Is this the Duke Nukem Forever Forum?

[DanM]

Well,after not posting here at Apolyton for who knows how long,1 year,2 years,more?I thought I needed to say this.
Although I haven't posted,I have been lurking,and I see there is another delay.The sad thing is,game delays usually increase my anticipation,but I actually find myself losing interest on when this game will be released.The best medecine for this is not to bother looking when this game will be released.And if Star Wars Galaxies comes out before this,I may be too busy to even get it,even though Moo and Moo2 are 2 of my favorite games ever.Now I'm not saying that I will never get it,but I may find myself pulling it out of the bargain bin for $9.99 in 2 years if,of course,it happens to actually be released yet...

[Asmodean]

What do you guys actually want? A piss poor game like Civ3 was on release? Give the developers the time they need to finish the game. They've already said they are close. Give them the credit and believe that, will ya'?

Asmodean

[Alex-C]

I think some of the more frustrated members of the community might argue that this has been said before and still the game has been delayed.

Personally, ive overcome that frustration and have settled down to think "well if we are getting a better game then a few weeks wont hurt". Especially over Christmas, most people will be busy and wont have the time to think of it. Sure, people who dont celebrate Christmas will have the regular wait, but never the less its not something to go mad over.


A lot of people argue about making the Christmas sales deadline, but what about new year sales? LOTS of people go shopping to take advantage of the January sales and if MOO3 is shining up there then it will get a LOT of attention then too. Missing Christmas might not make it doomed to fail like a lot of people would believe (and like i used to believe).

[Main_Brain]

January Shopping is more a I-replace-X-mas_Gifts-Thingie than Shopping ;=)

[wervdon]

What do you guys actually want? A piss poor game like Civ3 was on release?

Not to pick a fight over civ3, but civ3 was not "piss poor" on release. It definately had problems, and in my opinion, was not as good as civ2 at the time, and could even be called mediocre, but piss poor, no way, thats just unfair I, for one, had alot of fun with civ3 over the course of the first year, and it only got better and better with each patch. In fact, Id say I probally played enough between the initial version and the first patch to make the game worth what I paid for it, and definately between the third and final patch I did And if thats what happens with moo3, then I certainely won't complain.

The only thing that'd really tick me off is if they release something that a) doesnt run more than 30 minutes without a crash in single or multi player b) corrupts my save games frequently c) runs into memory leak/slow down problems ala botf, or d) state that they have no intention of fixing anything that was broken via patches.

I would, of course, much, much prefer to play a relatively bug-free game on release day, so don't construe this as a whine, release it now with bugs post Im just saying, I can accept a certain level of non-game breaking bugs so long as they will fix them with patches.

[Alex-C]

Yeah, they take stuff back and get refunds, then see MOO3 on the shelf and fumble in their newly acquired cash to buy it, simple And people are bound to browse stuff in the sales coz of reduced prices, so itll get a lot of looking at

[Sollos]

I'm so glad I tried Civ3 first and then decided not to buy it. It was an average game, but the hype surrounding it was so big that everyone is justified in thinking it was piss poor.

I believe it is a good thing MOO3 is being refined to the extent it is. Some serious thought has been put into it, and the developers promise solid patches.

[The Mad Monk]

I'd rather give the developers the time they need to produce a quality product. While Civ III has its plusses, there were far too many things wrong with it from the outset.

[Todd Hawks]

[rant]

I agree with those people wanting a polished game more than an early release date.

BUT I am starting to get really angry about all this. Delay? No problem... but then another delay? And still another? And then a "Oh, it's just a few days now 'til we're gold" and weeks later nothing new.....

And if there really are that many bugs then why do all those beta testers talk about how great and polished this thing is?
Besides it is much easier to identify and kill all those bugs when the game is in public and many people are using it. I know, I know... there'd be complaints about selling a beta. But face it: As long as it isn't completely bugged and unplayable (and if it is, why announce near gold status?) it's better to release it. There will be found far more bugs that way than by letting some few betatesters work at it.
We won't get a bug-free game anyway.... we aren't talking about Blizzard here.

[/rant]


By the way: I'm leaving home for half a year soon and can't take my PC with me so maybe there is some personal interest involved in wanting to get the game soon .

[Kc7mxo]

By the way: I'm leaving home for half a year soon and can't take my PC with me so maybe there is some personal interest involved in wanting to get the game soon .

Nothing wrong with lobbying your personal interest. Its how things get done.

Maybe we should write our congressmen about moo3's delays.

[PriestOfDiscord]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I'd rather give the developers the time they need to produce a quality product. While Civ III has its plusses, there were far too many things wrong with it from the outset.

Exactly. I hope we get come solid patches out of Quicksilver to improve things once the game comes out, but I want to start with a fantastic game out of the box. It just shows loyalty to the product and your fans.

[Jamski]

I'm still waiting for Duke Nukem...

WHOOPS !

Wrong forum.