets (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Release date is NOT February 1st/2nd 2011

The release date is officially 2011. No specifics have been given. A retailer threw out the February 1st date and other sites picked up on it but it is not the official date so the release date section of the wiki should simply read '2011'

I agree with the anon. There is no announcement on a specific release date from the developer or publisher for this game. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gearbox has already confirmed on Official DNF forums that these dates are PLACEHOLDER dates for the pre-orders, they aren't official at all. Xowets (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Gameplay section?

I couldn't see a section where this was discussed, so I thought I might add it. The last couple of months have added a lot to the information of how this game is going to play (i.e. we know there is going to be driving, completely redundant interactivity and big bosses as usual.) While you might argue that there have been gameplay demos of previous builds as well, none of them have been playable demos at events. Therefore I ask, wouldn't now be about time to add a gameplay section with the information that has become available through various videos and news articles from journalists and other people who have played the demo? Or is it still too soon, or believed to be too shaky information to add just yet? --Or-whatever (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's still way too soon. Let's wait for the demo at least. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 10:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Development section

Finally, after thirteen long and tedious years, Duke Nukem Forever is finally getting somewhere. Over this past decade, the information on DNF's development has continued to grow. The majority of this article covers the game's lengthy development history, but with other sections due to be added as information is released this weekend, this article is going to be as long and tedious as the game itself. Who agrees with me that once further details of the game are made available, we split much of the Development into its own article? We could provide a short summary here, and split the bulk of the information into a separate article: Development history of Duke Nukem Forever. This would not be immediate, but would take effect after the game's showcase at PAX this weekend. Anybody for it? CR4ZE (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• IMO not yet...DNF have a well known history of being out "next year", although this time it seems the most serious effort by far, I think we should wait until the game is actually released, so we don't have to merge those two articles because they had to switch the engine again... :) 81.218.163.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Yeah I agree , not just yet, after some time after release , it's bad thing to hide the legacy from people , and all those noobs will not know who actually made Duke Nukem, because logos show only 2K an Gearbox. Xowets (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, but wait a while until its actually released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.246.18 (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

All three of you are missing the point. Currently, the entire article is nearly 70,000 bytes long and deals primarily with the history behind the game: that in itself shows that it needs to be split if we're having Gameplay and Plot etc. sections as well. See WP:Article size if you don't get where I'm coming from. I never said we'd be moving all of the information to a new article: there'll be a short summary of 3D Realms' involvement of the game here with the bulk of the information on a new page: the "noobs" won't be out of touch with the history of a game if a short summary is provided with a link to the relative article.. CR4ZE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Fact is, i don't want to have a feeling everything is taking over DNF , because the community is currently very upset about gearbox changing the gameplay elements "2 weapon system" and other , it is best to leave just for these purposes , will you be with us, or with take two?

No dude George Broussard himself confirmed that 3DRealms restricted the weapons to 2 because the console audience can't handle more. Here's what he says:

Yeah, blame us for it if you want. It may change in the future and I don't know what will happen with it, but it was us. I stand by it too, as you cannot discount designing games for a modern world and part of that world is consoles where the bulk of the sales can be. And on those consoles you have a controller. We tried for a long time to support lots of guns but we simply could not find a nice way to map it to a controller, despite trying 4-5 designs. We gave it enough time and decided to stop swimming against the current and adopt what was basically the "standard". It's not 1996 anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.27.125 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an important time to make a point here, gearbox wants to add some of their stuff inside the game which won't work as good as 3DREEALMs made it, 2007 jace hall videos are proof.

I know this is only with the article issues (article size), size is not an issue with me anyways, i said agree, just wait till the game is released , let it live , it just got revived for cry sakes, let all the people forgotten people read everything what happened, practically i do agree redirects how you suggested, i still don't feel messing around with it at peak time, since information is getting in about the development of it's history , and it's history is not finished , post release, well make a plan , but you need to speak with the other 2 guys who were quite active in managing DNF's page. Xowets (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently 20KB in prose size, below the 35KB suggestion to begin splitting. Even when you add in a gameplay, plot, and reception section to what exists now, it's not that long an article. Considering that there's a lot more info that could come out, it makes far more sense to leave the content where it is right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree here. Wait until *at least* that the game gets a confirmed release date instead of still what is up in the air. Then I could see a separate section but not at the present time since there's few other details to add. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that we split the article immediately. I was proposing that by this time this next week, there'll be a wealth of information available on Duke Nukem Forever and this article won't flow well with half of it being development history and the other half being actual information. Can we review the article on September 12 to see if the split is justified? In the mean time, I'm happy for it to remain as it is. CR4ZE (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its very doubtful that enough details on plot, gameplay (as far as I can see, its a core FPS so not much there), and development of this version of this title will end up making this article too large to split. That most likely will only happen once the game is actually within a few months of release or at release when the reception section appears. We shouldn't split just because it feels like it needs a split, only when it is necessary. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I say split the article now. I think the development history is notable enough to be covered in meticulous detail (it's an important part of gaming culture and thus something people want to read about in very much detail). You could fill a whole article alone with the build-up and huge response to the PAX stuff. The news is big now and people are reading it now, so it would be good to split this off. I say split it ASAP and we can start filling in the gaps of this interesting and crazy infamy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.154.193 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not a bad idea, I say wait until the game gets closer to its release date, because there's always a chance that the game might be "delayed" again. TuneyLoon 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the we should wait until it's released, or at least more information about it's current build comes out. As of now, pretty much the only information we have about the game is of it's development. If you were to shift that to another article now, there would be nothing left for this one. Little Jimmy (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As the longtime visitors said , we should leave it like it is , evenst are still unfolding and developing , there is a trailer coming and also a PC demo later this year.(PC definitely but idk for consoles) Let the people know what was going on before , because this is a PC-native, 97% 3DRealms' game. The box art does not yet feature the 3DRealms logo , the final will , but we don't need to forget the old guys who actually , in practice , made this possible , there was no other "saved the day" people, gearbox is only majorly involved with console ports, ofcourse we can thank them very much but still , who kept the project going from their homes ! Xowets (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Premature. So far the only thing noteworthy is its development. When the game is released and game play info can be put into the article I imagine a split will be required. Rehevkor ✉ 02:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that splitting this article would be premature. Splitting may be necessary later on, but for now we should wait until plot and gameplay information comes out in earnest. Right now apart from a release date, the only well-documented thing about the game is its development, or extended lack thereof, as the case may be. --86.184.59.91 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this be done as soon as possible. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not consider splitting or rewriting until after release date (even then only for consideration first) , as i said, this is valuable information of the history of this game , we do not want to paint a wrong picture to the consumers , and I , also a longtime fan , wouldn't like see the typical spinup , the avreage consumer's view does not matter , the truth of information matters, wikipedia ought to be independent , now let's keep it this way, people with no experience on this game or any previous knowledge may not be suitable to edit this kind of topic , I wonder why it wasn't locked out of unregistered public, a lot of people tried to mask a different image of the history and trying to blame 3DR owners.

There is no wiki editorial reason , as it's been said it's not too long , the article length or size doesn't matter as the importance of detailed information is greater. Even if IP was sold and now pretty much a new start , that doesn't mean we need to mask another (shorter) story of it , the mass population would not see detials (inexperience) and would just view the first/main page, the lack of information before release would create confusion, as new people seeking the right information would end up making a questionable community , especially PC community , this is a very anticipated PC game , and the information regarding the fact it's a genuine native windows PC game is important to die-hard fans ; removing details would paint another view of the game , a more consolized view of games these days , we don't want that! I am for keeping the spirit of DNF alive , there is a DNF documentary comming possible (nothing confirmed yet) , so , I would also check IPs of the vandalism edits for traces of sabotage , i don't really care if gearbox is trying to market this game for the console crowd - this article needs to be preserved ;; (which involves hiding the real information about game's , a lot of publishers does that, console crowd is less demanding and it's mostly inexperienced users who buy anything companies throw at them) Xowets (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i resited it for as long as i could, it's fine now, let's get the main page going now , there's a lot of info pouring out with a lot of interviews , clarifications for the past discovered , such as "multiplayer was not even started at 3DR", "3DR actually sold the IP to geatbox because 3DR guys trusted them and din't wanted to see duke fall into wrong hands(publisher/others)" , this is confrimed , just dig it up im so busy atm i waste time finding links now

Xowets (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't have split it yet, because it's far too premature; the development of the game is the only real information we currently have on the title. I actually prepose we re-merge the articles together. --Little Jimmy (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur - kinda crippled the article. Game is still a good few months away. Split should have waited until at least someone was prepared to write the plot/gameplay/etc sections. Xowets' action was a little premature - and against consensus. Rehevkor ✉ 12:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and rather confused seeing as Xowets opinion prior to this was *against* the split? Aawood (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Post DNF reveal information about previous development

Shacknews Comment: George Broussard,

Triptych is made up of 9 3DR employees who refused to let the game go and we found a way through the legal maze to keep them working on the game and to keep the game alive. They have been the development force for the last year that's made the game possible.

What you see coming from PAX right now is what we originally made at 3DR with polish and additional work by Triptych and assistance from Gearbox.

Shacknews Comment: George Broussard about 2 Weapon limit:

Yeah, blame us for it if you want. It may change in the future and I don't know what will happen with it, but it was us. I stand by it too, as you cannot discount designing games for a modern world and part of that world is consoles where the bulk of the sales can be. And on those consoles you have a controller. We tried for a long time to support lots of guns but we simply could not find a nice way to map it to a controller, despite trying 4-5 designs. We gave it enough time and decided to stop swimming against the current and adopt what was basically the "standard".

It's not 1996 anymore. Xowets (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Truth about DNF PC Version / Gearbox Involvement.

http://talkinrealatyou.blogspot.com/2010/09/dnf-wtf-wake-freak.html

http://talkinrealatyou.blogspot.com/2010/09/ride-continues.html

Xowets (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

-3DRealms is very much alive and will stay that way , it was never closing. All those claims are untrue.

-3DRealms sold IP to Gearbox ... it wasn't the other way around.

-Gearbox is currently polishing the DNF PC version , and making console ports.

-Triptych games and 3DRealms owners completed PC version of DNF before any gearbox involvement. Xowets (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As always , my words proven, but the hardcore community knew this for like a 3 months , some of this was confirmed before everybody by Pitchford in Las Vegas titty city event (video in Duke Experience part 2 on Duke4.net) Xowets (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't We Just Lock This?

This is insane having at least two to three people a week vandalize when the game is to be released. I'm wondering why this topic isn't locked because not a lot of info has been added recently. MissingNoLLL (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Three times a week is very easy to manage, loads of people keeping an eye on the page. Protection is only used in extreme cases. Rehevkor ✉ 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No longer vaporware?

With a release date, should the "Vaporware" category still be appended to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.84.220 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been well and truly established as vaporware, and will remain as such until after it's released. The definition is software that has been delayed for an extended period, the eventual release isn't taken into consideration. Rehevkor ✉ 19:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It will not win anymore vaporware awards after it's released , but it still is a remembered vaporware , an integral part of the development history , it should not be deleted , yeah asking about main page , I suggest leaving it on the main page until release. Xowets (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox looks cluttered and dreadful. Wouldn't it make more sense to show only the parties who are responsible for the final product? Something like "Developer(s): Gearbox Software, Piranha Games, 3D Realms" (ordered by most recent activity on the project) and "Publisher(s): 2K Games" (since clearly the game won't actually be published by any name in that field other than 2K Games. It makes sense that the developers and publishers should be jumbled around in the article, but not all of these names are attached to the version of the game as it will be released on May 3, so it makes the infobox more complicated than it has to be. Digitelle (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense what you're saying, but maybe it should include every developer. I'm just thinking of giving people credit for their work. MissingNoLLL (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. It just looks like a mess with so many names and parenthesized dates in the infobox as opposed to articles for other high-profile video games. Clearly DNF's exceptionally long development process separates it from other games, but it would be nice if this part of the article could be made a little more tidy. Digitelle (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether it looks like a mess isn't really an issue. As the article stands right now, I think keeping all the relevant developers in is important. If and when the greater chunk of "old" development history gets encapsulated or perhaps forked, then I would support amending it to focus on the current product history. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Balls of Steel Edition

Should the Balls of Steel Edition of this game have it's own section? MissingNoLLL (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree , the balls of steel edition is quite a hefty box so i would make a section to mention it along with the picture , because i find this particularly a historical signatue in the release of DNF. Xowets (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Give it a sub-section underneath a marketing section - X201 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says we should accord viewpoints and opinions enough coverage as is in keeping with their importance and validity. One or even several comments from women's groups do not deserve their own section, let alone one labeled "controversy" (the worst naming convention on Wikipedia, bar none.) The Women's Media Center doesn't give much indication the organization itself is particularly notable, to boot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Any coverage on this so called controversy beyond Fox? 78.86.152.174 (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the link handy at the moment but this was brought up on Slashdot recently as well, for what it's worth. Aawood (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a better rephrasing of the IP's comments would be "was this covered at the source by any other major group", as opposed to video game publications or blogs picking up the original story. If this is the case I would be harder-pressed to defend its exclusion, but if it's just one root cause without additional coverage it's obviously not a major issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Women's Media Center is notable. Instead of guessing, I went and looked, and aside from Fox News it has been mentioned in the New York Daily News, Bloomberg, and the Huffington Post, among other media outlets. Also, when I searched Google News for "Duke Nukem Forever," at least four of the results on the first page related to this controversy, so putting the word controversy in square quotes seems disingenuous. "One or even several comments from women's groups do not deserve their own section" -- what is your evidence for that? As for other news coverage of this issue, the Globe and Mail and KDAF in Dallas have both reported on it. As it is, the first sentence of the related section is not NPOV. "Complained" is a loaded word and going by what Wikipedia recommends regarding synonyms for said, I am changing it to "said."Pangaeo (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you link these stories? Searching for them turned up nothing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

They're there if you search Google News, but here are the links: KDAF and Globe and Mail.Pangaeo (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And this one incident merits its own section... how? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

It's an April Fool's Joke... As can be clearly seen by the timing of the announcement, as well as the dates listed for the release. Why else would a US based company release a game in every country besides the US first? 76.115.192.174 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As the date change was accounced in March, and the new dates are in June, I doubt this is in any way related to April Fool's day. As to the more general question of whether it's a joke, all we can say is that's it's the most recent official statement out there at this time, and so it should stay. Aawood (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

^What he said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I think the claim of it being a "worldwide" release on June 10th should be changed to a "Everywhere but US" release, because otherwise it's confusing. 76.115.192.174 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What's confusing about This has however been delayed by a month to June 10 internationally with a North American release on June 14 ? I think that's as clear as is possible. - X201 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well i suppose we'll play it by ear but knowing Gearbox it could very well be a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 254Jackson (talk • contribs) 03:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just going to leave this bit here, if you look at the actual day of the week, it releases in the U.S. on a Tuesday, June 14, which is when Wal-Mart and such take in new stock, so rather than divide up sales, they are waiting for Tuesday to release in the U.S. while the rest of the world gets it earlier.

Platform Version & Port specifics

Duke Nukem Forever is an original PC game , ported to consoles / Console versions are PC ports. It is NOT a "multiplatform" game , however it does come on multiple platforms, it's not the same meaning.

"Multiplatform" games usually associate that ALL of the versions are balanced and all of the versions are being developed AT ONCE and most importantly, they share parts of the code/scripting/materials, this makes them very poorly designed on the PCs, makes a lot of bugs, and half of "multiplatform" games have PC versions made from console ports.

Because DNF uses the technically better approach finish game on PC and then port to consoles , this will make the games better on consoles too because the original PC game has been perfected and polished with all efforts on it, and cut the time making them significantly because it's being ported. Correct me if im wrong. Xowets (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the 3d realms version was known to be a Pc game but gearbox is developing it and all we know is that is beging released on all platforms please provide proof254Jackson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

Box Art update

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/249/dnfupdcoverart.jpg << just take out the PC DVD bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverBoxArt (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Xowets involvment must be terminated

he is very unreliable,i will fight tooth and nail 24/7 to terminate or limit his involvment we dont need forum posts we need facts this is an encyclopdia after all isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.144.84 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no one cares strongly enough to dispute the problematic sources *shrugs* Rehevkor ✉ 20:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes saying that forum posts are just as reliable as as televsion new stations and well known sites just proves that hes unstable and unreliable i say we take down all his information and only leave the confermed bits and put up a lock wikipedia would support this especialy since he said the gudelines dont matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.144.84 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

hahaha "Forum posts are just as reliable as as televsion new stations" this is realy funny; television news station truthful , since when. "well known sites" - i suspect what you are notifing - all what you said points that you're just a console noob? not far from it.

A well known site can be "techpowerup.com" , it can be "kotaku.com" and it can also be "neogaf.com" --- what are you targeting is the mainstream sites, the journalist business , the media organizations. Which are never truthful.

Pretty much everything what the duke community was saying in forums , got confirmed in forums or press by Gearbox , we also happen to hit the jackpot of game completion of about 95% when gearbox taken over DNF, and that the PC version was essentially complete before PAX reveal.

And title of this talk says about your age too, but you really don't have idea what is going around , what was going around, neither do the wiki editors , that's because none of them has been inside the community, wikipedia is not news source, so stuff which is known for like a year, doesn't make it here until it's confirmed. And "news channels, IGN/gametrailers/gamespot/Wired/"insertcrappygamingwebsite" - are not reliable sources - who says this , the hardcore community does, all the outsiders are mass consumers who have no idea in what situation gaming is, basically, without you they wouldn't be able to run their dirty business.

"Gaming industry analysts" are simply the ones that are just ... fans of all communites, they PREDICT stuff which good accuraccy , just like members of the hardcore/competitive community would, the difference is, it's a job position, and he gets PAYED for it. One addition is , they have a more financial-viewpoint on everything because it's data that the industry takes it as inteligence.

On the other hand , why would ON EARTH would a (non-profit!) community be trying to think up BS of it's own favourite.Xowets (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I originally was not going to respond to this topic, as by the time it was brought up Xowets hadn't visited this article for a couple of weeks. With Xowets' recent statements in mind however, I should respond.

Xowets, you seem to want the best for the article; we understand that. You are very excited for this upcoming title, and are very involved in the Duke Nukem community, and we understand that as well. The problem is that these two aspects conflict: this article is not intended to be what you think it should be, and your excitement and community involvement leads you to making or suggesting changes that are in direct opposition to improving this article, despite numerous attempts by different people (myself included) to explain to you what is required. You are correct that many of us aren't from the DNF community, but that's actually a positive thing in this context; Wikipedia editors should be taking a neutral, none-biased standpoint as much as is possible.

To put this another way, Wikipedia has a completely different purpose to the game forums, and this should be taken into account when deciding what content should go onto it. If people want to-the-minute, informal discussion and prediction about the game then they'll likely head to the forums, so by all means say whatever you like over there, that's between you and their admins. On the other hand, if people come to the Wikipedia article, they want notable, sourced, encyclopedic information, and so that is what we must strive to give them, and this means not everything we find out about the game gets to be in the article. You don't have to like this, and you don't have to agree with this, but that is how it is and you need to take this into account if you want to contribute to this article. Aawood (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I got everything what you said Aawood, that's reasonable.

(just talking) But why those wake up who whave no idea about the whole situation ... all that rage was because i couldn't accept the fact that the Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford has to go to some (biased) major media organization to say that in front of camera and infront of some fancy interviewer for that INFORMATION to become "valid" for wikipedia , while his own post on his own forums does not count as valid source. I can't get this into my head - dead end.

He doesn't have an evil motive, or any benefit from saying on what engine was DNF developer, while some ohter suspicious cases would be another story. It matters what topic it is ... this is not a controversial topic, more likely controversial views on it made by the biased media who always presented false news about DNF - the media made the DNF a controvery , we in forums always knew the other story, that's because those guys at 3DR never lied - this is called trust - and court results prove that , 3DR was attacked by Warner and Fox (afaik) in histroy, but they won both cases outright; scott miller made a length interview and he revealed a lot , he had any motive to lie about what happend 14 years ago ... does he have any benefit with a lie ?

You might be surprises - indeed - such honesty in business is hard to find, hard to find in today's world.

We're over this , im just talking, to prove to you just this point - what i was telling here before turned out to be true now ; if you say you have any proof all those forum posts are lies/(incl CEO); they are a subject of speculation so not taken into account ofcourse (except CEO); but what Pitchford said was only strengthening what people have been talking about months ago, and even though it was admitted speculation, it was just a damn accurate speculation. This is just so i clear up things - i know i don't have the best attitude and grammar but at least keep assured that i havent intentionally brought any weak speculation or 99.9% sources. I tried the best for this article - fixing the controversy and the actual false claims media was producing - those guys ramp up speculation purposely because they have no idea, and drama fills their web traffic. Xowets (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Xowets calling someone a "console noob" dosen't help your cause grow up kid get reliable sources we can't put up forum posts just because in your eyes its as valuble as lets say IGN the guidelines dissagree and thats all that matters go back to duke nukem community there being biast is tolerable but not on an encyclopedia Awsometilthegrave (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why no gameplay section yet?

We already know about a few game modes Ex.capture the babe and there are plenty of teasers out there so why no gameplay section yet guys?254Jackson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

I don't know - possibly because there is no game? The vaporware aspect is entrenched - it has its own article. Why don't you play DNF some and put together a gameplay section? Oh, right. So, ah, pending release by the developers in Dallas, being patient might be appropriate? - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for X-Play's play, and PC Gamers 2 plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Could we use the demo? Isn't it the final product? MissingNoLLL (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Who's naked?

Under the section "Boob Tube", it says "However if the player loses, they will become naked." Who is "they"? All the girls in the game?--24.60.220.148 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The player gradually takes off clothing in the course of the game. MissingNoLLL (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

game engine

game engine looks more like Quake4 than anything else so far, i doubt it's unreal2.5 Markthemac (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been searching but can't find a cast iron recent source for any engine at the moment. - X201 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not been able to find anything either. Rehevkor ✉ 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

we will know when the game ships :) Markthemac (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

i'm not completly sure that it is unreal 2.5 since as far as i'm aware there isn't one since the updates tend to go in section or if focused on udk aka unreal development kit source is the download list for epic games http://www.udk.com/ and the fact the earliest release goes way back duke nukem in production, gearbox has been using current games on version 3 which is known as udk to some plus the wiki for gears of war 1, borderlands clearly states that there using unreal editor 3 which is the public version know to most while the current dev kit that they would be using the udk which is a constant update that is a modified version of the unreal editor--Ronnie42 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

none of this game so far shows the tiny-map problem, something which is typical to unreal3 especially on the xbox360 (pop-in and slow-loading) Markthemac (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This interview suggests they may have a combination/their own engine.Letsips (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

the last time they used the Valve Source engine, it might be a real mess internally (we can only be sure once it ships) Markthemac (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a longtime 3DRealms forums user and also been following news with this title quite severely, i have the little knowledge not a lot of people know, it's definitely unreal based engine , that's for sure , and George Broussard said the last time they restarted the game is "2004-ish" , but i got to say that's outdated information , i bet there was another reboot in 2006 when good talented employees left (ex "charlie" , who then worked for IW on COD4 and then left IW to join Respawn Entertainment (exIW), this is the section we will update the information on the current engine in , so because currently this is unkonw , it's a little memo to indicate this, I added this as well as the infobox because this is IMPORTANT for people to know "on which engine" the game is based on , it's still unreal 99.9% Xowets (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If there're no reliable sources for the engine, we shouldn't mention it at all. We can't base articles on your own knowledge or speculation, even if you were 100% sure. Rehevkor ✉ 04:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's based on the Unreal Engine and everything except some minor code and netcode has been rewritten. Basically it's own 'Duke Engine' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.94.46 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source which proves this, then by all means put it here so we can decide how to make use of it. Aawood (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just removed a bunch of forum sources per WP:SPS, there's no way to identify the posters as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Most of them were horribly out of date anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 00:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that important to know the Engine anyhow? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Engine, again

I have again removed the troublesome engine information and sources. I will explain the problems with the sources, as clearly as I can. All the sources are forum posts, and can only be sometimes used with care, but a lot of these are just a collection of badly or unattibiuted quotes. They seem to be used to create some kind of original research to come to some conclusion, mostly based on information we cannot presume to be up to date.

• http://www.resurrection-studios.net/newforum/showthread.php?tid=5860

Forum post with non verifiable quotes, this cannot be used, from /2005/, we cannot presume this to be up to date anyway.

• http://forums.duke4.net/index.php?showtopic=690

Fan site, simply cannot be used, it's a self published source.

• http://gbxforums.gearboxsoftware.com/showpost.php?p=2247353&postcount=70

Again, forum post. Who is DuvalMagic? Can we take someone's word that it's a developer? I suppose if it is the source can be used with consensus. Regardless, he/she doesn't go into specific detail on the engine anyway.

• http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?103306-Collection-thread-Ask-questions-about-DNF&p=1333513#post1333513

Forum post, who is "Blue Lightening"? Developer? Hells if I know. Again, if he is deemed an expert per WP:SPS we can gain a consensus to use the source.

Rehevkor ✉ 20:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"DUVALMAGIC" IS THE FOUNDER AND CEO OF GEARBOX SOFTWARE "RANDY PITCHFORD" i SAID IT 3 TIMES AND YOU STILL DONT GET IT ???

I really hate when someone who has no previous ide comes here to mess around , if you aren't DNF fan and just some random wiki editor why won't u just let us since contributing here for 2 years now , and hey , DNF is a topic of it's kind , the information is only in FORUM POSTS there's no serious MEDIA about it since weren't 3DRealms operating in that way, media spins around and nobody knows nothing, it's duke4.net and 3drealms form users who is about a 1000 people or even less that actually know everything what was going , EVERYONE ELSE has no idea and it's a general misunderstanding in the public. The problem with me and you is, that I AM ONE OF THOSE 1000 PEOPLE WHO KNOW MOST OF WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON :p Xowets (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot take your word. You need to provide reliable sources. Calm down. You may consider yourself as a self described expert on this but Wikipedia doesn't recognize your authority on the subject. All information must be verifiable. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Most of this, you have already been told, but you don't see to want to listen. Rehevkor ✉ 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the below explanation , very important not only to this issue but for furture consideration.

That's how THEY operate, similarly to 3DR but somewhat different , they don't use the stupid MEDIA to forward or brag these DETAILS, that would be hype and they aren't rich, plus it's a way better thing, since it keeps forum community spirit rather than gost forum like on blizzard forums which are like a freaking cave other than helping noobs getting the application running in tech support. As pitchford said

THE STUPID MEDIA SAYS EVERYTHING WRONG ABOUT DNF - PROVED RIGHT PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS BEFORE PAX REVEAL - When GBX officialy announced takeover after PAX (and at pax) it was THEN that DNF actually started dealing with MEDIA and PRESS. The only correct source about DNF stuff is Shacknews.com , that's because a lot of GBX and 3DR and 2K staff are posting there like normal visitors and connections, plus shacknews owner is/was kinda of buddy with 3DR since he followed DNF deepely like those dedicated fans however much it was on 3DR forums and duke.net, secondly SHACKNEWS.COM owner sold it to gamefly and now is a marketing director in GBX forums, not only that, the DNF connections expands throught the developer world, ofcourse not a lot get into the media or anyone outside the industry.

Those 1000 people are DEDICATED FANS who were just FORWARDING these quotes and what was going throughout the very strong but small community, it's a relatively small one of dedicated PC people , NO consolers , most of them PC diehards.

Also you probably aren't familiar with anything so, that's why im so angry you ask questions whith are kind of obvious to me, the answer is in a FORUM POST, VALID is because i KNOW who that is. But ofcourse the general media tires to SPIN their own story mostly because they're unfaimiliar them sefls, those stupid IGN and gametrailers have no freaking idea what they're talking about. :This game is coming from INDEPENDENT DEVELOPERS so you TREAT THEM AS SUCH , it's not a public company and does not operate in a DECEPTIONISTIC(marketing is deception) manner on the forum and answers like for example if you asked bobby kotick something , would you expect this fat millionaire to be honest with you ? (Don't start with 2K or T2 , they have no rights and no word on ANYTHING about DNF - those were purely retail publishing rights , which means it's equivalent to what Crytek/Valve have with EA Partners)

Don't explain to me wiki guidelines, doesn't make sense, then we can safely agree everything on 911 page is FALSE since who the heck are you listening to , the LIES of the official story , oh yeah that's a good sourse, the comission report is the biggest joke ever. Just how many FALSE information is on wikipedia, would be dead before i could counted all of it. What explanation do you have for 911 sources, who are the "CREDIBLE" 911 sources , the guys that made it surely sold their lie very good , oh those guys listened porbably to USATODAY(they forced the CEO to come up with a contradicting story time later, yet he was truthful on that very day, he was probably severely bribed or threathened) and all those medias who were a part of getting the lie out. So were just arguing here over something that's SO utterly small and obvious from space, while the whole 911 page is false, where is the "wiki guidelines" at play here. This is BS. It ends at this point, any counter argument after this is morally invalid howmuchever it is "wiki correct".

But i could cut a slack here ,the whole world was duped, so ofcourse wikipedia too. Xowets (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Good bye. Rehevkor ✉ 21:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You've just added them again, how many times do I have to tell you? We cannot use these sources. We cannot take your word that they are reliable. A consensus must be formed before they can use if no other sources can be produced. Seriously, have you been listening to a think I've been telling you? Your word cannot be taken that this is legit, that is not how things work here. Full stop. Rehevkor ✉ 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm at 3rr and there's nothing more I can say here, I'm going to disengage and let someone else follow up. It's clear you're not here to be productive; this is not a conspiracy. Rehevkor ✉ 22:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You're making a fool of your self, that's the point why im trying to explain, you shouldn't take those guidelines so serious, it cannot be more definitive than it is - why would someone lie about this, are the evil bankers or unreal employees setting up fake accounts across the whole web, to try to smear DNF it has unreal engine? , "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" this is probably the biggest BS ever and has to be removed from wikipedia, why do you follow this anyway, it cannot be enforced, it doesn't work that way in reality, this statement requires media to be the "third party publication" this is totaly stupid to work with , unless you persusade pitchford to take his form post on some site and have it checked by the "expert" on that site , journalists have no freaking idea, it's all business, it's in the fans and the community, we have predicted right, we had early knowledge of what is going to happen and when because of experience in the field, a journalist which covers SO many games doesn't have that kind of experience nor does have capability or time to dedicate on a small ground of games - that's the main difference which is a big deal why journalists (big entertainment sites) often have unaccurate/incomplete information and "half of the story".

You should have realized that everything on the big sites is only promotional marketing and a little jubber jabberish, it's mostly talk about obvious facts and "mainstream" descriptions which don't give any info and interest to a serious gamer/ community. Those are business sites, they don't know a lot until they dig it out, and ask your self from where they got their sources, it's again the community, so many independent sites have "submit a tip" - guess who is submitting tips, IGN/Gametrailers is a public company - business first - quality never.

You might also familiarize your self how gaming communities work, it's like a family , it's not a post on 4chan or messenger, there is no such communities, maybe linux is as strong or some other project, but gaming is one of the strongest, people come together in a trusty way, fake and trolls are quickly detected, if Unreal engine was something questionable you would have somebody talking about, clearly the WHOLE DNF COMMUNITY IS AGREEING - you should consider that. wikipedia is more theory, practise has to take over some of those guidelines.

You shouldn't be taking this topic at all if you're not into gaming, i have been following for 3 years now, some guys did it for all 14 years my friend, yeah, because you came into a big trap , this game is the most controversial because of it's authenticy of information, it's been created by endless broken promises by creator and developer 3DRealms , who weren't "evil capitalists " as the general mainstream public sees them , they were trying to make a great game but it wasn't working well , they had internal problems and they admited, they also DID tell a lot of stuff ture, they told more stuff than there should be told out of a private company, and definitely more stuff than any public company CEO would ever dare to admit. This is no conspiracy, since what is the motive.

The agenda and motive is the most powerful factory, you should go checking for example 911 sources, i see there's a psychological barrier into questioning that particular topic, that's exactly what they wanted - it has to be a well fit and openminded person to approach into trying to debunk that. you're agressiveness should be targeded toward's more important articles, rather than a pretty small thing here which is more than obvious it's already solved i see no reason making a big deal but im making it my self, yes because i really can't stand something being overweighted just because of a rule that's probably without any sense of reality.

That topic was an example, because it interesting contrast(i don't feel the psychological trauma because im not american and not live in usa so it couldn't affect), your reply was obvious because trying to prove sources there is an ultimatum, even the most diehard truthers cannot prove everything, how can a few wiki editors, and you would get all the way don't there, motive, a truther is a citizen, a stupid one if he tries to prove something for it's own "fame" or what, but on the other side you have something that had a motive so big it cannot be overlooked.

From this a question pops up: are you comparing me with a secret CIA agent fake account hired by Epic Games LLC that is trying to do some dirst work ( that obviosuly won't help anyone get rich) , to try to spread some fraud that "unreal code" was used 8 years ago when DNF switched engine. I don't know of any organized trolling association of sole purpose of spreading false information that totally doesn't matter , there are people , but those things are detectable. And the only guy questioning the engine is you on this whole article , did you notice that for example?

The whole thing is so psychological , the whole relationship and actions of both parties and externals, but with an openminded approach you would see what's going on in any situation, atleast percentage prediction mostly correct, with time the things get obvious, and you're just at the right time here, it's the time things folded out, you probably aren't ware that this engine question is going on for 5 years in the DNF community.

Another thing is "2.5" - the information about that is simple, it was from the engine switch, amd we(community) also know when Epic Games released Unreal Engine 2.5, the obvious is, if you questioned "why 2.5" ... the answer is , who is going to be so stupid to opt for a 2.0 or 1.0 version if there's a never available, and DNF supposed to be an AAA project, so it would have been a very very conditional project for that to happen, but 3DRealms was still full of money at the time.

And of course i wasn't meaning that it has "unreal 2.5 currently" , it's a new engine now , this is so obvious to us , we're talking about the ROOTS of it which was like in 2004 , and look it just got confirmed by Pitchford like 7 years later , that's why i really said , you won't understand the context and everything if you're not inside the community you're self, and these wiki editors they just come by and go but they leave really a lot of confusion just because of this what just happened. That's why i made a big deal out of this and explained and settles and provided examples for any future editor, please don't mess around with stuff you clearly have no long-term familiarity about (and that's not something bad ofcourse you can't know if you were not into it), the coincidence is, DNF's history is a very hot topic to start with. And im taking care for it's history so that what comes up it's updated on it's wiki page, im one of the keepers and this guy who is here for like a month tries to make me look like im unreliable, now come on. Im actually very happy today because one of the last biggest speculations was finally confirmed and now everyone can see it confirmed but that's not the main thing, to point out, everyone should now realize HOW much the community was correct all these years.

This explanation is a result of repeating events such as "wiki editors without idea coming to mess around creating further confusion and nitpicking" it's not personal, i finally express what i had to say about it, seen it many times elsewhere. The point is this was uncalled for, but it was required for an unfamiliar member and future ones, ofcourse he dropped his point, when i proved my self which is a matter of "argument war" and now you have it i did, my anger was merely localized and not personal, but i had to lose 1 hour of my life to prove these arguments, it is pointless to nitpick on something small like this "engine" while the whole articles on other wikipedia things are pretty much false from top to bottom and that's the partly SADNESS of it, it's the reality and facing with it hurts, i know it's not right, but the compromise arises when you have another article when it totally doesn't work(wiki guideline) but why it has enforded in a peacful article like DNF. So much as obvious that the engine issue is 100% morally confirmed, even before evaluation and agreeance of most of the editors and contributors of DNF article, still not published until further re-evaluated by wiki guidelines, and THEN published when approved , IF THAT kind of strict guidelines would have to be enforced in DNF thread, applying that to whole wikipedia's articles, then i can safely say that you can start the deletion of the 911 article, top to bottom , nothing is reliable, the article should not exist as a reference at all, with these guidelines nobody is the reliable source, the goverment it self is not a 3rd-party.

Xowets (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss contributions, not contributors. You are making presumptions about me personally and that is not cool. If do not like how Wikipedia works then that is your problem, we are not a gaming community, we are not a fan site, we are an encyclopedia, and to continue to be so you need to follow the rules. Please read the policies and guidelines I have linked you two, they are consensus built up over years on how an encyclopedia such as this should be built, that is why I follow them. What gives you the right to ignore them. Please don't confuse that as a question, I am not expecting any kind of coherent response. As for the rest, tl;dr. Good night. Rehevkor ✉ 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumption that is ofcourse not cool, but it's true. I have gone into that because you have forced me to explain my self, i did. The explanations involved that factor to be pointed out; the approach you are suggesting is theoretical, wikipedia is a dream, it can be done but almost impossible to be done practically, what are you referring to is a closed system that i must obey some guidelines that contradict the information, is something like a religion when only the believer is correct and those who oppose him are all wrong, you are using this prefined talk to sound "smart" while i give normal talk for everyone to understand, but i can't talk better im not engilish, the tieds are too large for the "officiality" to prevail, it won't, you can be as loyal as wikipedia is as you want, it't won't change anything magically, why don't you stand for your own honest opinion, you're dragging your self into a system which is not finished and not entirely correct in every possible combination and occurance that can happen in the universe, in the whole space of cosmos, the guidelines and policies are not entriely reliable, just looking at them in a moral and openminded way, there is no way to wire down every possible possibility what can happen so there would be a rule for it, the SPS covers a too much wide area, it's doesn't apply for this situation, when a definitive source provides and explains properly and EVERYONE agrees, why would he lie about that, that's a questions of "taking it further", you have to know the person and it's ways, you need to be connected with the topic for long terms, and from that big analysis you can determine how much credible the source is. You work on a QUANTITY basis, as an editor, on a high level basis, the editor have these guidelines in which they follow to get large amounts of ex. articles fixed a bit, but these editors (just as i explained how journalists are) have no deep connection or longterm experience with each of those random articles, with this kind of thinking he would leave out highs and lows, highs being sometimes lies would be published, and lows being mean sometimes "true information witheld from publishing", this is an exactly the same system wikipedia as an encyclopedia is working, ofcourse, there's no other way to arrange so many articles about everything, and here's the catch, it's not professional work, it's mainstream, and so is the quality, that's why it gets soemtimes wrong sometimes not full and sometimes inaccurate, sometimes a joke is proven as okay. This is the encyclopedia, the only people knowing truth are the people, the brains of the people hold that information, scattered across different topics and fields, gamers know a lot about gaming and it's industry, not wikipedia or journalists. But you are trying to keep it encyclopediatic, so be it, the reality of it is obvious, encyclopedia covers a lot of topic, it cannot possibly be 100% full of very tiny piece of information out there, that is impossible, even more with another quideline of "limited article size". Wikipedia as an encyclopedia not being a "gaming community" is totally correct, it's not a certain field , it's just a library of a lot of things. The honest experts on the field of gaming are gamers, the gaming communities are an advanced field, while gaming industry is an professional field, while they know more, they're in a business which means they aren't always a honest source.(particularly public companies) Entertainment Journalism is a field also, they know more than an avreage gamer, but the problem is , they don't get that deep into a single topic because it's a business, they don't need to focus on how many articles are they going to cover not how good are they going to write them. You answered your self, wikipedia is not a gaming community, so ofocurse how would you have a lot of experience in this field. You were questionin all of the surces, clearly without any reasonability that they only forwarded and kept a collection of quotes 3DRealms staff said over the years, then you questioned who is DuvalMagic, i have told you many time, you ignored this crucial factor, then you started excusing it with wiki guidelines how that in invalid because it's a forum post, disregarding the fact that it was actually the BOSS of the current IP holder of this game speaking and explaining; If i wouldn't have been sure i wouldn't have gone this far, i am so sure that i bet my life on this one and i will not step down. Xowets (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Xowets, you're cruising for a block. It doesn't matter what you think about them, Wikipedia's policies are trump. Rehevkor is not a CIA agent. And terrorist attacks have nothing to do with the topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You already miss my context, i wasn't saying that he is a CIA agent, i was saying that he has an attitude of persuming that I am a (example) "hidden agent whatever whoever trying to troll this article with false information" and im not doing that , i have most of people on this wiki page with me and so is the whole duke community, wiki's guidelines yes or no, it is what it is, everything has it's reasons and it's perfectly clear to me that the engine issue is completely solved and as we can see it's not a big deal to the developers either. Those "terrorist" attacks was just another example to expose the reality in wikipedia in an argument, try to prove those sources, just because it's on television and publication and not a forum post, doesn't mean it's automatically correct. Xowets (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The policies are "wrong", honest opinion, they should be respected in all articles not just here(that's why i provided a contrast example), why would be i cruising for a block what are you talking about(posting a wall of text is not an offence), im defending the history of this article, i bring informations, others decide about what's is okay and not but i was trying to help since i was sure i was correct, if i wasn't sure i wouldn't even be trying to make a point. This is too sure, you don't need re-approval, it is a fact, seen it(the forum post), done. What's the problem?

The point is, he doesn't have any solutions, will he contact gbx , will he call him on the cell phone tomorrow, what? , this talk about who's right who's wrong doesn't help this issue at all. However i might be too rushy to get it published however, if there was a response of for ex. "not yet, let it confirm first" - i would have waited, for a few days at most. Why i didn't liked , was the total denial, i would have accepted any compromise, but total denial is unacceptable, there are multiple sources not just one.

This is just one example, there's more, i have a friend he studies history and he's from different nationality and he was interested in some historical conflicts around his home country, and he said to me once just by te way was some discussion between us, that he doesn't read wikipedia on that particular historical event, he says "it mostly not true what's written there".

What i found out is, it's really not the people trying to post wrong information intentionally on, it's the ridicolous reasoning behind the edition, and that's my opinion take it or leave it. Xowets (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And you both overstated my "false publishing of unreliable sources", but you didn't notice that you have no counter arguments to anything i said other than "oh you need to follow guidelines". I am following, and it's already clearly confirmed, the engine issue is solved finally. I would be glad to cooperate further if there's something important to talk, a good argument to reply to, since im mostly talking to my self as i have no competition. That's why it's called Talk page, talk, not spam me with these wiki guidelines which don't help solving the issue at all, i would suggest getting some ideas to solve this, as im definitely not getting the loose of this one, i was building upon it and im the contributor, i will definitely not stop now that i already wasted 2 hours for this. I am looking forward to see some arguments which make some sense, those guidelines aren't really enforcing, it says "avoid", so it means in special situations it should not be taken seriously, and this is a special occasion.

To Finish it off, Rehevkor complained that i talk about him personally and such, oh yeah, but who accused me as an "invalid" and "untrusted" source in the first place, on WHAT kind of basis on what arguments? Xowets (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Rehevkor was not making personal accusations by referring to you as an invalid and untrusted source. The same goes for myself, and almost certainly everybody else contributing; we are all, for the purposes of this article, untrusted sources. (Indeed, if any of us were close enough to the topic to be a legitimate source, this would presumably also make us a biased contributor who shouldn't be contributing). We've been over this in various ways multiple times before, but to cut a long story short information from fan sites, in forum posts, and from personal knowledge are not valid or trusted, while information from official channels or certain trusted sites (news sites for example) are valid. If there is a particular thing that you know for certain, you must have got that information from somewhere. In this case, put the link here, we'll take a look and let you know if it's acceptable. Aawood (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I Can basically agree with this, though he never apologized or actually admitted his abrupt termination of me. Since this got to far it went, so it's been sort out, the result of this: CEO of Gearbox Randy Pitchford needs to take that forum post to the press and media in order for wikipedia to recognize it as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xowets (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A comment here

After reading all this intense arguing about the game's engine with lots of "I meant this and you mean that" I thought it would be worth remembering you guys that the editors in Wikipedia (as in any other encyclopedia) aren't supposed to "mean" anything. People here must just gather pertinent information together with verifiable and reliable (and reliability is important) sources and then put it all together in the form of an enciclopaedic article. Even when one is not just self entitled expert one must present the sources of information, as original research has no place here as well. I am one of those sporadic annoying guys sticking the nose into the 2-year-long expert fan work but, you see, you don't have to be expert. You just need to present verifiable and reliable sources (If it wasn't this way there wouldn't be any enclyclopedia before WP). And remember, the discussion page is not a forum. Good luck finding information about this game's engine. Cheers --Seneika (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Seneika

The page requires attention

People are deleting stuff. DukeNukemNuk (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait for reviews?

Now that the game is out in PAL regions, there's obviously going to be a influx of reviews. However so far the only reviews we can/will get are more than likely going to come from non-specialized sources. Personally I'd think we should wait so when the template reviews come in we won't have the problem of digging through the rest. Otherwise it will quickly become a convoluted mess which will just get completely rewritten regardless. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviews on PC vs consoles

The game is much better on PC (you know, like in the old days, the game is made for pc and ported to consoles, not the reverse) than on consoles. aiming is proper, load time is nearly instantaneous, there is nearly no bug and certainly no framerate issues. Thus, reviews giving a bad note due to these issues should at least be mentionned as "xbox" "ps3" etc reviews or note that they got this score because of the console port. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.161.45 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I've said before, I think it would be better to wait for more reviews to come in before making generalizations in the reception. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read several of the reviews for this game through metacritic. To say that this game received mixed reviews (which it does) is not truthful. A majority of the reviews were scathing, not to mind that it currently bears a 49% average for reviews. That is not mixed reception, that is poor reception. - George 14 June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.213.207 (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if sites like Metacritic list the game as mixed? Due to the different state the scores between versions are, negative to mixed is more accurate. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with mixed to negative for the 360 version and mixed for the other two. I don't think any of them can reasonably be described without the word mixed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The game's been getting 2's, 3's and 5's. Even aggregate websites barely score it over the 50% mark. The only reception that wasn't negative was PC Gamer's score for the PC version. The reception is "largely negative." Digitelle (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the 360 reviews, which are the worst, you'll find that the bulk of reviews (84% according to Metacritic) are below 40% (negative) and above 60% (mixed or average). There's a similar gulf found on the other two versions. The individual reviews themselves are often usually a mixed bag of good and bad. Exactly how mixed does the reception have to be before it can be characterized as mixed instead of largely negative? If you don't take scores of 50-59% as negative, and you shouldn't because on most sites that translates to mediocre, then there's no numerical basis whatsoever for characterizing reception as mostly or largely negative. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic now officially describes the reception as "generally unfavorable," not mixed.184.74.152.92 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A numerical average does not speak to the distribution of opinions. The fact that the average score for one version of the game is below 50% is not relevant to whether or not reception is mixed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The basis of using scores is actually used to quell the usual "the reception was etc" debates... but for some reason out all the other articles I've worked on this apparently has just caused more. A mixed score with a large amount of negative actually makes it even more "mixed" given the vast differences between certain reviews. Stabby Joe (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"mixed reviews"? For a video game, anything below a 7/10 score on a review is an epic fail. The reception to the game was overwhelmingly negative, not "mixed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.234.231 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your view on 7/10 is entirely your opinion. Many people like to use a 1 to 10 point scale as opposed to what you imply to be a 6 to 10. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The response has been overwhelmingly negative. PC Gamer gave it an 80, so I'm inclined to say at least it got mixed to negative reviews. But to not say it has received negative reviews is biased and wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the PC Metacritic page, you can see that there are 5 positive reviews(>70), 9 mixed-average reviews (scores of 50-70) and 7 Negative reviews (<50), I don't see how that predisposes it to becoming mixed to negative, the whole definition of mixed is that there isn't any clear majority of reviews with one disposition - it makes it more mixed Artamentix

What makes the game mixed to negative is the differences between versions based o number of reviews and platform exclusive outlets. The 360 version is in the red IE negative, while the other two are in the yellow on Metacritic WHILE it is different on Game Rankings. Hence both mixed and negative seems most accurate. There seems to be an uneasy sense of bias at times with just mixed for people who liked the game and just negative for those who didn't. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I think most media gets "mixed" reviews. Some people like it, some people don't. It's as simple as that. Personally I think using the word "mixed" is rather biased to cover up a general negative or positive correlation. Aside from the PS3 version, both the PC and X360 version have an average score of below 50%. That is a negative reaction. The PS3 version has an average of 52.63%, that is average. We shouldn't use weasel words. We should clearly state that the PS3 version has received an average mean score and the PC and Xbox 360 versions have received a negative mean score. ScienceApe (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Game rankings basing those scores, particularly for the PC version, has less reviews counting towards the score than the other aggregator - metacritic. Metacritic, having more reviews contributing to its score must have a better representation of the critical reception of the game, for both the PC and the PS3 versions, this shows up as mixed/average, not a negative reaction. You cant really say it is mixed to negative because mixed itself means no clear predisposition to either a negative or positve or average reception, it is just mixed. Artamentix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artamentix (talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic now lists all 3 platforms as having "Mixed or Average Reviews", since the score is based on more professional reviews than other aggregators, I believe it currently (for now) settles the reception as being currently mixed Artamentix —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

Metacritic now lists around 60% mixed reviews and around 40% negetive reviews. So "mixed to negative" is correct.

It seems that Metacritic actually uses the terms "mixed" and "negative" and yes most of the review for all three systems are in the mixed and negative categories. So the game should be described as such. ScienceApe (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Could we at least specify which platform has suffered from mixed to negative reviews, the PC specifically on metacritic is more or less equally split between the mixed and positive, and mixed and negative, so for that it is generally mixed, x360 is another issue. stating the whole reception is mixed to negative is not a general statement that can be made with all three platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artamentix (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's some review stats for the PC version compiled into a graph [1] doesn't that look mixed to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artamentix (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it is. Also another point I'd like to raise, any chance we could have negative points about the gameplay, graphics etc rather than just noting but "this game is [insert comical comparison]". Stabby Joe (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't run around saying the game was this or that. The details as to why the reception is what it is should come directly from our reliable sources. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, except all I see is what some thought, not why, which is what the basis is for reception. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"It seems that Metacritic actually uses the terms "mixed" and "negative" and yes most of the review for all three systems are in the mixed and negative categories. So the game should be described as such." This is how Metacritic is describing the reviews the game got, so the description that the game got mixed and negative reviews is backed up by a verifiable 3rd party source. Removing the "negative" descriptor is bias. ScienceApe (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? I don't see anyone in favor of removing the word negative altogether. And as to Metacritic's wording, that's completely irrelevant. It's an automatically generated label based solely on the numerical average. In order to describe overall reception as negative, mixed, or positive, you need to consider the distribution of opinions and Metacritic just doesn't do that. I feel very strongly that it should not be considered any kind of authority on this matter. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking to whoever keeps removing the word "negative" from the reception section. And no, it's not irrelevant at all. It's a review aggregator so if most of the reviews fall into the categories of "mixed" and/or "negative" then we can describe the game's reception as such because it's properly documented. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you're assuming that Metacritic itself is some kind of authority on whether reception is negative, average, mixed, or positive. I couldn't disagree more with this. And for what it's worth, if we did as you suggest and count the individual reviews for ourselves and took Metacritic's (controversial) rating system as gospel, overall reception would be described as "mixed or average" (huge red flag: Metacritic is so broken in this regard that no effort is made to distinguish between the two) with the Xbox 360 version having a noteworthy amount of negative reviews. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

From a review standpoint - do not get so worked up about how to call the diff between the aggregate on PC vs 360/PS3; as a whole, the game received mixed to negative reviews, and the table shows the actual average number. But I would say it worth spending a paragraph to comment on the generally better impression the PC got from reviews that specifically compared the two versions. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

At this rate, an entire rewrite might be warranted. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the rewrite. IT definately warrants a re-write. I went and split the opening sentence up into two groups (mixed on pc and ps3 and negative on 360). I don't see how we can have anything else right now. Kauzio (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Engine

The engine is most likely Unreal Engine 2.5, as it was the last engine they switched to, before falling into silence. It is of course very heavily modified and changed. Can a reliable source be found, though? All i managed to find are blog posts and forum posts; they are on the developers' official sites (mostly Gearbox). Negativecharge (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Gearbox's FAQ: "Duke Nukem Forever is being developed off an engine that is built to meet the gameplay needs of a Duke Nukem title. All of the major systems such as rendering and animation are custom built. Our developers are focused on making the best game possible, not promoting an engine." (forums.gearboxsoftware.com). The Unreal engine doesn't make it cut and dry, because there are aspects built on UnrealScript, and some on C++ ... so licensees can use parts from different versions. But, I think that's a moderately safe guess. I've modded on most of the Unreal releases, I'm pretty certain it is using the 2.5 vehicle physics, 2 didn't really have anything that comfortable. And nothing visually really looks like UE3. --Inkless (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Engine in Duke Nukem Forever is highly modified Unreal 1.x build 613 and is often dubbed as "Duke Engine". (It has as much common with UE2.5 as Half-life 2's "Source Engine" has with "idTech 4". You probably remember that "Source Engine" is based on Quake 1 engine or "idTech2"). This is known information for those who have followed DNF development since it begun... Also if you have played DNF you have probably opened the videos which show the engine's graphical development from unreal 1 level graphics to what it is currently. Its a quite impressive technical feat imho... http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Unreal_Engine_Versions/1 --Mikitei (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more accurate to say that DNF has "Duke Engine" which builds on Unreal Engine 1.x with some features taken from UE2.x development tree. DNF project never "switched" to UE2.5 it is false information. However Unreal Engine 1.x and 2.x doesn't have clear break point which means that Duke Engine is something between UE1.x and 2.x while being mostly UE1.x. It isn't that hard to come up with this information using Google so I highly disagree with most points Negativecharge wrote about. Guessing things is ok but you have to write that it is a guess into wiki then so that people don't thinks it's absolutely correct information. In my honest opinion the best course of action would be write that DNF engine is "Unreal Engine based" and drop any accurate points to some specific versions. But if the version is to be specified then I strongly feel that it should be assigned to be Unreal Engine 1.x build 613 based mostly on information I've heard from those in Unreal Engine mod scene, read from the gaming press and developer interviews. I would cite the thing but you know how people treat wiki to wiki citing... :) --Mikitei (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Game plot

The plot section has no source. This was put up and removed by myself once before, and was added back with a link to a Youtube video which, I assume, was not a valid source as this source was removed. Do we have any source for this plot? If not, I'll remove it again later this week. Aawood (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The plot of the game has been mentioned several times by the developers in articals and on several youtube videos as well. I beileve there should be a section for the plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.138.234.20 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Then support it with reliable sources if it's so important. YouTube is not a reliable source because they do not screen content submissions. If a YouTube video is of a TV interview, research the interview and cite it. If developers are "mentioning it several times" in "articals", then cite the articles. Otherwise, it's original research and should be removed. Even if you can support it with citations, in its current form the plot "summary" is too long and should be extensively trimmed. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite for reception

The reception has become nothing more than a string of comedic quotes from negative reviews. What need to be mentioned is what some reviewers thought of the different aspects of the game. So far this is only briefly touched upon towards the end. The only issue I can see is people (particularly those who are very openly biased against the game) reverting it, starting an edit war. Should we blank and start from scratch or slowly remove and add what is needed? Stabby Joe (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've added more quotes regarding aspects of the game for the time being. While more can be edited, it's at least stepped away from nothing but "this game is [joke]" quotes. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Better, but it just seems too long, with too many quotations. I don't find that it reads well. Kauzio (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree. After I simply replaced the random quotes (of which there was too many), it seem somewhat bloated. Any area we should focus on more? Stabby Joe (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As a heads up, the next issue of Edge will have a feature that they describe as "The thing that Duke Nukem Forever did right", so that may help provide some balance as well. - X201 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, there is an edit war going on changing "mixed" to "negative", claiming 50-55% is not "mixed". Is there some consensus about such wording or can some be found in order to stop that lame edit warring? Regards SoWhy 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably write it was a "critical disappointment" or something. That's what I got from all the reviews I read. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind that terminology. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I like that, especially considering the game's history. In general, a full priced game like this getting 5/10 is not "mixed" - that's pretty bad. Take this article - which talks not about the game, but about Take Two's stock taking a tumble in the aftermath, and the PR fiasco that followed: DailyTech. --Inkless (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's bias to describe this game as mixed. All three average scores on gamerankings are now below 50%. I feel that anyone who is trying to describe this game as mixed is unfairly giving it credit. If this were a game without a vocal fanbase supporting it, I doubt this would be happening. Even games that are generally agreed upon as poor, have a few positive reviews. Pointing these reviews out and then saying that the game got a mixed reaction is bias towards depicting the game's quality in a more positive light. Again, this typically happens only in media that has a strong vocal fanbase that supports it. ScienceApe (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What does the average score have to do with whether or not reception can be described as mixed? Unless the average score is 0%, the answer is "not a whole lot". ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody actually explain how the term "Mixed to negative" makes any semantic sense. 'average to negative' would make sense but since mixed means to have something featuring a wide range of conflicting opinions it would indicate that you can't really stick mixed and negative together. Mixed on its own would make sense, or average to negative would make sense. In my opinion since reviews don't seem to fit into one camp (especially when looking at the distribution i.e two averages) mixed appears to be more appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artamentix (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling the reception "mixed" is a nonsensical. Invariably, all games are going to have mixed reviews, even critically acclaimed ones or extremely poor games. The game has a score lower than 50% on gamerankings, that's a negative average reception. Stop calling it mixed, that's bias. ScienceApe (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And how is Gamerankings the holy grail in supporting that claim. Game rankings features a lack of reviews. If you were to gather all the review scores across the internet from professional review and media sites, you could get a much more representative reflection on what the reception is like. One such graph [2] doesn't show a "negative average" which you put down as the general reception, but a large amount of reviews falling into either a generally negative or a generally positive category. And with two peaks, that only highlights the mixed nature of the reception - since the reception doesn't strongly favour one extreme or the other. If you looked at high scoring games such as Portal 2, you would see that most, if not all reviews fit into the positive end of the spectrum, and producing a graph of sorts would highly likely produce a distribution curve with its mean in the positive spectrum - that wouldn't be mixed at all, that would be a positive reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artamentix (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So now your argument isn't that less than 50% shouldn't be called mixed but that NOTHING should be called mixed because mixed should be taken as a given. If you actually want to pursue that argument, you'll have to do so elsewhere. It's a matter that concerns all media, not just one video game. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Typically 1 to 4 is negative, 5 to 6 is mixed and 7 to 10 is positive (although 5 to 7 is called mixed sometimes to, hence why these labels are pointless). Lines are usually drawn since theoretically a universally praised game could be called mixed due to the different degrees of positivity. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that games that get 57% and 55% averages on gamerankings and metacritic respectively are described as "negative" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haze_%28video_game%29#Reception) while DNF gets averages lower than 50% but fans of the game insist that should be described as "mixed". That's bias, pure and simple. ScienceApe (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you feel the need to beat a dead horse. Yeah, we get it, you think it's a matter of bias. Yeah, we get it, you don't seem to be interested in lengthy discussions or consensus. I'm reverting your edit to something that clearly better reflects consensus. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You only feel it's a dead horse because you're biased for a more positive descriptor. That's what it is. ScienceApe (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I feel it's a dead horse because you're the only one I see who's hell-bent on removing the word "mixed" and you don't seem interested in discussing the matter. I'll tell you what you can do to fix this. You can go back to our previous discussions on this talk page, I think there are three of them, and try to continue them. Just look for the part where I eviscerated your reasoning and pick up where you left off. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Naa, I know bias when I see it, and you're biased. ScienceApe (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Onlivemj, 11 July 2011

| platforms = Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Mac OS X, OnLive

Onlivemj (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Is there a reliable source that supports this addition to the article? Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of a reliable source, its WP:VG consensus that OnLive should not be listed as a platform. - X201 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)