Unsurprisingly, Duke Nukem Forever reviews are negative
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I haven't even played the original DN. What is so great about it, why do people care so much? All I could see on reviews and old Lets Plays is inane and banal shit boring.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
From that video of Duke Nukem 3D I really can't tell what the big "RUINED FOREVER" is all about, they look about as "entertainign", they bot have silly shit, the diference (other than graphics) seem to be that DN3D is not scripted. Also Graphic Luaghlable? They don't look half bad, but well I am not a graphics whore so I really don't care that much about how HD-er the graphics get.
^Well, I'm not a huuge DN3D fan in the first place, so I don't care that much (my childhood shooter of choice was Quake 1). It's not so much the scripting that sucks - though over-abundance of such can be annoying as seen in TB's video - but the forced linearity; from what I've played of DN3D, the coolest thing was exploration, with lots to do and discover in every level, as well as multiple ways to go through it. It's something that most modern hand-holding shooters lack. What I've seen of DNF thus far perfectly highlights the worst of the deterioration of the shooter genre. If I had to sum up the feelings of DN3D fans, I'd probably be mostly right if I said that they expected a fun PC shooter, and got a console-turd.
As for the "RUINED FOREVER" part... Every important classic game has its fans. Remember what was going on on this forum when FO3 came out?
Well, it's one of them defining games of the genre. Castle Wolfenstein, Quake, Doom, DN3D. These games basically made modern shooters possible. Heck, one of my absolute favorites of the genre - Serious Sam series - takes roots directly in DN3D. Those games may be a bit dated now, but were amazing back in the day, and nostalgia matters. Though frankly, they're still a blast to play if you can get over the "OMG it's not next-gen" prejudice.
As for the "RUINED FOREVER" part... Every important classic game has its fans. Remember what was going on on this forum when FO3 came out?
Well, it's one of them defining games of the genre. Castle Wolfenstein, Quake, Doom, DN3D. These games basically made modern shooters possible. Heck, one of my absolute favorites of the genre - Serious Sam series - takes roots directly in DN3D. Those games may be a bit dated now, but were amazing back in the day, and nostalgia matters. Though frankly, they're still a blast to play if you can get over the "OMG it's not next-gen" prejudice.
Surf Solar said:
Let me change that a bit. Then you might understand. It actually does not even require much to be changed but the outcome can be huge
Random gamer said:
I hope that you are now aware about the irony asking such a question around here
Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
I think Surf got confused and thought he was on the Codex. 
Threepwood
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Brother None said:
I was indicating the posotive PC response, maybe the console versions are bad, but I'm happy it's a pc game ported to the Xbox and not vice versa.
PainlessDocM
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Game is shitty on all platforms but a little less shitty on pc:
'better' graphics
higher framerate
faster loading times just
(like any other multi-platform game really)
'better' graphics
higher framerate
faster loading times just
(like any other multi-platform game really)
Threepwood
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
PainlessDocM said:
The footage iv'e seen makes it look like a great competitor to Serious Sam 3, although I do have a guilty pleasure which manifests itself in the form of Darkest of Days, so I'm not exactly mainstream in my FPS taste.
WHAT.I_eat_supermutants said:
I don't know what you thought was wrong with the gameplay mechanics (shoot -> kill -> grab keycard -> use keycard) and Duke 3D's controls were fine. The graphics were a step-up from Doom, which is exactly what the rest of the game was at the time. And the level design is probably the best thing about the game. Unlinear levels in an FPS are a joy, sometimes you don't even need a keycard and you can just use the jetpack to get around instead.
Yeah, because making a game - even the most shittiest one - just needs two months. How edgy.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Crni Vuk said:Surf Solar said:
Let me change that a bit. Then you might understand. It actually does not even require much to be changed but the outcome can be huge
Random gamer said:
I hope that you are now aware about the irony asking such a question around here
Maybe it's because I have an aversion towards FPS games at all, but it really didn't strike me as unique or so good back when I played it a bit.. Just yesterday I watched some videos as said and wasn't really impressed either. I always thought DN is a game everyone just jokes about being bad and having endless development cycles, now that it's actually coming people suddenly got really hyped up etc - that's why I was surprised.
^ The original Halo was actually decent though, even if it was somewhat of an Unreal rip-off.
I played Reach recently and fail to see any improvement. I certainly didn't see any of the enemies perform the complex tasks you described. Maybe I just didn't notice - after all, if they didn't spend so much time to AI, how would they explain why the sorry excuse for a single-player campaign only takes a few hours to complete?
I played Reach recently and fail to see any improvement. I certainly didn't see any of the enemies perform the complex tasks you described. Maybe I just didn't notice - after all, if they didn't spend so much time to AI, how would they explain why the sorry excuse for a single-player campaign only takes a few hours to complete?
PainlessDocM
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
brfritos
Humma Kavulaaaaaaa
At least Eurogamer nailed the common problem of today's FPS: it's actually hard to be killed in a battle, no matter what you do.
Oh, and BTW, thanks for shiting on Billy Squiers's "Stroke" song.
Half Life 1 for example. As it did pretty much all of the stuff. Enemys would search for cover, lob grenades in your direction, attack as team etc.
No clue about Halo. All I know is that the AI in shooters has not really improved since that day. In many cases it has become even worse. Well actually in most cases. But nevermind.
The AI in FEAR1 was pretty decent though. But it might have been also because they usualy hit you hard when ever you are inside a room with more then 4-5 of them and you do not regenerate health while sitting behind a shelf. (not that the game is not throwing health packs over you feet every 5 meters or so, just saying).
No clue about Halo. All I know is that the AI in shooters has not really improved since that day. In many cases it has become even worse. Well actually in most cases. But nevermind.
The AI in FEAR1 was pretty decent though. But it might have been also because they usualy hit you hard when ever you are inside a room with more then 4-5 of them and you do not regenerate health while sitting behind a shelf. (not that the game is not throwing health packs over you feet every 5 meters or so, just saying).
Halo's AI wasn't too complex, but it had a handful of nice reactions to triggers i.e sticking grenades to them or killing their friends. They also used cover and dodged grenades/vehicles quite well. It didn't make the game particularly challenging, but it had a lot more personality than most shooters.
I don't know why people assume such a popular game only had auto-aim and recharging health to offer.
I don't know why people assume such a popular game only had auto-aim and recharging health to offer.