Uh..Duke Nukem Forever?

Originally posted by Smasandian
I hate that. Everybody assumes that people criticize DNF because "it can't live to the standards based on development time". That's why people are not criticizing it. They're criticizing because the game is not good. Not because of expectations because what they played, isn't good. From what I've played, read and seen in videos, the game does not look good, plays like crap and generally is poor.

What makes the game not generic?

I never said the game had low sales. I don't know because they haven't released sales figures yet, or shipped units. You said the game sales are good, and it sold out (where? no evidence). And then you said the game is quite popular. Well, yes, the game is popular but popularity doesn't mean a mod scene will develop, or it has good sales. It just means people have looked up the game. From I've seen and read, the popularity on the game is based on how crappy it is and that the game has been released. The only evidence I have seen has been Steam stats, where the game is roughly i25-30 most played game today. That's average for a game that has just been released. It doesn't mean much but I don't think the game is burning up sales chart but maybe I'm wrong.

Also, modding isn't really as big as it used to be back in the day, you might see a couple of mods but I highly doubt it.

EDIT: Just a quick look and sales overseas (Europe) Duke Nukem Forever was number 1 on the charts but after 3 weeks has seen a 60% decline in sales.

People have constantly said, "The development time was long, this should be better." "It didn't live up to the hype".

How could it, with Duke3d preceding it, and the long wait, how could it have done so. If the game was released back in 01 or 02, it would have been much better received due to the time period and the "things" in the game working. But it doesn't fail as a game on a fundamental level.

Games always decrease in sales after the initial bump, but it has sold well. I haven't heard of people not buying it. I just care about the mod scene myself.

I think it does fail on a fundamental level because the game was released in 2011. If it was released in 2001-2002, it would be better but that's a negative thing, not a positive thing. People compare games that are released today with games that have been released today.If it doesn't leave up to what current games are doing these days than the game is bad.

That 60% drop off is worrisome because it looks like Duke fans bought the game but after a few weeks, regular gamers didn't bite.

It reminds me of comic book movies where the fans come out the first weekend, it sells out but the third weekend, nobody shows up. This seems like the same thing that DNF is having.

When I say fundamental, I mean the game fails on a basic level that makes a game. Games that were great in the past (I.e Mario) still hold up today, good controls, no major glitches or bugs, no choppy framerate, sound is enjoyable, etc.

Donkey Kong Country is the same thing. It's old, but it is great in all aspects, no bad glitches, control, graphics/framerate, sound. No freezing and ai glitches.

A game that fails on a fundamental level would be Big Rigs. Horrible in everyway, bad glitches, falling through walls, no music, no ai. just an unfinished game that you can't beat. Duke is scoring on some reviews the same level as big rigs and it is *NOT* anywhere near that. Far worse games have been released with better scores.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm sure they said it was a financial success thus far.

Also the game was supposed to be released then, but well....

I see.

So basically, Duke Nukem Forever works. Even though the game is still bad.

But not on 360.

I don't play on 360.

I'd say it is average at worst, perhaps mediocre.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
If the game was released back in 01 or 02

What do you mean with that? If this game had been released in 01 people would have wondered who'd brought them this futuristic tech.

Yea, exactly.

Maybe 05 or 06 would have been "current".

PC Gamer was kinder. They were taking the side of most of the Duke apologists, that of "Well yeah, it's dated in more than a couple areas. But it's fun." I can see both sides. The (apparently) formulaic boss battles are also a throwback, but something that should be updated regardless of the source material. I could see that being a significant detractor.

Well lots of people wanted to go back to some of the formulas shooters had around 2000 and earlier. I haven't played Duke yet but apparently you can only have 2 guns and your health regenerates? That's like two of the things people who want Duke3D like games hate most about current shooters.

Like I said, haven't played it, but from what I heard it is below average by current shooter standards, but failed to capture what people enjoy about past shooters.

I have great hope that Serious Sam 3 is going to deliver a lot of what people wanted later this year.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I see.

So basically, Duke Nukem Forever works. Even though the game is still bad.

But not on 360.

Well more so on 360 for bad but like i said a few pages back i'm putting up with it.

Originally posted by Digi
PC Gamer was kinder. They were taking the side of most of the Duke apologists, that of "Well yeah, it's dated in more than a couple areas. But it's fun." I can see both sides. The (apparently) formulaic boss battles are also a throwback, but something that should be updated regardless of the source material. I could see that being a significant detractor.

The problem I have is that you can have an old school shooter that is relevant in 2011 as Digi.

Look at Bulletstorm, it's an old school shooter but it doesn't seem like it was made in 2000.

Look at Super Meat Boy, an old school platforming but it doesn't feel like it. It has new technology like showing you all the failed attempts. It has new game play conventions like extremely short levels and spot on controls but added with a sprint button that never existed in 90's.

That's another thing I didn't care about was the sprint button. I don't care for short levels and games, but then again I'm an oldschool gamer that likes harder stuff, but I see what you're trying to say.

I find some relevance in this "review".

Th2z0xT-X5s&feature=player_embedded

Originally posted by Smasandian

Look at Bulletstorm, it's an old school shooter but it doesn't seem like it was made in 2000..

same with the Serious Sam games hell even has the 10 gun limit like alot of those older games from the past.

I don't understand the console excuse. Other console games had no weapon limit, including Duke 3d.

Most likey some bullshit excuse to get fans of the Halo games to play other games.

Possibly, otherwise it makes no sense.

First issue of the comic has gotten a good review

http://www.kittyspryde.com/?p=23239

Huh really? I enjoyed it, but with the Duke Bashing it came as a bit of a surprise. Maybe we'll see other Duke media.

Oh they mean one coming up, I read the one I got with the game. He's right about Duke being seemingly easy to write but so many people would mess him up.

"And with a character like Duke, you have to nail it just right or else there’s no point in doing it."

that quote there from the review same thing can be said about Marvel's Deadpool.