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)

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)

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)

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)