Talk:Duke Nukem Forever

Fifth Instalment?

How is this being counted? Even the Wikipedia page on the Duke Nukem series (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Duke_Nukem) lists only 4 games. 204.225.215.56 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the major parts of the article: As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

The development section makes up a large portion of the article - and it is undisputedly the most notable thing about this game. It is deserving of better treatment in the lead. (And the lead should better reflect other elements too - like the actual game content, and the critical reception.)

The current edit omits all this. This edit also introduces two majorly crummy pieces of writing:

• Players control the title character - see WP:TITULAR
• An unfinished build of one of the game's earlier versions would be leaked in 2022. - a pointlessly convoluted use of tense - just write "was leaked in 2022".

A downgrade all round. Popcornfud (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerules: the article has been extensively rewritten. The version of the lead you keep restoring is not an effective summary of the main points of the article body per WP:LEAD. Please stop putting it back. Popcornfud (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The version of the lead I have restored per WP:STATUSQUO is an effective summary of the main points of the article body per WP:LEAD. The version of the lead you keep restoring is not an effective summary of the main points of the article body for the reasons stated below. Please respect WP:STATUSQUO. If there is a dispute, the older version remains while the dispute is ongoing. Bluerules (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The development is treated perfectly in the current edit. This article is still about the game itself, not the development, and the argument "it is undisputedly the most notable thing about this game" doesn't change the fact this is still the game's article. The lead should be about the overall game, not heavily dominated by the development. There is a separate article about the development and that's where further details about the lead belong.

The development section does not make up the majority of the article. It's not even the largest section. Yet, what's being proposed here is to make the lead overwhelming about the development. The proposal is to have a bloated paragraph about the development that spills over into the next paragraph. That doesn't "roughly reflect its importance to the topic", that's overwhelming the topic with content that already has a separate article. It should remain in one paragraph and should be a true summary, not a recap with unneeded expansions (3D Realms downsizing and the other companies taking over can be limited to one sentence) and missing neutrality (giving Scott Miller's side, but not George Broussard's?).

The current edit has all of the necessary details. The current edit establishes this is an FPS following Duke Nukem in his battle against an alien invasion. The current edit establishes what critics thought of the game and why. Again, if readers want to learn more about the development, there is an article specifically about the development. And to make a big deal out of minor, wordsmithing edits is majorly nitpicky.

To bloat the lead and lose sight of what this article is really about is a downgrade all around. Bluerules (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Believe me: I highly value conciseness. I spend the majority of my time on Wikipedia removing irrelevant and redundant content and making prose simpler. But the current lead simply does not reflect the article body, and it feels like you are simply blanket-reverting without examining what's going on here.

Here's are a few examples of some of the content you have removed, and why they are critical for the lead:

• Like Duke Nukem 3D, Forever features pop culture references, toilet humor and adult content - This is a concise summary of the "Gameplay" section of the article, which is otherwise not covered in the lead at all.
• it holds the Guinness world record for the longest development for a video game - This is a super notable fact about what is, like it or not, the most notable thing about the article subject.
• by 2001, Duke Nukem Forever was being cited as a high-profile case of vaporware - DNF is possibly the most famous case of vaporware in video games - this is a crucial indicator of its reputation and place in the industry.
• The mention of the several critics who complained of misogyny. This is a recurring theme in the critical reception section, and worthy of inclusion when summarising that section in the lead.

I think you are overstating the size of my proposed version. It's really not that long, and still well within the suggested lead length for an article of this size per the guidance at MOS:LEADLENGTH. I agree that my version focuses most on the development, but as you seem to accept - or at least you don't say you disagree with - that is the most important thing about the article subject and the thing we have to do the most work to summarise. Popcornfud (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The current lead reflects the article body by having all of the necessary information. The key point of contention here is how the development is covered by the lead and all of the important information in your proposal is also in the current lead - the 14+ year development, its announcement after the success of its predecessor, 3D Realms being unable to complete the game, and the studios that wound up finishing the game. We need to avoid getting too much in the weeds about the development - that's what the development article is for - and we definitely need to avoid conjecture and speculation. There isn't enough room for the full context around the reports on Broussard and Miller, such as Broussard's rebuttal to Miller.

As for the other points:

• The "pop culture references, toilet humor and adult content" has nothing to do with the gameplay. Those are superficial, stylistic elements. The substantive information from the gameplay section is the actual gameplay and that takes priority when adding content to the lead.
• Duke Nukem Forever does not hold the Guinness World Record for the longest development for a video game. That record is held by Clockwork Aquario.
• "Vaporwave" usually implies the product was never released / had no intention of being released soon. To quote the vaporware article, "It is generally used to describe a hardware or software product that has been announced, but that the developer has no intention of releasing any time soon, if ever." That was not the intention with Duke Nukem Forever and the game eventually was released.
• The problem with the misogyny detail is it affects the word flow, preventing the detail about both the humor and story being dated from being used, and not allowing a simple rundown of the critiques. As noted in the article's body, the misogyny criticism didn't just apply to the humor, contrary to what the proposed version indicates. It would be simpler to just cite "misogynistic content" as a criticism.

Like I mentioned, the size of the development portion of the proposed versions prevents it from being contained to a single paragraph. It spills into the paragraph that's supposed to be about the release and reception. Even the body of the article contains the development to a single section. No matter how important the development is, this article is still about the game itself, not the development. The development section does not overwhelm the body and the development paragraph in the lead should not overwhelm the lead. The paragraph about the lead should be a true summary, not a recap. Most notably, 3D Realms downsizing and other studios taking over should not be two separate sentences. This can easily be a single sentence due to these factors being connected. We have a separate article on the development to avoid the development overwhelming this article and if readers want more information on the development, they can easily visit that article. Bluerules (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's completely appropriate to summarize the content and style of a video game. These aren't superficial details.

The detail about Clockwork Aquario holding the Guinness world record was challenged and removed by another editor, based on the source. If it's no longer accurate, it's certainly still highly notable that it is now #2, and held the #1 spot until whenever Aquario came out.

Your opinion of what vaporware might mean is irrelevant - it's what sources were describing it as, it's cited and discussed extensively in the body, and it's critically notable.

We can't say the game contains "misogynistic content" - that's a value judgement. We have to say critics felt it was misogynistic. And what's more, this is now missing from the lead entirely.

I really think you're bending over backwards on this to justify your wholesale reverts. Popcornfud (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The content and style are superficial to the actual gameplay. They impact the presentation - they don't impact how the game is played. For comparison, look at how the Duke Nukem 3D article mentions the content and style in the lead by connecting it to the game's praise and controversy.

Another editor challenging the information about Clockwork Aquario does not make it inaccurate. There are other sources, such as this Destructoid article and the developer's Twitter account to confirm it. Duke Nukem Forever holding the record was the key reason it was mentioned, but that key notability is no longer relevant. With the key notability gone, this detail is easier to cut from the lead.

What this same encyclopedia calls vaporware is completely relevant. For all the speculation about the game never being released, the game was released.

Why is "misogynistic content" a "value judgment", but "simplistic design" is not? We are saying what the critics felt when we're listing off their criticisms, which is why other "value judgments" are mentioned in that sentence. I don't object to having "misogynistic content" listed as another criticism towards the game from reviewers.

Even if all these details were added, the key issue is still the length of the development paragraph in the lead. Like I've been saying before, the information about the development in the proposed version becomes too big for its paragraph and spills over into the next. We don't need two separate sentences about the game switching developers that aren't even in the same paragraph and we shouldn't be delving into speculation and wars of words. As important as the development may be, this is still the game's article and we have the development article precisely to prevent development information from overwhelming this article. Bluerules (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This conversation is clearly going nowhere, so let's hope for some other editors to come in with some fresh perspectives.

For ease of comparison, here are the contested versions:

• The longer version of the lead
• The shorter version of the lead

More perspectives from other experienced editors of video game articles are appreciated. Popcornfud (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Just coming into this now since I had not been watching the article after my edit to it concerning the Guinness record. I have to say that the shorter lede as it stands right now looks like an appropriate level of summary for the article. There were a lot of unnecessary details in the longer lede such as settings for the game levels, details of how the development stalled, how the game was passed to another studio, and critical reactions during and after development. It especially isn't worth mentioning in the lede that the game was labeled vaporware, since it eventually did come out; that's worth mentioning in the article, but at the end of the day it's just part of the game's long history.

Fundamentally what it comes down to for me is length. The longer lede was written perfectly well, but at a certain point a reader who wants a quick summary of what DNF is will find their eyes glazing over. The longer lede takes up almost the entire screen, which I've always considered a no-no because it creates a wall-of-text effect that does not invite the reader to keep progressing through the article. The lede as it stands right now does a good job of leaving details to the article body and giving the reader a good one-minute "What is DNF?" read. --Iritscen (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you feel about mentioning the Guinness record? Popcornfud (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I would like to see that mentioned. I lost track of that point when comparing the ledes! It seems like it's worth an extra sentence because it's such a distinguishing point about the game. -- Iritscen (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, since some of the earlier posts in this thread seem to indicate a loss of perspective, I want to say that both proposed versions are perfectly good, well-written, and free of serious problems. That said, I generally favor the shorter version; while the development cycle is the most important aspect of the game, being the most important aspect of a subject doesn't mean it needs a proportionately larger word count in the lead. The shorter version summarizes all the most important elements of the development, whereas the longer version goes into a level of detail that I generally think of as inappropriate for the lead. However, I do favor the lead mentioning the Guinness record and keeping the line "Like Duke Nukem 3D, Forever features pop culture references, toilet humor and adult content." Some mention of the nature of the game itself is merited in the lead, and this is a fairly good summary of points that differentiate the game from its contemporaries. Martin IIIa (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that line is worth including too. I'll go ahead and add both those sentences back into the lede. -- Iritscen (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both for your input, and for the vote of confidence in restoring those details. I have made some copy adjustements which I pray will be uncontroversial as they're just for brevity, not detail.

I think the lead is in better shape now, though I still think the coverage of the development prioritises the wrong things; is Broussard's "when it's done" statement critical? Popcornfud (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise. Maybe we could remove Broussard's statement and rework the mention of the record. Bluerules (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I would vote to remove Broussard's statement, which gives little insight IMO, and replace it with an explanation as to why the game was delayed so much - the biggest reason being the multiple engine changes.

Current: Announced in 1997 following the success of Duke Nukem 3D, Duke Nukem Forever underwent several delays; the original director, George Broussard, said it would be released "when it's done".

Proposed new wording: Announced in 1997 following the success of Duke Nukem 3D, Duke Nukem Forever underwent several delays; the team switched game engines and restarted development several times.

(Note that this is also slightly shorter!) Popcornfud (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Good idea, although I only saw one mention of development restarting in the article's body. I rewrote the sentence to reflect the recurring factors mentioned in the development section. Bluerules (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Guinness world record

There is some disagreement about whether DNF holds the Guinness world record for the longest development time. I've examined the sources here and it seems that it still retains this record. Per the official Guinness world records site:

• Guinness world record for "longest development period for a videogame" - Duke Nukem Forever (14 years)
• "Longest time between a videogame project start and final release" - Clockwork Aquario (28 years)

These are actually two separate records, because Clockwork Aquario was not actually in development for all of its 28 years. Popcornfud (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Iritscen: who edited this detail previously. Popcornfud (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for solving this mystery. I'm glad that Aquario did not displace DNF from the "longest development period" record since obviously a game that was put on ice for decades shouldn't count as one that was in development. -- Iritscen (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox engine version

Why is Quake II engine listed? Neither the 2001 leak, nor the finished product (only which the infobox should be about) uses it. I don't get the "unknown version" for the final version either. The consensus is that the game uses UE1, although with several modifications, new rendering engine, some stuff from UE2 apparently, but at its core it's still UE1. WolfmanFP (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Only the engine used for the final release should be listed, I believe. Popcornfud (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Duke nukem for never" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Duke nukem for never has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 30 § Duke nukem for never until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)