• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Duke Episodes

by Maarten Goldstein, Aug 23, 2000 7:41am PDT

This sounds very much like that Duke hunting game, but who knows. Gamers.com has info on an episodic game series starring Duke Nukem. WEB Corp who are publishing these games says the first episode should be out some time in the spring of 2001 and will be free, each episode after that should be $5 to $7 to download. Each episode will have multiple endings for replayability, and about 10 episodes are planned (two to three new episodes will be released every 3 months). There will be multiplayer support as well for the PC (and later Playstation2 and X-Box), but nowhere is stated what kind of game this will be.update Blues News has some more information: They will recreate the first two Duke Nukem sidescroller games using updated tech. Euh whoop?





Comments

26 Threads | 42 Comments


  • Duke Nukem Forever is the guaranteed Daikatana of whatever year in it's finally released. The Unreal/UT engine is already growing long in tooth, and it will be even worse a year down the pike. This game will probably come out the same time as the next DOOM game, among others using new technology, and these games will destroy Duke.

    One saving grace, and a slim chance at that. The game could be fun. Then again, it looks more likely to be a rehash of the same tired theme Duke3D had. And Duke himself is just a sad mix of Dolph Lundgren and Bruce Campbell. Rip off of Bruce Campbell, I should say.

    Polygonal strippers... yeah, okay. Go look at some real porn if you're that hard up.

    Hey, George, you fat fuck. Get your fat fucking ass off the amateur race track and get an original game idea in your head. You and your butt buddy Scott Miller sure like to bash on id concerning their new DOOM game, Mister Black Kettle/Pot.



  • Americans are enjoying the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history.
    Yes, it started during President Bush's term, but for more than seven years
    during the Clinton-Gore administration, the U.S. economy has been on a roll,
    with robust growth, low unemployment, and low interest rates. Given that Al Gore
    is running as the sitting vice president in a nation of peace and prosperity,
    you might expect him to be enjoying a comfortable lead. But Gore's apparent
    post-convention bounce has only pulled him even with the challenger from Texas.
    Why?

    Maybe it's because Gore is campaigning against the economic policies of the
    1990s. He was in office while Americans were creating the greatest economy in
    the history of the world, but somehow he's decided that now he wants to be the
    candidate for change.

    It's an interesting approach. The vice president was very forgiving of President
    Clinton's unethical conduct, but Gore is drawing the line on economic policy.
    Apparently in good conscience he just can't accept steady growth, low inflation
    and rising wealth.

    Looking at the substance of Gore's convention speech, it's tough to find any
    reference to encouraging economic growth. In part because Gore needs to
    encourage turnout among people who rely on government assistance, he spent most
    of the evening describing how he would use government power and resources to
    help those in need and punish profit-making businesses. While promising new
    government programs in health and education, Gore attacked Big Oil, "big
    polluters," tobacco companies, HMOs, pharmaceutical firms and Internet
    marketers, then promised to abandon the principle of free trade in future trade
    agreements.

    It's hard to have a free-enterprise system without any free enterprises. Gore is
    saying that he wants to impose new costs on various industries while limiting
    the ability of all U.S. companies and consumers to trade unless the trading
    partner accepts American-style labor and environmental laws.

    Gore calls it standing up "for the people, not the powerful," but in this
    amazing economy, very often the people are the powerful. Let's take a look at
    the drug companies. Close to half of American households own stock in
    pharmaceutical companies, either through direct ownership or indirect
    investments such as 401(k) plans, mutual funds and pension funds. Gore is
    attacking the life savings of millions of average Americans. And for people who
    aren't invested in the stock market, are they really going to buy the drug
    companies as villains? These are the folks who have delivered cures to millions
    of Americans, helped make HIV a manageable disease for countless patients, and
    now lead the world in an innovative, high-tech industry. I'm not for the
    government beating up on any law-abiding companies, but clearly, the drug
    companies ain't Big Tobacco.

    For some odd reason, Gore isn't trying to capitalize on what is probably his
    strongest asset _ a thriving economy during a period of relative neglect from
    Washington. After the failure of his health care reform plan in 1994, Bill
    Clinton never again attempted a broad government power grab. After the
    Republicans took Congress that fall, federal budgets continued to grow, but the
    divided leadership in Congress and the White House prevented any major changes
    in either direction. And most of us have prospered in the years since. Keenly
    attuned to public sensibilities, Clinton would eventually proclaim, "The era of
    big government is over."

    Now Gore seems to be saying, "Big government is back! Elect me and I will repeat
    the mistakes of the first Clinton term." After seven years of his
    administration, Gore wants to make an issue of how bad the economy is. We can
    debate who deserves the credit for the 1990s economy, but the bottom line is
    that tens of millions of Americans are much better off than they were when
    Clinton-Gore took office. Still, Gore won't concede the point that life has been
    pretty good during his time in office, so as the incumbent he's arguing for a
    major change of direction _ and bigger government.

    Some pundits have wondered why Gore doesn't get more credit for the economy of
    the 1990s. It makes perfect sense. He's advocating the policies of the 1970s.