This does kind of come off like a remake of a 1999 game that never came out. It's an odd mix of very old game design and some new school conventions that don't mesh.
Printable View
This does kind of come off like a remake of a 1999 game that never came out. It's an odd mix of very old game design and some new school conventions that don't mesh.
I played the demo... I have zero interest in buying it now.
1999? Feels like a modern game to me, with a touch of throwback flavor at best. The only retro feeling I'm getting is from the character himself, rather than anything in the gameplay. Recharging health bars, minimal diffuclty, maximum hand-holding all point to a modern-day FPS. Honestly, the demo for Duke Forever can't even compare to just the first level from Duke Nukem 3D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
James
I hate two weapon limits in ANY game. Want to keep that sniper rifle around? Fuck you, pick up the rocket launcher placed right next to boss. Duke doesn't even kick in this game. It's garbage.
While the no location damage, simplistic all-AI-rush-the-player, lack of spread from automatic weapons (every shot is always straight for the full distance), lack of physics manipulation, and pre-scripted events where objects always fall into specific spaces to create the levels all point to FPS' from 10+ years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I loved how when anything exploded it just disappeared.
It really never should have seen the light of day.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronChance
Should have released it for free as a HEY YOU WAITED A LONG TIME FOR THIS AND IT SUCKS, HERE YOU GO.
Somebody said it was funny how Bulletstorm beat Duke Nukem Forever to being Duke Nukem this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Not surprisingly, that was brought up in Joystiq's critical review of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
So the lesson learned is, if you make a game, and it takes 14 years to come out, you need to update the mechanics along with the graphics.
They should sell Duke Nukem to Epic. Then we'd see a fun game out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
If something takes 14 years to make it automatically sucks in any medium. Especially in this day in age with all of the shortcuts we have. It always means some wishy-washy indecisive douchebag doesn't have the confidence or experience to do the job properly. See Chinese Democracy as a tertiary example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
I've been ignoring impressions of this, but man, sounds bad.
why can't it just be a prettier version of duke nukem 3d with new maps, enemies, and weapons? I know the answer to that, but :[
Hey, hey, hey, The Overcoat is going to be awesome. Well worth the 40+ year wait. When it comes out. In 10 more years. Don't die, Yuri Norstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I think the main thing holding a new Duke game back might have been that no new Evil Dead sequels were produced for it to steal lines from in the last thirteen years.
With the negative impressions this has gone from "day one" to "I'll demo it on Onlive first."
I still hope that the demo was just a bad representation of a good game.
I think you will find that the demo is an actual representation of a bad game.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
Lies! I am not listening to you. Lalalalalalalala.
It's not like a movie trailer where they clip stuff together, you actually played the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
If you didn't like playing it for 20 minutes you won't like playing it longer.
PC version just fucked up on me. Elevator at the start got to the ground floor, music kept playing but nothing worked. Wouldn't be so bad if you could skip the intro. Fucking garbage game.
There are plenty of underwhelming demos of great games. Don't act like it doesn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
I've read one good and one bad review of Duke so far. My expectations are in check so I don't think I'll be too badly disappointed. I have to play it either way, so it's not a matter of whether to buy or not anyway.
Well yeah, I must have the game as well, but if it sucks I'll wait until it's $30.
Guys, I saw people running nails through their dicks online, I know it's probably going to be the worst shit ever, but after all this time I still have to do it.
Well... at least there's this:
http://whereisyourline.org/2011/03/d...mps-the-shark/Quote:
It’s been leaked that the upcoming Duke Nukem Forever game (which, admittedly, has been “upcoming” since 1997) has a multiplayer mode, and one of the activities in this mode is a game called “Capture the Babe.” As the name might suggest, it’s capture the flag where the “flag” is a woman. But it’s not enough that women be picked up and thrown around literally like a toy. If she “freaks out” (and what woman wouldn’t when a random man decides to sling you over his shoulder), the game’s solution is to have the player give her a smack.
To be clear, I will not have to pay for this game. If I did, I'd still play it, but it'd be a rental.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
It isn't quite $30, but you can get it for $36.49: http://www.greenmangaming.com/games/...nukem-forever/
Give it a few weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
PC Gamer gave the game a more favorable review from someone old enough to have enjoyed Duke 3D back when it was new, which is somewhat refreshing. He still only gave it an 80 out of 100, but he seemed to enjoy it despite the game's flaws.
Has anyone heard yet if there are differences between the 360 and PS3 versions? The PC version is superior, I'm sure, but that's not really an option for me.
PC Gamer's review was firmly apologist.
This is a bad game. There's no reason to buy a bad game just because it is the end result of 14 years of bumbling incompetence. And let's be honest - Duke was in one good game. Not even a great game, a good one. We're not talking about the return of Ultima or something.
The PC version is kind of buggy and stutters like a motherfucker. I'd bet money on 360 being the better version.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
I think it's safe to say this game is a mixed bag, but I have a feeling a lot of reviews are either going to be too soft or too hard on the game based on its history. The truth is almost surely somewhere between the two.
You would lose your money. Digital Foundry says neither of the console versions run in HD (only when upscaled) and that the 360 has horrible screen tear and dropped frames for no reason. It's also an "unmitigated disaster." The PS3 is the clear console winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...rever-face-off
Quote:
What we're seeing here looks like an 1152x640 framebuffer on both console versions, without the benefit of any kind of anti-aliasing whatsoever. The game is a mess of shimmering jaggies and high-contrast edges and there's very little in the way of post-processing (for example, motion blur or bloom) that would help to mitigate the very visible aliasing, which is only exaggerated as the game is upscaled by the consoles to a 720p output.
Quote:
The biggest difference seems to be in the implementation of the shadows - in many places, there's a feeling that they are missing on the Xbox 360 version of the game.
Quote:
Overall, the games appear to be fairly evenly matched on console in terms of imagery, but it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to performance. The Xbox 360 version of Duke Nukem Forever is nothing short of unmitigated disaster in this area, and easily one of the ugliest and most poorly performing shooting games we've tested in quite some time.
Quote:
It's a night-and-day difference between the two consoles. The Microsoft platform runs the game with an uncapped frame-rate, presenting some of the worst screen-tear we've seen in recent times. It seems that the people in charge of the conversion could only manage to get any semblance of a 30 frames-per-second refresh by updating the framebuffer as soon as a frame was rendered, and even then we still see some alarming drops in overall performance. The result is an unwelcome assault on both the look of the game and the way it plays.
The contrast with the PlayStation 3's showing is remarkable. In an interview with the PlayStation Blog, Randy Pitchford talked about "amazing optimisations" for the PS3 version courtesy of Piranha. The PlayStation 3's ability to run at what is effectively a locked 30FPS with only very minor outbreaks of screen-tear creates a remarkable difference to the experience of actually playing the game. While it's still objectionably ugly in many ways (hardly "amazing" bearing in mind the standard of the average FPS these days), at least the game provides a consistent level of visual feedback to the gameplay experience, with controls that feel solid and dependable.
In Eurogamer's damning Duke Nukem Forever review, Dan Whitehead points out that the game does have its moments, and that there are sections where interesting concepts provide a kind of experience very distinct from the usual FPS offerings. The PlayStation 3 version of the game makes these sections more fun to play, and even the meat-and-drink gunplay basics just feel better in comparison with the unfortunate 360 version. Performance is the key difference here, and the PC game is better still.
Damn, PS3 version it is. I usually go with the 360 version for shooters since I like the controller better, but the 360 version just sounds awful.
They all sound awful. What is wrong with you?
I only got to play the first 10 minutes because of a crippling bug and even that amount of time was enough for me.
Opaque: I want to believe! I'm not blind buying it though.
My bike crapped out on me so Duke's sidelined. I was going to bite the bullet and check it out, but I need my bike. $10 on Steam over Christmas it is.
James
$2 RedBox rental it is.
Your bike did you a favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
This game really is middle of the road. It's neither Daikatana bad nor Half-Life good. A lot of the reviews that I've seen are railing on the humor above all else, when in reality the game's sense of humor is the least important thing ever.
I think I still have my copy of Daikatana. I should finally try to finish that game.
I heard the later acts were actually pretty good, but the first one is so amazingly bad that few people got that far.
Huh? Back in the day, Duke's sense of humor was the only thing. If you took away the humor you'd be left with a game almost as good as Doom. But since Doom is exactly as good as Doom, there would have been no reason to play Duke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tain
This is not true. Duke (along with TekWar, but TekWar was shitty) was one of the first games to really push the genre toward real-world environments, and it also had unprecedented environmental interactivity, including a lot of dynamic environmental stuff that hadn't been done as well earlier. Also, integrating platforming into the genre was an unusual choice at the time and added a lot. Duke was not a graphical masterpiece at the time, but it pushed the envelope in a lot of other ways and it really was a good game on merits beyond personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
The first episode of Duke was better than Doom. The other 2, yea, almost as good as Doom. It was also fun multi, though IPX-only limited it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
The thing is that Quake came along a few months later and redefined the genre (and all of gaming). Duke's time in the sun was short.
Duke did a lot of things Quake didn't, though. Quake was miles ahead in terms of graphics and controls, but still stuck with that quasi-abstract, static labyrinth level design.
It was a better game than Duke, of course, but there were reasons beyond tits and doodie jokes that Duke was able to be as successful as it was against games like Quake.
Quake pissed me off. It made me want to play more Doom and Duke.
What about Shadow Warrior?
You mean Racist Duke Nukem?
Still haven't played through that game, despite owning it since like '98. I started it up earlier this year or late last year and wasn't feeling it very much. This was right after playing through Blood.
So, has anyone here bought the real game and not just the demo? I know I'll buy it regardless, but I hope it's not that bad.
This doesn't sound promising, which at this point is just frustrating. Regardless, I'm sure I'll forget all that and get it very soon.
does anyone think Gearbox will pony up to make a Duke game from scratch to make up for patching together a fifteen year old Shitenstein? America loves reboots right??
Is there a demo out there that everyone can access and not just the folks who bought borderlands?
I'm thinking Gearbox is going to pull a tidy little profit out of this then forget it ever happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn Dog
Not that I've seen, but if you've got a good internet connection you can do a 30 minute demo of the game on OnLive once they put it up. I don't think they have it up yet, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv
I wish more games had stuck with this formula. Short, easily digestible levels are far better than the campaign modes in modern FPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I hear The Pirate Bay or Bitgamer have demos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv
Sucker that I am, I went and bought the PS3 version with a gift card I had laying around. I figure it won't hurt as bad if the game is terrible since I only spent 10 real dollars on it.
I just popped it in, and it has a forced install to the HDD the first time you play, but without the enjoyment of watching an old super soldier chainsmoking.
One of the public relations groups that works with the game (not the PR group TNL is dealing with) had this to say on Twitter:
I guess some fan sites are trying to be cute and giving it basement scores beside "venom"-filled reviews. Maybe one day all games will either get a 0 or a 100. I'm eager to hear some reviews from those with no preconceived notions and no overriding desire to be funny or controversial.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://twitter.com/#!/TheRednerGroup/status/80834594424897536
They should have sent us the PC version. I'd love to have been able to review it.
James
I know nothing about this game, other than it's been in development forever.
Never played any of the other Duke Nukem games.
They should send me one for review.
Also: How butt-hurt can you be about reviews?
If your game sucks, then it sucks.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HURT OUR FEELINGS! :cry:
They're really trying to act like this game deserved better scores than it received?
LOL.
It's usually more about specific things that are said that are unreasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
People are definitely piling on this game with a certain schadenfreude. They want to hate it.Honestly, dude, it's got one of the lowest average scores of any major title in the last 5 years, and I'd be shocked if it were THAT bad. Because I've played some really fucking bad games that get scored a lot higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
There's a big difference between this getting 65 average and a 45 average.
Based on the little that I've played, it's easily worse than every mediocre "major" FPS I've played in the last five years.
You didn't play Rogue Warrior then.
I think a lot of people lose sight of how many bad games there are and how truly unpleasant they are to play because they just don't buy those games. Duke seems to me to be a troubled mishmash of ideas more than outright unfun.
No I really think it's terrible and that in no way is it even remotely unreasonable for a reviewer, especially one not clouded by nostalia, to think it's terrible.
Eh, go play Wanted: Weapons of Fate, then. Which scored like 20 points higher than this on average. Then tell me about terrible.
I play bad games more often than most because I have to, so my perspective may be skewed a bit.
If you're talking about the difference between a 45 aggregate and a 65, you're still talking about something that sucks really bad.
The game starts off really slow, but starts to pick up right around the time you get the shotgun. I'm having fun blasting pigs with the shotgun, running up to them and smacking them with a melee attack, and mighty booting their heads clear across the room.
Right. And yet still fair for someone to point out that some of what's being said is hyperbolic.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Personally, I kind of just find the game interesting to play. Like playing a leaked beta or something. It's half baked, but there's ideas in there.
Umm, this game's actually pretty good. I'm surprised at how low the scores are.
Wanted is better than DNF because it's shorter, and so the pain is over sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Someone on GAF compared DNF and Rogue Warrior scores, and pretty much every time RW got the lower score.
Yeah. If the whole campaign was as good as Duke Burger, it would be a great game by modern FPS standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I liked Wanted, dammit!
Rogue Warrior is pretty extraordinarily awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronChance
No you didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by bVork
I like this game a lot actually, and I've never played the older Duke games. I've definitely played games WAY worse than this that received higher scores.
In all honesty, I'd love to see that. On a scale of 0 to 1, Game X is a 1. Read the words to learn more. Simply, is the game worth it or not? That is the only question that a review score can answer. The score can't say a thing about how it looks, how it plays, what it's specific problems are, what it does right, etc. So if numbers are only good for answering a single yes/no question, only use enough numbers to answer that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
I can buy it.Quote:
Is it worth the wait? Of course not, don’t be ridiculous. How could any game possibly be worth waiting 14 years for, especially one that only ever aspired to be a low-brow comedy first-person shooter? There’s no reinvention of the genre here, no real attempt at grandeur. More than anything, Duke just wants to party like it’s 1997.
Check unrealistic expectations at the door and forget the ancient, hyperbolic promises of self-deluded developers before you even consider buying this suddenly corporeal ghost of PC gaming history. The development-time-to-awesomeness ratio isn’t impressive. If you can do that, Duke Nukem Forever can at least mostly succeed in its aspiration. After all of its tumultuous history, it’s ended up as an entertaining FPS wrapped in juvenile, smut-laced humor. Its gameplay is a hybrid of old-school and new, and it won’t wow players with stunning visuals—its window of opportunity for that passed years ago—but it does put on a good show of alien ass-kicking by working what it’s got.
Worth it to who, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Every game out there has a fan. When I worked at EB, I talked to many people who had a great time with Superman 64, no joke.
That's why Siskel had Ebert, to give two up/down opinions.
You have to? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
If I want to make money that week, yeah.
I play bad games because I choose. I enjoy complaining.
That seems unpossible. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Okay, I'll be TNL's official Duke Nukem Forever fanboy. It's like Korian and Tekken.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
Poor Korly.
To go even furtherQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...ve-reviews.ars
Glad they got their asses fired over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyne
I was always amused to read Duke Nukem Forever listed in Wired.com's yearly Vaporware awards. It even won a lifetime achievement award so that it wouldn't be mentioned again, only to have the fans vote it back on the list anyway. I still can't believe it finally came out. Too bad it's not that great.
Rented this tonight. Holy cow it takes forever for shit to start happening. Also BRUTAL load times on the PS3. And that's after an install.
I keep hearing that the console versions are horrible. DigitalFoundry said the 360 version is crazy bad.
Ridiculous load times would definitely have killed this game for me.
Worth it to the guy reviewing. Duh. Then you gotta' trust him or don't. Just like if the score range was 1-100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Regardless of who has or has not been fired, Eurogamer has apparently been "blacklisted" by Take Two for their review.
Is there an article on this? I'd like to read about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Get a real job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I've never played a game so bad that I'd rather do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I read Eurogamer's review, and man it's really full of a lot of just flat-out factual errors. And I have a lot of respect for Eurogamer, but I don't know if it's time pressure or what but that's not really cool.
I can't wait to read Dave Halverson's review. He likes delays.
I can't speak to the factual errors, but based on an article last week, they didn't get the game until Friday. So that's... 3 or 4 days to write a review?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Take Two didn't send out review copies, which is what companies do when they know they have a turkey and just want to get ahead of the word-of-mouth.
The thing about DNF is it's moderately critic proof. The game has been delayed forever so you have the morbidly curious (retards) who will go out and buy it because OMFG IT'S DUKE SONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!1, and then you have the people who got the demo and said "You know what, it's not for me".
When NPD's come out next month, I bet this is sitting no less than 5th place, even though it's a pile of shit.