Gearbox: Duke Nukem Forever wasn't reviewed fairly

By Johnny Minkley Published 3 November, 2011

Co-founder not sure where "some of the anger came from".

Gearbox co-founder Brian Martel has claimed Duke Nukem Forever was not reviewed fairly by some publications, arguing it was used "as a soapbox" while claiming: "Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all."

Speaking to Eurogamer in a previously unpublished interview conducted at Gamescom in August, Martel reflected on the controversial shooter's critical reception, stating: "We wish the reviews were a little less caustic. We're not quite sure where some of the anger came from."

Discussing the spread of scores across all reviews, he said: "There were things towards the high and things towards the low, but the middle just didn't get any traction. It's pretty obvious that people were using it in some ways to kind of use it as a soapbox or whatever."

Asked if that meant he didn't think, broadly speaking, that the game was reviewed fairly, he replied: "I think that if we were going to review the reviews fairly, no." He suggested that part of the problem was that "a certain amount of gamers today are not used to" a game in the style of Duke Nuke Forever. "It was what it was meant to be, which is a more old-school style game in what is today's technology".

To emphasise the point, Martel compared the game to classic Valve FPS Half-Life. "We've had this internal debate," he revealed. "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had.

"I think we all have a nostalgia and love for that particular brand. Obviously Gearbox got its start working on Opposing Force so we love Half-Life. But is the current gamer, would they have the same love for that? It'd be interesting. I think the same kind of thing happened with Duke."

In the run up to the game's release, after well over a decade in the development wilderness, Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford told Eurogamer: "We know the game's great. Any journalist that decides to try to go... to lowball it is gonna be held accountable by the readers." He went on to claim: "The last time I had a really solid experience like this was Half-Life 2."

The game subsequently scored a 3 in its Eurogamer review, described as a "gruesomely mangled resurrection".

Asked if the studio could have better managed expectations, Martel said: "I think there was no way that anybody could manage expectations. Name another game that's in a similar situation. This is a game that was around for 15 years and it went through a number of engine cycles. It could never be everything for everybody, right?

"It is a caustic game in some ways, so maybe in some of that respect it could've been softened," he added. "But it's [3D Realms'] vision and people should understand that in a world where we embrace the creator's vision for something, we let that go. We let that be what it was supposed to be. And that is the team's vision.

"Gearbox made sure the world got to see what they made and I think everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all. Because it really would've just gone away.

"Is it a Gearbox game? No. When and if another Duke comes out it's going to be more consistent with what I think people would expect out of a Gearbox product. But this is the vision that 3D Realms had and that's awesome. It's just great that the world gets to see it."

Martel acknowledged that the criticism the game received would be "taken into account" when consider the future direction of the series, and quipped: "I can guarantee it won't take 15 years to see another.

"We love the IP and I think there are a lot of people that really love it. You just have to make sure the character is something that people can love as well."

Picture of Johnny.

About Johnny Minkley

Johnny Minkley is a veteran games writer and broadcaster, former editor of Eurogamer TV, VP of gaming charity SpecialEffect, and hopeless social media addict.

Read more articles from Johnny by visiting the Johnny Minkley archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (133) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • roquey Verified Lead Quality Assurance Tester and Compliance Specialist, Universally Speaking #1 7 months ago

    A poor game gets poor scores. Whats unfair about that?

  • wizlon #2 7 months ago

    I think the problem is that Duke needs to grow up, just a bit. Oh and hold more than 2 guns at a time.

  • the_dudefather #3 7 months ago

    your game, your ass, what's the difference?

  • roquey Verified Lead Quality Assurance Tester and Compliance Specialist, Universally Speaking #4 7 months ago

    @wizlon they supposedly updated it to 4 in a patch, maybe you missed that bit?

  • killuminati2911 #5 7 months ago

    Oh God no again... please..

  • AcidSnake #6 7 months ago

    I haven't played it yet, but come on...Just leave it be...It just wasn't a good game, it's not a conspiracy!

    Oh, and a more old-school style game with a max of 2 guns at any one time? (Later patched to 4 I believe)...
    That don't sound like Duke...

  • ecureuil #7 7 months ago

    I can see why Gearbox were disappointed, but they're acting as if the game should have reviewed well just because it was released at all.

    It's a rubbish game and the reviews reflected that.

  • toythatkills #8 7 months ago

    Protip: make better game; get better reviews.

  • Yeoung #9 7 months ago

    A fair review is a misnomer, as "review" indicates an opinion based recollection of the experiences with the product whereas "fair" indicates a universally set list of criteria, which isn't conducive to reviewing an entertainment/art product.

    Add to the fact the ridiculously long development cycle which breeds a certain level of expectation, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster. It's fun to see how the DE:HR devs take respinsibility for a slip-up/inconsistancy in the game, where a Gearbox rep places the blame externally, divided up between reviewers and the consumers themselves.

    Contrast is fun.

  • MrFlump #10 7 months ago

    The criticism hurled at the console versions was deserved. They were horribly poor. The PC version on the other hand, was definitely more deserving of a higher score.

    I'd like to see scores for each platform a game comes out on really. Sure its more work, but there's often a massive difference between the consoles and PC version as well.

  • johnson81 #11 7 months ago

    It wasn't the worst game I've played, I actually enjoyed parts but the technical aspects of the game let it down. 45 seconds to load after a death is a fucking piss take. Textures popping up like in Halo 2 nearly 7 years ago. It was a shoddy game but I'll get it again once it drops below £5.

  • StolenGlory #12 7 months ago

    This guy cannot be fucking serious.

  • King_Edward #13 7 months ago

    Shut up and make me a good Duke!

  • marmaduke #14 7 months ago

    "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had."

    The man's confused. No, it probably wouldn't get brilliant reviews today, because so many of the things that Half Life added to the genre have become standard. But if they hadn't have released it, they wouldn't be standard, so it would probably still get really high scores.

    ...and also, if they'd never released Half Life, DNF wouldn't have been delayed so that 3D Realms could copy what Valve were doing.

    DNF turned out to be a sorry, uninspired, crass mess of a game. They should stop bitching about it and accept it.

  • TeaFiend #15 7 months ago

    It was a game that showed it's age. Yes, if we look back at Half-Life we would likely mock the poor AI, some of the weapons, level design and voice acting. The same would go for reviews of films made when cinema was beginning, when some of them were thought to be good and now they are viewed as poor. Time progresses, views change, expectations rise.

  • -cerberus- #16 7 months ago

    Hey Gearbox, look at this. Now put a sock in it.

  • arcam #17 7 months ago

    It wasn't a good game, and it didn't deserve good scores, but it's true that many reviewers and commenters did seem to have it in for the game before its release, like its very existence offended them somehow. Then the 'Capture the Babe' thing happened, and I think some reviewers decided then and there that this was going to be a failure.

    Especially on the console side, some people did seem to write this game off and even now seem spiteful when commenting on it. Perhaps Pitchford pissed them off with his pre-release comments or something.

  • kirinnokoshin #18 7 months ago

    Of course it wasn't reviewed fairly, It should have scored lower

  • Paul_cz #19 7 months ago

    I enjoyed the PC version, but the second half of the game was incredibly uninspired. It should have been much better. But I do want more Duke games. I especially want that DN3D Reloaded remake, dammit.

  • Freek #20 7 months ago

    Gearbox is far too good a developer to even think DNF was anything but avarage, or think that "alien rape caves" would be considered funny.
    It was just poorly made. Being "somebodies vission" doesn't change that.

    That kind of hunor does still work, just look at Shadows of the Damned, full of juviniely humor. But the difference is: that was well written and funny. DNF wasn't.

  • BigNaturals #21 7 months ago

    What will come next? Maybe the customers were not fair with their opinion on DNF? A good product stands on its own and does not depend on reviews, whether they are fair or not. By the way, what´s fair in this world? Life goes on…even for the Duke…

  • roz123 #22 7 months ago

    If the original Half Life came out on a handheld today it would get 10 out of 10s. Amazing game, the AI is still better then DNFs

  • Lord_BeeJee #23 7 months ago

    Just look at the other crap that scored 3 and more on eurogamer and compare them to duke. Its no 10 but if you take the line of reviews it should be 6/7. (real lowlife/broken games like Remember the Titans)

    I used to almost blindly rely on EG but is no longer consistent in its reviews, every reviewer uses an other scale making the score useless and unrelated to the actual reviews.

  • toy_brain #24 7 months ago

    I think the statute of limitations has now run out on DNF, and Gearbox should no longer feel as though they have to defend it.

    Y'see the thing is, I really like Randy Pitchford, and the rest of the Gearbox guys, but its bloody painful to watch then continually defending this mess. I just want them all to be able to relax, tell the truth about the game and the process of finishing it up, and have some really open and interesting interviews, free of defensive PR bullshit, about what went right, what went wrong, and how things are shaping up for the 100% Gearbox-developed Duke game.

    Seriously, stop defending it. You made Boderlands, you already have our trust.

  • wizlon #25 7 months ago

    @roquey But only for the PC version. I think I'm right in saying that anyway.

  • Skirlasvoud #26 7 months ago

    "Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all."

    There's this clear liquid leaking from my monitor when I read that sentence. It tastes like... hubris. Yes folks, liquid hubris is spilling forth from that sentence.

  • Feanor #27 7 months ago

    These guys are so clueless it's painful.

  • Toothball #28 7 months ago

    This interview was in August, but saved for now? Presumably the whole Naughty Dog business made it relevant again.

    I do agree with Martel's point on the game existing at all. It was necessary to bring an end to what had become gaming's longest running joke and I'm glad someone did it.

  • Donaldthescotishtwin #29 7 months ago

    Shitty developing shitty game simple.

  • photoboy #30 7 months ago

    I fully agree with Martel. Most reviewers seemed genuinely vindictive and spiteful and I can't understand why. I thought DNF was average and a bit short, but I had a pretty good time playing it. I saw nothing that deserved the vitriol reviewers poured on it. I sometimes wonder if it all wasn't just a petulant reaction to Pitchford's line about readers holding reviewers accountable for their review. I know I was put off reading Eurogamer for quite a few months.

    I certainly understand that people can have different opinions on a game, but it seemed to me that a line of reasonableness was crossed by reviewers. Forget Gears 3 and Uncharted 3 getting 8/10, this is a far bigger injustice as far as I'm concerned.

    Worst of all, I strongly suspect the majority of people on the internet calling the game crap have never actually played it.

    Personally I liked the platforming, I liked the variety of gameplay, I liked the humour, I liked the interactivity of using microwaves, weight lifting gear, etc. I thought it mainly suffered from not having any really original weapons, mostly recycling old ones, and the combat and enemy variety was pretty narrow. Also the game felt like it was brought to a premature end, it mostly followed the structure of DN3D so I was expecting to end up in space like the previous game.

    Oh well. I just have to hope the journos haven't sunk any chances of a sequel...

    Edit: Just to add, I've only played the PC version.
    Edited by photoboy at 03/11/11 @ 16:21

  • hybridial #31 7 months ago

    @Freek

    On your comment about Shadows of the Damned, are you kidding? That game wasn't funny, at all, and I say that as someone who liked Suda51 back when he made interesting games (last one was Killer7). DNF's Donkey Kong joke at the end of the game was funnier than the entirety of Shadows of the Damned, and really was what DNF's humour as a whole should have been like.

    I only played the PC version of DNF so I've no idea how shoddy the console ports were, but as an FPS it was an average game. 3/10 for it just wasn't fair. It's a 6/10 game with a point up or down based on how you like old school FPSes. For me it was a solid 7/10 thanks to the nostalgia factor and the fact I prefer my FPSes simple and ridiculous. I think it's fair to say a lot of reviewers had it in for the game before it's release.

  • Darren #32 7 months ago

    Duke Nukem Forever on the PC is the best 3/10 game I've played to date! :)

    Seriously though, while it might have had its fair share of flaws, not least that it was dated five years before it was even released, I nevertheless still enjoyed it, especially after the patch that allowed for more than two weapons (it was stupid to restrict it in the first place IMO). Wasn't anywhere near as good as Duke Nukem 3D "back in the day" but it was entertaining enough, considering how troubled the production was.

    I, for one, am glad that I got a chance to play the game that everyone thought at one time would never get released.
    Edited by Darren at 03/11/11 @ 16:20

  • seneku #33 7 months ago

    I agree it was treated unfairly, if it had been then it would never have had any reviews above a 4/10...

    Utterly terrible game!

  • Shikasama #34 7 months ago

    a) Why wasn't the interview published before?

    b) Why is it being published now?

  • ColdFuzion #35 7 months ago

    I read the review, and I still played it. BUT it was rubbish, especially seeing as it took so long to develop.

  • Vortextk #36 7 months ago

    Come on dude, the technical problems alone on the consoles are worthy of a 6 or 7 in an otherwise great game, let alone an awful old dated one.
    Edited by Vortextk at 03/11/11 @ 17:00

  • username84 #37 7 months ago

    @TeaFiend I don't think many people would mock half-life. I think the level design and voice acting in that game is still some of the best around. As the the beginning of cinema. Films from that era are regarded as a technological marvel and a massive achievement of human technology and engineering. They also contain their own charm and qualities, that films today have no chance of reproducing. Duke Nukem was a turd sandwich of a game.
    Edited by username84 at 03/11/11 @ 16:37

  • Raiko101 #38 7 months ago

    I played it for myself and I thought it was rubbish. Get over it and try to do something better with the licence next time.

  • Branoic #39 7 months ago

    Wait, did he just compare DNF to Half Life? ***Head Explodes***

    Wow. Really? Number 1 = I bet a lot more new players today would enjoy playing the original half life a lot more than DNF. Number 2 = he shouldn't be comparing it to the original half life anyway, he should be using HL3 or something.

  • memeroot #40 7 months ago

    I loved it

  • PenguinJim #41 7 months ago

    The 360 demo was shockingly bad both in terms of quantifiable technical merit (loading times, graphics, "interactivity" ) and my personal opinion (the level design was horrendous, the game wasn't funny or, most importantly, fun).

    I hear the PC version is better, so as soon as it's £3 on Steam I'll be all over it. :)
    Edited by PenguinJim at 03/11/11 @ 17:14

  • bengaming #42 7 months ago

    If you ask me, it's not that Duke Nukem forever didn't deserve to get utterly slammed, it's that so many other games get vastly inflated scores.

  • smelly #43 7 months ago

    I liked it. Some of the levels were brilliantly designed (for example the one where you're shrunk in a burger bar).

    The game also lasted me a hell of a lot longer and provided me with a hell of a lot more challenge than supposedly "good" fps games like halo and cod4 (neither of which i found particularly good in single player).

    It wasnt great, and wasnt as good as duke of old. But it WAS enjoyable, and was certainly worth more than a 3. Especially when dog shite like sonic generations gets a 7.

  • smelly #44 7 months ago

    But I'll let you guys go back to slagging off the game saying its shit when you've not even played it...

  • Shinetop #45 7 months ago

    We're not quite sure where some of the anger came from."

    The anger came from the game being terrible and the humor awful.

    I think everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all. Because it really would've just gone away.

    Why would that be a bad thing?

    Finally, I don't get the "What if Half-Life came out now" argument. What is he trying to prove? If Gearbox makes a Pong clone, are we supposed to hail it as something great because "Hey, Pong got great reviews in the 80's!"?

  • DrStrangelove #46 7 months ago

    What a load of bollocks.

    I myself found it rather mediocre and forgettable than outright rubbish. I think from time to time it was somewhat fun, albeit not much. But at the same time a great part of it was appalling, and there was enough reason for reviewers to be caustic. That's not unfair.

    We're not quite sure where some of the anger came from.

    It's totally obvious, many people waited more than a decade and what they eventually got was a half-baked game that doesn't even come close to its stone-age predecessor. Yes, maybe expectations were too high as well, but the marketing hype did all it could to boost the desire of Duke Nukem fans, so it's only fair that it backfired so badly.

    As a player I can say, I was not only hugely disappointed as a fan of DN3D, but also felt ripped off because it certainly wasn't worth more than 10 quid.

    Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today?

    Well, why not give HL1 another go? You'll notice it's still a very good game, certainly a lot better than DNF.

    Is it a Gearbox game? No.

    I certainly hope so, because I'm really looking forward to Borderlands 2.

  • funkateer #47 7 months ago

    I think part of this mess could have been prevented if this wasn't a full-price game.
    You just can't expect people to thank the developer for releasing an old troubled game after having paid full price for it.

  • DrStrangelove #48 7 months ago

    @TeaFiend

    Yes, if we look back at Half-Life we would likely mock the poor AI, some of the weapons, level design and voice acting.

    By today's standards, I think HL1's AI isn't bad at all, the weapons are nice, and the level design is quite ingenious.

    True, voice acting seems pretty poor today (as do the graphics), but to be honest I'm not particularly interested in talking people in a shooter.

  • funkateer #49 7 months ago

    "True, voice acting seems pretty poor today"

    I thought the voice acting in HL1 was actually pretty good. IIRC there wasn't much voice acting, but most of it were those scientists, and they mostly served as comic relief as caricatures. Which I thought was pretty effective.

    I think if HL1 would be sold again as a downloadable HD version for 15 euro, it would receive great scores as it's still a great game. IMHO only the graphics are outdated.

    Gearbox otoh decided to release an outdated game for full price, which is just asking for a metacritic disaster.

  • Daeltaja #50 7 months ago

    I'm very sorry, but when you release a game at full retail price, expect it to be judged against other similar games on the market.

    No sympathy from me. Should have been €29.99, max. Just deserts.

  • makeamazing #51 7 months ago

    Why should WE be thankfull that it was released at all... I personally didn't ask for the game, i did give it a chance, but it was awful... you should be thankful that i tried it.

  • digitalash #52 7 months ago

    You know what, Martel? Half-Life and Half-Life 2 introduced dozens of fundamental leaps forward for the FPS genre. Don't even dare compare this drivel to those classics. Would they be reviewed as highly today? No, but only because those games already exist. On the other hand, DNF is a botched, technically incompetent product with no consistent gameplay vision that sits on the wrong side of provocative.

    Om the other hand, Borderlands was the first game to successfully merge two genres, so maybe you should stick to making your own stuff rather than polishing other people's turds.

  • 5h1nj1 #53 7 months ago

    Sure, blame the reviewers, you'll get a lot more fans that way. :D

  • Rack #54 7 months ago

    I'm not angry Gearbox, just disappointed... Though to be perfectly honest not even that, I was expecting a mess and that's what happened. It wasn't old-school because it was mixed up in a whole lot of new school design just exceptionally ill-fitting design. It was said before that it should have been presented as a history piece, throw in a load of commentary and ideally sell at a budget price. On those terms we should be glad it exists, but hyping it up as the second coming of Half Life when they knew it was patchy at best was dishonest and it's tarnished my view of Gearbox.

  • berelain #55 7 months ago

    Some places - EG included - did review the game harshly. It wasn't, actually, a bad game. It was just an average one, with plenty of fun parts let down by some silly design decisions (like two weapons).

  • Laythe_AD #56 7 months ago

    Did he just compare Duke4 with Half Life?

  • WinterSnowblind #57 7 months ago

    @bengaming I couldn't agree more. Just wait until Skyrim comes out, and we see complaints about glitches or poor AI or whatever, but the game will still get ridiculously high scores.

    I'm sure it's going to be a great game, but reviews should be less afraid of giving big games slightly lower scores and gamers need to learn that 7 or 8/10 doesn't mean the game is bad.

  • Mark1412 #58 7 months ago

    "Martel compared the game to classic Valve FPS Half-Life. "

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I could go on.

  • dennett316 #59 7 months ago

    I played the PC version, and if that's supposed to be the best version, I'd kill myself if forced to play the console versions.
    The game is lousy, plain and simple, and this guys argument falls apart as soon as he tries to bring Half Life into it. Would that get as high a score today as back in 1998...of course not, gaming has moved on. But, it was released in 1998, not in 2011 at full retail price....to expect any reviewer to mark the game higher because it had a troubled development is nothing short of idiocy. Alan Wake had a troubled history too, and it's flaws were rightly pointed out in reviews earning it 6's and 7's, but it had solid mechanics, great atmosphere and intelligent AI - everything that DNF lacks.

    The AI in this game is terrible, the animation and art design are absolute crap, the controls are not clunky but definitely not smooth either, the textures are poor, the "humour" is second rate and juvenile (hell, I like juvenile humour, but it has to actually be well written or even slightly witty), the weapons are flaccid (other than the shotgun) and no fun to use, the mini-games are terribly coded (the pool mini-game from San Andreas was better coded than the shite in DNF), the level design was bland, and worst of all it was simply a chore to endure.

    I'm sorry, but that list of problems can't be simply waved away by a heap of nostalgia and whining about us being lucky it's here at all. Perhaps you shouldn't have gouged your customers by releasing such a pile of dreck at full price simply to appease the bean counters and actually done some work to improve the damn thing rather than just cobble it together and fart it into stores.

    Frankly, even today I'd mark Half Life above this garbage, especially in the gameplay and design stakes. This game deserved the venom because it was an insult to gamers every where. Want a game that has that old-school shooter feel? Get Serious Sam of XBL or Steam, or grab Painkiller. They're cheaper and better.

  • panathatube #60 7 months ago

    "Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all" what kind of mentality is this? We should be thanking them for releasing a mediocre game? And how true to 3D Realms vision were they when Dukw couldn't hold more than... 2 guns at a time?!!

  • makeamazing #61 7 months ago

    Half life 1 and 2 still hold up today, with such great story telling.. even with Half Life 1's graphics, it still works better narratively than a lot of games released today. Duke Nukem was never going to be something that was going to move anything forward really, its crude/rude and just meant as fun - but was let down by poor design in many areas (mostly because of how long it was in development)..

    So would i play DN today, no, would i play HL1 or 2... yes i probably would.

  • Zaiz #62 7 months ago

    Half-Life is still an excellent game. I saw someone play it for the first time recently, and even for all the difficulty and insta-kill fans, they -loved it-. FPS development has moved on, but at least Valve can use the same formula in HL2 and still create an ultra-fantastic game. DNF was a failure.

  • paketep #63 7 months ago

    He's right, it was not reviewed fairly. It doesn't deserve half the 54 it has at metacritic. If it had been called Generic Futuristic Shooter 3 instead of DNF, it would have gotten exactly that.

    And he dares compare DNF to Half-Life?. Half-Life would review good today, because even today, HL is a much better game than DNF is. Oh, and we don't have to review HL today because, you know, we already reviewed it when it was released, you know, THIRTEEN FUCKING YEARS AGO.

    I really like Gearbox, but I wish someone told Martel and Pitchford to shut up. Every time they open their mouths, a powerful desire of not buying any of their games overcomes me.

    We should be thankful?. Hah. HE should be thankful that the press even reviewed it.
    Edited by paketep at 03/11/11 @ 20:44

  • Spiders #64 7 months ago

    He compared Duke Nukem Forever to Half-Life? What the hell?! That's hardly a fair comparison.

    Let me put it like this Martel; The Orange Box, which is now about 4 years old but was on the same hardware range, was superior in every single way to your offering. You didn't deliver anything comparable to that. Compare your game to Turok or Clive Barkers Jerico or something equally forgettable.

    DNF probably did get slightly negative reviews. But what do you expect after such an enormous development cycle and non-stop hype? Nobody actually claimed Jerico or Turok were going to be anything special. Stop sulking, accept your game was basically bargain bin fodder, and try harder next time.

  • silversun #65 7 months ago

    No one on here really going agree with me on this which is fine, but for me it one of best games i have played this year.

  • Bosthian #66 7 months ago

    Duke Nukem it's not so bad afterall. Fair score should be around 6.5/10.

    But I can understand Gearbox, especially if games like Dirt 3 gets high scores, but we all know it's very boring game with poor gameplay. It's so obvious that Eurogamer prefer some producers. Probably Eurogamer got same prerelease copies for review, with some imporant condition. Game must get high score, no matter what.

  • escalinci #67 7 months ago

    The idea that it was an old-school game is from where? Not the mechanics, they were variously cribbed from newer titles.

  • Sunjammer #68 7 months ago

    It was a ridiculous, deeply flawed game, but I don't regret buying it for a second. It's stronger in memory than most FPSes, and makes Call of Duty feel as bland as a mcdonalds cheeseburger. It was not a 3/10.

  • dirtysteve #69 7 months ago

    Patching in more guns? There's a blatant sign that the design was botched.
    Also Duke wasn't an 'old-style' game, it was just old, owing to it's horrendous development time.
    I think the aim of this contrary-sounding release, is to lay groundwork for more Duke. If they stick to their mention of an all Gearbox desing, that would be more welcome.

  • blicko #70 7 months ago

    The game was obviously rushed out.

  • Lemming81 #71 7 months ago

    "Gearbox co-founder Brian Martel has claimed Duke Nukem Forever was not reviewed fairly by some publications, arguing it was used "as a soapbox" while claiming: "Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all.""

    swap Duke Nukem Forever with Indiana Jones 4, or the Star Wars prequels, Brian. Same argument could be made, and it would still be horse shit.

    "I think we all have a nostalgia and love for that particular brand. Obviously Gearbox got its start working on Opposing Force so we love Half-Life. But is the current gamer, would they have the same love for that? It'd be interesting. I think the same kind of thing happened with Duke."

    Not even remotely. You made Opposing Force based on the current gen of shooters - not based on some nostalgic hard-on for the good old days before it. Apparently you made DNF in some kind of nostalgic vacuum.

    And btw, HL2 is still a great shooter by today's standards and it does things 'old school', whatever you think that means.
    Edited by Lemming81 at 03/11/11 @ 23:11

  • Fozzie_bear #72 7 months ago

    "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had."

    No, of course it wouldn't. The crucial difference is that Half Life was released 13 years ago. Valve isn't asking people to pay 40 quid for it in 2011. Maybe if DNF had been released in the last century too, it would have got better scores.

    He might as well say that the reviews were unfair because his game is better than Manic Miner and that got great reviews when it was first released.

  • ShiroBen #73 7 months ago

    Yes, we should be thankful for this dull disappointing rubbish game. There is more entertainment, originality and quality design to be found in the first level of Duke Nukem 3D than in the entirety of DNF.

  • MisterCraig #74 7 months ago

    EG, what is going on? Every 5th article concerns a salty developer claiming they got it tight from the critics.

    Why are you championing this cynical attitude towards games and the gaming industry?

    I didn't march down my school hallways protesting when I got a C- in my physics Higher Exam. I worked my arse off and got an A the following year.

    Regarding the article, then: 'It could never be everything for everybody, right?'-Brian Martel

    Duke isn't anything for anybody in 2011. They banked on nostalgia, but the character could never be revived when the gameplay fundamentals were so outdated and already borrowed from a saturated genre that he never had a platform to stand on.

  • styles_dg #75 7 months ago

    I agree there was a lot of bile behind many reviews...too much in a lot of cases. The game was a disappointment, that much is inescapable, but there were definitely enjoyable parts to it.

    Some reviews were just rants that didn't even try to be objective. You could tell the reviewers had decided they hated it even before reviewing.

  • Lord_Gremlin #76 7 months ago

    Why, liked the game overall. However...
    Regeneration and 2 weapon limit? WTF?

  • SEVQA #77 7 months ago

    "I think that if we were going to review the reviews fairly, no."

    How the fuck do you review a review!

  • blicko #78 7 months ago

    @myms1ps3 "Eh, you know it was in developement for 14 years don't you."

    Yeah. I was a young punter selling games in retail when the original came out.

    Sidenote: the original had to have the nudity taken out to be sold here in Australia (*rolleyes*). So the day we took delivery of the game, the sales rep paid us a visit and gave us the cheat code to enable the nudity.

    At the time, we thought he was just being cool, but in hindsight, the distributor would have been worried about losing sales to Quake (released around the same time).

    "Unless you're taking the piss."

    This ;-)

  • Razorus #79 7 months ago

    Couldn't be bothered to read the entire article but I agree with the majority of people. It simply wasn't a good game. I'm sorry for them and the hit to their reputation they may have gotten, but things change and the Duke needed to get with the times. Even as a homage to those old-skool FPS', it was bland. Games like Goldeneye and Halo changed the game. Keep up.

  • CaptainKid #80 7 months ago

    That guy is an idiot.
    If Half Life (even HL2) was released now it would get very low scores.
    Because everything it's done has been surpassed already. It's called progress.
    What an idiot.

  • sethsez #81 7 months ago

    It had mediocre gunplay, terrible pacing, and a need to focus more on poorly-programmed gimmicks than actual shooting. I'm not really sure how that counts as "old school".

    As a FPS it was one of the worst playing of the year, the graphics were hideous (and I'm not just talking about the engine here, the art design was godawful), and the writing was both bafflingly offensive and totally unfunny. Offensive humor requires impeccable timing and pitch-perfect delivery to work, and this was completely lacking either. It had all the grace and cleverness of a drunk guy telling a racist joke right before hitting on some underage girl and passing out.

    So... what are we left with? What did it actually do well? Its absolute best aspects are passable but hardly praiseworthy, and its worst aspects are MEMORABLY bad, the kinds of things people will still be making fun of next year.

    Maybe reviewers went in wanting to hate it. Fine. It was Gearbox's job to prove them wrong, and they didn't. Speaking as someone who WANTED to like it, who willingly spent full price on the stupid thing: Gearbox, the game earned its reception. Take it like grown ups and do it better next time. The public whining isn't endearing you to anyone.

  • Kami #82 7 months ago

    It's all been said. It's not that people wanted to hate it - but the hype up to it was poorly done, the modes cheesy and clearly designed to stir controversy (badly), the game had graphics and gameplay that went from okay to passable to outrageously ugly, and it had some of the worst driving segments in any game for years.

    It's a shame, but when EVERYONE is smacking DNF around, you have to accept that it isn't "the fans rebelling". The fans wanted this to be duke's return and it wasn't. Most gamers now prefer their controversy to be a little less 90s in flavour.

    We can't defend DNF because it wasn't good enough. And the wisest thing to have done would have been to dump the whole project and start again, rather than finish off what was clearly a half-arsed, confused and poorly-designed game.

    I feel no pity here. Grow a pair of GTFO, as they say. DNF wasn't a good game. That's just how it is. Deal with it and move on.

  • MatthewMk2 #83 7 months ago

    This BS again? Ugh..

  • danger.to.others #84 7 months ago

    There was a weird double standard with DNF. In many reviews, the reviewers really came off with a tone of snobby nose in the air. "Oh, this is so juvenile. This is beneath me. And how dare he look at strippers as sexual objects?"
    I'm not pointing out specific reviewers, I'm sure many who surf the bigger game sites know who and where they had that arrogance about them when it came to this game, for some reason.
    The fact so many places ran with the alien rape scene as being, well, an alien rape scene was ridiculous. Calling that a rape scene was as overboard as racist claims at Resident Evil 5. People are reaching, looking for ways to pick on the title, seeing things in their own jaded eyes that isn't actually there.

    Anyone who can defend Shadows Of The Damned as great and calling Duke juvenile has some sort of vendetta against the Duke character, as two games with the same type of humor to them, one got slammed for it, the other praised.
    Which made no sense, particularly since Shadows was even more stupid than Duke in it's dick jokes. Duke really was picked on and bashed beyond evaluating the quality of the title.

    Sure, the controls were basic and the animations were not from the PS3/360 era, but it was solidly built. I've played far more shoddy shooters.
    It was a pretty good old style shooter with what I still think is a great character. I liked the game.
    Yeah, I want a modern version of Duke, but I was happy with the Duke I got. I had fun and it had some inspired moments (like shrinky dink Duke!).

    I guess my only point to posting was, in case Gearbox was scanning through the comments and seeing so many say it's terrible: Here's one guy out there that bought the special edition and liked the game. Thank you for releasing and not just chucking it. I had fun and will be there buying future titles.

  • Kami #85 7 months ago

    There's nothing wrong with juvenile humour - Shadows of the Damned was a little far-out at times but then, Catherine is too and I adore Catherine so meh. The problem is you have to do it well enough that as uncomfortable as it is to laugh along, you do so anyway.

    DNF... it held back a bit. I think somewhere in the original development of DNF someone had a brief moment of realising they were an adult and most of this was delinquent and probably not funny, so they tried in vain to rein it back in. So it never quite crosses the line - it never really gets to the full effect, and that's certainly a bad thing for a game which ironically sells on the delinquent old-fashioned humour.

    It wasn't a total disaster - but a 5 is all DNF deserved. It could have been worse, but ultimately, it should have been better, and unless Mr. Martel wants to admit that they were contractually obligated to release DNF in such a sorry state, the best thing they could have done was to put the game out of its bloody misery and started again, from scratch, on a brand new game. They CHOSE to release DNF, in that state. They chose to put it out, to defend it before release, during release and now way post-release.

    STOP DEFENDING IT.

    I get it isn't wholly the fault of Gearbox, as a lot of the code was very likely just given to them to tidy up as best they can. It's not all their work. Gearbox has nothing to defend. It was a stupid decision to release it, in that state, yes. But the code they were obviously given - the bulk of the game - was just so badly done anyway that I don't think Gearbox really stood a chance at repairing it. A lot of the fault lies with those working on it originally, and perhaps - if it was contractually insisted - the legal team who need repeated punching in the face for making sure that this game HAD to see the light of day.

    DNF is a game that should have been canned, and Gearbox could have started from scratch on a new Duke Nukem game with a clean slate and a lot of hope. Instead, they released DNF which has tainted their reputation and made them a laughing stock of the industry this year. The whole "The World wanted to see this" excuse is rubbish. The world wants to see Justin Bieber run over by a train, but I can guarantee if that event were ever to happen, the majority of people would grow a conscience within ten seconds. Just because people want it, it doesn't mean they should have it. Sometimes the biggest thing to do is to accept something isn't of the highest standard and say, "You know what? This isn't very good, we'll do something newer and SUPERB with it!".

    It's not wholly their fault, and it's not that DNF was wholly terrible. But some common sense should have been applied when picking up the Duke Nukem licence - and it clearly wasn't applied. Gearbox has to take blame and ridicule for their part though. This whole thing was a farce.

    And yes, many critics ripped DNF a new one. Some with style, others without, but every single one was a great big "I told you so!". People saw this coming months before release. When Gearbox said they were going to release DNF. People to tend to get a bit smug when proven right.

    But Gearbox knew the risks. And if they didn't, then they deserved this wake-up call, and hopefully can put it behind them.

    And make a better game, presumably...

  • drjitz #86 7 months ago

    Yet another bigwig complaining about review scores, this is out of hand. These company men are using videogame sites as a soapbox against reviews. I'm with everyone else, the poor reviews were warranted, it just wasn't a very good game at all. The fact that it barely made it to retail is just a product of how poor the gmame was to begin with, not a fact we should be thankful of at all.

  • theonlyix #87 7 months ago

    Duke was EXACTLY what i expected from it, a fresh breeze in a world where every shooter tries to copy Call Of Duty.
    Reviews wasnt fair, atleast not from a point of what it was supposed to be. I guess if uncharted gets 10/10 everywhere(except from here), there is a conspiracy after all.

    Id give the new Duke a 6 or 7 / 10.

  • unacomn #88 7 months ago

    If I had to work with people like him every day, I'd get a stroke too.

  • apoc_reg #89 7 months ago

    It was a terrible game. Charging full price for it meant the reviews are more than justified. Shoulda be a fiver!

  • apoc_reg #90 7 months ago

    @roquey Are you saying that makes the game great... what's your point?

  • Spekingur #91 7 months ago

    Duke Nukem Forever was a true sequel to Duke Nukem 3D. It was not meant to be 'the next step forward in the first person shooter genre', yet that is what people were expecting - from a game with troubled past. Somehow I feel that people were expecting a Call of Duty game. Weird, huh?

  • bslsimes #92 7 months ago

    Christ, Gearbox, change the fucking record. You put out a game that was not as good as you thought it was. Welcome to being pretty much every game developer in history.

    The fact that they're so in denial about this does not bode well for the quality of their future products.

  • warlockuk #93 7 months ago

    The game sucked. Nothing in the world can reconcile that. Sure, maybe if they reviewed it while pretending it came out in 1995 it might get an extra point...

    ...but it was still rubbish.

  • Hantheman #94 7 months ago

    Developers are moany little buggers aren't they?

  • ronorra #95 7 months ago

    @Spekingur "Duke Nukem Forever was a true sequel to Duke Nukem 3D"

    Did you ever play the original?

  • irve77 #96 7 months ago

    I think if take 2 had released it at a budget price the review scores would have all been 5/10 marks.

    Trouble is you realease a game that is dated in almost everyway at full market price then compared to Killzone 3 , Reach , CoD , Battlefield Duke is certainly a well below average game.

    Gearbox should quit complaining and realise that the marketing campain they started "duke is awesome" was wildly misplaced and should have been more akin to "own a piece of history"

  • alegl5141 #97 7 months ago

    "....We're not quite sure where some of the anger came from."

    Then you and the others who queried it (Randy Pitchfork perhaps) need to get out of an industry such as video gaming. DO NOT make games if you cannot take well deserved criticism. The game belongs in the last decade not this one, and it very much shows!

    Picking up DNF was never going to end well. Perhaps the next game will fare better, provided it's not released 10 years too late!

  • Spekingur #98 7 months ago

    @ronorra Yes, yes I did. I even made awesome-in-my-mind maps with the map editor.
    I think most people forget how Duke Nukem 3D played and are just very nostalgic about it (like with most older games).

  • the_jamaster #99 7 months ago

    There was clear flaws with DNF, no question. I don't think it was that bad though. I enjoyed it, actually but then again maybe I'm strange.

  • Gambit1977 #100 7 months ago

    No...it was just shat!

  • sonicyoda #101 7 months ago

    "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today?"

    Don't even go there. The gulf in quality between Forever which is undeniably terrible and Half-Life is massive. Half-Life is a wonderful game that has dated gracefully and is still magnificent to play in this day.

    Forever feels like a game developed around the same time as Rise of the Triad and doesn't try anything original. And the less said about the sudden shift in tone from childish poo jokes to 'I don't give a flying fuck about these girls I've been trying to save anymore now they're dead' the better.

  • Sicho #102 7 months ago

    DNF (PC) was a great game, period.

  • hanook #103 7 months ago

    yeah, and they are absolutely right. It has been judged by different standarts. This game could have been developed up to current standats of FPS, but but.... would it still be a Duke Nukem?
    Edited by hanook at 04/11/11 @ 11:06

  • MattEdWithCheese #104 7 months ago

    You released it as a full retail title, you weren't fair to consumers... Man up son...

  • hanook #105 7 months ago

    @Spekingur : fully agree. Why, oh why Doom 3 was such a hit?! Because it was not duplicating Doom 2. It was adjusted to the standarts of Doom3 time. Why DNF wasnt? Because idea of Duke is not as raw as Doom. Duke is a person with its own personality, world of DN is complete. If you want to improve anything - you simply destroy it. and yes, i feel thankful they let me play old, original Duke Nukem on my new rig.

  • hanook #106 7 months ago

    It was brilliant interpretation of classic. And reading some reviews that was mumbling about linearity, simplicity and boredom , i had such feeling that they have no clue what they are reviewing.

  • azic #107 7 months ago

    I loved this game. It was puerile fun, and it was great fun too.
    I think a lot of people sheepishly just jumped on the "its a shit Game" bandwagon.

  • TrilbyG #108 7 months ago

    Metacritic XBOX360 scores for Duke Nukem:
    3 positive
    38 mixed
    34 negative

    Where is he getting the impression that high and low were somehow balanced?

    I bought it, went in open minded and IT IS RUBBISH. Appalling bad in almost every regard and it's one of the only games recently that I couldn't face finishing and I'm the kind of that finishes every side mission in Fallout to say I finished it all.

  • micah.chua #109 7 months ago

    Because of this dummy spit, my respect for Gearbox has reached a new low. Crybabies who won't man up and take a bad score where it's deserved.

  • GaryStew1980 #110 7 months ago

    here, here! dead right the scores were much too high for that piece of drivel. How many years ago was it green lit again and this was the best they could do. If anything it was a step back from the original.

  • Bigglesworth #111 7 months ago

    Those castigating Gearbox for not letting this lie or 'still defending it', did you miss the 2nd paragraph opener?

    Speaking to Eurogamer in a previously unpublished interview conducted at Gamescom in August,

    What happenned EG, did someone just find this interview at the bottom of their Gamescon travelbag?

  • andytheadequate #112 7 months ago

    Gearbox should be ashamed of themselves

  • Retroguyuk #113 7 months ago

    "Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all."

    Err yeah, this would be all well and good if it was released as a free tech demo or something, rather then something people paid MONEY for. You didn't release it out of the goodness of your heart.

    The game was judged amongst its comtemporaries, what more did he expect??

    I think most agree it should have just been left to die.

  • beema #114 7 months ago

    Seriously Gearbox? You are still moaning about this? The game was a spectacular failure -- GET OVER IT. You know what would be better for you as a business instead of this? Pour your hearts and souls in to making Borderlands 2 an amazing game, and people will forget DNF ever happened. Dwelling on DNF is only hurting you. Morons.

  • ronorra #115 7 months ago

    @Spekingur Well the reason why I asked is that DNF ignored many things that made Duke3d the game it was... like exploration. The first level of Duke3D with the cinema where you could go multiple ways. All gone from DNF which (like most modern fps games) is not much more then one long shooting gallery corridor. And unfortunatly that was not the only change for the worse...

    Dont't get me wrong, theres a place for retro shooters, but DNF is just crap.
    Edited by ronorra at 04/11/11 @ 14:50

  • Jorendo #116 7 months ago

    Dear Brian Martel,

    Iam a old gamer, i'm 28 and i would dare to say as much that i belong to the old skool gamers. Especially one who played Duke from when he was still a 2d platform hero. You revere in your interview that today's gamers didn't get that Duke Nukem was a old skool shooter made with today's technologies. That reviewers gave it a unfair score and most likely because they belong to the new generation of gamers or used it as a soap box. Although i agree that today's reviewers tend to lean towards certain titles more then others i wouldn't go as far as saying that they and other next gen gamers didn't understand it. I as old skool gamer didn't understand Duke Nukem forever either. I played it and cried. It was horrible. I saw my youth hero getting banged up the spot where the sun never shines.

    Duke Nukem Forever was a crappy game, that's not because today's gamer doesn't understand it. Its because the game been in development since the year most of today's gamer wheren't even born yet. It could only fail, expectations to high and seriousely..Duke only carrying 2 guns? You for real? That's not old skool thats modern age style. I know you are hurt but you aren't exactly on the spot to place a fair judgement either are you? After all Duke Nukem Forever been your adopted son, you took care of him when his parents died. He was handed over to you with some problems and you worked so hard on it to make him a good boy that you couldn't see his flaws anymore. Old skool still works and even the next gen gamers like it. A good example is Duke's more serious cousin Sam. Also known as Serious Sam..cause he is so serious and his name is Sam. He been alittle younger then his bigger cousin Duke but the difference was only a few years while they grew up the same. Yet Sam still scores pretty well and people adore him. Maybe because he sticked to what he does best, kicking "serious" butt...get it...serious...cause of him being serious Sam?

    Also look at this website gog.com, it is full with classic games, even older then Duke and guess what. Many many people buy the games there. So people pretty much understand what made old skool games good. They, just like me, didn't understand why Duke should be a great game. It was terrible. The gameplay was horrible, infact Duke done it much better in his 3d game. Many things where removed and many new things where added that didn't worked at all.

    Don't get upset with the reviewers, don't blame the next gen gamers for not understanding old skool games, don't blame anyone but your own studio. You should have hired better beta testers, you should have hired people who would dare to say "Guy's i know we took this game over and it has a special place in our hearts. But as it is right now i don't think many gamers will like it". But i think you knew this when you where about to release it. Infact i think you knew the game would suck and would sale great cause of all the people with nostalgic memories. This Duke was not as we knew him. This Duke brought many boring parts and broken elements. If you didn't knew this, then i wonder why you are still working in the game business cause you should know the difference between a good and a bad game.

    Kind regards,

    A old skool gamer

  • epiazk #117 7 months ago

    No, I don't want duke to grow up. Christ, just fix the game mechanics.

  • FortysixterUK #118 7 months ago

    Duke Forever was just bad.
    Now if Gearbox was to have sold it for £14.99 and not said that it was a good game, and just released it, that would have spoken volumes AND been honest, and proably not earnt the resentment the game inevitably received.
    Silly Gearbox.

  • smelly #119 7 months ago

    >The game was judged amongst its comtemporarie


    Woooahh.. So we're judging it against the likes of halo and cod? Okay, it deserves a 9/10 then.

    As unlike those games, this has variety and cant be completed in a few hours.

    As i'm sure you would also attest to, if you had actually played it.

  • ronin84 #120 7 months ago

    AcidSnake: I haven't played it yet, but come on...Just leave it be...It just wasn't a good game, it's not a conspiracy!
    So you haven't played the game, yet you have gathered an informed opinion that it wasn't good? You are what's wrong with gamers these days. They look at ridiculous sites like Metacritic and get your brilliant opinion on a game without bothering to play it. Try out the demo, kid.

  • smelly #121 7 months ago

    Amazes me how quick kids are to negate someone saying something positive about a poorly rated game - which they havent played

    And how quick they are to slag off a game - which they havent played - based purely on things they've read about said game.

    Makes me kinda sad for the developers who put a hell of a lot of work into these things.

    I'd never slag off a movie/game/song/etc unless i'd actually experienced it myself.

    I've played halo, i've played Call Of Duty, I've played duke forever, etc. And I can honestly say i prefer duke to the other 2. But then i'm of the opinion that modern day fps games (including this one) suck in comparision to old-school fps games with maze like levels, and exploration, etc etc.

    Nowadays kids just want a linear path game, with crappy plot elements, which can be completed in under 4 hours without breaking a sweat.

    So I guess i'm just a dinosaur.

    But before you negate me, or disagree with me.. Have you ACTUALLY played this game yourself (and no - i dont mean just the awful demo)? If not, is your opinion really valid?

  • silversun #122 7 months ago

    @myms1ps3 Going list just the ones i have finished as i have played more but not finished them yet.
    Mindjack, sonic 06, The witcher (first one),valkyrie profile 2, radiata stories,perfect dark zero, silent hill 3, army of two,shinobi arcade, mass effect 2 and think few other i have forgotten but bit of a mix so far this year oh yeah metal gear soild 4, think i finished that this or last year but that was amazing.

    almost done with persona 3.

  • epiazk #123 7 months ago

    @smelly I played it man, if you are saying DNF wasn't linear I have no idea wtf it was you were actually playing.

    FPS is pretty grim already in terms of innovation without gearbox throwing stuff like this around. I guess your actual point boils down to Serious Sam > COD clone. Which I cant really disagree with, but that doesn't make this game any better.

  • hanook #124 7 months ago

    @Jorendo "I played it and cried. It was horrible. I saw my youth hero getting banged up the spot where the sun never shines."
    It happens to old-skool gamers whos sentimental image of the object (here its DN3D) does not fit to real one. Hence its not strange that you do not recognize DN3D in DNF.

  • hanook #125 7 months ago

    "In 1996, Stallone and Schwarzenegger were on the wane, so Duke's beefcake eighties action movie clichés carried some satirical weight. In 2011, he's a parody of something that no longer exists, the gaming equivalent of an embarrassing uncle who still says "Whaaaaassup?" and pretends to breakdance at wedding receptions."

    By Dan Whitehead Published 12 June, 2011

    "The king is dead" thats for sure, but he absolutely missed the point.
    Edited by hanook at 05/11/11 @ 13:48

  • hanook #126 7 months ago

    If he would reviewed Duke Nukem 3D today, what would be a diagnose? Crapsus Pixelosis.

  • JHo #127 7 months ago

    Sorry,...ummmm,... did I just read an article that mentioned Half-Life in the same paragraph as Duke Nukem Forever? And the paragraph wasn't using the two games as direct polar opposites to each other? Wasn't the "still to this day fricking brilliant" Half-Life being modded to current tech standards as Black Mesa not too long ago by people who still regard Half-Life as not only one of the greatest games of all time, but arguably one of the best works of entertainment in any medium ever.

    That takes ballz of steel...

  • spunkythefunkymunkey #128 7 months ago

    It should never have been a full price release, I do believe that had it came out at £15 as a download only title then it would have faired much better.

    I am older than I care to admit and remember Duke as a pixely side scroller long before it became an fps, and I still hold a special place for the Duke. I haven't bought DNF though, but I do intend to when it's dirt cheap in Steam's winter sale because like I said, it isn't worth full price.

    I do love Gearbox too though and have faith that if they were to develop a new Duke game from the ground up it would be awesome.

  • ronorra #129 7 months ago

    @smelly "Nowadays kids just want a linear path game, with crappy plot elements, which can be completed in under 4 hours without breaking a sweat."

    You mean like DNF? Did YOU even play it? Seriously, you never disappointed me with drivel but this takes the cake, bravo.

  • smelly #130 7 months ago

    No, i said, i preferred old school fps games which WERENT linear and COULDNT be beaten in a few hours.

    So i'm not a fan of this, but compared to OTHER popular linear FPS games, i enjoyed this more than them.

    Can you guys read? Is that hard to understand?

    And yes, it took me WAAAAAAAY longer to beat DNF that halo reach and COD 4 combined. (and i found it considerably harder too - despite playing it on a low difficulty level)

  • Agoholic #131 7 months ago

    Why does everyone who says anything even remotely positive about DNF get downvoted?

    I don't get it.

  • didgydigg #132 6 months ago

    I 100% agree that the game was not reviewed fairly, but I do agree to the extent that it wasn't a GREAT game but it wasn't BAD either, just because all the critics and all of you people are obviously too retarded to keep in mind the fact that it was delayed for 10 years of course its not going to be up to date so its automatically shot down? Not to mention the crude humor and what not the duke nukem series has always had its bad for DNF and "duke needs to grow up" but then its perfectly ok for gta and saints row to have crude humor and sexual content? Yeah, people have no common sense anymore and your a bunch of hypocrites STFU and GTFO
    Edited by didgydigg at 25/11/11 @ 09:39

  • brad015 #133 6 months ago

    So after reading EVERYBODY opinion AND ACTUALLY playing the game I came up with these inquiries:

    1. lots of people are hating a game they haven't actually played and/or it is hard for a game this good to stand up against a couple hundred million little five year old who don't have a life outside of call of duty or halo!

    2. What actually makes this game poor??? Hardly anyone that complained about this game actually said why it was bad, was it the the difficulty of the A.I? Was it the fact that it was too long for 5 year old kids with attention deficit disorder, or was it the fact that this game was too epic for small minds to comprehend? who knows??

    3. People cant let go of the past... I don't know why people say this does not feel like a duke game when the whole point of Duke Nukem is beer,babes and killing aliens and this game has all those qualities bundled up in a nice game with a bow-tie!! Another thing that has always been Duke is the extreme and this game goes to the extreme so why complain?

    So there you have it folks the TRUTH! Now I am not saying this game is perfect! no game is call of duty halo are not perfect and have their problems but no one is commenting on theirs.

    (P.S. now lets see how may negetives this post will bring in :)