In a game bursting with 1980s macho-movie quotes and in-jokes, one line resonates far beyond Duke Nukem Forever’s puerile script. Besieged by an alien invasion, the President of the United States ignores calls to beg the eponymous meathead to save the planet, lamenting, “Duke, you’re a relic from a different era.” Duke Nukem …
Take Two Quality?
I'm used to these guys making top notch games and I cannot believe after so many years that this was even allowed to be released, for a premium price as well. If I had tried the game first, I would not pay more than £4.99 for it.
serious sam was fun and wasnt at a premium price either.
"DNF, Your an inspiration for quality control"
That is the problem
That is the problem with releasing a 12 year old game. It would have been ok 12 years ago.
Today - forget it.
They should have taken the graphics and stuff and ditched the game completely and went back to the drawing board.
That's not really fair
Games designed after traditional, archaic shooting style can still be great, painkiller was far too late supposedly, and it was excellent, it's still better than the latest military shooter. Unreal Tournament 3 was a tonne better than Gears 2 for multiplayer (and let's face it, with a 4 hour long campaign, the multiplayer is where your £40 goes). Somehow Gearbox have failed to make a solid old skool shooter out of this.
Somehow I am not surprised...
12 Years of development. Many different companies, producers and coders. Not really a shock that it scores this low.
Will wait til it hits the $4.99 bin.
Worth that, I think
From the videos I've seen it appears to be nothing more than a graphically updated remake of Duke Nukem 3D -- same weapons, same enemies, same gameplay concepts, but with prettier textures and a higher poly count. I'd pay five bucks for that and enjoy it; paying fifty for it would just piss me off.
Such a stinging review
..and you still gave it 40%?
This should be in the 5% range.
DNF Isn't exactly a cure for cancer...
...but a lot of the flaws pointed out seem to be related to the console experience - as a PC player of DNF I haven't seen any of the technical issues pointed out here ( although the multiplayer server browser is horrifically slow), but agree it's not all that it could have been.
I'd still say it's worth far more praise than a lot (most) reviewers are giving it, many of whom seem to base it on the 13 years they've waited rather than the game itself.
Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to find that glory hole in the dream sequence
I've been playing the PC version too and I don't think DNF in any way deserves the drubbing it's been getting. Certainly the 360 version apparently has some issues, but I don't think the core game design is as ancient or creaky as reviewers seem to be so keen to claim. If anything I think modern FPS games are more basic than Duke3D ever was.
Sure modern games throw more polygons around the screen, but where are the secret areas? Where's the interactivity? Modern games like COD just funnel you from one shooting gallery to the next. At least DNF breaks things up with driving, platforming and lots of little interactive bits like billiards, pinball, whack-a-mole, etc. I'd much rather play this than any of the endless Modern Warfare clones.
At the end of the day, I think the best way to describe the Duke Nukem Forever reviews is:
haters gonna hate.
"haters gonna hate"
I'm sorry, but you're talking crap. From my playtesting so far I think 40% is rather higher than I would give it.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you - it doesn't mean they are just a 'hater'
(Just because I don't agree with you - it doesn't mean your enjoyment is any less worthy. You seem to enjoy it - go for it whoohoo!)
I think I'll be un-installing it later today.
Haters have a point
My copy of DNF ran over my dog, burned my flat down, ran off with my girlfriend and somehow managed to land me with a Daily Mail subscription.
DNF is pure evil in gaming form and we should form a lynch mob to execute everyone at Gearbox for even thinking of making this game.
Or, as a radical idea, those who don't like the game can simply not play it....?
My title didnt contain letters or digits.
Yes! Exactly - it isn't technological leap into the future (and seriously, anyone expecting that with a TWELVE YEAR OLD ENGINE is thinking a bit unrealistically) and this isn't your 'slap-on-your-headset-and-get-into-a-team-to-tactically-defeat-cuba' it's a 'sit-with-a-beer-and-pizza-and-laugh'.
You played the 360 version didn't you.
Because the graphical issues aren't present on the PC.
They ALWAYS play the Xbox version
for some reason, and then wonder why it's shit. Notably, they looked over the far superior PS3 and PC versions of Portal2, Crysis and LA.Noire and reviewed the shit one.
Your constant fanboi drivel still not getting old for you yet Mr Balmer?
Re: Steve's back!
I keep bitching about this too
getting pretty tired of coming to a PC-centric site to read console reviews which I can get anywhere else on the bloody internet.
this review is bullshit too : 40% is too high; you can argue 'well, they couldnt do that well with all the backwash of data to sift through blahblahblah' um, no. They're charging $60, the same as any other AAA title, so it would have been nice if, I dont know, they'd grown a pair, bought a UT3 dev kit and knocked it out. Its not that that its graphically stuck in the early 2000s, its that Its so disjointed and poorly realised it feels like they just parcelled out levels to coders, didnt try for a theme or story arc, kludged together some textures and community assets, wrapped it all up and called it good without testing.
its a fucking _awful_ game. I dont care how long I had to wait. when indie devs with licensed engines can turn out low-priced little wonders, Im left wondering why such a festering sore was foisted upon us.
oh, and for what its worth?
Im basing all of this off my experience of the PC version. I have a nice screen, I have my settings maxed out, and its dated, kludgy, poorly designed, IDK who these other gonks are yelling about how its actually enjoyable on PC, but given the state of the industry Im inclined to call sock puppetry, or perhaps these people havent played anything between DN3D and DNF and arent aware that you know, _magic_ is possible.
And this comes as a surprise?
Wait, wait... No. Not surprised at all.
But at least there's a jetpack!
So ... ?
Did you like it then?
I've quite enjoyed it so far...but then that may be because I'm deliberately spreading it out alot so I don't overdo the dose of Duke each time....
....or it might be that I grew sick of the excessive loading times....
Still, it's not a wondrous game, but the key bit to remember is that it's a bit of fun that doesn't subscribe to so many games nowadays - where the expectation is that you will sit down and play it until it's done in only a session or two then go back around and hunt down every 'achievement'.
DNF is a classic-style shooter - nothing awesome and sometimes a little irritating (the gym is just a pointless waste of development time that could've gone into the main game)...but I wouldn't class it as absolutely terrible. Just a mediocre shooter which needs a couple of beers to enjoy the humour.
just sad. i was looking forward to this.
This was one of my worst pre-order purchases ever. Unfortunately as I bought on Steam I can't even sell it on
If the game is so awful, why does it get a score of 40%? Surely that's just a fifth of par?
I don't understand reg ratings at all....
In that case par is 200%?
I don't think you failing to understand Reg ratings points to a problem with Reg ratings, mate...
Poorly constructed sentence. What I meant was surely 50% is an average game, and this is just below that? Hardly as bad as the writer makes it out to be.
Oh look another X-Box 360 review
Long loading times, low-res textures and polygon counts, poor facial animations and lip-syncing, screen tearing, juddering frame rates, basic lighting and reflections, pop-up, jaggies and disappearing assets – you name it, DNF suffers from it.
Play on a PC and most of this disappears.
Long Load times. No
Low-res textures and polygon counts. haven’t noticed.
Poor facial animations and lip-syncing. Haven't noticed that either.
Basic lighting and reflections. Well Unreal had better lighting and reflections than Half-Life and it ain't Unreal I keep going back to play.
Pop-up, jaggies and disappearing assets. Haven’t noticed that either.
What I want from Duke Nukem is some retro un-pc game play and so far it's delivering.
Re: Oh look another X-Box 360 review
We reviewed it on the Xbox 360 because that's what the company gave us to review.
If the other versions were significantly better, surely they would have provided review copies accordingly, to show off their game in the best possible light?
The fact they didn't is very telling, IMHO
PC version is better
The Guardian review complained of the same issues that you did. They simply aren't present on the PC version. Loading times are 6-8 seconds and it's very pretty. I haven't seen any graphical glitches.
I'm having fun playing it although there's no doubt in my mind that it's been dumbed down for the console generation. It's linear and simplistic. It shares nothing with DN3D except the name.
all it tells you is that they're getting a bung from Microsoft, who would very much like to kill off PC gaming (Halo3 for PC anyone?)
They should simply go PS3.
If they're going to do real good stuff, they should give out PS3 versions. The shitbox 360 is getting outspecced by gaming PC rigs but the PS3 still has the hardware to cope with the increasing requirements. But yes, any real good PC game will blow any console version out of the water. I suspect that Take-Two Interactive are on PS's payola...
Kill off PC gaming??
PC Gaming isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of PC games on Steam that a lot of people including myself play. Microsoft still has "Games for Windows" and even if they didn't, my favorite games are ONLY available on the PC anyway (Racing SIMS- GTR EVO/RACE ON/GT POWER and GTR2). Think Alienware is going out of business anytime soon? Not going to happen. Long live PC Gaming!!
The Reason They Gave Out Xbox Version
The reason they gave out the Xbox version for review, I assume, is because you can never be sure that a PC version will run on any given PC - due to hardware or software issues. I've had several non-playing game purchases because my PC didn't meet some incredibly finely (sometimes non-) printed requirements of the game.
The Xbox 360 is a known quantity, albeit with (it appears) much lower performance than The Register's typical PC gamer correspondents.
Clearly they would have got better reviews if they had optimised for the Xbox 360, but since it wasn't about when development started, I suppose it's not surprising they didn't.
However, because they didn't optimise for the most common reviewer platform, then they also cannot be surprised at the bad reviews that have resulted.
It's not as if they haven't release a game before, is it? Or not had enough to develop it properly?
From the written verdict it would appear this game is terrible..But then I look at the score and gets 40% ??. How bad of a game does it have to be to get under 40%?
Re: I'm confused..
Very bad indeed.
DNF is bad, but some folk will enjoy it. And it runs. Hence the score
"It runs" - If you'd reviewed it before release, they might've picked this for the box quote.
A true sign of the times
Where "it runs" is enough to get you 40%.
It's Duke FRIKKIN' Nukem
It's just a giant piss-take.
It's just a giant piss-take...
...of the customers who forked over thirty-five quid by the sounds of things!
And that's why....
....I always buy my games long after they are popular/new.
The bargain bin beckons...
RE: I'm confused..
I'm assuming that the 40% score is in bulk made up of bonus points for having the correct game name on the box and actually loading up into a state where you can attempt to play the game.
Well those seem to be the only 2 redeeming features I can see.
I always remember Amiga Power got a lot of stick from the games vendors. Generally speaking an average game seemed to get around 70-80%, and if it was really dire, 60% or so. But the whole scale was never really used.
I'd say the best review from Amiga Power was Rise of the Robots : http://amr.abime.net/review_1662
5% it got.
Somehow CU Amiga gave it 80%... The games vendors never liked the magazine much, they were too honest.
Not that bad
It's all about your expectations isn't it?
I have the PC version. So far I've played about 30-40 mins and it's been pretty much what I expected. it's been fun so far. I don't feel ripped off and I really don't feel it's a 40% game. I put it in the same category as Die Hard 4.0 or the new Rambo film. It's meant for an audience who buy retro stuff and that includes me. If you know what you're getting yourself into, you'll probably enjoy it.
I was honestly *far* more disappointed to have paid full price for Crysis 2 this year: That has pretty graphics, can be played in full 3D on my TV & got fantastic reviews - but that feels like a very generic & linear shooter to me, which isn't what I was expecting at all.
Die Hard 4.0? New Rambo film?
Blimey, they say you coming, didn't they?
I was FAR more disappointed with every single minute of Crysis 2 that i have been with the few hours of DNF i've played so far.
Cannot understand the inflated expectations the press seem to have built up about this game: "13 years in the making? It deserves to die if its not the greatest game ever!"
Way to trip yourself up
So it's not that bad, it's just in the same category as Die Hard 4?
Riiight. You know, for most people, "the same category as Die Hard 4" - and for Christ's sake stop with that point-oh bullshit - is "a collection of things I would like to ram up Piers Morgan's arse."
Letters and digits
Saw, you mean?
Yes, I like both of those films. They rate 7.5 and 7.2 on the generally quite critical IMDB so I'm by no means alone.
I think many of the comments about the outdatedness of DNF could and should be equally applied to those films, but it doesn't hurt their objective ratings like it apparently does with the game here.
The ".0" is part of the title in the UK, so one is the name of the film, the other isn't.
Again, 7.5 on IMDB and 69% on Metacritic means that you are not speaking for "Most people" (I have never claimed to...)