Face-Off: Duke Nukem Forever

By Richard Leadbetter Published 13 June, 2011

Sub atomic.

Page 1 of 2
- Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 5.7GB 4.6GB
Install 5.7GB (optional) 4427MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, 7.1LPCM, 5.1LPCM, DTS

There's nothing quite so welcome in the retro community as the release - or leak - of a hitherto unpublished game, the chance to check out a slice of gaming history that, for whatever reason, was never released. Duke Nukem Forever in its final form is not a good game, and yet it is one that should be played for precisely the same reason that retro addicts crave those unreleased Mega Drive and Saturn titles: it's a fascinating episode of our gaming heritage, and it's a miracle that we're playing it at all.

The story of Duke Nukem's resurrection in the wake of 3D Realms' demise in 2009 is remarkable in itself. In the wake of 3DR's implosion, eight developers began work piecing together the existing assets into something approaching an actual game. That outfit named themselves Triptych Games, who then relocated to the offices of Gearbox Software and worked with Randy Pitchford's team in finishing the game, farming out console duties to Piranha Games, previously credited with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Bearing in mind the decade-plus development cycle, it's perhaps not surprising that Duke Nukem Forever looks and to a large extent plays like a game from long ago. Overall quality of the art often seems as if it hails from the late PlayStation 2 period, although we occasionally see a level of complexity akin to a year-two Xbox 360 title. Texture quality is often extremely low, suggesting that even the target PC spec for the game is somewhat ancient.

In terms of gameplay, there's a range of hit and miss "one hit wonder" ideas peppered throughout the campaign, which at least keeps things interesting, but the more magpie elements in the design aren't quite so welcome. The notion of being able to wield just two weapons (patently and obviously nicked from Halo) just doesn't sit right in the overall scheme of the game.

Perhaps it is best to view Duke Nukem Forever almost as a retro piece, and at a stretch you might even call it an HD remaster of a game that never came out. Unfortunately though, despite the simplistic graphics, this game doesn't actually run in a high-definition resolution on either console platform.

Duke Nukem Forever compared on 360 and PS3 - use the full-screen button for 720p resolution, or click on the link below for a larger window.

What we're seeing here looks like an 1152x640 framebuffer on both console versions, without the benefit of any kind of anti-aliasing whatsoever. The game is a mess of shimmering jaggies and high-contrast edges and there's very little in the way of post-processing (for example, motion blur or bloom) that would help to mitigate the very visible aliasing, which is only exaggerated as the game is upscaled by the consoles to a 720p output.

In truth, there is very little to separate the two versions of the game in terms of artwork and effects - as you might hope, bearing in mind the overall antiquity of the visuals. The biggest difference seems to be in the implementation of the shadows - in many places, there's a feeling that they are missing on the Xbox 360 version of the game. It takes a bit of effort, but you can see that they are there, albeit very faintly, suggesting that there is an offset bias issue at work, similar to what we think is happening with Final Fantasy XIII where the shadows are pushed back into the surface they should be cast onto.

360-shadow
ps3-shadow

Differences between the two console versions are minimal. In these shots, the 360 seems to be having shadow offset bias issues, hence the very faint shadows on the speakers, which are fully realised on PlayStation 3.

In the Duke Nukem Forever comparison gallery, the biggest point of differentiation seems to centre around texture quality. However, these isolated snapshots of the game don't tell the full story: the game seems to have serious issues in streaming textures, to the point where sometimes it seems as if the code gives up, leaving ugly low-res artwork on-screen instead. It even happens on the PC version, albeit very rarely.

Overall, the games appear to be fairly evenly matched on console in terms of imagery, but it's a whole different ballgame when it comes to performance. The Xbox 360 version of Duke Nukem Forever is nothing short of unmitigated disaster in this area, and easily one of the ugliest and most poorly performing shooting games we've tested in quite some time.

The frame-rate analysis tells the full story.

While overall image quality is much the same on both platforms, the PS3 dominates in terms of performance with a relatively consistent 30FPS frame-rate and minimal screen-tear. The 360 game suffers somewhat in comparison.

It's a night-and-day difference between the two consoles. The Microsoft platform runs the game with an uncapped frame-rate, presenting some of the worst screen-tear we've seen in recent times. It seems that the people in charge of the conversion could only manage to get any semblance of a 30 frames-per-second refresh by updating the framebuffer as soon as a frame was rendered, and even then we still see some alarming drops in overall performance. The result is an unwelcome assault on both the look of the game and the way it plays.

The contrast with the PlayStation 3's showing is remarkable. In an interview with the PlayStation Blog, Randy Pitchford talked about "amazing optimisations" for the PS3 version courtesy of Piranha. The PlayStation 3's ability to run at what is effectively a locked 30FPS with only very minor outbreaks of screen-tear creates a remarkable difference to the experience of actually playing the game. While it's still objectionably ugly in many ways (hardly "amazing" bearing in mind the standard of the average FPS these days), at least the game provides a consistent level of visual feedback to the gameplay experience, with controls that feel solid and dependable.

In Eurogamer's damning Duke Nukem Forever review, Dan Whitehead points out that the game does have its moments, and that there are sections where interesting concepts provide a kind of experience very distinct from the usual FPS offerings. The PlayStation 3 version of the game makes these sections more fun to play, and even the meat-and-drink gunplay basics just feel better in comparison with the unfortunate 360 version. Performance is the key difference here, and the PC game is better still.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (97) Latest comment 11 months ago

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

  • MrFlump #1 12 months ago

    Dear lord, the console versions look horrible compared to the PC version. The game looks an order of magnitude better on the PC and plays very well on there as well. Now i've seen this, i can see why there was so much hate towards the console versions.

  • Architect_z #2 12 months ago

    I agree with almost everything you say, only the PC version is much better. ^_^

  • Zaiz #3 12 months ago

    Man, the console versions looked that much worse? I thought the PC version looked miserable enough!

  • fletch273 #4 12 months ago

    In before the 360 vs PS3 dick-waving begins. Oh wait, it happened in the first post...

  • pro_interesting #5 12 months ago

    Aren't you forgetting something? Like which console version has the 'edge'... Like you have done in all of your other face-offs.

  • mr2ange #6 12 months ago

    @TomNook

    TomNook only looked at one of the pictures and didn't actually read the words.

    Edit - sorry for double post!
    Edited by mr2ange at 13/06/11 @ 14:22

  • Zaiz #7 12 months ago

    I'm pretty sure Tom Nook is being sarcastic.

    As for the other guy: The PlayStation 3 version of the game makes these sections more fun to play, and even the meat-and-drink gunplay basics just feel better in comparison with the unfortunate 360 version. Performance is the key difference here, and the PC game is better still.

    If you'd read, you'd know, pro_interesting!

  • AcidSnake #8 12 months ago

    @TomNook:
    No...
    Also, it's the cycloid emperor! Show some respect!

  • sonicyoda #9 12 months ago

    I'm actually fascinated by these features and the sort of insight they give you into modern games development.

    But obviously I cannot continue to say anything positive because that's never how the comments section in these articles work. Therefore:

    Blah blah blah stop fueling flame-wars blah blah blah console fanboys.

  • Dave52 #10 12 months ago

    Piss Poor Game in Piss Poor Shocker...

    Probably best not to bother on any platform. If you need to play DNF, you may as well wait a month - it'll be £5 by then.

  • oerhoert #11 12 months ago

    <em>in no way competitive with the modern first-person shooter by any criteria you care to mention</em>

    Except 'fun'.

  • randompanda #12 12 months ago

    RENTAL!

  • sfp_noodle #13 12 months ago

    I find it rather odd that people are so willing to forgive the shortcomings of a 3/10 game because of the franchise history. Personally, if one of my favourite game series ended up being so piss poor after so long in development I'd be outraged. Duke Nukem wasn't shit originally but its extremely shit now. How can you guys forgive the developers for that? They've shown no love whatsoever for the IP and deserve to be criticised for butchering a well loved franchise.

    I'd rather buy Duke Nukem 3D off XBLA 50 times over than buy this once, at least that game is playable and brings back memories.

  • Diomedes117 #14 12 months ago

    DNF is not a 3/10 game on the PC. It was never going to be a masterpiece, but it is quite fun. And that's what's important, right?

  • Timotei #15 12 months ago

    "How can you guys forgive the developers for that? They've shown no love whatsoever for the IP and deserve to be criticised for butchering a well loved franchise"

    Because I have it on PC where it isn't shit, it's actually quite good fun and a great homage to the original game.

    Nothing to forgive, in fact I'd like to thank Gearbox for their hard work in tying up the loose ends and actually letting us see the game at all.

  • alan_stealth #16 12 months ago

    "Presented as a museum piece of sorts, Duke Nukem Forever may have found more mercy at the hands of the rightly critical press. "

    The critical press? Is that what you're calling yourselves.
    Eurogamer is a joke - a collection of advertisements and flamewar noise - with reviewers that look like they're retaking their first year over in Uni again, so come over all superior. If you guys were gamers back in the day, you've certainly lost your way.
    It's a shame because I used to prefer you over Gamespot - now I can't tell the difference.

  • Vlad27145 #17 12 months ago

    "Expect to see it (FXAA) being utilised on a great many console projects in the future, especially on Xbox 360 where GPU resources are typically more plentiful than they are on PlayStation 3."

    First a serious question. Is there any technical impediment of running the FXAA on the SPUs?
    Second, are you sure of what you're saying? You mention earlier it's a proprietary Nvidia AA method, while X360 has an ATI GPU. So... Am I missing something?

  • Jay-ITFC #18 12 months ago

    @General_Ironfist

    When it comes to Duke Nukem Forever (3/10) it sounds like no platform 'wins'...

  • MDL199 #19 12 months ago

    I'm playing the game on PS3 and really loving it.

    No doubt being a slightly older gamer my enjoyment is enhanced because of nostalgia but i'm finding some of the old school mechanics quite refreshing.

    The game is hardly a looker but neither is it terribly ugly and in my opinion no way in hell is it a 3 out of 10 game. I'd give it 6 out of 10 for younger gamers but a solid 8 for nostalgic gamers like me.

  • AgentCool #20 12 months ago

    @alan_stealth - Typical internet idiot with a totally unjustified sense of entitlement. You complain about the adverts on a website you can access for free (people don't work for free you know), piss-take the quality of journalism and still keep coming back. You write as if you're actually contributing in some way by being here.

  • edhe #21 12 months ago

    So Gearbox, how do you repair this franchise?

  • darkmorgado #22 12 months ago

    @Artamentix

    You might want to read the article, he goes into quite a lot of detail about the PC version.

  • Zerobob #23 12 months ago

    Surprise surprise, the PC version is the best.

    Seriously, what is the point of comparing a game running on the latest ever-evolving, up-to-date PC hardware with a console port of the same game running on 6 year old console hardware?

    I understand games sometimes just 'work' better on consoles, especially games ported from console to PC, but Digital Foundary's focus is all on graphical quality and performance. Nothing else. Not controller preference, not ease of use of the multiplayer features, or anything else. DF may as well declare the PC version of all games the best version from here to eternity.

  • koopa #24 12 months ago

    I could easily tolerate all the technical shortcomings if the game's art style wasn't so damn ugly, even sharp textures and high resolutions couldn't fix that.

    If there's a sequel coming, they should give Croteam a shot at it...

  • carlosdfn #25 12 months ago

    Damn, Richard has been busy.
    Anyway, I'd like to know why even though it looks like a current gen console launch title at best, it runs at 1152x640 with no AA, what a joke.
    To add insult to injury performance on the 360 version is atrocious, when in reality the machine shouldn't have any problem whatsoever in running it with a solid frame-rate.
    Epic fail.

  • sega #26 12 months ago

    I SO want this game! Seriously - no sarcasm, just looking at those videos really makes me want to play it. It's a shame it's poor, though, but I guess it's hard to see what's bad about it when not playing. I'm still going to take the risk and get it, though - I hope I don't regret that decision.

  • RodHull #27 12 months ago

    But what does it look like on Dreamcast?

  • technicianTed #28 12 months ago

    The 3/10 rating killed any interest for me in terms of getting this game.
    Sounds like they've really messed up the 360 version but you just know it's going to sell well(for once i really hope it doesn't).
    360 owners just seem to buy anything at times.

    The ps3 version seems better, a slightly more polished turd as they say.
    I spose the pc one is the only real sensible choice if you need to play this game.
    Maybe the sensible choice is to buy something else instead.

  • uzivatel #29 12 months ago

    The face-off would be much more interesting, if it was about some good game. The selection of titles has been very weak lately (with some notable exceptions). Whats the point comparing games you would hardly recommend playing in the first place?
    Then again you have the numbers of readers and ad views.

  • Darren #30 12 months ago

    "We also feel that the game could do with a patch to improve performance. It's unclear what the issue is here, but a Core i7 920 at 2.66GHz working in combination with a GTX580 should be able to run this game at a sustained 720p60 with no issues whatsoever. However, we still encountered noticeable performance drops in certain areas and it didn't seem to matter that much what resolution we used, as 1080p did the same. Duke Nukem Forever just seemed to drop frames for unknown reasons."

    I have a Core i7-920 running at 3.2 GHz and a GTX 580 and I've been playing the game at 1920x1200 with maxed settings and FXAA (far preferable to the ugly edge-based FSAA to my eyes). I've never once seen the framerate dip below 60 fps. I do have triple buffering enabled through D3DOverrider though but the game is so undemanding of modern PCs that even without v-sync the game runs at well over 100 fps so it doesn't really need triple buffering at all!!!
    Edited by Darren at 13/06/11 @ 15:30

  • rayscoota #31 12 months ago

    Well you,ve sold me the game EG, the movies alone have made me buy the PC version thanks :)

  • Darren #32 12 months ago

    "FXAA is an important technology for the future because the many game engines - like Unreal, plus a whole host of new deferred renderers - don't get along nicely with traditional multi-sampling AA."

    Isn't that because developers insist on using the ancient DirectX 9 and not the newer DirectX 10/11 which both allow for deferring rendering *and* multi-sampled anti-aliasing? Gears of War on the PC for example, which uses Unreal Engine 3, has a DX10 mode that allows anti-aliasing that isn't available in the DX9 version. Another example is Two Worlds II on the PC which is bereft of AA support when ran under DX9 but has it when you run the DX10 version?

  • Darren #33 12 months ago

    P.S. Why in this technical analysis is there no mention made of the loading times which are very quick on the PC (5 to 10 seconds, tops) and horribly long on both console versions? If anything kills the games on the consoles, it must be those loading times, especially if you die and have to reload. Yuck!

  • kirankara #34 12 months ago

    where to start with this face off???

    Ok, first, i agree with Darren, Eg gave this game a 3/10, whats the point in slating a gameto high heaven, and then doing a face off to say which version is best one to buy, when your review indicates that it shouldnt be bought at all.

    Its also interesting that DF chooses to give this game such a hard time about frame rates, but yet Crysis 2 seemed to be given a relatively easy time, whilst its frame rate was easily as bad as this across both consoles, with the 360 version dropping lower than ps3 version overall in intense battles, whilst ps3 version maintained higher frame rate in battles, but generally dipped all over the place.

    admittedly Crysis was much better looking(although I dont think this game is as ugly as its being made out to be), but frame rates are frame rates, and making a comment about it on onbe game should be reflective of what you have said about other games. Theres no point having beautiful image quality that tanks as soon as it has to move.

    i had little interest in this game in first place, and have even less after general feedback on it in media, but I think the disparity in DF face off comments , is at times, just too obvious and needs adressing

  • Zerobob #35 12 months ago

    "But what does it look like on Dreamcast?"

    I've heard that's the version to get, the game originally being developed for the Dreamcast hardware.

  • Zerobob #36 12 months ago

    "The ps3 version seems better, a slightly more polished turd as they say.
    I spose the pc one is the only real sensible choice if you need to play this game."

    What, the sensible choice is to spend £500 on a gaming PC to play a game, rather than the games console most people already have, or can be bought for £100?

  • BBIAJ #37 12 months ago

    Again, I'm not seeing the framerate issues mentioned on 360, and the tearing really isn't all that bad, I haven't been distracted by it once.

  • koopa #38 12 months ago

    "Seriously, what is the point of comparing a game running on the latest ever-evolving, up-to-date PC hardware with a console port of the same game running on 6 year old console hardware?"

    What about games like FIFA, PES, GTA IV etc.? But yeah, recently the PC versions are usually the best, and probably will be till the end of this generation...

  • technicianTed #39 12 months ago

    zerobob, i'm assuming most pc owners interested in this game already have a decent enough rig to run it well.
    If that's the case, this face off will be useful to pc owners who have both consoles as well(me included).

    If i were to buy this game it would be on pc for sure.
    Judging by the face off results, the pc is the only real decent choice if you want this game(unless you want to play it at a washed out low res that the console versions suffer from).
    No thanks!

  • kirankara #40 12 months ago

    BBIAJ
    13/06/11 @ 16:08

    "Again, I'm not seeing the framerate issues mentioned on 360, and the tearing really isn't all that bad, I haven't been distracted by it once. "

    Clearly it drops more than ps3, but as I said, its not as low as Crysis 2 at times and probably not as often

  • Perfecto #41 12 months ago

    I must say though, The flashing red light on the freeze Ray is probably without doubt the best looking flashing red light Ive seen in a game............ever..........seriously.

  • Mister-Wario #42 12 months ago

    "I'd give it 6 out of 10 for younger gamers but a solid 8 for nostalgic gamers like me".

    Yeah, I think this game is going to polarise a lot of a people because some will have a huge nostalgia for the character and appreciate it more.

    At the same time, though, games like Mario and Zelda can have a nostalgic edge to them and still be a good game for someone new to it.

  • Machetazo #43 12 months ago

    17 wrote: "I find it rather odd that people are so willing to forgive the shortcomings of a 3/10 game"

    Maybe that score wasn't the totality of their selection criteria. The point that they wanted to play and enjoy the game could have been more prominent.
    As for "no love whatsoever for the IP" - rubbish. Gearbox showed the highest regard for the IP, and the work put in to it. It will probably remain unknown of what kind of set of parts 3DR left for them to start from, but I do appreciate that they've supported the game, as has the publisher, and at the end of it, everyone got to play this. There's no demand that you play or endorse it, so you don't lose out by its release.

    It's great that that occured! A good number of competent and strong IPs are currently on different degree of extended hiatus. But then, you do mention XBLA in your post, so if your sole option to play the game is on that platform, then maybe you weren't left with the best impression.

    @zerobob: The point is to show how and why those differences appear, and speculate maybe at improvements, consider other titles in relation, perhaps - lying beyond the scope of a traditional review - not merely, to acknowledge that the differences exist.

  • BonzoBanana #44 12 months ago

    I was so expecting this to be better on Xbox 360. The 360 is easier to develop for and get good results without too much effort. PS3 needs more optimisation due to its complex architecture. Sounds like the person responsible for the PS3 version optimisation is actually technically competent.

    Dare I say this game looks like a lot of fun to me but the review scores mean I will wait for the cliff edge style price drop to come shortly.

  • CaptainKid #45 12 months ago

    It's like PC doesn't even exist on this website.

  • TheSpaz #46 12 months ago

    I love how every time the 360 loses a face-off, he states that the PC version is the best version, but when the 360 wins a face-off, the 360 is the winner.

    Obviously the PC is going to be the best looking graphics to play any game on because it depends on your system, so the PC shouldn't even be part of these face-offs.

    I prefer to game on consoles and since console owners don't have any choices when it comes to adjusting graphics and settings to their liking, you have to do face-offs to see which console the developer favored the most.

    PS3 has been winning a lot lately with third party games. I'm shocked and pleased at the same time. PS3 owners have been getting the shaft for way too long and now the 360 owners are beginning to see how it feels to have the crappy port. Welcome to our world 360 owners!

  • camo_kill #47 12 months ago

    I'll grab it when it's a tenner - and that'll be through pure nostalgia and intrigue. I'll definitely enjoy it more knowing that I've paid a pittance for it and I'm sure i'll have a few laughs along the way!

  • Smoped #48 12 months ago

    I guess it's an achievement that it runs on any platform, considering the history, but obviously there's no best version here, only the least dreadful.

  • darkmorgado #49 12 months ago

    @Zerobob

    "What, the sensible choice is to spend £500 on a gaming PC to play a game, rather than the games console most people already have, or can be bought for £100? "

    Since when were either the 360 or the PS3 available for £100?

  • darkmorgado #50 12 months ago

    @TheSpaz

    What an appropriate username.

  • Ferral #51 12 months ago

    I'm running this in 1080P, highest settings on my pc and it looks dull and is quite naff in all honesty. Yeah its retro but it just doesnt seem to piece together that well. Textures in some areas look pretty good but in others it looks like something from the early 2000's. Best thing they could have done here was to ditch what 3D Realms had done and start over from scratch, create something that is going to be memorable. I am about halfway through it now and must admit it is boring me to tears, its not that fun to play unfortunately. A few set pieces that are decent strung together with no free roaming, corridors like a lot of shooters a good few years back, theres no innovation. Its just lacking and extremely cheesy, right down to the new logo, it all just looks out of place.

    I think Gearbox need to do something great with the franchise if they want it to succeed in the future, Duke needs to move ahead with the time. If not then I REALLY think they should leave him be now and let him go and be remembered for DN3D. Hopefully this steaming pile is done now Gearbox will work on their great new franchise Borderlands and also Furious Four.

  • RobTheBuilder #52 12 months ago

    Looks like a terrible conversion all round!

  • miiiguel #53 12 months ago

    @General_Ironfist, dude, you said this: As I've said in the past and I still to this day stand by it. We PS3 owners in general, just simply have better/more refined tastes. When it comes to choosing/buying our games. We won't settle for any old crap, we have higher standards than our 360 counter-parts. in the article where it says DNF sold a shit lot more on the 360 and now all the sudden you're happy and going to get the game.
    Your thing is not games.

    PS3 owners may have high standards but it only takes a 360 to lower them.
    Edited by miiiguel at 13/06/11 @ 18:13

  • theonlyix #54 12 months ago

    A piece of gaming history...im playing it on 360 and loving it.
    Too bad for the PS3 that their winning the face offs comes when the games have crappy graphics =)

    Also, soon is nextgen, shouldnt the PS3 shine and outclass the PC and 360 sometime soon?

    Let the clicking begin! =)

  • DoctorFouad #55 12 months ago

    this game is legendary lol

  • VandelayIndustries #56 12 months ago

    Bargin bucket purchase on the PS3 then...

    It must be asked though, what in the fuck were Gear Box and 2K thinking in sending out the 360 version review copies. :o

  • thedriffter50 #57 12 months ago

    Why are people defending the game just because it plays better on PC ?

    Crap game is crap. Just imagine if Duke wasn't in this game would you even bother with it ?

    Its mediocre at best and the only redeeming factor is nostalgia which really isn't worth £40.
    Edited by thedriffter50 at 13/06/11 @ 19:41

  • arcam #58 12 months ago

    Why are people defending the game just because it plays better on PC ? Crap game is crap

    Sounds to me like some people are enjoying it. Clearly, it's not as simple as 'crap game is crap'.

  • GAmbrose #59 12 months ago

    Some people are paedophiles, it doesn't make kids sexy.

  • Ror1984 #60 12 months ago

    I hadn't paid much attention to this (loved DN3D when it came out, but fully expected this to be an utter train-wreck), but good lord, it really is one ugly motherfucker - even on pc. Those PC screens look how I would expect a rather average console game to look.

    Also, good work on that FXAA filter DF, that's pretty impressive looking stuff.

  • BuckEntropy #61 12 months ago

    Ouch...
    And it actually seems like the PS3 version is the 'best' of all three relatively speaking. PS3 gets "amazing optimizations" vs poor optimizations on PC and virtually none for 360? lol

    Even the shadow offset rears it's ugly head again, seems like there's some idiosyncrasy (more likely in the API) with rescaled resolutions on 360 that needs to be accounted for differently. The other instances that come to mind are FFXIII and Vanquish, which both lead on PS3, and kind of suggests to me that they put all their focus on the PS3 version, assuming it'd port over without any effort. Then just ran out of time? And I have agree it's bizarre they would then send out the 360 version for reviews. Going by initial sales they also basically maximized the negative response potential as well. Just a weird one all 'round.

  • ForozM #62 12 months ago

    I hope Gearbox can make a new Duke Nukem from the ground up. I wouldn't want Douk to be forever lost.

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #63 12 months ago

    General Ironfist ( Danny Rands?) Calm down mate, you shouldn't get so worked up. Its all banter.

  • DrStrangelove #64 12 months ago

    Holy shit! Is that ugly on consoles.

    I have it on PC, and I'd give it something in the 5-6 range, but I can see now how shitty DNF must be on consoles, especially the X360 version with those awful performance issues. If a mediocre game (which has a few fun moments) runs well, you may pick it up once in a while (usually after three beer). If it runs that badly, it turns into agony, and you'll play it only if you really hate yourself.

    After all those face-offs that see a minor advantage for the X360, I'm quite surprised that the Box lost this one so badly. Even more so in a game that was designed for PC, which is closer to Xbox than to PS3. Maybe that's exactly what they thought, and maybe they decided to let some people put some effort in the PS3 port while no one gave a shit about the X360 version.

  • spaceburge #65 12 months ago

    There should be a comparison between the console version and having someone vomit in your eyes. The AA would be way better on the vomit!

  • penhalion #66 12 months ago

    Wow my PS3 is better at running crap than a 360.....I'm not quite sure how to take that.........er

  • bladdard #67 12 months ago

    Why do I feel so utterly compelled to buy this?

  • DrStrangelove #68 12 months ago

    "I love how every time the 360 loses a face-off, he states that the PC version is the best version, but when the 360 wins a face-off, the 360 is the winner."

    When was that? As far as I can remember, the PC version has always been the winner (when it took part). I'm tired of all these reproaches calling DF biased towards the X360, or towards the PS3 when it wins once in a while. Just because I have a PS3 doesn't mean I have to claim it's faster and better than the X360, I only do that when I've drunk a lot too much and feel like saying something stupid.

    Face it, the X360 seems to have a very slight performance advantage. One strong indication for that is that most games seem to run at slightly lower resolution on PS3. Then again, some games perform better on the PS3, so they can't be far apart. In the end, they're so close it doesn't really matter in most games. Compared with a good gaming PC, their performance is equally worse. Compared with the Wii, their performance is equally superior. The real difference lies in exclusive titles, or in using it as a Blu-Ray player, or in having Kinect.

    This whole fanboy war is like two guys constantly re-measuring their penises to see whose is one millimeter longer. It's ridiculous.
    Edited by DrStrangelove at 13/06/11 @ 23:27

  • DrStrangelove #69 12 months ago

    Btw, current Metacritic scores:

    PC: 76
    PS3: 62
    X360: 50

    Quite striking, I think.

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/duke+nukem+forever/results
    ]http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/duk...[/link]

    edit: link added.
    Edited by DrStrangelove at 14/06/11 @ 00:07

  • subtlesnake #70 12 months ago

    "I find it rather odd that people are so willing to forgive the shortcomings of a 3/10 game because of the franchise history. Personally, if one of my favourite game series ended up being so piss poor after so long in development I'd be outraged. Duke Nukem wasn't shit originally but its extremely shit now. How can you guys forgive the developers for that? They've shown no love whatsoever for the IP and deserve to be criticised for butchering a well loved franchise."

    I don't think it's case of giving the game a "free pass" because of its development history but rather of assessing the game on its own merits, as a mechanically solid - if unpolished - shooter, with a varied and imaginative single campaign that feels worlds apart from current shooters.

    There's some space between great (9/10) and broken on every conceivable level (3/10). Personally, I found myself a having lot of fun driving a monster truck, being miniaturized, operating machinery to solve puzzles, riding in minecarts and running over enemies in forklift truck, playing airhockey (!), and fighting in several of the boss encounters. Should I discount all the fun moments I had because this is really a 3/10 game, of which no enjoyment can be derived?

  • riseer #71 12 months ago

    TomNook..it's a crap game with crap visuals and both console version look the same period..your comment is a fail just as this game.

  • riseer #72 12 months ago

    Xbox 360 where GPU resources are typically more plentiful than they are on PlayStation 3. The console version of FXAA can process a 720p ..Not sure why that made it in this article anyways quite sure that AA solution can be done on Ps3 if program right.

  • Tipsy #73 12 months ago

    It seems to me that this was always going to be a PC game first and foremost. I don't understand why EG didn't review the PC version before being so critical of the game in its review. Were you not sent a PC version to review? Are you going to re-review it on the PC version so we know how much of a difference that makes?

  • frazzl #74 12 months ago

    I encountered a fair bit of slowdown on the earlier levels (360 version), but things seem to get better as the game progresses in terms of frame rate. I am close to the end of the game at the moment and it's been a while since I have experienced any kind of slow down. Ditto for the screen tearing. I have been having quite a bit of fun with the game so it really doesn't bother me which version is better. I always get my multi-plats for the 360 anyway since in all honesty there are plenty of other reasons for preferring a particular console version of a game outside of graphical performance.

  • Savatage #75 12 months ago

    I could be wrong here, but I was actually under the impression that EG were not supplied with a review copy, and had to grab the game when it went got released on June 10. My guess is that they went with the 360 code because at the time, they had no idea it was so abysmal compared to the other versions (and they wanted to get the review out ASAP).

    It seems that Gearbox may have used the time-honoured "get it on the shelves before the bad reviews start rolling in" approach, which may have slightly backfired on them on this occasion. Not much though, if the sales are anything to go by...

  • phil_75 #76 12 months ago

    OH NO! XBOX hasn't won, we'll have to give it to PC!

    A PC outdoing 6 year old console? Very fair, what was the point?

    Save yourself loads of time doing these multiplat head to heads, WE ALL KNOW PC WILL WIN EVERY SINGLE ONE FOREVER!

  • jivemaster #77 12 months ago

    This almost commands another separate review for the pc version, not sure why the review was done for the xbox version.

  • dfunked #78 12 months ago

    @Savatage

    They got the review copy from 2K on the day before release iirc (think it's mentioned in the Pitchford interview)
    Still can't get over what a shonky port the 360 version is - it's a DX9 game running on a PC ffs, how hard can it be to port it properly!!!!?!?!?!
    Glad that I got it for the PC anyway, it'd feel wrong playing it on anything else...

  • ToAks #79 12 months ago

    (I can imagine the writer say this before starting this article):

    hey i have an idea, if the ps3 version is superior to the xbox version then we must include the pc version.

    but yes its a crap game (according to the EG review) but its kinda funny how we never get the final statement that the ps3 version is superior to the xbox version and that console gamers should go for that.
    (if you compare this article to the Crysis 2 faceoff u'll see what i mean..)

  • Cronan #80 12 months ago

    Oh dear, I was never going to buy this, but I just took it off my LoveFilm rental list too.

  • obscured021 #81 12 months ago

    Its a great game but 3D dose not work, its got worse cross talk than kill zone 3, with any luck drivers may fix the issue.

  • Savatage #82 12 months ago

    @dfunked, You're absolutely right - it's mentioned right at the start to. Dunno how I missed it.

    So the mystery remains: WTF is up with 2K supplying the 360 version?

  • bluetoothion #83 12 months ago

    I think more than enough years have passed for Duke to be out of date regardless of its performance on any format... in this mess of a First person shooters available one more for nostalgia's sake at a bargain price and only at that price would be a maybe...

    To the fanboy part of this face off:

    I ve been supportive of PS3 because multies usually are inferior to exclusives thus giving nagging rights to ps3 owners
    however here its such a mess and everybody knows 360 can do better so i ll go to say its a meaningless face-off ?win?

    also i see little to no effort put for actual optimization for any console just some filters and techniques turned on and thats all its not a game for ps3 owners could say that x360 owner are supposed to feel short sticked over this much of crap.

  • Spekingur #84 12 months ago

    I see no mention of the most important part of Duke Nukem. Do the old cheats work?!

  • oerhoert #85 12 months ago

    <em>Crap game is crap. Just imagine if Duke wasn't in this game would you even bother with it ?</em>

    Except it's not crap. It's fun. And the fact that Duke is in it makes it more fun. Lowbrow yes, sexist definitely, but still entertaining because of it.

    Also; what subtlesnake said.

  • Zerobob #86 12 months ago

    "zerobob, i'm assuming most pc owners interested in this game already have a decent enough rig to run it well.
    If that's the case, this face off will be useful to pc owners who have both consoles as well(me included)."

    technicianTed, that's exactly my point. This article isn't useful to PC owners becuase they already know games will run at a much higher resolution with higher res textures, and will run much smoother due to the massive amount of resources available on PC.

    "The point is to show how and why those differences appear, and speculate maybe at improvements, consider other titles in relation, perhaps - lying beyond the scope of a traditional review - not merely, to acknowledge that the differences exist."

    Machetazo, good point. I think you're the only person who understood my point and offered a valid argument. I didn't consider that DF goes into a bit of detail about why certain things weren't implemented on console versions when they were on PC. I guess this is of interest to some people.

    "Since when were either the 360 or the PS3 available for £100? "

    Well I got my 360 for £118 roughly 3 years ago. I just assumed you could maybe pick one up for £18 less now, 3 years later. I think I was also being quite conservative pricing a gaming PC at £500. Considering a sufficient GPU and CPU would be a fair proportion of that price a gaming PC would probably end up costing a bit more.

  • BonzoBanana #87 12 months ago

    On metacritic the average score for the ps3 version is about 6 out of 10. Top review score of 88% from one source. I would take the metacritic average over a one off score at eurogamer anyday. Not that eurogamer reviewed the ps3 version.

    Surely its more average than awful (on ps3).

  • BuckEntropy #88 12 months ago

    @ToAks - "but its kinda funny how we never get the final statement that the ps3 version is superior to the xbox version and that console gamers should go for that.
    (if you compare this article to the Crysis 2 faceoff u'll see what i mean..)"

    OK, you piqued my curiosity enough to do just what you suggested and...

    On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance, but PS3 more than holds its own, bettering the Microsoft platform in some areas.

    That's the most definitive recommendation in the article, hardly a "go for that version" in the first place. But you oddly miss (or ignore) the fact that the PC version of Crysis 2 is NOT EVEN INCLUDED as a part of that face-off, it gets it's own article a couple days later. But then what, RL calling the 360 version of DNF an "unmitigated disaster" still doesn't get the point across well enough for you? Keep reaching for that imaginary cross to bear guys...

    Not trying to group all of you with General_Ironfist or anything (ahem) but seriously; after seeing too much of this fine grain sifting for snubs, I start to think some of you must somehow enjoy this belief that you're getting buggered all the time?

  • ToAks #89 12 months ago

    BuckEntrophy:

    yes you are indeed correct and i know how he said it was a disaster on the x360(screentearing etc) but it certainly never comes out who won what and which version really is the best, as in like it was done in the past with a summary of some sort.

    just to have it said, i am not a troll just trying to make it clear that these 3 versions of DNF is so far from each other that it should be 100% clear in a summary of sorts with the ups and downs of every version.

  • GAmbrose #90 12 months ago

    The "downs" (cons) of every version is that the game is a bit naff.

    It's slightly less naff on PC than PS3 or Xbox 360 though.

  • scuffpuppies #91 12 months ago

    TomNook: "Xbox 360 version looks much, much better as always. The image of the one eyed robot mech proves this."

    TomNook, you're a bit of a cock really aren't you?

  • SaberEdge #92 12 months ago

    This is why I do most of my gaming on the PC. I don't mean that in a snarky, rub-your-face-in-it kind of way, I am simply being honest about why I value PC gaming.

    The PS3 version is definitely better than the 360 version, but they both suffer from being sub-HD, and having screen tearing and no anti-aliasing. Way too many games on consoles suffer from such issues.

  • SeesThroughAll #93 11 months ago

    A shit game that should be an embarrassment to own.
    An absolute waste of time, no matter which version you burn your hard earned money on.

  • Hotel_Moscow #94 11 months ago

    so i guess i should stop waiting for a infamous 2 tech analysis

  • riseer #95 11 months ago

    The Ps3 version looks very playable,the 360 version looks just bad the amount of screen tear is crazy.I am a Ps3 fanboy,but i think the devs just fked over the 360 crowd...In many reguards it's runing on the UE engine tho it's a older version.That does not matter since games like bioshock look better on 360.''hate saying that''..Oh well i'll get it when it gets really cheap...or wait until steam drops the price and grab it on Pc.

  • riseer #96 11 months ago

    I do find it sad that devs have issues with Pc version of games.The rig DF is useing is what 10x stronger then both consoles and yet theirs issues with this old game runing on their rig is just sad.When your videocard costs more then consoles you should have a edge..I just think these consoles are so much better then what we had last gen.I know a Ps2 game wasn't near the ballpark like the consoles of today.If both consoles had extra ram 1gig or so maybe slighty better gpu's it would be so much closer.

  • MrHuk #97 11 months ago

    Damn, the X360 looked like a slideshow in parts, the frame rate is terrible. The PS3 version held up nicely though, with 30FPS pretty much solid.