Talk:Duke Nukem Forever

TBA / When it's done

I scanned through the archive and did not find any discussion regarding the "When it's done" release date not being appropriate for the infobox or article. Was there ever any such discussion? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 13:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but "WID" is the official term used. To me, that is the only "official release date" and should be kept in the infobox. --blm07 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When it's done is NOT an official release date, and as such, is not appropriate for the infobox. An official release date is something like 21 November 2008, an actual DATE. I do not think it relevant to put that in the infobox. It should remain TBA until a date has been set.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From [1]: The release date of this game is "When it's done". if that isn't official, I don't know what is ;) --blm07 21:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. WID is the official statement given by 3drealms. It may be equivalent to TBA/TBD, but the creators have repeatedly used "When it's done". I don't see why, just because TBA is commonly used, it means that WID shouldn't be used. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, because it's just a smart-ass quote made by 3d-Realms? It's un-encyclopedic and rather annoying to re-read on Wikipedia, something that that takes itself seriously (as well as many people). Just because George Broussard can't lead a design team (and I doubt he could lead himself from the bathroom, he's probably been stuck there the last 11 years...) doesn't mean his idiotic reservoir of personal wit has to permeate itself into Wikipedia. SkepticDragon (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about reverting without discussion, gotta love it! --blm07 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporting TBA/WID. DNF is unique in this respect. It's the only thing I can think of that's in the vapourware/non-vapourware limbo. Sure, it's not a solid YYYY/MM/DD date, but there's no semantic issues with putting "When it's done" inside a 'release date' field. I was the reviewer that first promoted this article to GA status, if that's any concern. Carson 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to say that DNF is the definition of vaporware. 192.147.57.6 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever wondered if the developers are just screwing with us? like they called it Duke Nukem Forever because thats how long it will take? Still, keep the faith Lovefist233 (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the official release date sometime after the heat death of the universe? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"When it's done" sounds so un-encyclopedic. Really, it sounds rather silly for Wikipedia, especially something that takes itself so seriously. It should be "TBA". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkepticDragon (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that since "When it's done" is the only official release date, it should be put in the infobox with a citation to the source of that information to show that that really is the release date. Qwertymathfreak (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WID is meaningless, that is never used for rls dates. Cmon it's just a joke rls date! 89.249.0.170 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about other companies and it's release date standards , this is DNF, respect or gtfo. Xowets (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Booyah

It does exist. http://www.3drealms.com/news/2008/06/jace_hall_show_and_dnf.html --blm07 19:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

12 years for some crappy generic looking shooter footage. Those guys should be real proud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.28.164 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 12.219.28.16 for that comment! You go girl! --blm07 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Not Finish

Is it just me or does 'DNF' read like 'Did Not Finish' not worthy of the article but just thought i'd put it out there86.150.245.106 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Le_Reve

Why would it not be worthy of the article?--4drammelech (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it verifiable as a common joke or nickname? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In NASCAR, "DNF" is a statistic indicating when a car was not running at the end of a race.--71.231.214.34 (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The most common reading is "do not finish," which is said to be the game's development policy. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Most common" according to whom? —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Really I mean "it's the one I've seen most," but a Straight-up google "Duke Nukem"+"Do Not Finish" 3,000 hits, "Duke Nukem"+"Did Not Finish" 1,630 hits. It seems a popular observation in discussion regarding the idea that the ridiculously protracted development had some ulterior motive, though I'm not sure if it's made it into any published source. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it would appear ironic that a game with the acronym DNF (Do Not Finish) was not actually finished. This has fuelled the speculation that it may have been intentional from the start to never actually complete this game. I know it's not a reliable source, but wasn't there once an article on megagames.com about how Duke Nukem Forever was an excellent development project for up and coming game designers and programmers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.14.140 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally Out?

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/19/0019255

http://www.3drealms.com/news/2008/08/duke_nukem_3d_for_xbla.html

Proxy User (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

From the Slashdot summary update: "Several readers have written with a correction: this announcement is actually about Duke Nukem 3D, rather than Duke Nukem Forever." swaq 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not confirmed for the 360

Despite what this article states in the infobox this game has not been confirmed for the 360(or for that matter the PS3). The sources stated for the 360 in the infobox(and there are none given for the PS3) are not good enough as they are not by 3D Realms. 3D Realms has specifically stated that no platform other than the PC is actually CONFIRMED. Although others, in particular is likely. But that is not what the infobox is stating or implying. Hence I will be removing the 360 and the PS3 from the infobox again. 88.85.52.191 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This game is dead..can we put a canceled label on it?

Come on guys, this game has been in development for 11 years. Do you guys really think that 3D Realms is gonna release it?

There was Prey which took almost 12 years to release, but that game was actually being developed but had it's bugs that needed fixing which aroused more and more of them. Duke Nukem Forever is a joke now.

This game is canceled as of now, 11 years is long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.177.242 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not dead until the developers officially say so. 142.68.89.100 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors who constantly say the game is dead are annoying... can we put an annoying label on them? --blm07 であります！ 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do, Frog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noskap (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Still not confirmed for the PlayStation 3

This was a reply I gave Killa Koz on my talk page, thought I would share it here since he insists on vandalizing this Wiki page and then claiming that I am vandalizing it by editing it in line with Wikipedia requirements that Wikipedia use reliable sources, even going so far as threatining to block me from further edits even though if anything HE is the vandal:

"How the fuck did I vandalize the article? YOU VANDALIZED it. By putting totally unconfirmed information in there. NONE of the search results for that Google you link include ANY explicit statement by 3D Realms that Duke Nukem Forever is coming to either of those two consoles. Show me a quote from 3D Realms saying something akin to "Duke Nukem Forever is coming for the 360 and PS3". There is NO such comment at all. I am personally virtually 100% sure that it will come for the 360 but there has been NO explicit confirmation of that. Various Xbox 360 focus news pages having DNF related sections were they put all their DNF news does in NO way constitute such confirmation as those pages are NOT 3D Realms. George Broussard noting how he likes the 360 a bazzilion times on Shacknews does make it LIKELY the game will appear on the 360, but is NOT such confirmaton. Scott Miller saying that the game will most LIKELY appear on the three big platforms is just that, a statement of what is likely and not an annoucement or confirmation of what is ACTUALLY happening. 3D Realms has repeatedly refrained from confirming the final platforms for the game, as you can see here for instance: http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34418 "5) Will you port DNF to Linux/Mac/Xbox/PS2/Xbox 360/PS3/Wii/etc.. The decision on what to port DNF to hasn't FORMALLY not been made, and won't be made until the game is about ready to be released (or after it's done - we simply don't know yet). Yes, some of the more recent consoles are more likely than others, but we can say that it won't be on Xbox 1, PS2, or the "last generation" of consoles, even if we do put out a console version." The only thing that is confirmed there are some platforms the game will NOT be appearing on. Also see here: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/02/04/daily17.html "We haven't formally announced any platforms for DNF". In other words DNF has NOT been confirmed for the 360."

I should also add this: http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=538449&postcount=18 "Should we put DNF on the 360 (which hasn't actually been decided or announced, I might add), it would be a different beast than Doom on the Xbox 1.". "(which hasn't actually been decided or announced, I might add". In other words the 360 is NOT a confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.52.191 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. 3D Realms only said it will be coming out for Windows/Mac Os X. A website that Killa Koz added(IGN) only said it might be coming out the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. From that website, it said ESRB gave it a Mature and PEGI gave it an 18+. So, in my next edit, I will put the "Possibly" word next to it(In brackets). 217.42.208.35 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

3D Realms is dead, so DNF follows

http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=867590&postcount=129

So it seems that DNF has gone the way of Van Buren, except without the tech demo.

Chris122990 (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that forum post just confirms 3D Realms is dead. They don't say anything about cancelling the project. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 04:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely now that 3DR is dead, the project would die too? - .:. Jigsy .:. (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Any number of things could happen with the project, really - it could get canceled, George Broussard sells it to Take Two or another developer and have them finish it, the complete code could be released to the public as open source, and so on. But until there's official word of what will happen to the project (and it's confirmed by reliable sources), we shouldn't be making assumptions about the fate of the project just because its developer died. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We do nothing until they post this on their front page. Forum poses are not good sources. Also, I get a "too busy" message. If they do fail, I will be very disappointed. I wrote this article up to the state it is now in the hopes I would soon be able to write a plot, gameplay, and a REAL reception section. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58519

There, it's official, 3DR are dead and it's only logical to think DNF is following that fate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.91.242.173 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but "logical thinking" is not enough for an encyclopedia, except if you can prove to look into the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.199.41 (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly 84.156.199.41 is right: logical thinking is not good enough for Wikipedia. Thank you for making that point so lucidly. In any case, even when 3d Realms was alive this game was never going to be released, but Goonies never say die! Gripdamage (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

3DR is dead, but there is no official word about the status of DNF. Unless there is an announcement by the remnants of 3DR or by Take Two that the project has been canceled, all we can say right now is that the project is in limbo (as Welshsocialist suggests). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that another developer would take on the project, given that Take Two still holds the publishing rights to it. But I think that it should be made clear that the game's status is currently in limbo.--Welshsocialist (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not: "Publisher Take-Two says it will no longer fund development of the game but retains rights to the title." BBC News Jdude3x (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DNF is not dead in the way that a sequel to the movie "White Zombie" is not dead. Possible, but never going to happen. --Dirty great green murloc (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, if there's one thing we've learned, its that companies are willing to throw good money after bad over this game. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still not confirmed! Or at least, not confirmed by some authority other then 'the webmaster'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.63.72.138 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forver will be released. However, when it finally reaches stores there will only be fifteen minutes until the Earth is consumed by a freak solar flare that disintegrates half of the solar system. This is what the voices in my head have told me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.250.175 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Chair story

Why isn't there even a mention of this in the article? It seems pretty credible for a game that is never released to also never have any real effort to develop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.233.196 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. What's the "chair story" and how does it relate to DNF? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This one: http://gamingisstupid.com/2009/05/06/the-chair-story-revival/

It's a fake story (the scene where he's forced to sign the contract is something of a giveaway) that the author later admitted to making up. If it were legit, I think a few other gaming news sites would've posted the story about it. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original story and I can assure you it has no legitimate relationship to what has actually gone on with DNF. I regret it spreading as wide as it did at the time my friends are looking for new jobs. Not my intent at all. Charlie Wiederhold (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

duke nukem forever isnt coming, we won't be gettinig a public version anytime soon just like when we didnt the other beta versions also 3d realms is bankrupt, being sued so theres no chance of duke nukem coming anytime soon unless they sell it which either way takes time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.35.25 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source materials right now, but the studio developing it closed up shop and in all likelihood the game will never be released. No official announcement to cancel it but something should probably be noted about the studio closing making release unlikely. GI magazine was where the source is, but I'm sure other reputable gaming sites have discussed it as well. Musing Sojourner (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

more leaked info..

[2] including the entire story. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Still Hope?

http://kotaku.com/5259942/3d-realms-were-not-closing-spent-20-million-on-duke-nukem-forever

It seems 3DR isn't closing, however they let go of the DNF team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.98.160 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6209901.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1 - George Broussard has balls of steel. --PenguinCopter (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor Duke ⇒ Francesca Rogers 13:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever Court Documents Reveal Allegations of Offshore Banking Hijinks

More documents relevant to the ongoing courtroom drama between Duke Nukem Forever developer 3D Realms/Apogee Ltd. and publisher Take-Two have been released, shedding new light on the circumstances that lead to the termination of the game's dev team and the subsequent lawsuit over the game's incomplete state.

More info here: [3]. --Sega381 (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More news

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1154 I'll hope it's useful. Yoosq (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever

Any word on Duke Nukem Forever? If so is there enough evidence revolving around this concurrent discussion to create a article? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's already an article for Duke Nukem Forever. Misterkillboy (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That info has been very helpful. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Atari 2600?

http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/dnf2600.html - can anyone explain? KP McZiggy ^{(Allow Me To Introduce Myself...)} 07:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's an April Fool's prank. If not, they've lost their marbles. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Duke doesn't stay down for long

The new "fanpage" Miller was talking about has been spotted , it's on the Facebook(a fanpage not a person like before so it won't be deleted) With it a new screenshot emerged , zoinks!!! Look comments , it's a lot of hidden messeages and the fanbase speculates something "big an unexpected is going to be announced"

http://www.facebook.com/#/pages/Duke-Nukem/186028571601?ref=ss http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=127059&id=186028571601#/photo.php?pid=2893379&id=186028571601

Discussion on forums http://forums.duke4.net/index.php?showtopic=1428 http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showthread.php?t=36740 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xowets (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Release date (again)

As I've been reverted (and my edit being called vandalism), here we go. I wrote "Removing release date entry entirely. The source that is used is clearly outdated, so keeping it is misleading at best. As we have no other sourced information on this, it's best not to say anything about this in the infobox." in my edit summary, and I've got not much to add to that. Yes, the game might still be published, but that will be true for all eternity. Someone will always have the rights to publish the game, and by that logic, the release date should always be written as "When it's done"? Forever? I doubt that anyone would actually suggest this, but that's the only reason I can come up with why my edit was reverted. Not mentioning any release date in the infobox seems like a good compromise to me. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As the facebook fanpage has been created stating "Duke can't stay down for long", and the countless arguments over the line "When it's done." the page should stay the way it is. it WILL be released, when it's done, as has been said many a time. The source attached to that line is undeniably solid proof that the game will be released "When it's done.". I reverted your edit as vadnalism, because you took something out of the article that has undeniable proof of argument attached to it. An article is to state the facts, and the fact is, it will be released, "When it's Done.". noskap (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Of course we have references that say the game will be released "When it's done". We also have references that say that the game will be released in 1999 [4]. So? It's plain silly to argue that these references are still current and a "fact" when development of the game has been stopped in the meantime. --Conti|✉ 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Conti. the statement "it will be released when it's done" is merely evidence that the person who said this believed, at the time, that it will be released when it's done. I'm in favor of leaving the release date blank, or "unscheduled". -Verdatum (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also agree with Conti. Aside from the question of whether that source can still be considered valid after the *considerable* change in status of the games development since, the quote itself is unhelpful and, IMO, none-encyclopedic. Even if it still a valid quote from a valid source, saying it will be done "when it's done" doesn't actually give any useful information to anyone reading the article. As such, I believe this should be removed, or if not then at least re-worded to "On Hiatus", "Development frozen", "Unknown", or something similar. Aawood (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? This game will never come out. The Dev team for this are complete failures. 13 years? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.251.195 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wired 18.01

The January issue of Wired has a lengthy article on George Broussard and how success "killed" Duke Nukem Forever. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/all/1 —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already started incorporating it in :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit updating about DNF status

After reading a recent article from Escapist, I've carefully inserted information from cited sources quoting 3DR "

In June of 2009, Apogee court filings stated "[3D Realms/Apogee Ltd.] admits that it has continually worked on the development of the DNF for many years, and continues to do so" as well as revealing that development still continued on the Duke Nukem movie.[88] In December 2009, Apogee CEO Scott Miller clarified that "we've never said that Duke Nukem Forever has ceased development," explaining "yes, we released the internal team, but that doesn't correlate to the demise of the project."[89] According to a recent interview with magazine Gamesauce, "3D Realms has laid off the game's internal development team, but still plans to most likely work with external development studios to develop the game."[90]

In addition, I've removed statements about development being halted, as they were unsourced and conflicting with sourced info. I also corrected a few spelling bits. Edit made 08:49, 10 January 2010. Sorry if I didn't format something properly, I've never had to cite sources in a wikipedia article before. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at you, 68.217.90.208 and 68.223.54.247 . Stop putting in uncited material stating that DNF development has halted. I have put in several cited quotes from 3DR staff stating development has NOT stopped. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say... I told you so... 98.127.184.15 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought

If this ever does come out, it will be played by people who were not born when development started. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If they picked an engine and sticked with it, they could pull off something in less than 3-4 years. Francesca Rogers (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

True, if you suppose children under the age of 12 will play it. (That age is always going up of course).For that matter, one of the systems it's supposed to be released on, the XBox 360, did not even exist yet when development started. DNF is such an old joke it's not even that funny anymore. I doubt I will see it released in my lifetime. Until the publisher outright declares it to be canceled, or the heat death of the universe occurs, I suppose theoretically it may be released at some indefinite point in the future, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I predict nobody currently alive will ever see it happen. 71.229.178.108 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

New Gameplay Footage + Apparent addition of Gearbox Software

2 new videos have surfaced on YouTube of brand new DNF gameplay footage and also hold the logo for Gearbox Software in the openings. So this game may be coming out after all.

Gameplay 2 Gameplay 3

and an earlier video released in November of 09' Gameplay 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.96.237 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever status, Feb 2010, and edit warring

This needs to be settled. Those who care, bring forth your refs that show Duke Nukem Forever is or is not in development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Take 2 refused to pay more money for the project so 3D Realms can't develop it anymore, i think. Francesca Rogers (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not been officially canceled, but Take 2 is not funding it, and no developer is actively working on it, so I guess it's technically "in hiatus" but odds are it's never going to see a release now. But I suppose nobody wants to say that in this article until the publisher outright says publicly that it's canceled, so here we are I guess. 71.229.178.108 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I discussed this above during a previous discussion, when the release date on the page was still set as "When it's done". The problem here is twofold. Firstly, the last official word on it's release date/status was made before the collapse of the developers, by someone who is no longer involved in the project. The scale of the changes to the game's status since then is enough to greatly call into question how valid that information is, and simply stating that there has been no official word since doesn't make it any more valid. Secondly, using the release status "When it's done", while a direct quote, isn't actually encyclopedic or helpful... of *course* the game is going to be done when it's done, but when is that going to be? It simply isn't useful or notable information. As a result, I vote that it either stays as is it (with no release date or status section shown), or if it must be included, has a status/release date of Unknown, On Hiatus, or some equivalent. There simply isn't any concrete information to go on anymore. Aawood (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"As of 2010"

"Duke Nukem Forever is a first-person shooter video game that, as of 2010, has been in development since 1997 by the software developer 3D Realms."

Just wondering; is this right? Because I'd have thought regardless of when the page was last edited, it had still been in develop since 1997. It doesn't matter if it's 2010 or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.27.77 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

lol they have like 10 duke nukem forever games dont they

The manual of style discourages statements which are likely to date quickly, and language such as "now", "soon", "currently" and "recently", see WP:DATED for details. The "as of 2010" qualifier is used because the most recent reliable source to confirm the game was still in developement was from early 2010, if the most recent source was from 2007, it would say "as of 2007" nstead. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Date apparently missing

As the article now stands, the "In the same month" phrase in the first section of the article doesn't make too much sense... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The lead is lagging behind, but I've focused on cleaning up the article body before rewriting the lead, which is why some parts probably aren't harmonized. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

New Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CwHzclyYnI

Ugh.. why can't 3D Realms just let this game to rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.96.237 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there're many who love and enjoy duke nukem franchise. Also thanks for sharing the trailer, I haven't seen it before. I love it! 80.221.98.230 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And because it's their only IP left , and they care about their creations so they won't sell it nor abandon it Xowets (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Official Release Date

OFFICIAL release date is: "When it's Done"; it is, it was, and it will be until they announce it othewise , "sounds so un-encyclopedic", "joke rls date" , are all subjective reasons.

http://www.3drealms.com/duke4/ http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61747 http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1154

The game is not EITHER TBA , since THERE is no official proof they will change their release date to a certain DATE weeks before when it's done, so that's out too , this is official , this is duke nukem forever, if other games have a standard doesn't mean DNF has to be treated the same. Who cares about what other companies standards are , Duke nukem defines the gaming.

There was multiple confirmations that the game DID NOT CEASED development and it was never canceled, in the time of uncertainity , then it could be used "Unknown" , that time was from May 2009 to June 2009 , since December 2009 it was clearly confirmed it is still oficially going forward and the release date was never changed. Xowets (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But again, we have various reasons to not use the "When it's Done" date. First of all is, simply put, "when it's done" is not a date, just a vague tagline; it gives no extra information to the reader that they wouldn't have by it not being there. The links you cite also don't back up your changes. The first link you gave has already been discussed; it came from well before the massive changes that occurred to the company and the dev team, and simply put can't be trusted at this point. The second link refers primarily to other Duke games, not DNF; while it does state that there's no official word that they've stopped development on DNF, it also doesn't give anything remotely hinting to a release date (not even "when it's done", which you're trying to prove is the official line on this). The information it mentions is the information from the third link, which it itself linked to, so the same applies to the third link.

In short, while you could potentially use either the second or third link as a viable source to show that the game is still being developed (not both, as they are essentially the same from the same source), there are no additional grounds here for changing the release date that I can see; please do bare in mind that having a confirmation the game is still in development is not the same as having confirmation of an official release date. I'm going to revert your changes at this point, and if you still feel they are valid, please discuss this with us on the talk page before making changes, as it's a subject we've discussed numerous times, and on which there is already (apparent) consensus.Aawood (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No official and "hard" release date has been determined, so no release date should be filled in (or it should say "TBD/TBA"). Aawood is correct on this score. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WASNT 5 REFERENCES OFUCKINGFICIALL ENOUGH ? , and removed them , i spent working on them an freaking HOUR! ; that's it im calling the guys (wish me luck)Xowets (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Old references from development before development ceased are no longer good for the development status or release date. IGN or Gamespot are reliable, secondary sources that we should rely on in this case. Keep changing the date, or adding insulting or profanity-filled comments, and you're heading for a block. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Old references from development before development ceased are no longer good for the development status or release date." Facepalm, are you sure you know what are you talking about ? "IGN or Gamespot are reliable" lol You're wrong , take a look for the 5 references i made, you clearly didn't.

That stupid wired article you incorporated, George broussard went straight on for this one when everybody made fun of it in forums, "You'd be ill advised to take much of that article seriously. It's pretty biased and one-sided, like much of the news you see on CNN " , meaning you are putting CRAP on dnf wiki.

Slashdot forward from shacknews:

Someone posted a link to the WIRED story yesterday and one of the responses was from Jason Bergman [shacknews.com] who worked for Shacknews at one point as a writer and later moved on to Take Two and now works for Bethesda. In the discussion he posted [shacknews.com]:

That article is missing a LOT of facts. Until the lawsuit is settled, you won't know the full story.

Which naturally got the "Well how could you even know?" response, to which he responded [shacknews.com]:

I was the producer at take two on dnf. So yes. Yes I know the real story. This article has a few things that are blatantly false, and others that are assumptions from people who weren't there.

Granted this is from someone who used to work at Take Two, which is the company somewhat demonized in the article, so there may be some bias in play there, but it sounds like some of the stuff in this article may just be flat wrong.Xowets (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The number of references is not the question; the quality and content of them are. As Fuchs stated, sources from the development team from before most of the development staff were laid off are not valid; the project has clearly gone through substantial changes since then, far more than enough to make those statements unreliable. Your other sources did not state "When It's Done", which was what you had changed the status too, and what you were referencing them for. To summarise you have no current, reliable source that "When It's Done" is the official released date... and even if you did, we'd still need to debate whether or not the statement is encyclopedic enough to include, which it likely isn't.

As for the time you lost, I can only suggest you take this as a learning experience; if you had taken the time to read the talk page before posting, you would've known this is a topic that has already been strongly debated, and you could've brought up your thoughts here, and saved yourself some time.Aawood (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"...sources from the development team from before most of the development staff were laid off are not valid..." What are you talking about seriously. The only reference is the one from 2008 when GB insited it's still WID , one is from the main website , and all others are CONFIRMATIONS POST MAY 2009 events (pasted in hidden comment) Xowets (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've discussed these links before, but for the sake of clarity I'll go over them one more time. Bare in mind that the change you made (and therefore what you need to provide current, reliable sources for) was for a release date of "When It's Done".

Your first link is the DNF main page. While this does mention "When It's Done", it does not seem to have been updated since December 2008, and the release status definately hasn't (as a quick check on the Wayback Machine shows). We could charitably call this one source, but it's very questionable how reliable this is.

The second link is the Shacknews article about the DNF countersuit. It doesn't mention "When It's Done", and is therefore irrelevant; I explained this before, and am unsure why you've brought it up again.

The third link is another Shacknews article that you've mentioned before, doesn't mention "When It's Done", and shares most of it's content with the second link. As a result it is again irrelevant to this discussion; remember, we're not talking about whether DNF production is ongoing, but whether the official current release date is "When It's Done".

The fourth link is yet another Shacknews article (the Broussard interview), and while this does mention "When It's Done", it's from before the dev team release, and therefore unreliable.

The fifth link is a Facebook page for Duke Nukem. It says nothing about DNF specifically, and nothing about a release date, let alone "When It's Done". It's therefore irrelevant.

This all brings me back to what I said before; if there was debate about whether DNF was in development, your second or third link (not both, as they're functionally the same) could potentially be used a source to show that it still is, but that's all. You have two links which are out of date, and three which don't even mention the release date you're using them as sources for. I really don't know how to make it clearer, so I won't be debating the validity of these further; if you have some further evidence then I'm willing to hear it, but at this point these sources are in no way grounds for changing the release date on the article. Aawood (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes , now , if they're going on with the project as of now, what makes you think the release date would change until 12 years of countless insists on the same release date. This release date has followed for all these years, you see it everywhere, i know that's not valid source but still , DNF is uniqe doesn't it deserve some hope, why DNF would be such a sin if tens of historical and political wiki articles are also incorrect , the game will never be canceled, with the same release date as it always had, either they confirm it or not. I know this is subjective but atleast TBD actually means the same thing, "it's going to be released".

Honestly , it would be more like "TBATTRDWBADWID";

"To be announced that the release date will be again determined "when it's done". Heheh, That's probably what's going to happen at least once more before debut. Shortly TBATOWID , for a second , i thought that could seriously be used (if said so validly) lol Xowets (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it was in active development twelve years ago. Now, not so much. It's the same reason we don't have sections like "Gameplay" or "Plot" in the article anymore; the game has gone through so many iterations and changes that facts given years ago no longer fit the product as it was (or whatever it is now.)

As for the accuracy of this article, or the references used: Wired in general and Clive Thompson in particular are highly-regarded journalists. I'll take their word over Broussards' (who is probably more annoyed about his portrayal than anything else.) If better sources appear, we'll use them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Take-Two producer on DNF said that , I don't heck know why would wired be more "valid" than broussard and even take two together. I think we're missing some fundamental points here , there is no way any outlet can get "inside" information from anywhere, it's either scott miller or george broussar or anybody within development team (these would be in form of leaks or hints), there is no shareholders or any management CEOs CTOs COOs etc that could hint, leak , or somehow sell some inside information that ONLY wired could get a hold of, 3Drealms is private as we know and the DNF project is way more personal and loved between those who developed it and are a part of it , so i don't think they want to share that with any "corporate outsiders", unlike the mainstream industry does , all others care is money. The voice actor Jon mention , it might be just a hint , who know , i know it's not confirmed valid source , but it's well worth a mention in some sort of way , all im sayin it's with DNF you really need to know what you're dealing with here , it's not like anybody else makes games , it's a totally in it's own kind. Unless you know what happend in 10 years , following on forums and news and stories and lawsuits etc , I know the validicy issue and Im not demaning anything here anymore but im just saying whoever edits this here needs to be familar with; and not to mention , 3DRealms does not practice this , because most companies spin out just to create news flow , which affects their comanies shares , and i hate to see these comparisons between how some big public companies operate and 3DRealms. (i used the "you" in general for anybody who reads this) Xowets (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

All that talk just because i love duke and still had 0.05% hope in there :) Xowets (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Read between the lines"

Hey, what about Jon St. John's "read between the lines" statement? I think it's pretty important. Take a look: http://www.bravenewgamer.com/2010/01/the-voice-of-duke-nukem-facetiously-confirms-duke-nukem-forever/ --142.213.254.2 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Voice actors are contract hires; they really don't have any bearing, say, or much input into a game's development. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

He may not have any input or whatever, but doesn't his statement clearly imply the game is still in development? ...I dunno, if you say it doesn't have its place here, I'm OK with that too. I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia's "no original research and stuff" policies and at what extent something is considered verifiable. I just thought I'd post it here just in case. --142.213.254.2 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's just a rumor. We don't know enough about development to judge his credibility. Typically, voice actors are later elements to game development, but we don't know what stage the game was at, if he ever recorded lines, et al... so in terms of "this game is coming out", he's not a good source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, gotcha. --142.213.254.2 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this voice actor is a bit different than what the industry is used or based upon , i think he's really valuable to duke franchise and if you look , he actually has it's life there, I don't mind over him being a valuable source or not , but I see this DNF game is much more personal than anybody realizes , most of hired actor would just drop the offer or got away from it , I do believe he's very connected with the project nontheless. Xowets (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... 'Been thinking about it for a while, and I still think this is significant enough. At the very least, it proves the game is not cancelled yet and that they do not plan on cancelling it either. I do believe it deserves a mention in the article. Anyone else with me? --142.213.254.2 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Take Two Still publisher ?

Considered outdated , since with DNF , Scott Miller's confirmations since May 2009 have been considered as "not official enough" to be confirmed for WID release date (but i given up on that becasue TBD practically means the same thing) , so post-settlement we don't know what happened to T2 if it's still a publisher or not , the whole thing was not mentioned at all in Take-Two's financial report in 9 of June , and the actuall settlement agreement was executed already in May 14 2010.

If DNF release date was considered in such way to be unknown if it was not regularly reported that it's still going on and still in development , so that logic would mean that now we don't need anyones confirmation that take two is not a publisher anymore because we didn't had any info that it is. and about DNF , it was never canceled or anything like that , so that's my excuse for this but i know it's correct this time. Xowets (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A good point; I notice this has been changed to "unknown", and I tend to agree. Aawood (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

According to 3DRealms.com and Duke4.net forum users some claim that Take-Two removed "Duke Nukem" references and related stuff off their official web page , and also german page too , has made many speculate over if the publishing rights are still being owned by take two. Xowets (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out take two still has the rights same as before , im a little late on this but the info box was already corrected , thanks Xowets (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dismissal of lawsuit section

Anything related to lawsuits and results around the Settlement Agreement and post-dismissal stuff can/should go into that section Xowets (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for improving this "section" , BUT i don't see the point why it should be connected to "DNF team fired and lawsuits" , i don't find it clear enough, change the title then to reflect that the lawsuit was settled or something. I suppose adding a space in there would make it more clear. Xowets (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK so now it's on the end and as a paragraph on it's own inside "downsized 2009-2010" events, right Xowets (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

3DRealms' George Broussard further confirms DNF is not cancelled

In the official 3DR forums , he made several posts on 22. june 2010 and 23. ; one of them when locking a "DNF Cancelled?" named thread , "Two Facts: We haven't said anything. This forum is still open." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xowets (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't confirmation; as the statement you've quoted says, they "haven't said anything". Regardless, the article as it stands makes it clear that the game's development status is up in the air, rather than saying it's outright cancelled. Aawood (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it , he said that and locked the thread, this means it's anything else except cancelled. Xowets (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The man endlessly hyped the game, with nothing to show for it. Ascribing motives without reliable sources is original research. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's because they thought they were ready, he admitted he had made mistakes in the last 10 years, and they know it they're late, I don't think he would be joking around this time , since he would be a fool to joke , and have nothing to show, i guess he believes he has the best game , so he can talk so about it. But that's not weird at all , why Take Two changed it's mind when they reviewed the game in february 2009 , because the game was apparently a winner , they wanted the franchise so bad, why would one of the biggest publishers pushed a lawsuit they didn't have any merit or evidence , against some "forgotten" studio , with the most speculative game ever , there has to be a reason for such a big lawsuit. Not to mention , Take Two requested the source code, something they don't have any remote rights for , unless 3DRealms exclusively gives them the code after completion. I'm not making conclusions here, but i think this game is not software , it's an art , when released , everybody will forget the bad sides , worth it, oh if the game is really good then yes , i guess it has to be , if it's not , it would be the biggest flop in mankind history. I think GB is the man people lest forgive, he's always bashed for his past mistakes, give him a break. Xowets (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Even if this gamne came out today it would be so outdated and so "premocked" that it would fail (im looking at you Chinese Democarcy)

2. "he's always bashed for his past mistakes, give him a break" 10 years of mistakes.. and you say give him a break? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.35.235 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DNF resurrection rumors

While we wait for PAX , GB only said the usual "if i tell you i'd have to kill you, and we don't want that :) - stay tuned" , voice of duke , John st Jon is all hyped up about duke , check his twitter , speaking of twitter , GB is suspiciously silent on his account , stopped posting for a week after rumors struck , i could say "THAT MUST BE A SIGN!" ,eh?

Anyways thanks for grammar corrections in the "gearbox rumor" that i originally added, english not my first sorry. Xowets (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the information a guy named Noskop has removed gearbox rumors from the DNF page , citing "wiki no place for rumors" and "unsourced rumors" (which is clearly false as hell broken loose on the web and it's not a guy, it's kotaku) , given a fact that this is not JUST a rumor , it is more of a deal to be noted and that by "credible" third party sources rather than a single fan saying something on 4chan, , not to mention this user was in multiple edit violations , edit war, calling something vandalism that is not , copyright issues , thus i am canceling his edits. Xowets (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There was some small rumors and teases about Playstation 3 version of DNF , however given the fact that that was one guy saying on shacknews , but i've talked out with him and he doesn't seem to be a fool and he knows things "sort of" anyways it might be true , but this is not enoguh, at least not yet , but PS3 guys there is your hope :)

Got the quote now

Next prediction, DNF will sell at least 3 million before Xmas, on 3 skus That is all for now.

Xowets (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Wieberhold ex-3DR Employee teasing via comments on Duke4.net fansite:

"I'm gonna be in Taiwan this weekend and all next week so I won't be around to see the fate of this thread... but I hope everyone has a great weekend."

Fan: "DNF at Gearbox and PAX confirmed."

Charlie responds: "I prefer to think of it like a grizzled old soldier wishing his fellow soldiers luck before watching them go off to a war where most of them aren't going to make it back in one piece. But the ones who do will be better for it."

Since 3DR he worked i think for EPIC(not sure) then for IW and now for Respawn (one of the followers) Gearbox is on Sunday 5.th sep. 3.00 - 4.00 PM EAST US time. Xowets (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Xav De Matos, employee at Shacknews.com (duke nukem often "associated" site) offers an interesting remark

"what do you think of Duke Nukem...will Duke Nukem Forever come out any time soon? Hold up, let me call Randy Pitchford real quick..."

Randy Pitchford is the gearbox guy ... :) Xowets (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

George Broussard via Twitter Today (2.9.2010) : twitter.com/georgeb3dr

George's quote in an interview with 1UP (page 2) 4 years ago:

1UP:Wait, wait. You guys are working on Duke Forever?

GB: [Laughs] And ever and ever.

1UP: And when's that due out again?

GB: [Laughs] I think it'll be out when pigs fly.

— George Broussard, 1UP.com, 1.31.2006

THE PIGS ARE FLYING !!! Xowets (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon St. John , the voice of duke, changed his personal photo on twitter today , http://twitter.com/JSJakaDukeNukem , the photo now shows DUKE NUKEM.

Latest Tweet:

is headed for PAX Seattle tomorrow. See you at Q&A#1 in the main theater 11:30AM Friday...ask, I'll tell almost all!

— Jon St. John, Twitter

Xowets (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are ever more indications that 2K GAMES BIG reveal migh have something about duke , this now to much to cover here, search the interwebs they are going crazy. And the fact that voice of duke mentions he'll be available for QA at 11-30 AM friday that's 1 hour and half after the 2K reveal , i hope i got the times right im not used to timezones and nobody reports in the correct PAX (seattle) time Xowets (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll find out later today. Until then it's still rumors... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am aware I am a first person source and cannot be included in this article, but I just want to say, I held Duke in my hands, and played. And it was glorious. The game DOES exist. --Tarage (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Development section

Finally, after thirteen long and tedious years, Duke Nukem Forever is finally getting somewhere. Over this past decade, the information on DNF's development has continued to grow. The majority of this article covers the game's lengthy development history, but with other sections due to be added as information is released this weekend, this article is going to be as long and tedious as the game itself. Who agrees with me that once further details of the game are made available, we split much of the Development into its own article? We could provide a short summary here, and split the bulk of the information into a separate article: Development history of Duke Nukem Forever. This would not be immediate, but would take effect after the game's showcase at PAX this weekend. Anybody for it? CR4ZE (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• IMO not yet...DNF have a well known history of being out "next year", although this time it seems the most serious effort by far, I think we should wait until the game is actually released, so we don't have to merge those two articles because they had to switch the engine again... :) 81.218.163.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Yeah I agree , not just yet, after some time after release , it's bad thing to hide the legacy from people , and all those noobs will not know who actually made Duke Nukem, because logos show only 2K an Gearbox. Xowets (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, but wait a while until its actually released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.246.18 (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

All three of you are missing the point. Currently, the entire article is nearly 70,000 bytes long and deals primarily with the history behind the game: that in itself shows that it needs to be split if we're having Gameplay and Plot etc. sections as well. See WP:Article size if you don't get where I'm coming from. I never said we'd be moving all of the information to a new article: there'll be a short summary of 3D Realms' involvement of the game here with the bulk of the information on a new page: the "noobs" won't be out of touch with the history of a game if a short summary is provided with a link to the relative article.. CR4ZE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Fact is, i don't want to have a feeling everything is taking over DNF , because the community is currently very upset about gearbox changing the gameplay elements "2 weapon system" and other , it is best to leave just for these purposes , will you be with us, or with take two?

No dude George Broussard himself confirmed that 3DRealms restricted the weapons to 2 because the console audience can't handle more. Here's what he says:

Yeah, blame us for it if you want. It may change in the future and I don't know what will happen with it, but it was us. I stand by it too, as you cannot discount designing games for a modern world and part of that world is consoles where the bulk of the sales can be. And on those consoles you have a controller. We tried for a long time to support lots of guns but we simply could not find a nice way to map it to a controller, despite trying 4-5 designs. We gave it enough time and decided to stop swimming against the current and adopt what was basically the "standard". It's not 1996 anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.27.125 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an important time to make a point here, gearbox wants to add some of their stuff inside the game which won't work as good as 3DREEALMs made it, 2007 jace hall videos are proof.

I know this is only with the article issues (article size), size is not an issue with me anyways, i said agree, just wait till the game is released , let it live , it just got revived for cry sakes, let all the people forgotten people read everything what happened, practically i do agree redirects how you suggested, i still don't feel messing around with it at peak time, since information is getting in about the development of it's history , and it's history is not finished , post release, well make a plan , but you need to speak with the other 2 guys who were quite active in managing DNF's page. Xowets (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently 20KB in prose size, below the 35KB suggestion to begin splitting. Even when you add in a gameplay, plot, and reception section to what exists now, it's not that long an article. Considering that there's a lot more info that could come out, it makes far more sense to leave the content where it is right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree here. Wait until *at least* that the game gets a confirmed release date instead of still what is up in the air. Then I could see a separate section but not at the present time since there's few other details to add. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that we split the article immediately. I was proposing that by this time this next week, there'll be a wealth of information available on Duke Nukem Forever and this article won't flow well with half of it being development history and the other half being actual information. Can we review the article on September 12 to see if the split is justified? In the mean time, I'm happy for it to remain as it is. CR4ZE (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its very doubtful that enough details on plot, gameplay (as far as I can see, its a core FPS so not much there), and development of this version of this title will end up making this article too large to split. That most likely will only happen once the game is actually within a few months of release or at release when the reception section appears. We shouldn't split just because it feels like it needs a split, only when it is necessary. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I say split the article now. I think the development history is notable enough to be covered in meticulous detail (it's an important part of gaming culture and thus something people want to read about in very much detail). You could fill a whole article alone with the build-up and huge response to the PAX stuff. The news is big now and people are reading it now, so it would be good to split this off. I say split it ASAP and we can start filling in the gaps of this interesting and crazy infamy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.154.193 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not a bad idea, I say wait until the game gets closer to its release date, because there's always a chance that the game might be "delayed" again. TuneyLoon 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the we should wait until it's released, or at least more information about it's current build comes out. As of now, pretty much the only information we have about the game is of it's development. If you were to shift that to another article now, there would be nothing left for this one. Little Jimmy (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As the longtime visitors said , we should leave it like it is , evenst are still unfolding and developing , there is a trailer coming and also a PC demo later this year.(PC definitely but idk for consoles) Let the people know what was going on before , because this is a PC-native, 97% 3DRealms' game. The box art does not yet feature the 3DRealms logo , the final will , but we don't need to forget the old guys who actually , in practice , made this possible , there was no other "saved the day" people, gearbox is only majorly involved with console ports, ofcourse we can thank them very much but still , who kept the project going from their homes ! Xowets (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Premature. So far the only thing noteworthy is its development. When the game is released and game play info can be put into the article I imagine a split will be required. Rehevkor ✉ 02:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that splitting this article would be premature. Splitting may be necessary later on, but for now we should wait until plot and gameplay information comes out in earnest. Right now apart from a release date, the only well-documented thing about the game is its development, or extended lack thereof, as the case may be. --86.184.59.91 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this be done as soon as possible. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

3D Realms logo missing

For leagacy, original creator, and of course credit to it's ex employees , i feel a need there has to be a 3DR logo in the main image or at least in a separate section , not only that , www.dukenukem.com has 3DREALMs logo , that was just 2K advertising crap without 3DR , because as we know those guys had troubled past.

Out of respect , 3DR logo should be there, they had 90% of the game done you know.

USPTO Tess still shows Duke Nukem IP is owned by Apogee Software LTD(3Drealms) , and disclaimers on www.dukenukem.com end up "and used here under license" , which implies that Gearbox is using Duke Nukem trademarks under license. Did you really thought 3DR would sell DN IP without saftey nets :) Xowets (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Impact of DNF reveal at PAX 2010

Various threads around forums

Twitter trending whole world DNF was #1

4Chan: boards.4chan.org/v/res/72189333 (massive 1900 posts thread , but does not exist anymore , moderators applied Duke Nukem 3D main theme music in the background , and the topic was stickied, i filmed the thing and will be available on youtube, historical event!)

Xowets (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Post DNF reveal information about previous development

Shacknews Comment: George Broussard,

Triptych is made up of 9 3DR employees who refused to let the game go and we found a way through the legal maze to keep them working on the game and to keep the game alive. They have been the development force for the last year that's made the game possible.

What you see coming from PAX right now is what we originally made at 3DR with polish and additional work by Triptych and assistance from Gearbox.

Shacknews Comment: George Broussard about 2 Weapon limit:

Yeah, blame us for it if you want. It may change in the future and I don't know what will happen with it, but it was us. I stand by it too, as you cannot discount designing games for a modern world and part of that world is consoles where the bulk of the sales can be. And on those consoles you have a controller. We tried for a long time to support lots of guns but we simply could not find a nice way to map it to a controller, despite trying 4-5 designs. We gave it enough time and decided to stop swimming against the current and adopt what was basically the "standard".

It's not 1996 anymore. Xowets (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Truth about DNF PC Version / Gearbox Involvement.

http://talkinrealatyou.blogspot.com/2010/09/dnf-wtf-wake-freak.html

http://talkinrealatyou.blogspot.com/2010/09/ride-continues.html

Xowets (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

-3DRealms is very much alive and will stay that way , it was never closing. All those claims are untrue.

-3DRealms sold IP to Gearbox ... it wasn't the other way around.

-Gearbox is currently polishing the DNF PC version , and making console ports.

-Triptych games and 3DRealms owners completed PC version of DNF before any gearbox involvement. Xowets (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Platform Version & Port specifics

Duke Nukem Forever is an original PC game , ported to consoles / Console versions are PC ports. It is NOT a "multiplatform" game , however it does come on multiple platforms, it's not the same meaning.

"Multiplatform" games usually associate that ALL of the versions are balanced and all of the versions are being developed AT ONCE and most importantly, they share parts of the code/scripting/materials, this makes them very poorly designed on the PCs, makes a lot of bugs, and half of "multiplatform" games have PC versions made from console ports.

Because DNF uses the technically better approach finish game on PC and then port to consoles , this will make the games better on consoles too because the original PC game has been perfected and polished with all efforts on it, and cut the time making them significantly because it's being ported. Correct me if im wrong. Xowets (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Release date is NOT February 1st/2nd 2011

The release date is officially 2011. No specifics have been given. A retailer threw out the February 1st date and other sites picked up on it but it is not the official date so the release date section of the wiki should simply read '2011'

I agree with the anon. There is no announcement on a specific release date from the developer or publisher for this game. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gearbox has already confirmed on Official DNF forums that these dates are PLACEHOLDER dates for the pre-orders, they aren't official at all. Xowets (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Gameplay section?

I couldn't see a section where this was discussed, so I thought I might add it. The last couple of months have added a lot to the information of how this game is going to play (i.e. we know there is going to be driving, completely redundant interactivity and big bosses as usual.) While you might argue that there have been gameplay demos of previous builds as well, none of them have been playable demos at events. Therefore I ask, wouldn't now be about time to add a gameplay section with the information that has become available through various videos and new articles from journalists and other people who have played the demo? Or is it still too soon, or believed to be too shaky information to add just yet? --Or-whatever (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)