Duke Nukem Court Battle Getting Nasty - Page 2

**rudedog** · 06-16-09, 05:56 AM

I'm sorry once development goes over say 3 Years MAX then something is terribly wrong. If you as the dev can't see it , then the backing publisher should have seen it and demanded all funding returned. - end of story.

Granted, I think the DNF contract clause was invented by this disaster.

Sorry but I don't trust 3DR as far as I could throw them and it's their own fault. Sorry but they are the laughing stock of the dev industry, no matter how good Duke was at the time.

sharvin · 06-16-09, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rudedog

I'm sorry once development goes over say 3 Years MAX then something is terribly wrong. If you as the dev can't see it , then the backing publisher should have seen it and demanded all funding returned. - end of story.

Granted, I think the DNF contract clause was invented by this disaster.

Sorry but I don't trust 3DR as far as I could throw them and it's their own fault. Sorry but they are the laughing stock of the dev industry, no matter how good Duke was at the time.

not necessarily, half life 2 took nearly 5 years to make, just depends if they are taking their time polishing it, or sitting around playing WoW instead.

autobot · 06-16-09, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharvin

not necessarily, half life 2 took nearly 5 years to make, just depends if they are taking their time polishing it, or sitting around playing WoW instead.

Thats funny cause in an interview video online 3DR was asked why DNF was taking so long and the head devloper stated that they were simply too busy playing WOW.

**bacon12** · 06-16-09, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharvin

not necessarily, half life 2 took nearly 5 years to make, just depends if they are taking their time polishing it, or sitting around playing WoW instead.

TF2 was in development even longer. It is different however when it is someone elses money who is being put up for the game development.

Atomizer · 06-16-09, 08:44 PM

Really, it all comes down to the developer, no game should ever take 10 years, unless its the bloody coming of messiah and makes Crysis look like Pong.
However, 5 years is acceptable if you're talking about a developer like Blizzard or Valve, who polish their games out the wazzu, cant really complain.

What should have happend with Duke Forever, when they wanted to do the second engine change, after several years, THATs when things should have been pulled.
I remember reading a history on Half-Life 1, it didnt go through an engine change, but they basically scrapped the game and started again, which was a huge risk for the publisher, but they allowed it and we got HL1, if they hadnt of then we either might have got something mediocore and Valve would not be where they are today, or we never would have gotten HL1 at all.
3DR however, when they decided to change engines once, its not that bad, "do what you need to", but the second time, the publisher shouldnt have allowed it and forced them to finish what they had, it still would have been ok at that point.

06-16-09, 05:56 AM	#13
rudedog Not so Rude Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 1,500	Re: Duke Nukem Court Battle Getting Nasty I'm sorry once development goes over say 3 Years MAX then something is terribly wrong. If you as the dev can't see it , then the backing publisher should have seen it and demanded all funding returned. - end of story. Granted, I think the DNF contract clause was invented by this disaster. Sorry but I don't trust 3DR as far as I could throw them and it's their own fault. Sorry but they are the laughing stock of the dev industry, no matter how good Duke was at the time. __________________ Not so Rude, Rudedog FPSadmin.com \| twitter \| Microsoft MVP 2009-2012 - Games for Windows Main Box:Intel QX6850\|Asus Formula Maximus\|4GB(1GBx4) @ 1066\|Evga 285GTX - 182.05\|150Gig Raptor SATA\|2x WD 250Gb SATA\|2x Lite-on 1673S DVDRW-all\|PioneerBDR-202\|X-Fi Fatal1ty 2.07.0004\|Logitec G7-setpoint 3.1.116\|Ergodex DX1-firmware 1.1-driver1.3\|Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW 24" LCD\|PCPower and Cooling TurboCool 1000 SLI\|Windows 7 Ultimate\|Klipsch THX 5.1 Imac: Snow Leopard\|27" screen\|i7 2.93\|12 GB\|ATI HD 5750 1G\|WD 1T SATA\|2xWD 2T firewire 800\|Sharing Dell 24" Laptop: MBP\|2.16\|2GB ram\|160drive Laptop 2: MBP Unibody\|2.66\|4GB ram\|320drive Camera: D700 + MB-D10 + EN-EL3e + GP1\|Nikon14-24 f2.8\|nikon24-70 f2.8\|nikon70-200 f2.8\|nikon 50 f1.4\|Sigma 150-500 Car: 2010 Dodge Challenger R/T Classic Plum Crazy Purl\|6 Speed\|Power roof\|Super Track Pack\|20" classic rims\|Functional ram air hood

06-16-09, 08:44 PM	#17
Atomizer Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 379	Re: Duke Nukem Court Battle Getting Nasty Really, it all comes down to the developer, no game should ever take 10 years, unless its the bloody coming of messiah and makes Crysis look like Pong. However, 5 years is acceptable if you're talking about a developer like Blizzard or Valve, who polish their games out the wazzu, cant really complain. What should have happend with Duke Forever, when they wanted to do the second engine change, after several years, THATs when things should have been pulled. I remember reading a history on Half-Life 1, it didnt go through an engine change, but they basically scrapped the game and started again, which was a huge risk for the publisher, but they allowed it and we got HL1, if they hadnt of then we either might have got something mediocore and Valve would not be where they are today, or we never would have gotten HL1 at all. 3DR however, when they decided to change engines once, its not that bad, "do what you need to", but the second time, the publisher shouldnt have allowed it and forced them to finish what they had, it still would have been ok at that point.