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.
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 …
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.
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.
...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.
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....?
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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...
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.
consoles such as the XBox did not exist. This title was designed for PC and ported to the XBox. The problems that manifest themselves on the XBox are absent in th PC version.
I am rather pleased that console players get to understand what it is like to play a poorly ported game on their console systems, it's about time too, for six years that is exactly what PC gamers have had to put up with; Poor quality ports.
Yes the game is not cutting edge, but to me it's fun and not at all to be taken seriously.
£9.99 seems a fair price though.
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.
Admittedly on the PC version where most of the graphical gripes mentioned in the article are not present. What DNF may have lacked in refinement it gained in pure variety. In most FPS games nowadays the only thing that changes is the scenery, each level having the same enemies and the same weapons. I'd just completed Crysis 2 the day before but I nearly didn't bother finishing it as for all the shiny graphics the encounters were soulless and repetitive. In Duke I'd got the puzzle elements, humour, laugh out loud moments and end of level bosses that actually took a bit of working out. I probably won't play it again but I never do with FPS games but I certainly had more fun playing Duke than 'Generic Soldier X'
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.
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!"
Whilst I think the graphics are pretty terribad (it seems that someone applied a blur filter to everything... or it flat out despises 1920x1080 on a PC.
Can't complain in the slightest about loading times... thing loads levels in about 3 seconds for me, and I don't have a dooper computer either.
So... the reviewer doesn't agree with you, so they are obviously crap reviewers?
I also wasn't expecting the next half life. I was expecting a re-hashed (old) Duke Nukem.
What I got was an on-rails, rubbish version of the old dn game with shiny graphics (which aren't that shiny)
Well-worth a tenner maybe - just for the nostalgia. But otherwise not a lot of fun.
I have the xbox version and I actually enjoyed this game. I felt the graphics were on a par with a halo game.
As for the dialogue etc... it's just as cheesy as I expected it would be. If you played the original and if you loved films like evil dead 3 just because it was so cheesy, you'll probably like this game.
However, the multi player does suck. And the loading times are horrible. It's two minutes per load in the single player and if you die, you have to reload. I don't know if it's worth the money i paid for it. But if you knock a couple of quid off it, it's well worth a buy.
It should be taken for what it is, a game that's been in development for 14 years on and off. The game was supposed to be released back in 1998 and for that reason you have to take into account that when you play it you are playing a style of game designed for back then. I was put off by all the reviews like this one, thinking that when I finally played it, it will be sh!t, but when I started to play it I realised that it's like playing a bit of history really, a game that should of been released in the early 2000's but never was. Gearbox haven't really done much to it, just get it ready for release really and added a few updates.
I liked it. I liked the fact it's tongue in check, the humour is comical and so is the violence, there's some nice touches, I mean how many games can you play where you borrow a boys RC Car and go for a drive around a Casino? Yeah the enemies are a bit 2 dimensional, the shoot, strafe, shoot, strafe, etc harks back to older game play, but anyone who is trying to compare it to COD should stick to playing games instead of reviewing them.
I disagree with most of the review, except the bit where he says "It's as if Gearbox simply swept the scraps off 3D Realms' development floor and glued them together into this mess" - it should be fairly obvious that that is exactly what happened and to be shocked otherwise just shows how clueless some reviewers are, what exactly do they expect?
Oh look another reviewer complaining about graphics issues and clunky controls. Wtf do you people expect when you play one THE pc fps's on a sodding console? DNF was never going to be a masterpiece after it's torturous development but the amount of undeserved hate this game has received is ridiculous.
I bought it because it was the culmination of the biggest in-joke of the computer gaming age. I expected a fast food experience and am happy with what I'm getting.
I popped a bag of popcorn in the microwave instead of hurrying off to do a late-night TV spot. Then decked some whiny @rsehole who was ranting at the poor boom operator. I spend most of my time looking for stuff to interact with to see what happens.
I even flung poo for distance.
the pinky raising commentards who eagerly relish the next Madden franchise dump, and the types who fret over "misogyny" in order to impress hipster girls but end up being stuck as their "best friend" and never close the deal, can continue to hate as much as they want. I'm sure it'll make their blogs even more viewers and help them get advertising dollars towards their next painted chain fixie. these same clowns ranked Borderlands down low too, which is a game I've thoroughly enjoyed.
Partly, because i don't spend every waking moment playing whatever trendy FPS is out, so I'm not as eager or impressed by some extraneous "realism". The game plays like old Quake, and I loved old Quake.
Games are not the be all end all of my life, so I don't need a game to be supermegaawesome and new and shiny in order to avoid slitting my wrists in a fit of angst. I wanted Duke to be bigger than life, a throwback to earlier times when effete, insincere hand-wringing wasn't the prime motivator in entertainment design and societal progress. And I, like others, are perfectly happy with what was delivered.
That won't stop the hipster bloggers from trying to make sure we're tarred and feathered for not agreeing with their artificial zeitgeist of course, smearing and complaining from their iPads as they mooch wifi from their parents or Starbucks.
guess I'll wait until it appears in the bargin bucket.
Although I am sorely tempted because I'm not into ultra-realistic FPS such as MW (waaay too linear.... and the joys of going on-line to be shot 15 times before leaving the spawn area by a 12yr old who downloaded a hax).
As for plot exposition... I buy games so I can get big outlandish guns and kill/burn/squish things from the start of a game not watch 15 mins of cut scenes before being allowed to shoot one target, then back to the cut scenes.
Guess I'm just getting old
its still a console port.
Theres no way in hell they have spent 12 years doing this. I suspect they scraped the whole thing years ago and popped this together with double sided sticky tape and blue tak in the last year or so.
Perhaps if it had stayed true to its PC roots it might have been better but i for one think its shoddy that you cant jump on things that are only a couple of feet high but have been deemed a no go zone, textures are ok in pc version which is something but there is obvious effects of low memory systems
why did i buy it, well its Duke, it had to be done, and i suspect the publishers knew exactly that too, and now DNF ala Did not finish, can be renamed to shouldnt have finished,
Bloody hell, I just realized that when development started on this, I was still using a Commodore Amiga as my primary computer and wouldn't build my first Wintel box for another couple of years.
This game was a running joke throughout the entire 4-year period in the early 2000's I spent as an avid PC gamer.
From what I've read, it should be used as a case study of how a software project shouldn't be managed. Constant feature creep and no fixed idea of what the final product should be, leading to endless delays and a released product which would have been cutting edge if only the world had stood still for a while.
(To the reviewer)
What are you ? some bottom feeding scum sucking algae eater ?
So you don't like my new game ? Well I just don't care, and also don't care if you're a new millenium arty-farty liberal who doesn't like my humour, as far as I'm concerned you can eat shit and die, because I rock.
I don't need therapy, I'm really happy with myself just the way I am, and I don't care if my game doesn't run real well on crappy consoles, back in my day PC's were King.
Playing with myself for the last 12 years has taken it's toll, so I'm really pissed now and once I've kicked those Alien bastards back to where they came from , and then I'm coming for you, to make sure you're not one of them, and if you're really lucky I won't rip off your head and shit down your neck ...
lots of love, and see you real soon ....
(ps this is a joke !!)
I'm not sure how many of you remember the start of this saga, but I certainly do!
My old LAN party group played Duke and the follow up, Shadow Warrior (oohh! Sticky bomb LIKE you) for quite some time and truly enjoyed the attitude of both games. At the time, Broussard and 3D Realms were promising a quantum leap in gaming when DNF "was done." For a while, that's what we all thought the delay was. Then we started hearing about the game engine of the month phase and the doubt began. Even so, we thought, if they could just get settled, we'd get to see this new level in gaming.
But this. This is not revolutionary, even for the time development started. And in the interum, one would think they would have read up on some of the caching techs that are being used these days and they would have widened the hardware requirements for PC. I've got a laptop these days (I gave up my gaming rig several years back). It's got decent specs, including a decent Nvidia mobile card so it games relatively well. I've played Crysis on it, albeit with the settings turned way down, but it plays at least . For DNF, I've turned everything down to minimum, and I still can't play fullscreen. Even the menus chop along at about 3 frames a second. So I fell back to windowed mode to find load times I can practically eat lunch through even when restarting a checkpoint. And once the thing has loaded, it's just Duke with prettier graphics. I like Duke, but we were lead to believe that DNF would be so much more.
Oh well, at least it's done...
Actually. DNF is everything it should have been. They brought the cult duke nukem 3d into the 21st century. The graphics are better. But in a by gone age of pc gaming when we had mediocre graphics, games had to be very playable and addictive. DNF is just like getting into a comfy arm chair. Its got it in spades.
The game play and addictiveness is still there. Just better graphics. And what could they have done without changing Duke Nukem ?
The pc version plays great... Its all it should be, before political correctness went mad and the nanny state took over. Im very happy with the game. It instantly took me back to my teens when there were 16 of us in my mates house playing duke 3d on a network. Great days and fond memories.
They honestly got the game spot on. Its just a real shame 3d realms were not able to finish what they started.
...Every level consists of fighting half-a-dozen enemies, moving a few hundred metres forward and fighting a half-dozen more...
... promise open exploration, only to funnel you up makeshift ramps over precipices before corralling you back into combat arenas...
Move over CoD, there's a new boy in town!
Both took long enough, both... aack, forget it.
But hey, if you like Guns'n'Roses, there enjoy it, you already heard the entire album over the radio. Twice per month. But you still listens to it, don't you? If you had a blast with DN, there you have it.
Non-imaginative gameplay? What about the caves of Halo CE in Cartographer Island? Please. The same set of hallways and corridors was repeated 3 times there.
Simple switches? Half-Life 2 did it, but it was done with *lots of style* so you don't notice it. It masks the simplicity with presentation. Plus a babe like Alyx Vance to help you out...
"Lots of driving" What, like you didn't have that in HL2, and any Halo version?
If I ever bought a game that was scrapped and re-developed 5 times, I would know what to expect.
If it is based on 12 years-old gameplay, I would know what to expect either: turn brains off, shot stuff with shotgun, apply boot heel to faces, blow heads off with RPGs.
Simple fun, like Enduro, and River Raid. Just don't expect me to pay 60 bucks on it.
This is meant to be played with a beer in one hand and a pack of smokes by the keyboard.
It was never going to live up to the pure level of hype that surrounded the game.
Having read a number of reviews I think they are mostly fair. The problem is that the game is just alright. It’s a fairly average FPS, that’s not a bad thing it’s good for a giggle and a bit of mindless blasting here and there, but don’t try to hold it up as a masterpiece of game development.
Mostly I was just left feeling that it wasn’t worth what I paid for it and in places I was either grimacing or simply embarrassed by the content, sure poo was funny when I was 12 but I’m not 12 anymore. Mind you that’s not the games fault, that’s just because I’m dead inside.
Personally I’d agree with what some have said and give it a while and pick it up from the bargain bin. It’s not bad but it won’t hurt to leave it a while and not pay the full price.
Quite honestly, I loved the original - in multi-player only. It is way more fun to play against people (or with people) so I never played the single player version.
I cannot find a GOOD review on the multi-player version - it LOOKS like it is a blast (pun intended) but it could also be garbage. Can ANYONE please advise me if the multi-player option is as fun as the original? My point for buying games is multi-player and not stand alone...
Slow loading? Poor GFX? not on an xbox 360 elite that my step-son has. He bought the game and it runs fine with no problems.
It does sound more like it's possibly the combination of That Xbox 360 and/or that disc and/or some other factor, but it seems a bit weird that it's that bad on that machine, and absolutely fine on my stepsons.
I think that they have captured the ethos perfectly, I mean let's face it, sometimes "Games" are actually "Games".
I.E. NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
(large typeface intended for clarity, not as shouting)
I can understand why it get's flak if there are issues on some systems, or if people expected something different, but honestly, Duke Nukem was never a game to take seriously. But it's always been a good laugh.
Mine's a pint cos the Duke would approve...
I really am enjoying duke. It's really nice and refreshing after the years and years of FPS trying to out do the last guy ,and the whole "RUN N GUN" feeling being bled out and the "tactical" aspect being the focus point. this game takes me back to the root of FPS. See something shoot it ,shoot it ,shoot it, and the whole over the top attitude is awsome. GIANT baddies BOOBS and prepubesent toliet humor is what duke is all about. it's too bad that all the hype took away from the game. But if you take duke for what he is then there's nothing to complain about except those long load screens (x-box)
After six years in development we a re PROUD to announce PONG FOREVER. Relive the experience with a modern graphics engine! Get the in depth lowdown on our stars, Bat1 and Bat2. Amazing new shrink level where your bats shrink. New 3D mode (3D tv set required). Choose the colour of your bats. High score table allows you to stare more than one score AND your name! New inter...net feature captures the ball.
Get the point here? - Pong is pong. What else were you expecting exactly? Space invaders?
Reg please do another review for the PC version.
The main problem with this was it was overhyped. If you overhype then expect to be paid back in full... Bloody terrible marketing basically with stupid budgets to spend. Either it was a student running the campaign, or some old bat about 40+ (my age) who thinks they understand modern media because they read it in a book once. Don't they realize most reviewers are citizen journalists?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019