@Rhaknar said:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-12-duke-nukem-forever-review?page=3 so...yeah... i predict 2/5 from Jeff

LOL Jeff is reviewing this game ? Poor guy.

Always bet on Duke. I mean, really... people were hoping that it will be at least good but deep down they knew it would suck.

@Rhaknar said:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-12-duke-nukem-forever-review?page=3 so...yeah... i predict 2/5 from Jeff

LOL Jeff is reviewing this game ? Poor guy.

Guys a game in development that long was never going to be good. Taste has changed in the last 5 years let alone 15 years.

I've seen quite a bit of gameplay footage from DNF. While it's not broken, it's also not.... very good either. It looks very much like a game released in 01, in terms of gameplay, humour and level design. Graphically, I would say it comes in somewhere betwee 2002 and 2007. Some textures look decent, but some textures look horrifically awful. Graphically it's an extremely mixed bag, which is no surprise given that they've probably cobbled the game together using assets developed many years ago. Duke's reflection in particular looks like it came out of an early PS2 or Xbox game.

Can anyone honestly say they were expecting it to be really awesome? For big fans of Duke, the game might make them a little happy, and it's certainly not an atrociously busted game.... but if this is all they could make after 14 years + Gearbox help and money, then I have to say it: the 3D realms DNF team are probably the least competent devs in the business, and they should have let DNF die. Also, they should never be allowed to work on another game again as a team. Ever.

I read that review earlier. An entertaining read for sure.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A score that low for a game like this? Maybe a 6 at lowest but a 3? It sucks people were expecting this to be so great because it's taken so long, they got a solid shooter but they still aren't happy. Haters gonna hate.

also, i dont know how big Gearbox is, but between Duke and the newly announced Brothers In Arms... what the fuck at the wasted development time on Borderlands 2 >_>

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A score that low for a game like this? Maybe a 6 at lowest but a 3? It sucks people were expecting this to be so great because it's taken so long, they got a solid shooter but they still aren't happy. Haters gonna hate.

also, i dont know how big Gearbox is, but between Duke and the newly announced Brothers In Arms... what the fuck at the wasted development time on Borderlands 2 >_>

Solid Shooter? 
 
really? 

I've seen quite a bit of gameplay footage from DNF. While it's not broken, it's also not.... very good either. It looks very much like a game released in 01, in terms of gameplay, humour and level design. Graphically, I would say it comes in somewhere betwee 2002 and 2007. Some textures look decent, but some textures look horrifically awful. Graphically it's an extremely mixed bag, which is no surprise given that they've probably cobbled the game together using assets developed many years ago. Duke's reflection in particular looks like it came out of an early PS2 or Xbox game.

Can anyone honestly say they were expecting it to be really awesome? For big fans of Duke, the game might make them a little happy, and it's certainly not an atrociously busted game.... but if this is all they could make after 14 years + Gearbox help and money, then I have to say it: the 3D realms DNF team are probably the least competent devs in the business, and they should have let DNF die. Also, they should never be allowed to work on another game again as a team. Ever.

@theoldhouse said:

Solid Shooter? really?

What would you personally give the game? Isn't a 7/10 solid-ish?

Eurogamer reviews are usually pretty bad anyway. 
 
This game is getting scores ranging from 3 to 8.1 so far

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

@Jimbo said:

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

They made a lot of money!

@OsheaDiesStupid said:

Eurogamer reviews are usually pretty bad anyway. This game is getting scores ranging from 3 to 8.1 so far

Eurogamer is one of the better reviewing sites out there bro

I stopped paying attention to what those morons at Eurogamer say about games a long time ago. All their reviews are shit.

@Jimbo said:

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

They made a lot of money!

I'm more amazed that gamers actually thought it would be a good game let alone by the scores.

Still have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D, but come on that was 12 years ago and a lot changes in 12 years.

@NekuSakuraba said:

@Jimbo said:

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

They made a lot of money!

How's that?

Who really didn't see this coming?

@Rhaknar said:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-12-duke-nukem-forever-review?page=3 so...yeah... probably a bit too harsh (lol) but still, not looking good overall (as many of us expected to be honest). I predict 2/5 from Jeff

Why is it harsh?

They are reviewing the game based on what they are playing. Seems like a pretty decent review.

I saw it coming. I mean it plays like a 14 year old game, and games have since moved way past that.

I'm more amazed that gamers actually thought it would be a good game let alone by the scores.

Still have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D, but come on that was 12 years ago and a lot changes in 12 years.

Do we really need to make a thread for every review of this game?

@OsheaDiesStupid said:

Eurogamer reviews are usually pretty bad anyway. This game is getting scores ranging from 3 to 8.1 so far

Eurogamer is one of the better reviewing sites out there bro

I think thats personally a little harsh, I went into the game expecting nothing but was pleased with the experince. I would give it a 3/5

@NekuSakuraba said:

@Jimbo said:

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

They made a lot of money!

How's that?

@NekuSakuraba said:

@theoldhouse said:

Solid Shooter? really?

What would you personally give the game? Isn't a 7/10 solid-ish?

No no no no no. 5/10 should be solid. This is not the 7-10 scale.

@NekuSakuraba said:

@Jimbo said:

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

They made a lot of money!

It can backfire though. They are promoting this game as a triple A title. Not good for your reputation.

@NekuSakuraba said:

@theoldhouse said:

Solid Shooter? really?

What would you personally give the game? Isn't a 7/10 solid-ish?

No no no no no. 5/10 should be solid. This is not the 7-10 scale.

@theoldhouse said:

@Wes899 said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@theoldhouse said:

Solid Shooter? really?

What would you personally give the game? Isn't a 7/10 solid-ish?

No no no no no. 5/10 should be solid. This is not the 7-10 scale.

Dude you live in a fantasy world where people use the scale in a logical way. This is not the world as it is. Also could one not argue than solid>mediocre? since 5 is mediocre. Also who gave duke nukem a 7? because with that score I would buy it but Iv seen nothing but terrible scores.

Use Metacritic.

@Wes899 said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@theoldhouse said:

Solid Shooter? really?

What would you personally give the game? Isn't a 7/10 solid-ish?

No no no no no. 5/10 should be solid. This is not the 7-10 scale.

The 7-10 scale needs to make like a tree and fuck off.

I'm more amazed that gamers actually thought it would be a good game let alone by the scores.

Still have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D, but come on that was 12 years ago and a lot changes in 12 years.

@MysteriousBob said:

@Jimbo said:

@NekuSakuraba said:

@Jimbo said:

What a waste of Gearbox's time.

They made a lot of money!

How's that?

Countless people will buy it just to say 'holy shit I actually own Duke Nukem Forever'. Its a big IP that stands out amongst all the 'Modern Warfare' shooters. Regardless of its quality, it'll sell.

I'm not so sure. I think most people just wanna be in on (or be seen to be in on) the 'Fuck yeah, DNF!' joke. I'm not convinced that crowd will actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes time to knowingly put down $60 on a bad game. Times are hard and there are a lot of (what will almost certainly be) high quality games coming out this year. It's also only a big IP in certain circles - it's not a big or relevant IP to the bulk of the market anymore at all.

I doubt Gearbox are going to lose money, because they probably paid fuck all for it in the first place, but I don't know how much they have spent on it since then so it's hard to say. I do think the time and resources they've spent on it would have been better spent on a better game, and further establishing Gearbox as a high quality developer. Borderlands was a breakout title for them; I don't think following that up with a shitty reanimated corpse of a Duke Nukem game was the smart thing to do at all.

Some games are just not meant to come out

@NekuSakuraba said:

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A score that low for a game like this? Maybe a 6 at lowest but a 3? It sucks people were expecting this to be so great because it's taken so long, they got a solid shooter but they still aren't happy. Haters gonna hate.

They have a right to judge the game fairly according to today's standards because this is a game coming out in 2011. Giving it an inflated score because of a stupid long development cycle and nostalgia is fucking childish. Everyone knew this game was going to be shit but that won't stop people from playing/owning it because of its development history.

@TrueEnglishGent said:

I'm more amazed that gamers actually thought it would be a good game let alone by the scores.

Still have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D, but come on that was 12 years ago and a lot changes in 12 years.

Yeah, this fond memories excuse is weak.  I had fond memories of the N64 Turok games, that doesn't mean I thought anymore of the more recent Turok game (which I'm finally giving a second chance and trying to finish).  Poor graphics and antiquated design choices are the two things you want them to fix when they're making a sequel to a decade old franchise.  It's the art and the character that cause nostalgia. 

@OsheaDiesStupid said:

Eurogamer reviews are usually pretty bad anyway. This game is getting scores ranging from 3 to 8.1 so far

9.5 is the general consensus.

Can you tell me about ze multiplayer?

@HatKing said:

@TrueEnglishGent said:

I'm more amazed that gamers actually thought it would be a good game let alone by the scores.

Still have fond memories of Duke Nukem 3D, but come on that was 12 years ago and a lot changes in 12 years.

Yeah, this fond memories excuse is weak.  I had fond memories of the N64 Turok games, that doesn't mean I thought anymore of the more recent Turok game (which I'm finally giving a second chance and trying to finish).  Poor graphics and antiquated design choices are the two things you want them to fix when they're making a sequel to a decade old franchise.  It's the art and the character that cause nostalgia. 

Except the fact that they changed things. The demo played nothing like Duke Nukem 3D. The problem is that they made it play like a bad modern FPS. You run slow, you can only carry two weapons at a time, and you have so little health that you are forced to take cover. Judging by the demo, t feels like someone tried to copy the gameplay of Halo and the puzzles from Half-life 2 and put Duke in it. If they had made the game so it played like the old Doom clones or Quake I'm sure people would like it much more.

@NekuSakuraba said:

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A score that low for a game like this? Maybe a 6 at lowest but a 3? It sucks people were expecting this to be so great because it's taken so long, they got a solid shooter but they still aren't happy. Haters gonna hate.

B...b...but it's his opinion.