I wasn't planning on getting it anyway, but for those who were, well, no surprise at all following all the fail in the reveals and PR, it's getting torn to shreds, the main repetitive joke being made is "Fail to the King, baby". Haha, you're so clever, game reviewers.
Joystiq 2/5.<blockquote>It might not seem fair to hold DNF up to Epic's foul-mouthed shooter, but the truth of the matter is that they're both games released in modern times, priced at $60 and targeted at the same players. Any aspect of the game that might have been impressive in 1998 just seems practically laughable now – in all the wrong ways. There are problems with laggy aiming, dumb-as-doornails enemies, weak level design and even weaker presentation. There are puzzles that might have seemed "cool" way back when with their simple seesaw physics, but today they mainly feel like ways to artificially extend the game's length, which comes in at just about 10-12 hours on normal difficulty.</blockquote>Guardian 2/5<blockquote>A mark for nostalgia then – it's the Duke, after all – and one for the game. If this was 15 years in the making, it makes you wonder what they did for the other 14 years and 10 months.</blockquote>AusGamers 5/10<blockquote>Unfortunately, the mostly solid gun cabinet does little to mask the repetitive nature of the combat that’s only exacerbated by laughably stupid AI. When they’re not running at you in a straight line, their attempts at intelligence tend to fall short. Certain foes try to make use of cover and then stay on a corner for easy flanking; others try to launch themselves at you but blatantly miss or get caught up in the all-too-frequent physics fails; while others still attempt to teleport behind you, but putting your back to a wall renders this move useless and they end up reappearing in front of you for an easy melee takedown. Suffice it to say, friendly AI is an almost non-existent affair which, in fairness, isn’t that much of a deal as I get that the game is supposed to be Duke versus an entire alien race.
</blockquote>
Joystiq 2/5.<blockquote>It might not seem fair to hold DNF up to Epic's foul-mouthed shooter, but the truth of the matter is that they're both games released in modern times, priced at $60 and targeted at the same players. Any aspect of the game that might have been impressive in 1998 just seems practically laughable now – in all the wrong ways. There are problems with laggy aiming, dumb-as-doornails enemies, weak level design and even weaker presentation. There are puzzles that might have seemed "cool" way back when with their simple seesaw physics, but today they mainly feel like ways to artificially extend the game's length, which comes in at just about 10-12 hours on normal difficulty.</blockquote>Guardian 2/5<blockquote>A mark for nostalgia then – it's the Duke, after all – and one for the game. If this was 15 years in the making, it makes you wonder what they did for the other 14 years and 10 months.</blockquote>AusGamers 5/10<blockquote>Unfortunately, the mostly solid gun cabinet does little to mask the repetitive nature of the combat that’s only exacerbated by laughably stupid AI. When they’re not running at you in a straight line, their attempts at intelligence tend to fall short. Certain foes try to make use of cover and then stay on a corner for easy flanking; others try to launch themselves at you but blatantly miss or get caught up in the all-too-frequent physics fails; while others still attempt to teleport behind you, but putting your back to a wall renders this move useless and they end up reappearing in front of you for an easy melee takedown. Suffice it to say, friendly AI is an almost non-existent affair which, in fairness, isn’t that much of a deal as I get that the game is supposed to be Duke versus an entire alien race.
</blockquote>
