Fallout Studios Forums

... yikes. That's the best they have to show after 12 years and however long they've actually been working on it? Nothing about that trailer was particularly impressive at all. Graphics aren't great, animations look unnatural and everything else looks as generic as it could be apart from all the controversy it's no doubt going to generate.

Poor form.

RaiDK, on 22 Jan 2011, 0:43, said:

Tbh I would consider this footage to be worth a year's work or a little more ever since the IP was acquired. All the previous work was meaningless.

Graphics aren't everything, nobody should EVER judge a game by how ugly it is. Look at Unreal Tournament 1999, the graphics weren't great, but the gameplay was absolutely phenomenal. Everything about it was great except graphics, and imo really didn't matter as long as I had fun.

Duke Nukem might look unfinished, poor graphics, or even generic, but the point is that the game is supposed to be hilarious and fun. If you take Duke Nukem seriously then you have a problem.

WarMenace, on 22 Jan 2011, 11:33, said:

I like my crazy, over the top games as much as the next guy, but that trailer wasn't particularly impressive to me at all. Consider another game that's coming soon like Bulletstorm - it's in pretty much the same vein as DNF but it looks to be a much better game overall in terms of visuals and gameplay. It's worth noting that it doesn't have 12 years of development to live up to either.

I personally liked the trailer. I don't care if the graphics is poor or what....Remember, graphics is what killed 3DRealms in the first place.
Edited by Kris, 22 January 2011 - 02:38.

I thought the trailer was pretty good, had some good lines and looks like it will be one of the few games which makes you genuinely laugh.

Meh, I don't care about graphics either, as long as the game is funny/has a good gameplay.
graphics are in fact one of the last things I look for in a game (just after the reload anims ), that's why I still enjoy playing emulated games

While the trailer wasn't put together too well I must say the non-vehicular gameplay parts did look like they played pretty well, to be honest.

Why do people keep calling it "generic"?

Well, the gameplay doesn't look look very innovative, but the "generic" thing is confusing me too, especially since "generic" nowadays mean: "Realistic Modern FPS" which this game...isn't.

Wizard, on 22 Jan 2011, 10:20, said:

Don't know, really shooters can only evolve so far. That limit is probably until we have a shooter based around using the portal gun and the gravity gun solely, with RPG elements and crazy fantasy/sci-fi backgrounds. Maybe add time travel into the mix as well.
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 22 January 2011 - 14:24.

Now that looks like a fun! The legend is back, just hope the game won't be worse than trailer. :mindfuck:

If you take a game that has an "EGO BAR" for health seriously, then you should not buy this game. This game is hilarious and branches off from the problems of Halo and Call of Duty, I don't care if the graphics suck I'm getting it.

The vehicular parts were reminiscent of Big Trucks: Over the Road Racing, and that's never good.

The shadows at 01:41 are simply unacceptible for an FPS game in this day and age. I can tell already how this one is going to go...
Edited by Stinger, 23 January 2011 - 03:24.

Stinger, on 23 Jan 2011, 4:24, said:

So you're judging a game just by basing yourself on the shadows? Maybe you should just wait for the next CoD and not buy any other single game then...

That was just one example of how much it fails graphically, adding to what has been stated by others. Why did you not ask them to elaborate on what they said?

C&C Generals has better shadows, and it's an 8 year old RTS. I expect more from an FPS. As for the gameplay, there's nothing new or interesting to see here. It's a tired formula that looks so last century.

Regarding the CoD reference, I can see a problem here, but I'll leave that to the Admins to deliberate.
Edited by Stinger, 23 January 2011 - 20:52.

Going to totally get this game and judge it by its gameplay and not its graphics.

Stinger, on 23 Jan 2011, 21:49, said:

Who cares about graphics anyway? As long as the game is made of fun and fun...ness.

And about the gameplay, you do realise it's SUPPOSED to be a 1997 throwback right?
Edited by SquigPie, 23 January 2011 - 23:07.

People keep saying graphics aren't a major part of games, but I am inclined to disagree. Presentation is all part of the game. It isn't the only benchmark, but a better looking game will add value much as a crap looking game (i.e. less than ordinary) will turn you off from playing. Things like shadows, models and animations all make a game better. I find it annoying when people keep repeating all this "gameplay only" stuff.

Gameplay and graphics. Two faces of the same die I guess, but certainly not opposite.

Stinger, on 23 Jan 2011, 3:24, said:

I totally concur - the vehicle sections look like absolute trash, and whilst I wouldn't have necessarily pointed out the shadows, just the whole damn game looks subpar in the graphics area.

CJ, on 23 Jan 2011, 18:18, said:

And in turn you're judging Stinger's comments as based upon the CoD series, which is where we all know the last sodding debacle occurred. Further, he didn't say that it was related to the CoD series even slightly. How much harder would it have been to leave out that last line?

Stinger, on 23 Jan 2011, 20:49, said:

Excuse me whilst I do so. Note my post in the CoD [Title] Warfare topic, and let me reiterate. CoD does not run anyone's lives, including Stinger and Chyros. It may be the bar by which they set standards, but that does not mean you always have to point that fact out, it's incredibly irritating even from a bystander's perspective these days.

Kalo, on 23 Jan 2011, 22:16, said:

Whilst I feel this can be achieved (great examples are some of the brilliant titles on the N64/PS1 that still make me feel brilliant when playing them), there is a standard level of competency I expect in the design department these days. This game doesn't appear to show it, and I don't think I can look past the awful graphics to the gameplay (which if the vehicle section is anything to go by, won't be very good either).

SquigPie, on 23 Jan 2011, 23:05, said:

And whilst I'm all for making a game a homage/throwback to a previous game, you expect them to make it better at the same times don't you? If I were to suggest a throwback to Mario 64, would you expect N64 graphics as standard? I'd probably refuse to buy it had they put so little work in to a game that deserves far more.

But if I judged a game by its graphics I'd say the Jedi Knight series was awful, or the first CoD games, or 1942. Graphics do make a big difference, but I like it when the game focuses on something else like comedy/gameplay/storyline. Mass Effect had okay graphics, for instance, most look past it because it's such a great game.


The vehicle section /does/ look really bad, but it can't be any worse than the first ME Mako .

To all who thinks this game has 'dated' graphics: stay with your CoD/BF/any_other_generic_fps_with_insane_graphics.
I on the other hand will enjoy this game, no matter what the graphics. It's the Duke, that is reason enough

So....you guys want to delay this game again due to the graphics? Seriously, Duke Nukem was delayed for this long BECAUSE of the graphics.
Edited by Kris, 24 January 2011 - 18:49.

Dutchygamer, on 24 Jan 2011, 19:50, said:

Oh don't worry I'm getting it, but I don't see why it should be immune to criticism from a graphical point of view.