Looks good, I love the classic football stadium battle.

Word. That game would of been legit.

If they had ever intended to release it...

It was like a enthusiast trying to always have the best hardware and not ever getting to USE the hardware because he constantly was working on his computer.

But it did look pretty good..

Nudity, vugarity, "I'm an equal oppertunity ass-kicker". Please, for the love of god, MAKE THIS GAME.

made my day..

You think after 12 years of dev time it would have been finished ^_^. Anyway the problem was they restarted development like 3 times, so yeah if they would have just finished one of the first two and just called it "Duke Nukem 3.5" or something, then they could have had some funds to develop DNF. Oh well, such is life.

Let's put our names down on a list, and send it to companies and ask them to complete the game for 3D-realms. :-)

Those fools, if they released the game ASAP it would end up like Final fantasy and the profits would make them go from bankrupt to Legendary. I get the feeling it will be released in 2010-2011 simply because it is probably almost already done and it has more hype than anything in existence.

If Crytek had half a brain they would buy it and give it Crysis Graphics or the option upon install to use 2 different engines based on the computers speed.

Yeah I know right, and we whined about crysis. This thing has been a WIP for 10+ years! Talk about hype...

I will buy this game if (large if) it comes out.

Just don't send the list to electronic arts LOL

Nothing we do sort of buying the right and making it ourselves would make the game come out.

This is looking a lot like viral marketing, isn't it?

goddammit, making a game is not "rocket science" or whatsoever!!

why the 12 year delay!!!

What's the point of releasing all these videos and pictures AFTER they've gone under? This is kinda like the ex-post facto statements parents use: "oh, if you had gotten an A, I would've bought you a Maserati. " Please. Spare us this nonsense.

Duke Nukem is what we need today, especially with this apologist idiot-in-chief. Duke Nukem is unabashedly pro-American, kicks candy-ass liberals in the junk, and beats the living hell out of aliens. None of this PC bulls*it where everyone is "special" in their own way. The Taliban ain't special. Duke would've ripped their heads off and s*it down their necks.

We need Duke Nukem more than ever.

@JWL3,

Read the article update, Nukem isn't gone.

Also, redneck Americans are definitely not special either.

I'm not so much into the blatant nudity in that video myself. As a parent, I'm kind of scared of the future. California courts are now saying you can't restrict game sales based on age. As games get more and more graphic, we'll start seeing more and more nudity, and 10 year olds will be playing it.

Otherwise, the game looks great.

jerreece, I always laugh at this argument. Would you rather your kid see nudity or violence? I personally think violence is far worse but that's just me.

I believe Duke Nukem's image was inspired by incumbent Governor of People's Republik of Kalifornia rather than Chuck Norris the King of Redneck.

Plus they are already downloading some...stuff...so what difference does it make.

"Rest In Pieces"

I always find it funny that titties are horrible for our children to see, but killing large numbers of people, that's ok. Prudish to say the least.

Our children probably shouldn't be subjected to either. Unfortunately this is the world we live in. We live in a society that flaunts sexuality. As a Catholic, I believe children should be taught to hold themselves until marriage. Nudity and sexual items in games fight against this, and is not good for any of us.

Personally, I see graphical violence as less of an issue when compared with sexuality. I don't personally think graphically violent games necessarily make children want to murder people. However, sexually explicit games do make children want to have sex. And children should NOT have sex.

I'd buy it even if its unfinished.

jerreece, then my comment is this, it is the parents responsibility to regulate what their children are exposed to. I agree with the legislature that limited regulation in expression is a good thing. The game companies should be able to make what they want and what sells. Parents should be the ones who control what their kids see and do, not the government. Yes, this society flaunts sexuality, it's our responsibility to make sure that our kids are educated and understand the consequences of their actions.

That logic is so ridiculously flawed...I don't even know what to say.




DING-DING we have a winner! I agree 100000%.

Not really, you have a will to have sex naturally whereas you don't naturally have the will to kill people. Therefore we don't associate videogame violence with actually KILLING people, it's a game. Sex is different.

If you were using logic you would have seen the difference.

I wasn't talking about natural tendencies. Actually, it's quite natural for us to have sex when we're in the teens - that's the way cavemen did it. I was remarking on how you said that violence in video games didn't make kids more violent, but sex made them more inclined to do sexual acts. Killing people isn't the matter - the violence is. If, by the logic that kids are unaffected by video game violence (which they aren't) you can't say by some power they're affected by video game sex (which they aren't). That simply doesn't add up.
The kids, in the end, have control over their actions, and should be taught well from right and wrong, as well as develop their own sense of right and wrong...unfortunately, a combination of the two is sometimes lower than the "accepted" line...which has been happening a long time before video games ever even existed.

The first (which they aren't) should be (which they are). Read it over...it gives the wrong meaning. Argument is that kids are unaffected by the games altogether, which I'm sure you got anyway. Just to be clear.

I personally think that people overestimate the effects that media has on people.