Blood has more in common with evil dead.eleven bravo wrote:
evil dead knock off?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'll believe it when there's a solid release date. They missed the hype boat years ago. 'When it's done' got too stale to follow.No.eleven bravo wrote:
wasnt duke nukem just a doom knock off anyways
Release date: May 3 2011 NA, May 6 RotW
this thread is better suited than the other one, so I deleted it
GUYS. How about some perspective?Phrozenbot wrote:
Blood has more in common with evil dead.eleven bravo wrote:
evil dead knock off?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'll believe it when there's a solid release date. They missed the hype boat years ago. 'When it's done' got too stale to follow.
No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUdWaXQH … re=related
(Evil Dead) 1983 - supernatural possession shit, chainsaws and a cowardly antihero
(Duke Nukem) 1991 - alien invasion shit and a self-absorbed hero
(Doom) 1993 - demon invasion sci-fi shit and boring hero whose only relatable personality trait is his love for his pet bunny
(Blood) 1997 - demons, cultists and a sadistic undead ex-cult leader antihero
Ha ha, brilliant trailer.
"I'd still hit it."
"I'd still hit it."
i bet its average
Gonna be one of those 'so bad it's good' type games.
Spoiler (highlight to read):Doctor Strangelove wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b78TKZ … r_embedded
Release date: May 3 2011 NA, May 6 RotW
this thread is better suited than the other one, so I deleted it
you're welcome
Oh crap, it's released on consoles as well, I expect to be disappointed.
Last edited by Axatar (2011-01-22 15:05:44)
fuckAxatar wrote:
Oh crap, it's released on consoles as well, I expect to be disappointed.
This might actually be somewhat good! Just for the little comment duke always make i know its at least gonna be a good rent!
i've been waiting for this.
[lol, since my twenties!]
[lol, since my twenties!]
This game better not have a single bug after taking so long to develop.
Well if you're 42, then you wouldn't be exaggerating!burnzz wrote:
i've been waiting for this.
[lol, since my twenties!]
You do understand that every game is going to have a bug, no matter how long it took to create.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This game better not have a single bug after taking so long to develop.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
tbh, How many other games do you know of that took 12 years to make?UnkleRukus wrote:
You do understand that every game is going to have a bug, no matter how long it took to create.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This game better not have a single bug after taking so long to develop.
Still you're probably right, more than likely most of that 12 years wasn't taken up doing bug testing. At least it can't be worse than any game that uses Gamebryo, but that's a whole nother level of buggyness anyway.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6544|Graz, Austria
I doubt that Duke Nukem Forever was in actual development for more than 4-5 years in total in those 12 years.
Most of that time was wasted with switching engines and shady business deals about copyrights.
Most of that time was wasted with switching engines and shady business deals about copyrights.
That trailer was awesome, but I'm worried it's gonna be like Chinese Democracy. In development for so long that by the time it comes out it's no longer as great as it could've been.
I thought the team were just lazy bastards? That trailer's so bad it barely looks like a year's work...
Can you imagine if it actually is the best game ever?
starcraft 2 and TF2 have to be pretty close._j5689_ wrote:
tbh, How many other games do you know of that took 12 years to make?UnkleRukus wrote:
You do understand that every game is going to have a bug, no matter how long it took to create.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This game better not have a single bug after taking so long to develop.
Still you're probably right, more than likely most of that 12 years wasn't taken up doing bug testing. At least it can't be worse than any game that uses Gamebryo, but that's a whole nother level of buggyness anyway.
Yeah I guess Starcraft 2 is pretty good proof that it can happen, although I only heard about exploits in it mostly, I'm sure there were at least some bugs and glitches. I don't think TF2 was even a concept until about two years before it was created, like most games, but I don't know for sure.Miggle wrote:
starcraft 2 and TF2 have to be pretty close._j5689_ wrote:
tbh, How many other games do you know of that took 12 years to make?UnkleRukus wrote:
You do understand that every game is going to have a bug, no matter how long it took to create.
Still you're probably right, more than likely most of that 12 years wasn't taken up doing bug testing. At least it can't be worse than any game that uses Gamebryo, but that's a whole nother level of buggyness anyway.
TF2 was in development for over 9 years._j5689_ wrote:
Yeah I guess Starcraft 2 is pretty good proof that it can happen, although I only heard about exploits in it mostly, I'm sure there were at least some bugs and glitches. I don't think TF2 was even a concept until about two years before it was created, like most games, but I don't know for sure.Miggle wrote:
starcraft 2 and TF2 have to be pretty close._j5689_ wrote:
tbh, How many other games do you know of that took 12 years to make?
Still you're probably right, more than likely most of that 12 years wasn't taken up doing bug testing. At least it can't be worse than any game that uses Gamebryo, but that's a whole nother level of buggyness anyway.
I´m actually afraid of that. Because, what comes after that?bennisboy wrote:
Can you imagine if it actually is the best game ever?
But I highly doubt it´s gonna be better than average. The Duke is the reason it will stick out of Average City and after all those years, even a shitty bugged version will sell like hotcakes.
Hell, I will probably buy it too, just for the sensation of actually holding it in my hands, making it real.
Last edited by Sisco (2011-01-23 13:34:49)
honestly, it could suck and I'll still play it. just because it's Duke
Hail to the King, baby
