Ign review 5.5

  • 134 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -

Well, this is for the Xbox version, it'll probably get a 6 on PC at least. The reviewer expected a modern FPS in the same genre as Halo, COD or Battlefield. Too bad, because although it fails at that, as a Duke 3D sequel it is a great game.   
Apparently,there are mixed reviews, as PC Gamer gave it an 8. 
Hope Jeff or Brad will have a more open mind when they get to play it. 
 
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/117/1175639p1.html

#2 Posted by Animasta (14650 posts) -

uhuh and not because it's a mediocre game they were just expecting CoD Duke style (GIVE ME A BREAK)

#3 Posted by Empirepaintball (1393 posts) -

It doesn't deserve a 5.5, it should be a bit higher. But I thought the game was pretty middling. Granted, I didn't have the affection for the older Duke's, and that would probably change my view on it, but it was a wash for me personaly. 

#4 Posted by Trebz (487 posts) -

Well now we know they never leaked it.

#5 Posted by EuanDewar (4777 posts) -

I have no idea why but for some reason this struck me as really funny.

#6 Edited by Dany (7887 posts) -

HOW DARE THEY REVIEW A GAME AND GIVE IT A SCORE?!?!?!?! BAAARHG!

Seriously though...too much attention is given to review scores and people disagreeing by yelling at the computer

#7 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Judging from that "quick look" they did, they went into it expecting something that wasn't Duke Nukem.

#8 Posted by Tebbit (4449 posts) -

This is the one game where the reviews will have little bearing on the enjoyment people get from it. As a product, it's probably not great, but as a slice of gaming history, it gets a more acceptable pass.

#9 Posted by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -

Clearly this is a fabrication. We all saw proof that they really gave it a 9.5.

#10 Edited by Yummylee (21293 posts) -

Regardless of the score or whatever, I do have to admire this as a well written review. And I always considered any kind of good-quality anything on IGN to be nothing but a myth.

#11 Posted by Bucketdeth (8004 posts) -

Reviews are meaningless to me now-a-days, I'll still be picking this up on the 14th.

#12 Posted by Empirepaintball (1393 posts) -
@Bucketdeth said:
Reviews are meaningless to me now-a-days, I'll still be picking this up on the 14th.
METACRITIC IZ LEGYT!
#13 Posted by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -
@CL60:  Actually that bald guy who was in that Quick Look (not the reviewer) seemed to genuinely hate Duke as a franchise. I can respect that, though.  
To be honest, the part they played in that video is probably one of the weakest in the entire game.
#14 Posted by Toms115 (2316 posts) -

i fucking told you all it was going to be an awful game. this ign review is solid confirmation.

#15 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -
@Toms115 said:
i fucking told you all it was going to be an awful game. this ign review is solid confirmation.
Told who? Nobody has ever said it was going to be a fantastic game. People have always said they were buying it because it's Duke Nukem Forever.
#16 Posted by HatKing (5833 posts) -
@OsheaDiesStupid said:
@CL60:  Actually that bald guy who was in that Quick Look (not the reviewer) seemed to genuinely hate Duke as a franchise. I can respect that, though.  To be honest, the part they played in that video is probably one of the weakest in the entire game.
Actually he admitted that the shooting was solid, only everything surrounding it that was poorly done.
#17 Posted by Hailinel (23945 posts) -

@Laketown said:

uhuh and not because it's a mediocre game they were just expecting CoD Duke style (GIVE ME A BREAK)

lolwut.

Online
#18 Posted by Toms115 (2316 posts) -
@CL60 said:
@Toms115 said:
i fucking told you all it was going to be an awful game. this ign review is solid confirmation.
Told who? Nobody has ever said it was going to be a fantastic game. People have always said they were buying it because it's Duke Nukem Forever.
you can't hide your guilt from me
#19 Posted by theoldhouse (439 posts) -

Jesus OP grow the fuck up

#20 Posted by shinigami420 (640 posts) -

I got this today i am about 3 hours in its not bad but its not great

the framerate is a mess

the AA is some of the worst i have seen in a long time

the textures are blurry

the sound is pretty terrible

the loading times are way to long 1-3min

but its still somewhat fun and its something different than all the other modern military fps games

also i payed 30 bucks for this

Stop blameing ign

the score fits the 360 version

#21 Posted by JJOR64 (18912 posts) -

People thought this game was going to be good?

#22 Posted by Toms115 (2316 posts) -

if ign call a game bad i don't want to be within a 500 mile radius of a disc copy of that game

#23 Posted by chickdigger802 (501 posts) -

pc version is apparently the best version by a long shot.

Loading times are about 10-30 secs. No framerate issues. Graphics are a mess though. The blur effect is horrendous.

#24 Edited by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

Gearbox are geniuses, they pick up this horrendous game that has no value whatsoever, and make it run somewhat acceptable on modern hardware and then release it and have people buy it because it happens to be called "Duke Nukem Forever", no work and alot of cash.

Wish I was that smart.

#25 Posted by JasonR86 (9611 posts) -
@OsheaDiesStupid
 
It sounds like he hated the game before he even played it.  It appeared as if he was convinced that it was going to be archaic and so it was.  I'm not sure this reviewer even gave the game a chance.
#26 Posted by FreakAche (2950 posts) -

You can't spell ignorant without... wait what?!? Sorry, the spirit of crazy Youtube comments overcame me for a second.

#27 Posted by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -

PC version has normal load times. I don't think it looks that bad, either. It's kind of a stupid comparison, but Dragon Age 2 looked worse in my opinion and didn't get all this hate. 
Driving sequences are bad, though and I also fucking hate quick time events. When will they ever stop using these in games? 

#28 Edited by zameer (605 posts) -

I just finished the single player.. I'd give it 2 stars. I grew up loving the Duke platformers, but not even nostalgia could save this from being a middling game. The ending was really abrupt and I thought it was a joke until after the credits. I remember being annoyed that I spent quite a bit of time looking for exits or where to go next than actual shooting, which is a big no-no in a modern level design.
 
But.. this game finally got on shelves and you can't really ask for much more beyond the impossible. Curious how a Gearbox FPS with Duke 'tude would be.

#29 Posted by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -
@Prodstep: Agreed, it was great business for them. The game has value to Duke fans, though.  
I'm actually really enjoying it.  Then again, I never play modern FPS games (unless you count Fallout).  
The game will undoubtedly sell well, and they will do a sequel which will actually be a competent game with a more universal appeal.   
#30 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7056 posts) -

@shinigami420 said:

I got this today i am about 3 hours in its not bad but its not great

the framerate is a mess

the AA is some of the worst i have seen in a long time

the textures are blurry

the sound is pretty terrible

the loading times are way to long 1-3min

but its still somewhat fun and its something different than all the other modern military fps games

also i payed 30 bucks for this

Stop blameing ign

the score fits the 360 version

Why do you type like this?

It seems kind of dumb.

It is also very strange.

Start using grammar.

Was that a haiku?

#31 Edited by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

@OsheaDiesStupid: Having played it for a while I don't get it, the game just feels like, it doesn't feel "right" and I find the one-liners painfully unfunny. I haven't played the previous Duke games which is the only way I can see people get any enjoyment out of it, but I guess this game just isn't made for me. Glad you could find it enjoyable though.

#32 Posted by TheHT (10922 posts) -
@OsheaDiesStupid said:
The reviewer expected a modern FPS in the same genre as Halo, COD or Battlefield.
That's the worst fucking reason to give a game a bad review. "Game X is bad because I thought it was gonna be more like game Y."
#33 Posted by DG991 (1344 posts) -

It's game of the year material.

#34 Posted by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -
@Prodstep: I actually played a lot of Duke 3D as a kid, and the weird thing is that I never found those lines funny either. They were memorable and cool, but I never thought of the game as being funny. All the interactive stuff was great, I still remember the pixelated strippers, pool tables, toilets... And the level design was great.
 
 I guess without the nostalgia, DN Forever is just mediocre. 
#35 Posted by BeachThunder (11713 posts) -
@MariachiMacabre said:

@shinigami420 said:

I got this today i am about 3 hours in its not bad but its not great

the framerate is a mess

the AA is some of the worst i have seen in a long time

the textures are blurry

the sound is pretty terrible

the loading times are way to long 1-3min

but its still somewhat fun and its something different than all the other modern military fps games

also i payed 30 bucks for this

Stop blameing ign

the score fits the 360 version

Why do you type like this?

It seems kind of dumb.

It is also very strange.

Start using grammar.

Was that a haiku?

I watched a playthrough
 
for Duke Nukem Forever:
 
what I expected.
#36 Posted by shivermetimbers (763 posts) -

I'll rip his head off and shit down his neck!.....But seriously, it's probably a shitty game, but people aren't buying it because of its quality. 

#37 Edited by Slaker117 (4835 posts) -
@shivermetimbers said:

I'll rip his head off and shit down his neck!.....But seriously, it's probably a shitty game, but people aren't buying it because of its quality. 

Really, the reviews for that game should be reduced to binary. Either they could play through it thus it is, in fact, a game, or it isn't. If DNF's very existence means something to you, you should probably buy it. If not, you shouldn't. It's kind of crappy.
#38 Posted by skyline7284 (503 posts) -

If you in all honesty thought this game would even be good i think you are crazy.  A game like DNF that spends years in development, goes through countless iterations across multiple developers will almost never be good.  Add on to it that it's an FPS which is arguable one of the genre's that has changed the most over the past 10 years, thanks in part to your friends at Call of Duty and Battlefield, and you have a recipe for mediocrity.  DNF is meant to be fan service, if you honestly go into it thinking you will have a good time playing it as a non duke fan you are due for a rough awakening.  How is anyone surprised a site like IGN gave it a 5.5?  The framerate is junk, the game is filled with turret sequences, the textures are blurry, etc.  Every other game with those issues (Sans Mass Effect 1) gets docked points, so why shouldn't DNF?  The game is filled with antiquated design elements, and poor presentation elements, something that a game that has been in development forever is bound to have.  

#39 Posted by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -
@skyline7284: The XBox 360 port is apparently garbage. On PC and Ps3, at least the framerate and loading times are good. I hate the turret sequences and quick time events, but they're pretty much a given in any game today. Heck, all the major game presentations at E3 were on rail turret bullshit.  
 
As a Duke 3D fan I am happy with the game, but I can see someone who has no nostalgia for this franchise see this game as mediocre at best. 
#40 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7240 posts) -

@Toms115 said:

i fucking told you all it was going to be an awful game. this ign review is solid confirmation.

Except it's not an awful game and is a great and solid one. You are wrong!

#41 Posted by GiveUpNed (218 posts) -

Duke Nukem probably is shit. Apart from some lowbrow humor, the game isn't very good. That said, I will still buy it as it's been 14 years.

#42 Posted by avidwriter (667 posts) -

Sounds about right honestly. I think higher scores are people with nostalgia goggles for Duke.

#43 Posted by jakob187 (21645 posts) -

The way I see it, Duke Nukem Forever will be a lot like Metallica's St. Anger: appreciated by those that look past the delays and BS around it and take it for being a throwback. I remember when Blabbermouth did their St. Anger review and refused to give it a rating because they simply said "you have to listen to it and decide for yourself". Duke will be the same way, as there is an entire generation nowadays that will look at the game through modern FPS standards while others like myself will be looking for a game that is simply that of Duke.

#44 Posted by Toms115 (2316 posts) -
@NekuSakuraba said:

@Toms115 said:

i fucking told you all it was going to be an awful game. this ign review is solid confirmation.

Except it's not an awful game and is a great and solid one. You are wrong!

i'm on a roll today. 
 
me - 6 
internet - 0
#45 Posted by RE_Player1 (7551 posts) -

@CL60: They did a quick look of Duke Nukem? Jesus fucking Christ they are just desperate. From the top 10 and 100 lists every day, babe of the week and now copying quick looks.

#46 Posted by Lazyaza (2169 posts) -
Two hours in to the game myself and I've died on the first two bosses, been stuck on geometry twice and have yet to come across a weapon that is remotely fun or satisfying to use. While I'm not giving my final verdict on it yet so far its been a huge disappointment.  I mean fuck their is a 2 weapon limit, in a 90s nostalgia game.   That's just bullshit, but whatever maybe it gets awesome at some point? >_>
#47 Posted by supermike6 (3540 posts) -
@RE_Player92 said:

@CL60: They did a quick look of Duke Nukem? Jesus fucking Christ they are just desperate. From the top 10 and 100 lists every day, babe of the week and now copying quick looks.

Taking a feature that works on another website and incorporating it into your own is not a desperate move! This is what people do; it's how you stay current!  I don't even like IGN at all, but their gameplay commentary is actually pretty decent and I'm tired of people hailing Giant Bomb as the owners of the Quick Look format. Gameplay commentary is just a really good idea; I'm glad it's catching on.
#48 Posted by OsheaDiesStupid (165 posts) -
@supermike6: Their gameplay commentary on this game was pretty bad, though.. It just sounded like they both hated being there and having to do this. 
#49 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

Well after playing that P.O.S demo I'm certainly not surprised.

#50 Posted by Landon (4130 posts) -

Nice to see Gearbox has wasted their time with this. Now maybe they can work on Borderlands 2

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.