they were all basically going for the most juvenile level of humor and puerile interest possible. The shit-ton of games that the Build engine allowed really fostered a sort of "race for the bottom." DN3D, Shadow Warrior, Redneck Rampage, Blood, et al. Or especially a certain kind of creativity. Low-res, cartoony sprites don't take nearly as much time to produce as a high-polygon humanoid 3D model with inverse kinematics, bump-mapping, and a million different pixel shaders.It simply takes more effort to make content for modern games than it did back in the day. Modern engines have become technically superior to their predecessors, but the content-making tools haven't kept pace with them. Originally posted by Pont:Not necessarily. I think lack of IP network support kept it from being an online hit which means it didn't have much in the way of 'legs'I think whatever is going on at 3DR is probably retarded but I'll still buy DNF on release day! Isn't killing aliens in general a gimmick?I agree that the depth that Duke had in terms of interactivity, humour and features was not matched for sometime. Some of the moving machines they created with that were fantastic and little touches like the in-game keypads. I will agree that the Build engine was better than Doom, but that's about it for me.However, I remember being impressed with the Doom 3 engine. The "destructable" levels were a little more interesting, but since they were totally scripted they were not really anything special. Quote:Originally posted by ShaggyMoose:I always considered the interactivity of the Build engine more of a gimic than anything else. I am not sure if a big part of the appeal is that the Build games don't really take themselves seriously and used humor successfully.So, my questions to the Ars community - How do you think the Build engine holds up to modern games? What recent and never before seen features do you like? What was better about Build than modern games? Of course the design of games like Duke Nukem and Shadow Warrior really helped. Besides the graphics, I think the Build engine was a significant step in gaming that has been lost with time. What’s wrong with enemy counts, completion time, secrets found? Painkiller brought back some of the fun, but being locked in a rooms until all enemies are dead and zero environmental interactivity kept the game from being perfect.I am not saying modern games are not fun, but I think there are quite a few aspects that have fallen by the wayside. Games are also seriously lacking in secret areas these days.All in all playing Duke has caused me to miss a lot of the fun aspects of FPS games. The levels were pretty wide open and really keys were the only thing keeping you from running straight to the end. Duke Nukem levels were designed more realistically and fun. The only game I can think of that had the same amount of interactivity as Duke is Deus Ex and even that is pretty old now. Duke was not the first game with some of the features, but it was the first to put them all together in a perfect package.It seems modern game environments tend to feel really sterile other than some special cases. I realize most of these features are standard now, but very few games use all of them. Everything was interactive - light switches, surveillance cameras, microphones, highly destructible environments including walls that could be blown up, flying enemies, explosions everywhere, sweet weapons, moving objects, and much, much more. I recently purchased Duke Nukem 3D on Xbox Live and to put it simply - I now remember why Duke Nukem Forever is (was?) so greatly anticipated.Its amazing what the Build engine and some scripting could do and how modern games don’t do half of what the Build engine did.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |