This game is a PC-ass PC-game

#1 Posted by Minion101 (91 posts) -

The scores for the console ports should not be the same as the PC version. I'm really enjoying this game. It's just a FUN fucking game... on PC. The console versions are some of the poorest ports seen in a long time and it seems that is what most critics are playing the entire game on. I saw that giantbomb quicklook and those shit load times would make me not want to play the game at all.  The 360 version has 45 second loads. On PC the load times are a non-issue were my longest load was 10 seconds. Don't get your experience soured and play this game on PC or not at all.

#2 Posted by iWonder (454 posts) -

What are your pc specs? If you have monstrous fast RAM that would give you way better load times I would imagine.

#3 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@Minion101 said:
The scores for the console ports should not be the same as the PC version. I'm really enjoying this game. It's just a FUN fucking game... on PC. The console versions are some of the poorest ports seen in a long time and it seems that is what most critics are playing the entire game on. I saw that giantbomb quicklook and those shit load times would make me not want to play the game at all.  The 360 version has 45 second loads. On PC the load times are a non-issue were my longest load was 10 seconds. Don't get your experience soured and play this game on PC or not at all.
Load times alone can not save this game. It has very outdated mechanics mixed with that stupid only 2 gun thing. Not to mention the regen health (Where did the medpacks go) The game was a pain to play and I am glad I only rented it. 
#4 Posted by chilibean_3 (1581 posts) -

Is the PC version less boring?

#5 Posted by emergency (1190 posts) -

@iWonder said:

What are your pc specs? If you have monstrous fast RAM that would give you way better load times I would imagine.

Even with DDR2 4GB RAM i haven't had a load time longer than 10seconds.

#6 Posted by iWonder (454 posts) -

@emergency said:

@iWonder said:

What are your pc specs? If you have monstrous fast RAM that would give you way better load times I would imagine.

Even with DDR2 4GB RAM i haven't had a load time longer than 10seconds.

Oh sweet. I might actually try a demo of it. Cant guarantee a purchase, given that I've heard nothing but bad shit about it, but yeah, I'll at least try it, knowing the load times are okay on PC.

#7 Posted by chrissedoff (2041 posts) -

you mean this is an ass pc game.

#8 Posted by ApolloBob (570 posts) -

From what I've seen the scores for PC are higher than for console - but not high enough to suggest the benefits of playing on PC makes it a good game.

#9 Posted by MaFoLu (1854 posts) -

@iWonder said:

What are your pc specs? If you have monstrous fast RAM that would give you way better load times I would imagine.

I have just 2GB of RAM, and I didn't think the load times were nearly as bad as people are saying they are on consoles.

In other news, I need to get more RAM...

#10 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

Having played it on the PC...just no. No. It's not a good game no matter what system you're playing it on,

#11 Posted by Evilsbane (4348 posts) -

@benjaebe said:

Having played it on the PC...just no. No. It's not a good game no matter what system you're playing it on,

Sure its not good but without all the technical issues its just a stock standard FPS from 05 not deserving of the Fuck-ton of hate around it.

#12 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

Do you really think that people shit all over this game only because it has long loading times?

#13 Posted by Yanngc33 (4496 posts) -
@imsh_pl it's been one of the most recurrent criticismes and the PC version seems to be fix that
#14 Posted by Simplexity (1382 posts) -

After having played the PC version almost twice I disagree with you in any possible way, probably the most boring game I've played in a good long time. I was hoping for it to be atleast hilariously awful but instead it's just dull and awful.

#15 Posted by Minion101 (91 posts) -

Why the hell would you play it almost twice if you hated it

#16 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -
@Yanngc33: Load times are a problem, sure, but the game is just... bad. Outdated mechanics, poor design choices which were abandoned years ago (for a reason, mind you), the "what's on the net these days" jokes and the poor visuals are only a few of DNF's fatal flaws.
#17 Posted by Loose (419 posts) -

Criticism for this game has extended to far more than just bad load-times.

#18 Posted by Minion101 (91 posts) -

My point was criticism for this game was directed towards the console version. It's not just bad load times. The console version is unoptimized with a crappier frame rate, pop in and worse visuals. The game design old, like their answer to HL2. And I don't mean that in a bad way. HL2 was the greatest singleplayer experiences of all time at the time. I'm just enjoying it a lot. Check the DNF steam forums and you will see PC players are liking the game. 
 
I'm not saying it's the best game ever but I'd give it a 7.5 or a 8.0

#19 Posted by Legend (2599 posts) -

@Minion101: Agreed. If they hadn't ported it to consoles, it would've gotten far better reviews.

#20 Posted by MrKlorox (11186 posts) -

Aside from the load times and frame rate (which totally aren't part of the gameplay or story), what makes this not a shit game on PC?

#21 Edited by Minion101 (91 posts) -

@MrKlorox The same reason rainbow 6 was a shit game on PSone and not on PC.

#22 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

I think fixing the technical issues with this game is certainly a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't fix the uneven pacing and other gameplay issues.

#23 Posted by BeachThunder (11276 posts) -

An interesting thing to note is that this game actually started development a few years after the release of the original Playstation...

#24 Posted by Minion101 (91 posts) -
@Napalm said:
I think fixing the technical issues with this game is certainly a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't fix the uneven pacing and other gameplay issues.
If you truly feel that way then that's fine. That's a little more subjective. PCgamer gave the game and 8.0 and I think I agree with them.
#25 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

It's been a week since the release of this pile of shit game and I still can't figure out if the people who are saying the game is anything but a steaming turd are actually telling the truth or just trolling. 
 
If they're telling the truth then I shall never listen to the those people when it comes to video game recommendations EVER again.

#26 Posted by DystopiaX (5241 posts) -

That still doesn't fix the fact that the game isn't funny and doesn't realize it, the gameplay is adequate at best and there is still a lot of shit wrong with the game.

#27 Edited by RIDEBIRD (1229 posts) -

It's a terrible game regardless. Also, there is absolutely no reason for the long load times nor shit graphics, since the game looks like shit - pretty much on the same level as a bad 360 launch title, six years later. I played it at 1080, 60 FPS, found no issue with the loadtimes and really did not enjoy the few hours I played.

I am also a PC gamer, don't own any consoles, and that doesn't mean I for some reason would like DNF. The issues are not entirely technical, it's just a really bad game in terms of pacing, story, controls, combat, action, you know, that stuff that makes a game.

#28 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@Minion101 said:
@Napalm said:
I think fixing the technical issues with this game is certainly a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't fix the uneven pacing and other gameplay issues.
If you truly feel that way then that's fine. That's a little more subjective. PCgamer gave the game and 8.0 and I think I agree with them.
There's some good stuff happening in Duke Nukem Forever, but unfortunately it's weighed down by ten plus years of compounding and convoluted development, outdated and irritating design and a total lack of iteration and spit-shining.
#29 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@imsh_pl said:
Do you really think that people shit all over this game only because it has long loading times?
You make it sound like gamers always have legitimate complaints that they thought through.. 
 
Yes, i really think that people would call a game shitty just because of the loading times (along with worldwide bad scores and the fact that the game is bloody old). We're sheep, don't ever forget that
#30 Posted by niamahai (1402 posts) -

@DystopiaX said:

That still doesn't fix the fact that the game isn't funny and doesn't realize it, the gameplay is adequate at best and there is still a lot of shit wrong with the game.

Pretty much this.

You can have silky smooth framerate, high rez texture, amazing testasomethingsomething won't turn a horribly/archaic designed game into GOTY material.

We should stop talking about DNF and start bitching about something more relevant. Like "when does steam sales start?"

#31 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@niamahai said:

You can have silky smooth framerate, high rez texture, amazing testasomethingsomething won't turn a horribly/archaic designed game into GOTY material.

I think that debate is better suited for Crysis 2.
#32 Posted by Loose (419 posts) -
@Minion101 said:
@Napalm said:
I think fixing the technical issues with this game is certainly a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't fix the uneven pacing and other gameplay issues.
If you truly feel that way then that's fine. That's a little more subjective. PCgamer gave the game and 8.0 and I think I agree with them.
I'm sorry, but what? It's fair to point out that each person's experience with a game is subjective, there is some validity in that, but you've so far failed to make a convincing objective argument on this game's behalf. Additionally by immediately referring to a review score, rather than the content of the review itself, you show a lack of appreciation or understanding of the aspects of a game that are necessary in creating a quality experience for the player (you know, the things that reviewers actually write about in their reviews). If you argue about this game's quality using a gaming journalist/writer's opinions on your behalf, that's fine, but using a review score to get your point accross is meaningless. Saying that a game deserves and 8.0 holds no weight in a legitimate debate. 

I also don't see how your enjoyment of this game is anything other than subjective. Your inability to point out the game's virtues in the face of overwhelming criticism from consumers and the gaming press alike (who, might I add, are comprised of many individuals who have played and reviewed hundreds of games over many years) shows that your appreciation of this game is juvenile at best. You're allowed to have this juvenile appreciation for this game, but the masses who have made clear and concise criticisms against a variety of aspects of this game aren't somehow objectively incorrect just because you and a few others are able to derive enjoyment from it.
#33 Posted by amomjc (977 posts) -

It still makes me laugh when you have such a large scope of people jumping on a hate bandwagon and trying to justify it because of it's shoddy mechanics. Look at yourself and realize the only reason your so passionately hating on this game is because everyone else is. If Duke Nukem had a different theme, different textures, but the same game, we would have passed on it and said it was okay.

#34 Posted by SethPhotopoulos (4859 posts) -
@Loose said:
@Minion101 said:
@Napalm said:
I think fixing the technical issues with this game is certainly a step in the right direction, but it really doesn't fix the uneven pacing and other gameplay issues.
If you truly feel that way then that's fine. That's a little more subjective. PCgamer gave the game and 8.0 and I think I agree with them.
I'm sorry, but what? It's fair to point out that each person's experience with a game is subjective, there is some validity in that, but you've so far failed to make a convincing objective argument on this game's behalf. Additionally by immediately referring to a review score, rather than the content of the review itself, you show a lack of appreciation or understanding of the aspects of a game that are necessary in creating a quality experience for the player (you know, the things that reviewers actually write about in their reviews). If you argue about this game's quality using a gaming journalist/writer's opinions on your behalf, that's fine, but using a review score to get your point accross is meaningless. Saying that a game deserves and 8.0 holds no weight in a legitimate debate. 

I also don't see how your enjoyment of this game is anything other than subjective. Your inability to point out the game's virtues in the face of overwhelming criticism from consumers and the gaming press alike (who, might I add, are comprised of many individuals who have played and reviewed hundreds of games over many years) shows that your appreciation of this game is juvenile at best. You're allowed to have this juvenile appreciation for this game, but the masses who have made clear and concise criticisms against a variety of aspects of this game aren't somehow objectively incorrect just because you and a few others are able to derive enjoyment from it.
That was cool.
#35 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@Loose: Everything is subjective, and just because you have a few loud-mouthed bandwagon-ers who have echoed the contents of like, two reviews, with extreme, vitriolic negativity, doesn't automatically make their opinions an objective truth.
#36 Posted by TooWalrus (12986 posts) -

The loads aren't what made me quit playing.

#37 Edited by Loose (419 posts) -
@Napalm said:

@Loose: Everything is subjective, and just because you have a few loud-mouthed bandwagon-ers who have echoed the contents of like, two reviews, with extreme, vitriolic negativity, doesn't automatically make their opinions an objective truth.

Again, it is fair to say that everything is subjective, particularly in regards to an interactive medium like video games and I am not one of the loud-mouthed bandwagon-ers supporting vitriolic negativity directed toward the game (although I did find the Ars Technica review hilarious). I do, however, agree with the sentiment echoed by other users in this thread that there is a lot wrong with DNF other than technical issues and I feel that the OPs argument regarding subjectivity simply doesn't hold any real weight, especially in the face of a majority of players and reviewers alike who have criticized the game's flaws. Are the opinions of the majority objective truth? Not necessarily. But to suggest that so many people coming to a consensus regarding this game's quality somehow doesn't speak of the game's quality in a meaningful/significant way seems absurd.
#38 Posted by phish09 (1109 posts) -

Yep...a shitty PC game.

#39 Posted by Minion101 (91 posts) -

I just beat the game and enjoyed it the whole way through. The gun management should have been more old-school like HL2 and not the 2-gun halo thing.

#40 Posted by Levio (1781 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

It's been a week since the release of this pile of shit game and I still can't figure out if the people who are saying the game is anything but a steaming turd are actually telling the truth or just trolling. If they're telling the truth then I shall never listen to the those people when it comes to video game recommendations EVER again.

I get the feeling that very few people want to defend this game, so they are kind of drowned out by the everyone else.

#41 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -
@Ahmad_Metallic said:
@imsh_pl said:
Do you really think that people shit all over this game only because it has long loading times?
You make it sound like gamers always have legitimate complaints that they thought through..  Yes, i really think that people would call a game shitty just because of the loading times (along with worldwide bad scores and the fact that the game is bloody old). We're sheep, don't ever forget that
But the OP states that the game would've gotten better reception had the critics played it on the PC. I understand how some infuriated gamers would call it shitty because of the loading times, but I think that saying it got bad reviews only because of the long loading times is a bit of a stretch.
#42 Posted by sandwich_adjustment (685 posts) -

had the reviewers smoked a bunch of pot and drank coffee the reviews would be better too

#43 Posted by AV_Gamer (574 posts) -

I agree. For me, it was a mediocre shooter in the first person on the PC. That's why I also recommed people play the PC version, if they must play it. They definitely shouldn't spend nearly one hundred dollars for the console version. In fact, they should just rent it, even for the PC version.

#44 Edited by Minion101 (91 posts) -
@imsh_pl said:

@Ahmad_Metallic said:

@imsh_pl said:
Do you really think that people shit all over this game only because it has long loading times?
You make it sound like gamers always have legitimate complaints that they thought through..  Yes, i really think that people would call a game shitty just because of the loading times (along with worldwide bad scores and the fact that the game is bloody old). We're sheep, don't ever forget that
But the OP states that the game would've gotten better reception had the critics played it on the PC. I understand how some infuriated gamers would call it shitty because of the loading times, but I think that saying it got bad reviews only because of the long loading times is a bit of a stretch.
I believe technical issues can kill the enjoyment of a game. For the sake of not creating a wall of text, I didn't fully go into what the differences between the two versions in my first post, assuming people were already aware of them. The console version is full of technical issues that the pc version does not have. I DID mention load times just because they are 45 seconds every half hour or so with new sections of the game, and also every time you die. On PC, load times were for the most part 1 loading screen tip for me (10 seconds at longest). 
 
Again I'm not saying this game is the best game ever. It's a fun and funny, HL2 design style, romp.

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.