Uh..Duke Nukem Forever?

Tried the demo, game ****ing sucks.

Bad textures everywhere, stilted animations and crap character models. The game is not fun. It's boring, bare bones game. Spent way too much time putting in stupid crap like throwing feces around and not enough making a quality game. I like how planes blow up and the matter mysteriously disappears, same with blowing the watch towers up, it just goes boom and its gone, no broken timbers, or anything that resembles a tower like games in 2011 do now. It has shitty scripted events. Movement is sluggish and game play was awful. And the game is not funny at all.

This game feels like it was made in 2000 but it has a fresh coat of paint on it. It's not funny and Duke feels like a disembodied voice from beyond. The guns lack any sort of impact what so ever. I don't get any sort of feedback when I'm shooting a guy.

Basically, the game is pile of shit. Am I being too harsh? No, because I had no expectations when the game was announced.

Lastly, the game ran like shit on my computer while the graphics are crap.

I can't believe Gearbox and co. released this game. It's a pure money grab for the 12 years it was in devlopment. Duke can be a good franchise again if it was made from the ground up. Your going to hear this in a couple of years, "Duke Nukem Forever wasn't the game we wanted to make, so this time, we are doing exactly what we want to do".

I agree. I played the demo yesterday and I felt like I was going to be sick (literally 😐) . I can't believe I had the slightest thought of getting the game and it's a good thing I didn't. If an anticipated game like DNF can be this bad from Gearbox, I'm afraid to see what'll happen to Colonial Marines. Perhaps 3D Realms shouldn't have been shut down. Angry Joe does have a point that what was seen in the 2001 trailer does look kind of better. Oh how the mighty have fallen facepalm

You know, to be honest, from the commercials alone I can point out problems. 😬

I will wait until I play the game to decide how it is, but it honestly does not look great.

YouTube video

Because this should not be buried.

It's 20 minutes long.

Yeah but it's 20 minutes of truth.

Truth be told, at least Duke knows this game sucks.

Hope the next one is redone and full of comedy and less fail like Duke says.

Duke also should be cartoony in 3d, this realistic stuff in DNF showed me it was trying look like our world but is a joke to.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I agree. I played the demo yesterday and I felt like I was going to be sick (literally 😐) . I can't believe I had the slightest thought of getting the game and it's a good thing I didn't. If an anticipated game like DNF can be this bad from Gearbox, I'm afraid to see what'll happen to Colonial Marines. Perhaps 3D Realms shouldn't have been shut down. Angry Joe does have a point that what was seen in the 2001 trailer does look kind of better. Oh how the mighty have fallen facepalm

But then you've played the console version like i have

and been and gone over all the tech problems for that.

If Duke was released 12 years ago it would have faired better in reviews. The things would have been fresher and the hype wouldn't have been so high. Even if it were the best game ever, people still would have complained. I think the delay made people anticipate something they weren't even sure they wanted.

Out of the complaints I see nobody has actually played the end product (except for killermovier), so nobody really has a fully formed opinion to base anything on.

When I destroyed everything (on the PC version) I saw dust and particles left over. The scripted events were also done well. The only graphical issue I ran into was the graphical "pop up" that happened occasionally, but that happens in many games. It is made on the Crysis 2 engine.

The voice sounds more or less the same but more modern with the engine, I'm playing Duke 3d right now as a comparison as we speak (the upgraded one mind you).

My computer ran everything just fine, but I have a souped up computer, it didn't have any issues. The game should run fine on a 4 year old computer. So it is your computer if it runs bad.

My biggest issues were: the 2 weapon limit, the health regen (it was ok). I didn't like the lack of room to fight and the linearity. The game looks good, sounds good, the controls work fine. It isn't unplayable, broken, or full of glitches, like Big Rigs or Hour of Victory. That would be a pile of shit game.

Duke Forever was not perfect, but not unplayable and broken. Play the whole game when it discounts. Whoever is saying otherwise is being over the top.

I'll probably end up trying out the PC version later on once i get a better rig

and that vid Nemesis put up.....wow that guy fails, he can't play the pinball

Duke Nukem never had puzzles?!?.....i'm sure 3D did with the ones involving buttons.

People don't know what they're talking about. And it shows. I'm playing Duke3d right now. There are puzzles, switch puzzles, you have cranes that pick you up. You have jump puzzles too. Not to mention the keycards. You'd get stuck on Duke3d far more often than you would on forever. There were levels were you'd have to come back to it later because you didn't know the route.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
If Duke was released 12 years ago it would have faired better in reviews. The things would have been fresher and the hype wouldn't have been so high. Even if it were the best game ever, people still would have complained. I think the delay made people anticipate something they weren't even sure they wanted.

Out of the complaints I see nobody has actually played the end product (except for killermovier), so nobody really has a fully formed opinion to base anything on.

When I destroyed everything (on the PC version) I saw dust and particles left over. The scripted events were also done well. The only graphical issue I ran into was the graphical "pop up" that happened occasionally, but that happens in many games. It is made on the Crysis 2 engine.

The voice sounds more or less the same but more modern with the engine, I'm playing Duke 3d right now as a comparison as we speak (the upgraded one mind you).

My computer ran everything just fine, but I have a souped up computer, it didn't have any issues. The game should run fine on a 4 year old computer. So it is your computer if it runs bad.

My biggest issues were: the 2 weapon limit, the health regen (it was ok). I didn't like the lack of room to fight and the linearity. The game looks good, sounds good, the controls work fine. It isn't unplayable, broken, or full of glitches, like Big Rigs or Hour of Victory. That would be a pile of shit game.

Duke Forever was not perfect, but not unplayable and broken. Play the whole game when it discounts. Whoever is saying otherwise is being over the top.

I didn't say it was unplayable. I said it was shit. Because it is a pile of shit

CryEngine 2 was not used for Duke Nukem Forever but a modified Unreal 2.5 Engine. But that's not what the problem is with the graphics, it's the shitty textures, animations and character models. Look at new games today and if you say that DNF is even remotely comparable, your completely wrong.

It's also funny to prove your point, you compare DNF to Duke Nukem 3D, a game that was released over 15 years ago. On that course, yes, DNF is better but compared to Crysis 2, a game that was released this year, it's not even close to be as a good. Why?

Because the game looks like it was made in 2000, which it was. The game is a piece of shit, and a pure money grab, going after fans of the franchise who would buying anything with the name Duke on it. If you think this game is an 8/10, then great, but the game is garbage because it's such an old game. It should of never been released.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I didn't say it was unplayable. I said it was shit. Because it is a pile of shit

CryEngine 2 was not used for Duke Nukem Forever but a modified Unreal 2.5 Engine. But that's not what the problem is with the graphics, it's the shitty textures, animations and character models. Look at new games today and if you say that DNF is even remotely comparable, your completely wrong.

It's also funny to prove your point, you compare DNF to Duke Nukem 3D, a game that was released over 15 years ago. On that course, yes, DNF is better but compared to Crysis 2, a game that was released this year, it's not even close to be as a good. Why?

Because the game looks like it was made in 2000, which it was. The game is a piece of shit, and a pure money grab, going after fans of the franchise who would buying anything with the name Duke on it. If you think this game is an 8/10, then great, but the game is garbage because it's such an old game. It should of never been released.

Newer games today? Halo and Cod? The same generic shooter that comes out time and time again, at least Killzone was somewhat different, but most shooters and games suck today, released to the lowest common denominator.

And actually I probably prefer 3d. I was using 3d in comparison to the puzzle aspect which people had mentioned. 3D was probbaly the best in the series. Crysis2 was ok, but overrated, another graphics game. Not a bad game mind you. But nothing that hasn't been done.

Well the game was redone multiple times so it did affect the overall look of the game, but the game looking terrible is just rubbish. It looks fine and ran fine on my comp. Is it the best looking game ever? Nope, but gameplay before graphics, and nowadays more people care about graphics than gameplay. If it played badly on your comp I would say it is your comp more than the game.

I also disagree about the cashin. The game was better off being released than not so they could move on. No sense in having all that time and money lost and not releasing it. Now will hard core fans buy it? Of course, but people who never played the game will complain about it. I'm looking at the game in itself. The graphics are solid, the sound is solid, and the gameplay is solid. There are some aspects I didn't care for but I enjoyed it. The linearity, 2 weapon limit, and the health thing were some problems, there were popups in graphics as well. The driving levels could use some improvements but weren't "bad".

I think it is about a 7/10 for most, if you understand Duke, then you will get more enjoyment out of it than less. I knew what the game was going to be coming in, and as I played I thought (it isn't as bad as people said). Many are complaining and jumped on the bandwagon and haven't even played through the game. You won't change your mind and that's fine, but acting like the game is a 3 or 4 when other mediocre games get a 7 or 8 is absurd. People had the game hyped up due to the release time and didn't like it.

I believe if it were some no name game it would have fared better because there wouldn't be complaints about the delays and the expectations wouldn't be as high.

I also missed using the jetpack, only way you could use it is by playing the multiplayer.

Yea that too.

I can't wait until it is modded. I modded the hell out of Duke 3d, made it much more interesting.

I know people are going to dislike the game, but this is the most bashing I've ever seen a game have, even though it was a financial success from what I see. The only reason is because it took so long to come out and with Duke 3d being the predecessor the expectations were high and you had an unpleasable fanbase.

I look foward to the next game, i suppose Gearbox is gonna have to step up their game to win back some Duke fans that were disapointed in this one.

Well in the world where almost every game gets a 7 by default, a 7 is "average", (I actually think a 5 is average but we all know that's bad in game review terms). I'd say the game is above it somewhat. The game picks up after the Hive or so, and it has a slow start. If someone plays it, and looks at it as their own game they will get more out of it.

I agree with you there for the score rating, 7 is actually ok.... but yeah of course with the how they rate games these days its average, shame thats how things roll these days.

That's the way it is. Game rating is full of politics, and other companies pay for those scores to help sales. Games like Black Ops get a 9 and Duke gets a 2 or 3? Please.

Game revies can be interesting to read, but I like to try games myself. All the fanboyism and whatnot going around, and these console wars. I had a friend who is a Nintendo fanboy say that the PS1 only had 2 good games on it. He never had a Playstation or could he afford them so he hated on it. Now that opinion is an opinion but it is rubbish.

Like I said, try out Duke before you buy. Don't take my word for it. But it isn't a "horrible" unplayable game. It has no major technical flaws at all, which would make it dip below average.

Black Ops is a much better game than Duke Nukem Forever.