Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
You can play it now, if you want.
Well, sort of play. A pre-release build was leaked out to the public
(and is available here: https://archive.org/details/1652058670472).
You can install it on your computer (tips for getting it running here: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/umexnl/duke_nukem_forever_2001_has_released/).
Supposedly a more complete version is expected sometime next month,
but the current leak is still quite interesting.
It's not a full game; it's a very rough partial game. It's mostly a test-build designed to showcase some of the game's features and allow screenshots. It is glitchy as hell and really not worth the effort to
get running (I wasn't successful myself, but I didn't try very hard).
You're probably better off just watching a youtube video of someone
else playing it (like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=326&v=qC6rLI_hF-A&feature=emb_title).
Still, it's easy to see why so many people - myself included - were
excited about this game at the time. Had it released in 2001, DNF
would have been... well, maybe not a ground-breaking game, but
certainly a satisfyingly fun one. It looks gorgeous understanding that
the game is 20 years old), the gunplay looks fairly solid, and the disturbingly over-the-top crassness of the 2011 game seems
significantly toned down. It's like Apogee were trying to make a game
that would stand on its own merits, and not because its protagonist
had a potty-mouth.
Myself, I mostly remember the 2001 version for its cops, which had an amazingly (for the time) detailed model; I couldn't believe games
could look so good. They looked photo-real... and then they shot
tentacles from their mouth. It had huge levels, vehicles, unbelievably
large explosions... it may not have been revolutionary like its
predecessor, but it certainly was a welcome evolution; a harbinger of
what we expected of 'modern' FPS games in the early 2000s.
I wish I could have gotten this build to run, but I'm not too
disappointed; anyway, I expect I'll put more effort into it when the
more complete version releases in June. It really speaks to the
incompetence of both Brussaud - and later Gearbox - that with such a
solid foundation available to them they never released an enjoyable
version of the game.
On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 6:58:02 PM UTC-6, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I wish I could have gotten this build to run, but I'm not too
disappointed; anyway, I expect I'll put more effort into it when the
more complete version releases in June. It really speaks to the
incompetence of both Brussaud - and later Gearbox - that with such a
solid foundation available to them they never released an enjoyable
version of the game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDlB2P1leRM
I wonder if this is the same build. Doesn't seem like it.
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the >screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
You can play it now, if you want.
Well, sort of play. A pre-release build was leaked out to the public
(and is available here: https://archive.org/details/1652058670472).
You can install it on your computer (tips for getting it running here: >https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/umexnl/duke_nukem_forever_2001_has_released/).
Supposedly a more complete version is expected sometime next month,
but the current leak is still quite interesting.
It's not a full game; it's a very rough partial game. It's mostly a >test-build designed to showcase some of the game's features and allow >screenshots. It is glitchy as hell and really not worth the effort to
get running (I wasn't successful myself, but I didn't try very hard).
You're probably better off just watching a youtube video of someone
else playing it (like this one: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=326&v=qC6rLI_hF-A&feature=emb_title).
Still, it's easy to see why so many people - myself included - were
excited about this game at the time. Had it released in 2001, DNF
would have been... well, maybe not a ground-breaking game, but
certainly a satisfyingly fun one. It looks gorgeous understanding that
the game is 20 years old), the gunplay looks fairly solid, and the >disturbingly over-the-top crassness of the 2011 game seems
significantly toned down. It's like Apogee were trying to make a game
that would stand on its own merits, and not because its protagonist
had a potty-mouth.
Myself, I mostly remember the 2001 version for its cops, which had an >amazingly (for the time) detailed model; I couldn't believe games
could look so good. They looked photo-real... and then they shot
tentacles from their mouth. It had huge levels, vehicles, unbelievably
large explosions... it may not have been revolutionary like its
predecessor, but it certainly was a welcome evolution; a harbinger of
what we expected of 'modern' FPS games in the early 2000s.
I wish I could have gotten this build to run, but I'm not too
disappointed; anyway, I expect I'll put more effort into it when the
more complete version releases in June. It really speaks to the
incompetence of both Brussaud - and later Gearbox - that with such a
solid foundation available to them they never released an enjoyable
version of the game.
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II
even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by
Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II
even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
On Fri, 13 May 2022 09:41:36 -0500, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >> > Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
Then Ant, Serious Sam should be right up your alley!
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by
Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II
even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2022 09:41:36 -0500, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >> >> > Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >> >> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
Then Ant, Serious Sam should be right up your alley!
Yup, I enjoyed its original game. ;)
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by
Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II
even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
On 13/05/2022 15:41, Ant wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >>> Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
On 13/05/2022 15:41, Ant wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >>>> Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >>> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >>> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
On Sat, 14 May 2022 10:18:12 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2022 15:41, Ant wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >>>> Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted >>>> by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >>> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
*--
I have some of those installed but I think I liked the Battlefield
series better. It's been a while.
On Sat, 14 May 2022 10:18:12 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >>>> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
"Medal of Honor: Allied Assault" was an amazing experience when it
first released; it was one of the first 3D first-person shooters that convincingly 'recreated reality', rather than the usual stylistic
level design. Fighting your way across the beach in the Normandy
assault was as 'true-to-life' as any first-person game made up to
then.
Unfortunately, the game aged /really/ poorly, not only with its
visuals but with its brain-dead AI and level design. "Call of Duty"
survived the years much better since it relied less on its AI and more
on scripted set-pieces. I still consider "United Offensive" (the
add-on level-pack for the original "Call of Duty") one of the better
FPS experiences... assuming you enjoy cinematic, scripted shooters, of course.
PW <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2022 10:18:12 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2022 15:41, Ant wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2022 01:57, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Remember "Duke Nukem Forever"? No, not that awful POS game released by >> >>>> Gearbox ten years ago... the /original/ "Duke Nukem Forever", touted
by Apogee a decade before that. The one that had us drooling at the
screenshots and excited about - what was then - the innovative
gameplay. That one, remember?
That is another game title that has its place in gaming history that
I've never played. See also Wolfenstein and Doom. I have played Quake II >> >>> even though I quickly got bored of it. So I just run around and shoot
lots of things and that's it.
That's my genre.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
*--
I have some of those installed but I think I liked the Battlefield
series better. It's been a while.
Ditto. I like BF's open area for multiplayer gaming.
Strangely enough I liked both Medal of Honour and Call of Duty and
they're only a slight step of from run around and shoot everything.
*--
I have some of those installed but I think I liked the Battlefield
series better. It's been a while.
Ditto. I like BF's open area for multiplayer gaming.
I don't do MP. Just UT2004 once in a while with my brother and it is
always just us and bots.
Not sure if there is a MP game that I would like. I do look now and
then!
On Sun, 15 May 2022 21:55:27 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
I don't do MP. Just UT2004 once in a while with my brother and it is
always just us and bots.
I've found ones enjoyment of multiplayer depends heavily on the people
you play with. Playing with randoms is almost always an inferior
experience. If you don't have a group of friends to play with
regularly, you aren't going to get much out of the experience.
There have been exceptions; for a while, "Left 4 Dead" was an amazing experience even with randoms because its gameplay forced cooperation.
But as people became more familiar with the mechanics - and how to
cheese the AI - the need for cooperation lessened. Nowadays, the
playerbase of the game has become as toxic as everywhere else.
Not sure if there is a MP game that I would like. I do look now and
then!
I'm not a big fan of multiplayer myself, although I do give them a try
here and again (mostly to see if I've suddenly grown to love them
again). In part this is for the reason mentioned above: I don't have a
posse of people I can play with online (most of my friends aren't big computer game players). But I also don't get much joy out of games
which focus more on the mechanics than on story and setting; I /like/
the power-fantasy of being the hero. Equally, while the FPS genre has
evolved into dozens of subgenres, a lot of the multiplayer experience
still revolves around shooting people to accrue points, and - having
done that from the Doom days - I've tired of the repetition.
TL;DR: Don't be down on not liking multiplayer. There are lots of
other genres to enjoy, and while multiplayer gets talked about a lot, single-player experiences are still immensely (possibly more) popular.
Play what you love, and don't worry about the rest.
other genres to enjoy, and while multiplayer gets talked about a lot,
single-player experiences are still immensely (possibly more) popular.
Play what you love, and don't worry about the rest.
I agree that playing with people you know really does make a difference.
The problem I have is that I'm just not that into the type of game MP's >generally are. That means I don't want to make the time commitment ever
in terms of being online at a certain time to play a certain game or
indeed how long I play for. I have played a few platoons in WoT and
although it's fun doing that I find that after three or four battles I
felt like doing something else for a bit.
DR: Don't be down on not liking multiplayer. There are lots of
other genres to enjoy, and while multiplayer gets talked about a lot,
single-player experiences are still immensely (possibly more) popular.
Play what you love, and don't worry about the rest.
I agree that playing with people you know really does make a difference.
The problem I have is that I'm just not that into the type of game MP's
generally are. That means I don't want to make the time commitment ever
in terms of being online at a certain time to play a certain game or
indeed how long I play for. I have played a few platoons in WoT and
although it's fun doing that I find that after three or four battles I
felt like doing something else for a bit.
*--
There is no way I have the time to get up to speed for an MP game like
WoT, PUBG, or anything like that. Elden Ring or no Elden Ring.
Way too far behind the eight ball to even compete, especially with the cheater,...
On 20/05/2022 04:55, PW wrote:
DR: Don't be down on not liking multiplayer. There are lots of
other genres to enjoy, and while multiplayer gets talked about a lot,
single-player experiences are still immensely (possibly more) popular. >>>> Play what you love, and don't worry about the rest.
I agree that playing with people you know really does make a difference. >>> The problem I have is that I'm just not that into the type of game MP's
generally are. That means I don't want to make the time commitment ever
in terms of being online at a certain time to play a certain game or
indeed how long I play for. I have played a few platoons in WoT and
although it's fun doing that I find that after three or four battles I
felt like doing something else for a bit.
*--
There is no way I have the time to get up to speed for an MP game like
WoT, PUBG, or anything like that. Elden Ring or no Elden Ring.
Way too far behind the eight ball to even compete, especially with the
cheater,...
WoT is a bit different from your average MP shooter as the pace is a lot >slower and because of the format it's hard for even very good players to >dominate a battle. Its target audience was Dads with wallets.
Cheating is also not that bad as the game is server side so even though
there are cheats they aren't as game breaking as in some games. You just >can't get magically spotted and shoot from the other side of the map.
On Fri, 20 May 2022 11:35:18 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 20/05/2022 04:55, PW wrote:
DR: Don't be down on not liking multiplayer. There are lots of
other genres to enjoy, and while multiplayer gets talked about a lot, >>>>> single-player experiences are still immensely (possibly more) popular. >>>>> Play what you love, and don't worry about the rest.
I agree that playing with people you know really does make a difference. >>>> The problem I have is that I'm just not that into the type of game MP's >>>> generally are. That means I don't want to make the time commitment ever >>>> in terms of being online at a certain time to play a certain game or
indeed how long I play for. I have played a few platoons in WoT and
although it's fun doing that I find that after three or four battles I >>>> felt like doing something else for a bit.
*--
There is no way I have the time to get up to speed for an MP game like
WoT, PUBG, or anything like that. Elden Ring or no Elden Ring.
Way too far behind the eight ball to even compete, especially with the
cheater,...
WoT is a bit different from your average MP shooter as the pace is a lot
slower and because of the format it's hard for even very good players to
dominate a battle. Its target audience was Dads with wallets.
Cheating is also not that bad as the game is server side so even though
there are cheats they aren't as game breaking as in some games. You just
can't get magically spotted and shoot from the other side of the map.
*--
Good to know JAB except I think you mean it is free to play which ends
up being pay to play in order to keep up.
I tried it when it first came out (3 years or so ago?) and I was very impressed. Couldn't believe this was an on-line game.
I have also thought about World of Airplanes and I do keep War Thunder
up to date although I never tried it. PUBG was fun a couple years ago
with my brother but I would be lost if it wasn't for him. He
eventually stopped playing it because of all the cheating, and he was
a very good player.
I guess I will just stick with playing UT2004 with him (although his
new job with GoodYear Blimp has severely cut into our play time :-)),
bots and the occasional human.
The MP games doesn't have to be an FPS.
I used to play LFD and LFD2 on-line into the early next morning alot.
Even expert mode with mostly the same group of people. Basically, one mistake and it's game over :-)
WoT isn't too bad in the can you really pay for free context although it
has got slowly worse over the years*. The big problem with it is that
you really do need to put the time in and that's a lot of time. As a new >player you'll going to spend quite a bit of it trying to play catch-up
with established players. Saying that there is always the option of
sticking to the lower tiers as that's where the less experienced players
are and WG have tried to make the new player experience a bit easier.
*It was first released in early 2011.
I agree that playing with people you know really does make a difference.
The problem I have is that I'm just not that into the type of game MP's >generally are. That means I don't want to make the time commitment ever
in terms of being online at a certain time to play a certain game or
indeed how long I play for. I have played a few platoons in WoT and
although it's fun doing that I find that after three or four battles I
felt like doing something else for a bit.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 121:43:02 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,491 |