Jump to content

Talk:Duke Nukem Forever/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Reading Aloud

Why did they remove http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dukenukemarticle_processed.ogg HowardCoward (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Chapter list notability

A chunk of the article is now taken up by a list of the chapter names; I'm not sure why this is notable or worth mentioning. Any objections to me removing this section? Aawood (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced apologist paragraph at the end of Reception

Someone keeps adding an unsourced, badly written paragraph at the end that suggests people didn't like it because they didn't keep their expectations low enough, and keeps reinserting it into the article from multiple IPs. CuddlySatan (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems most of these edits are coming from a single purpose ip, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.73.177.112 ScienceApe (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mixed to negative reception"?

In video games we don't call a 4.9/10 Metacritic average "mixed to negative" we call that "fucking awful".

"We"? From previous edits, it's based on the the Metacritic scores on other platforms that are in the 50s range which are mixed (as there are technical differences between versions), hence the inclusion of both. Also, please sign your comments. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And the aggregate score on gamerankings for all three platforms are all below 50%. The Xbox 360 version has an aggregate score below 50% on Metacritic. It seems fairly obvious that it received a general negative reception, and those who keep insisting on keeping "mixed" are just biased in favor for it. Haze (video game) received better reviews, but yet no one has a problem with the article describing the reviews as negative. ScienceApe (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, Haze has a metacritic score of 55% and it's article says: "However, upon release, critical reception for Haze was generally negative". Why does Duke Nukem, which has an even lower metascore, say "mixed to negative"? Sounds like a double standard to me. Spykr (talk) 4 February 2012
Well, GamesRadar gave it a 6, PC Gamer US a score of 80 no less, Game Informer a 6,75, while others gave it an F, a one star rating or a 3 out of 10. So yeah, the reception was mixed. And besides, if zero is absolute worst and ten is perfection, doesn't a score of 4,9 or 5 hang in the middle? --Soetermans. T / C 11:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
All games get outliers, Haze got them too, but it's still a negative reception. The article is biased in favor for a more positive descriptor. ScienceApe (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's still reading, I had recommended calling it something along the lines of a "critical disappointment" - that would cover both the lackluster scores and set the tone of what people felt after all those years. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm gona make the change, any reverts have to be discussed here first. ScienceApe (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Game of the Year Edition

Several different IPs keep adding "(Game of the Year Edition)" to the infobox. Is that really necessary? —Al E.(talk) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

PR threat

Why isn't the PR threat on the article? It really happened, when the Redner group threatened the reviewers, only to get fired by Gearbox. Why isn't it included? 99.226.103.134 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Duke Nukem Forever/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 12:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


I'll take this. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this needs a full review—it's missing basic stuff: a lede that reflects the text, a sourced gameplay section, proper reliable sources instead of forum links and random websites. I suggest that the nominator take a look at the links in the good article criteria. – czar 14:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Czar has basically summarized what I wanted to say. The entire gameplay section being unsourced, as well as the presence of two unsourced paragraphs in the development and marketing section are not really acceptable for a good article nomination. Even though there is a page called Development of Duke Nukem Forever, it does not mean that the development section of this page can be this short. It also does not fully explain the game's long development. How the game was designed is also important, even though it ended up to become a terrible game. Reception section uses too many quotes, and the article has quite many one-sentence paragraphs, which are discouraged. The article is not supported by reliable sources, (which was already mentioned by Czar), and the citations are inconsistently formatted. Some information are written in a confusing way (such as the "First Access Club") as well. Normally I would not quick-fail others if the nominator has worked on the article. Seeing it as a "drive-by" nomination, I am not convinced that the article would get improved in a short period of time. I am very sorry to say that I am going to quick-fail this article this time. You can put the article to peer review, and I may be able to give you some more comments that are more in-depth. Feel free to nominate the article again after you have fixed all the issues, and I will be happy to review it again. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the quick review, guys. It seemed like a well-written article to me at the time, but obviously I didn't look carefully enough. I'll definitely look harder the next time I try to do something like this. I don't have much time at the moment, so it might take a while for me to fix everything. No hard feelings :) Daß Wölf (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

About the engine

I don't know if the engine is Unreal 3 or 2, what I know is that the graphics of the first Unreal Engine 3 games like Gears of War and Stranglehold are actually better than Duke Nukem ones. And I don't think that they have taken Unreal Engine 3 and replaced its renderer with a worse one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.56.13 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not UE3, not even UE2, but ultra-heavily modified UE1, and here's why : when you look at the system.ini config file into DNF folder, you find parameters which are absolutly UE1 specific such as UseDirectDraw or UseDirectInput. For the engine's version, it's the latest, UE1 build 613. 87.231.191.55 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Any actual reliable sources for this? The open wiki used as a source in the article is unacceptable. The evidence about is original research, which is also not permitted. Яehevkor ✉ 23:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I've simply added "modified unreal engine", since version is irrelevant, since according to both 3D Realms at the time and Gearbox now, most of the technology used is custom. I've added some reference to support it (5 and 6 on the reference list) in the form of George Broussard quotes, originally from the 3D Realms forum. It can be easily assumed that the game still uses unreal technology at heart, since it displays a "Powered by Unreal Technology" splash at launch. SteelSkin667 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's highly modified 1st generation Unreal Engine build 613 which uses 3DRealms' own 3D render like most Unreal developers know. http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Unreal_Engine_Versions/1#Released_Projects --Mikitei (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
And let me add that Unreal Engine development don't have clear "this is where engine 1.0 ends" and "this is where 2.0 engine starts" points. When Duke Nukem Forever was branched off the mainline Unreal Engine, 2nd generation Unreal Engine development was on going but it wasn't released yet and the engine Duke Nukem Forever was built on was 1st gen Unreal Engine. So claiming DNF to use Unreal Engine 2.5 isn't true since 2.0 wasn't even released at that time if I've correctly understood the timeline here. --Mikitei (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It's funny how http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=713498&postcount=19 is used as a source for DNF supposedly being "Unreal Engine 2.5" when Broussard clearly states in that source that it is not Unreal Engine 2.5, "Question: Seriously, though. What version of the Unreal Engine is DNF going to be using? Unreal Engine 2.5 or 3.0?" -> "Neither. We broke off many moons ago. About all we use from Unreal now is the editor, networking and Unreal Script. - George Broussard, November 16nd, 2005.". If you take look at the system files of DNF you can see how it's been constructed like Unreal Engine 1, more specifically something that is based upon the version that came after Unreal Tournament. --109.108.18.121 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Changed to "Heavily Modified Unreal Engine" per the source, no source for UE1, the above is original research. Need something credible. Яehevkor ✉ 15:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Duke Nukem Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duke Nukem Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Review scores

I can't find why the scores of GamePro, GameSpy and Joystiq in the reception infobox are invisible. The boxes containing the scores remain blank, but when I hover over it with my mouse, it does show the scores. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oxygene7-13: They use an image for stars, i.e. 3 gold stars next to 2 grey stars for a 5 star rating. This is an image, check that you are not blocking images in your browser. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I do have issues with images so, now I know what the problem is. Problem solved. Thanx! Oxygene7-13 (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duke Nukem Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Duke Nukem Forever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_Nukem_Forever/Archive_4&oldid=1237575661"