Originally posted by KazenjiI've seen some complaints, but overall people seem hyped. But yea, you're going to have your CoD and Halo fanboys complaining. I like the classics myself.
yeah it doeschecked out some of the reviews, Seriously what the hell for some of the things they go on about but thought as much they're more used to modern shooters.
Played it for 20 minutes today, really liked it. This is what duke is about, Duke is not suppose to be cut scene heavy game, duke is not suppose to be the next Deus Ex. Its just suppose to be Duke Nukem, as we remember it, shoot and aim, and have fun. And I think it really succeeds with that. Its quick to jump into, with lots of fun, and has simple but fun multiplayer aswell. tomorrow Im going to try this with a few beers before I go out 🙂
Its like the shooters from the 90's Doom, Shadow Warrior, Blood, Quake 1 & 2 etc with with decent quality graphics of today
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Where are you in the game now?
currently near the Duke Dome, Also i've noticed in the 360 version that there is some bugs/glitches from some the EDF soldiers that are lying around dead with pools of blood and the blood flickers just little things like that so far but i suppose there will be updates through xbox live.
Originally posted by BluesteelSounds good.
Played it for 20 minutes today, really liked it. This is what duke is about, Duke is not suppose to be cut scene heavy game, duke is not suppose to be the next Deus Ex. Its just suppose to be Duke Nukem, as we remember it, shoot and aim, and have fun. And I think it really succeeds with that. Its quick to jump into, with lots of fun, and has simple but fun multiplayer aswell. tomorrow Im going to try this with a few beers before I go out 🙂
i reakon this review is spot on for the 360 version
http://www.denofgeek.com/games/937498/duke_nukem_forever_xbox_360_review.html
agree even on the visuals part its as if Gearbox concetrated more on the PC version...Which seems to have gotten better reviews and forgot about the console versions of it.
I think this response was spot on.
"There's no antialiasing to speak off" I'm sorry, but you are making the mistake that every reviewer makes. They not only base the game on graphics which they shouldn't, but then they incorrectly state that problems that are related to the platform played on. Or some reviewers assume that since it's based on a 1996 game, it must have old graphics. I'm sorry if you are maybe seeing some things not quite right, but there are usually logical explanations. I must admit that maybe the xbox version isn't the best, but I've had my experience on the pc. I've noticed that people dwell on things so much they practically convince themselves it sucks. If you are seeing aliasing, it's a sign you are playing on an outdated monitor, or some strange TV. ON the PC version, DNF can play in HD resolutions, and even do 3d stereo at fast frame rates. You also won't notice aliasing at this screen sizes. Many gamers turn of AA with larger monitors. That said, DNF HAS FULL Anti-aliasing. At least on the PC. I see no jaggies! Also every reviewer seems to have a different complaint, proving to me once and for all there is no consistency what so ever in these reviews other than the I-Wanted-To-Like-It-But-Couldn't' mantra. People hear it supposedly has bad graphics, and then make up things. Instead of focusing or cherry picking out the worst things, look around at what is great. Like for example the monsters have thousands of polygons and complex movements. They are far more detailed than many modern games out there, cod included! Some of the character models are better than any game out there. And then, yes, it's true, some are not the best. I used to work for 3d realms, Electronic arts and Interplay. I know a lot about graphics. Is the game the best, or top notch in graphics? No, but it's engine is what is used in many titles that have come out between 2009 and 2011. In other words, there's nothing really wrong with them. But people love to look for problems. Start a discussion in any room of people about why the graphics look horrible, and people begin to imagine things and help you find things. Start another discussion about what makes the game so fun, and they will do that too. You can lead people in any direction, and so can the journalists apparently. Thankfully there are some people that can think for themselves and are going to have a lot of fun with this title. As for saying it shows it's age and that it was conceived 10 years ago, I think it's your imagination playing with you. There is very little if anything about the game's humor that is a decade old. If the original title NEVER EVER existed, you could bring this game out TODAY and all people, including the call of duty fans who are usually younger, would think Duke was the coolest and funniest thing every. Because his humor is so suave? No, because he's not to be taken seriously! He's like a big, parody or joke! Yes, the same idiots that slam it today, would embrace this game. And then in 10-15 years later when they have children, those children would make fun of it. Unless however it was brought out as a new game in 2025. Then they'd think Duke was new. Do you get it? Take GTA that featured the 70's as part of one of their themes. Now that was dependent on the 1970's era for it's clothing and humor. Duke is not based in any time in particular. If it was mentioned somewhere a long time ago, then people have forgotten.. -- Of course someone can always find a way to disagree, but again, it's not like they made Duke definitely a 90's thing. The game just came from the 90's, so some think that's what that means. Never mind. Hard to explain I guess. Another big problem is that MOST people think if the title was conceived over 10 years ago it better the heck be 10 times as good or else! BULL! It's just the Duke Nukem sequel and it's plenty good enough. Not 10 times better, but just fine. It also kills me when I hear someone explain that the game was rushed to market after it was delayed 14 years! Please, think about what you are saying. Please? Also Gearbox had it for over 2 years which is plenty of time to do an entirely new game!!! So in no way was this rushed as you say. That's so silly it takes my breath away. If they sell enough copies, they will probably make a DNF2 with more improvements. But at the rate this is going, if this continues to get super terrible reviews by overly picky nit pickers, there may be no Duke Nukem Forever 2. Gearbox will simply drop the title forever and do some different game. And the reason I don't want that to happen is because an endless stream of Call of Duty clones is boring me to tears. Also DNF is better than many shoot-everything-you-see games. It's paced to offer different activities. But oh well, I guess this game is doomed to get bad reviews. Can't help that sadly.
Originally posted by SmasandianYea, I don't have the x360 version. I have the PC version which will be better and have more mods.
It's funny.Fanboys ***** about the bad reviews when their game gets one but use good reviews as ammunition to prove how good their game is.
If Duke Nukem Forever was getting good-great reviews, people would be posting on how good the game is.
But in reality, the 360 version is a piece of shit.
I disagree somewhat. I think fanboys also complain the quickest. Many hardcore fans don't like the new feel. I prefer classic shooters to modern and I like the classic health and weapon limit. But for what it was I don't think it is a bad game (I haven't played the full game yet as I'm in the US).
People will look for something to complain about and others will look for any reason to praise something. You have your fangood and your fandumb.
The game seems solid and enjoyable at best. It's what I expected for what it was. But I don't think it is badly made or that the graphics are "bad" by any means. Not the top of graphics but not bad. Most people do follow the crowd though. I'm not using this as ammunition (if that comment was aimed at me), but I do agree with him saying that people don't think for themselves and follow whatever the trend is. If you don't like a game, that's fine. But have a logical reason for doing so. Positive or negative.
Originally posted by killermover
I told you this game would suck. Even if Duke was the father of shooters, FPS games that success this game would incorperate better advance game mechanics over the years than this one a game that was made 12 years ago.You might as well have a Duke reboot.
The only thing thats seems to be sucking are the console versions (have'nt heard much about the PS3 game)
and why would they incorperate better advance game mechanics ?