Not really crap just bad. IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011.....really lazy attempt. I'm not going to bash Gearbox because they probably had a smal team working on this and it was probably a cash in with the name. I wasn't expecting an amazing game(i don't think anyone was) but something fun and solid, unfortunately the same joke over and over, really distasteful themes and at times cringe worthy dialogue....just makes it fall flat on it's face. That's not even talking about the horrible graphics, poor level design and below average shooting mechanics. on top of that the game doesn't have good frame rate.
 
Worth a rental if you waited 14 years for this. That's it. I rented today(UK) and i don't even want to beat it.

It's kind of sad.  I was interested in this game from merely a historic standpoint, but now, even that's lost on me.  I've totally lost interest in the game.

I wouldn't blame gearbox because for the most part they didn't make this game, they just finished it. 

Day 1 pirate amirite.

Oh and i was going to say this was on Xbox 360. IF you have a decent PC you may be able to get a better technical performance out of this game.

yeah but what about da boobies?

Day 1 pirate amirite.

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion.
 
So it's not trendy?
 
Okay. Who cares?
 
I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics.
 
A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

@JazGalaxy said:

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion. So it's not trendy? Okay. Who cares? I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics. A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

What are you talking about? Games don't play like they used to for a reason. There's a difference between trendy and trendy because this was all the technology was capable of. If Streets of Rage 4 came out today, it'd be garbage because those types of games just don't work in this day and age.

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion.  So it's not trendy?  Okay. Who cares?  I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics.  A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

I'm about halfway through watching a playthrough of the game and it seems just about right to me.

Gearbox is one of my favourite developers and just the fact that they were able to finish the unfinishable game is good enough in my book. In all honesty, I wasnt expecting anything great 15 years ago either...

Don't worry about it.  You're allowed to blame Gearbox.  They're the one's that chose to release this game, and they are the ones who are charging you money for it.  What I'm basically getting from reading about this game all day is that it was probably never released because it was never good enough to charge people money for, but Gearbox decided, "fuck it, these people will buy anything, so let's sell them this half-assed attempt at a modern Duke game".  They picked it up, polished it as much as they could and sold you a game that was not worthy of your $60.  I'm not hating on Gearbox as developers...I think they are great, but I think this marketing strategy could come back to bite them on the ass.

@JazGalaxysaid:

I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics. A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

@Belmont_Shadowsaid:

That's not even talking about the horrible graphics, poor level design and below average shooting mechanics. on top of that the game doesn't have good frame rate. Worth a rental if you waited 14 years for this. That's it. I rented today(UK) and i don't even want to beat it.

Can people even read nowadays?

I still stick by my original thoughts when they first announced that Gearbox were finishing it. Leave a dead horse well enough alone.

Gearbox, you're better than this.

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion.  So it's not trendy?  Okay. Who cares?  I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics.  A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

Still buying day one.

@JazGalaxy said:

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion. So it's not trendy? Okay. Who cares? I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics. A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

What are you talking about? Games don't play like they used to for a reason. There's a difference between trendy and trendy because this was all the technology was capable of. If Streets of Rage 4 came out today, it'd be garbage because those types of games just don't work in this day and age.

Judging by the Happy Hour footage last week, I wasn't impressed. There are WAY TOO MANY games coming out this year to bother with this. Unless your a HUGE Duke fan, if there are any of those left out there.

12 years of their life wasted in order to waste a few hours of ours.

@phish09 said:

Don't worry about it. You're allowed to blame Gearbox. They're the one's that chose to release this game, and they are the ones who are charging you money for it. What I'm basically getting from reading about this game all day is that it was probably never released because it was never good enough to charge people money for, but Gearbox decided, "fuck it, these people will buy anything, so let's sell them this half-assed attempt at a modern Duke game". They picked it up, polished it as much as they could and sold you a game that was not worthy of your $60. I'm not hating on Gearbox as developers...I think they are great, but I think this marketing strategy could come back to bite them on the ass.

So your saying because they decided to help out 3d realms and help them do their best to get a game these guys were working on for 14years and try to get that game as polished as possible seeing as how they may of had about 20% in the actual process. As well as Microsoft's standard price point. It's okay to blame them for a game they really had no MAJOR part in ( terms of year %) for a game that no one expected to be great save for kids and teens who wouldn't know any better? You DO realize what your saying right?

I believe Gearbox mostly took the role of management. It seems as though it was Triptych Games (made up of ex-3d Realms workers) and  Piranha Games who worked on the finishing touches.

@JazGalaxy said:

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion.  So it's not trendy?  Okay. Who cares?  I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics.  A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

It doesn't discredit what he's saying.  Trends have nothing to do with it.  The game's tech doesn't stand up to 2011 standards (to him).  Music is different than games in that games are based on technical developments.  The Beatles can stand the test of time because music is just music.  Music doesn't improve over time only change and expand.  By necessity games have to improve and evolve.  Uncharted 2 is one of this gen's top games but in 14 years new players won't really like it or they'll find it unplayable because in 14 years the technology will drastically improve.    So in 2005 as a launch 360 title the technology wasn't as well utilized as it is now so there is an expectation that needs to be met.  The fact that this game hasn't evolved can definitely be seen as a bad thing.  When games like Bulletstorm took what Duke Nukem was and transferred it to 2011 it improved on what Duke Nukem was mechanically.  There is no trend being discussed here just industry standards that the game has not met (to some people).

that's sad but oh well

@rebgav said:

@Patman99 said:

In all honesty, I wasnt expecting anything great 15 years ago either...

I think that most reasonable people were expecting a 6/10 game, with 10/10 personality. Why expectations would change over 15 years of development hell, I don't know. People are crazy.

This is what I always feel like with Duke Nukem games. Great jokes and atmosphere but not great gameplay. Alright gameplay just not anything stellar. Another thing I remember about Duke Nukem is that it is the type of game that, 15 years ago, my mother would kill me if she saw me playing it but that never stopped me from renting it at the video store....

@JazGalaxy: Bollocks.

Having lives is an archaic relic from the arcade days. Health packs are a blunt tool to sharpen a game's difficulty level. On the contrary, consoles like the NES / SNES killed the social activity called the arcade, the first dose of a slow, slow poison of which we're now just recovering.

Confusing the current trend of FPS and its gimmicks with technological advancement is mistaking the trees for the forest.

@DeeGee said:

@JazGalaxy said:

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion. So it's not trendy? Okay. Who cares? I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics. A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

What are you talking about? Games don't play like they used to for a reason. There's a difference between trendy and trendy because this was all the technology was capable of. If Streets of Rage 4 came out today, it'd be garbage because those types of games just don't work in this day and age.

Bollocks. Games are trendy. They don't "evolve" like many gamers try to pretend.  The modern style of highly scripted thrill-ride FPS games are in no way "better" than older styled games.  Sure graphics get better as hardware gets better, but very few gameplay decisions are based around hardware.  Maybe you have to have played games long enough to get it, but trends come in and out of fashion in games just like they do in clothes.  I mean, crap, you know how "co-op gaming" is all the rage right now? It was in the NES and SNES era as well. Then the PSX era abandoned it because it just wasn't trendy. It didn't somehow get less FUN until Halo suddenly "invented it". It just wasn't what pop culture gamers cared about.  Rechargeable health, aiming down the sites, cover... these are all trends that will go in and out of fashion for the next ten years just like level based gameplay, objective based gameplay, large scale vs. small scale multiplayer and realism vs. absurdest gameplay has.

The game industry is moving at such a pace that you can't really take more than 3-4 years at most to make a game or it will feel dated when it arrives.

The weird thing for me about this game, is that I didn't think the demo was all that great, and I kinda think the full game won't be good either.

But I'm still thinking of putting down the equivalent of about $150 for the Balls of Steel edition...

What's wrong with me!?

Also, do you think I should do it? Do you think the Balls of Steel edition is actually limited, as in they only made a hundred or whatever, enough to warrant a purchase just to own it?

I'll wait to pick it up on Steam for next to nothing. Surely it won't be that long for this title's value to plummet. 
Not gonna resort to Piracy though...

@JazGalaxy: Bollocks.

Having lives is an archaic relic from the arcade days. Health packs are a blunt tool to sharpen a game's difficulty level. On the contrary, consoles like the NES / SNES killed the social activity called the arcade, the first dose of a slow, slow poison of which we're now just recovering.

Confusing the current trend of FPS and its gimmicks with technological advancement is mistaking the trees for the forest.

@phish09 said:

Don't worry about it. You're allowed to blame Gearbox. They're the one's that chose to release this game, and they are the ones who are charging you money for it. What I'm basically getting from reading about this game all day is that it was probably never released because it was never good enough to charge people money for, but Gearbox decided, "fuck it, these people will buy anything, so let's sell them this half-assed attempt at a modern Duke game". They picked it up, polished it as much as they could and sold you a game that was not worthy of your $60. I'm not hating on Gearbox as developers...I think they are great, but I think this marketing strategy could come back to bite them on the ass.

I think Gearbox is saved by the reality that anyone still interested in DNF knows the mess it's been and as a result Gearbox will be absolved (rightly or wrongly). Gearbox pick up an 'anticipated' game, do a couple of months work (probably mainly bug fixes and polish) and save a boat load of money in development costs in the process. The game gets released and those that are curious enough slap down $60; they find out it's bad, but Gearbox has secured that sale.

@JazGalaxy said:

As soon as you said "IF this came out in 2005 as an Xbox 360 launch game it might have been great but in 2011..." it kind of discredited your opinion. So it's not trendy? Okay. Who cares? I'm not saying it's going to be a fun game, or even good. But as soon as you start trying to say it's not current enough, you sound like someone who is caught up in pop culture gaming asthetics. A band playing grunge music in 2011 can still be good. They might not chart, but that doesn't mean the music is any better or worse than it would have been when it was trendy.

Dude what are you talking about? It's not about being trendy it's about being something that should be acceptable by today's standards i.e decent graphics, voice work and working within or expanding upon the boundires of a modern shooter. I didn't expect this to be the next big FPS and Gearbox probably didn't either I just don't know why they bothered.

@JazGalaxy said:

@Gaff said:

@JazGalaxy: Bollocks.

Having lives is an archaic relic from the arcade days. Health packs are a blunt tool to sharpen a game's difficulty level. On the contrary, consoles like the NES / SNES killed the social activity called the arcade, the first dose of a slow, slow poison of which we're now just recovering.

Confusing the current trend of FPS and its gimmicks with technological advancement is mistaking the trees for the forest.

Nonsense. I know people keep saying this, but it's just pattently not true. It's like the way people kept saying that having multiple consoles made games better until they realized, wait a second, it actually just means developers develop for the lowest common denominator and everyone actually gets WORSE game. Lives are chances. Plain and simple. You get so many chances to do something before you lose. Having a lose-state is one of the fundamental elements of what makes something a game. We can get into that, which is really a whole other discussion, but saying that getting rid of lives makes games better is like saying getting rid of points makes football better. or getting rid of a loser makes poker better.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong. There is nothing wrong with games that have lives but there is equally nothing wrong with games that don't have lives. Games like Heavy Rain don't really have a fail state but that doesn't stop the game being any less entertaining. You're view of what makes a game a game is so narrow I'd be suprised if you enjoyed any games that came out in the past 10 years.

You expected it not to be? Anyone really anticipating this game should just go out right now and buy Bulletstorm

I'm about 90 minutes in and so far I kind of like it, didn't expect that after the demo. Of course it's no modern shooter with insane graphics and scripted events every 2 minutes (who needs that anyway).. that's not what I expected, so I'm not disappointed.

I don't like it that I can't shoot while running and the button mashing to open gates is something I can't even stand in new games. All in all (after 90 minutes) I enjoy it, mostly because of how stupid the game is and the little games inside the game are fun again. There is a guy standing in a corner near a microwave oven who starts talking to you a few minutes after the first bossbattle and.. it's hilarious. :)

@punkxblaze said:

Day 1 pirate amirite.

No.

Were you expecting GOTY material? 

Well i enjoy it. Don't care about this and that. I just play and have fun. Just the way Duke should be :)

The thing is I can still see it being great. I'm hoping the happy hour misrepresented it.

it wouldn't have taken 14 years if those guys knew what they were doing. i still have the holiday issue of pc gamer with the duke nukem forever cover story from the late nineties sitting on my shelf haha

@Vortexus1981 said:

Well i enjoy it. Don't care about this and that. I just play and have fun. Just the way Duke should be :)

How far in are you? I'm wondering if it stays the way it plays after the "micromachine" part. :)

@Xpgamer7: Don't expect too much mate. ;) It's fun, but it's not revolutionary.

I've played about 3 hours now and I'm enjoying it. 
I only heard negative shit before I picked it up and didn't expect much but it has turned out to be exactly what I expected from a Duke Nukem game. The graphics and framerate isn't even that bad (360).
The shooting feels fine too, the shotgun is awesome.

I am starting to notice that those who don't think this game is good, are probably not man enough to handle it.

Gearbox did the unthinkable, they finished DNF.  This isn't a Gearbox game per say so no one should stick any type of blame on them for this average game.
 
People should be really scared of what could of happened had Gearbox not been the one to finish this and they picked some low key dev to save on costs.

Day 1 pirate amirite.

I wouldn't blame gearbox because for the most part they didn't make this game, they just finished it.