Jump to content

Talk:Duke Nukem Forever

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.231.191.55 (talk) at 01:49, 25 February 2012 (→About the engine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleDuke Nukem Forever was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
January 8, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 20, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Edit request from Onlivemj, 11 July 2011

| platforms = Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Mac OS X, OnLive

Onlivemj (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Is there a reliable source that supports this addition to the article? Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of a reliable source, its WP:VG consensus that OnLive should not be listed as a platform. - X201 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Aloud

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_Nukem_Forever&oldid=478707983"