Duke Nukem Forever demo released

[0098386]

Just finished it. Superb final run!

If I had one complaint it's that they didn't flesh out the unique aspects of Duke. There are some really fantastic set pieces that you only see for a minute or 2, and I'm really glad they included plenty of looping background music - they just needed loads more. Also needed more secret areas (something modern games don't like).

Gets an 85% from me. Haven't been this pushed to finishing a game since Crysis and Portal 2.

 

[ratzzo]

All the hype was lost when they took so long to release the next version. As others say, I'll wait until the price goes down, it's not really a priority after so much time.

 

[PowerGamerX]

Absolutely terrible. Missing just about everything that made Duke 3D great.

Linear levels, tons of scripting, terrible controls, only 2 weapons at a time, slow movement, weapons dont feel all that satisfying.

I dont know who expected it to be any good after a good 13 years or so though.

At least the cheesy one liners are here.

The mouse was so terrible I only made it around 3-4 hours in though.

 

[archurban]

You mean DNF (76%) - http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/duke-nukem-forever? Against RF:A (78%) - http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/red-faction-armageddon?
That doesn't scream 10 times better to me, I don't know about you!

I think I'm 5 hours in. To me it feels like a cross between Crysis 2 and Doom 3, with an abundance of Duke humour. The hive section is terrific - got this maxed out on my iMac and it looks utterly gorgeous. The constant first person cutscenes really make it immersive. And a little nauseous sometimes!

I was talking about Xbox 360 version (it's now even 50). plus, meta critic score is always changed. now, PC version is only 63. normally, it's not a big drop like this. it means that the game is really bad. I will pass this garbage.

 

[mosx]

I was talking about Xbox 360 version (it's now even 50). plus, meta critic score is always changed. now, PC version is only 63. normally, it's not a big drop like this. it means that the game is really bad. I will pass this garbage.

Game reviews are personal opinions, not facts set in stone. Perfect example? Zelda: Ocarina of Time. When it came out, game reviewers all basically called it the best thing since sliced bread. In reality, it was "good" or "average" at best. I haven't cared what game reviewers have said about a game since then.

Don't forget a few years ago too. When gamespot fired a reviewer for giving a game a "low" score when the game publisher was sponsoring the site and advertising that game everywhere. Then a bunch of other reviewers left gamespot because of the fact that they couldn't give "honest" reviews any more.

So, in essence, game reviews mean absolutely nothing. They are personal opinions.

Read the reviews of Duke. The vast majority of the review is spent talking about how "offensive" Duke is and slamming the character for being the character. The arstechnica.com review goes on and on about how "offensive" Duke is and how "terrible" the game is for "objectifying" women. Then the reviewer admits to being a "big fan" of Family Guy. How can anyone take that review seriously? Not only that, but complaining about how "offensive" it is and "objectifying" women in a Duke game leads you to wonder if the reviewer had played the original. Same thing with the Alice: Madness Returns reviews. Reviewers complaining about the platforming and puzzles, as well as the music. Those three things are what made the original game such a hit with fans and made it financially successful enough for EA to finally bring out the sequel. Its the same with DNF. They complain about everything in the game and say its "nothing" like Duke 3D, when it in fact is. Plus they're all trying to be politically correct "OMG thats wrong" reviewers. Look at IGN's review. Then look at their review of Mortal Kombat. They actually complain about the level of violence in Mortal Kombat. Did they play ANY of the previous games? I mean, seriously.

Reviews mean absolutely nothing at all. They're just a single persons opinion. They should be taken with a grain of salt because they in no way reflect how YOU will feel about the game yourself. Let's not forget that a lot of these reviewers also recently gave Crysis 2 glowing reviews talking about great it was and how spectacular the graphics were. We all know how that turned out Basically Call of Duty with aliens and the nano suit. And the graphics weren't anywhere NEAR as good as the original, except for the character models.

Anyway, I love Duke Nukem Forever. It's fun. People complain about two weapons at a time? At first I thought it would be bad. But as you play the game, you find that you always have both a weapon you NEED as well as a weapon thats FUN. Slow movement? I guess people forgot what Duke Nukem 3D was like. Bad controls? How is the control bad? If mouse movement is not right on your system, then its your system. Linear levels? No different than the original game. People seem to forget that Doom, Quake, Duke, Unreal, Half-Life, etc., basically all of the big shooters from the 90s, had an entrance and an exit, and often hid the linearity of the level by requiring backtracking through already explored areas of the map. Scripted events? So? They drive the story this time around. Duke 3D had no real story driven scenes. I don't see how people can complain about the weapons either. A pig leaps at you and you nail it in the head with a shotgun and the head explodes and the body goes flying backward.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of people who are complaining about the game have NOT played it. The reviewers who don't like it never played the original, or already showed they don't like Duke prior to reviewing the game (again, such as Ars, where the reviewer made many previous comments in the past about his distaste for Duke) so they were biased against the game from the start.

It really is a fun game though. It plays like a 90s shooter. If you play it as intended, circle strafing, shooting everything that moves, using strafing to dodge attacks, then its a lot of fun. But if you play it like one of the many cookie cutter modern war games, and have absolutely no sense of humor, then it won't be fun.

 

[0098386]

It really is a fun game though. It plays like a 90s shooter. If you play it as intended, circle strafing, shooting everything that moves, using strafing to dodge attacks, then its a lot of fun. But if you play it like one of the many cookie cutter modern war games, and have absolutely no sense of humor, then it won't be fun.

Hear hear!

Another problem with the culture of reviews was GTAIV. I'm a huge fan of the GTA series and I currently have all the games (including Stories, London etc). GTAIV was released to 99% reviews but the game itself was nowhere near as original, inventive and fun to play as San Andreas - and that didn't get 99%. But to reviewers it could do no wrong. It was the pinnacle of gaming to them.

 

[maflynn]

Absolutely terrible. Missing just about everything that made Duke 3D great.

Linear levels, tons of scripting, terrible controls, only 2 weapons at a time, slow movement, weapons dont feel all that satisfying.

I dont know who expected it to be any good after a good 13 years or so though.

At least the cheesy one liners are here.

The mouse was so terrible I only made it around 3-4 hours in though.

I have yet to read a positive review of the game. Just like everyone else, I loved the original version and waited for this, at some point I gave up waiting but was excited to see it finally get released. It had a lot of potential but some how they really dropped the ball.

 

[decafjava]

Game reviews are personal opinions, not facts set in stone.


Linear levels? No different than the original game. People seem to forget that Doom, Quake, Duke, Unreal, Half-Life, etc., basically all of the big shooters from the 90s, had an entrance and an exit, and often hid the linearity of the level by requiring backtracking through already explored areas of the map.

First I agree with-second only played Doom but did not find it "linear" as you said. The Arstechnica review you mention has a graphic showing a typical map from Doom. Lots of places to explore-secrets, tricks like descending ceilings that can squash you or your enemies if you are clever.

I sort of agree about taking the offensive aspect too seriously-I mean violence and crass humour are nothing new right?

Still I've read too much about poor gameplay and graphics in other reviews to expect that the ball was dropped here. I mean come on this was in "development" for 15 years and how many teams!

 

[Consultant]

There are some fun portions. Even makes fun of Halo:
http://twitter.com/#!/obamapacman/status/79399598745059329

Game reviews are personal opinions...

Those complaining about controls don't know how to move / strafe.

As former player of quake multiplayer, I find Duke to be pretty easy. But I can see why it's difficult for the hide behind the wall and suck your thumb generation.

 

[archurban]

Game reviews are personal opinions, not facts set in stone. Perfect example? Zelda: Ocarina of Time. When it came out, game reviewers all basically called it the best thing since sliced bread. In reality, it was "good" or "average" at best. I haven't cared what game reviewers have said about a game since then.

Don't forget a few years ago too. When gamespot fired a reviewer for giving a game a "low" score when the game publisher was sponsoring the site and advertising that game everywhere. Then a bunch of other reviewers left gamespot because of the fact that they couldn't give "honest" reviews any more.

So, in essence, game reviews mean absolutely nothing. They are personal opinions.

Read the reviews of Duke. The vast majority of the review is spent talking about how "offensive" Duke is and slamming the character for being the character. The arstechnica.com review goes on and on about how "offensive" Duke is and how "terrible" the game is for "objectifying" women. Then the reviewer admits to being a "big fan" of Family Guy. How can anyone take that review seriously? Not only that, but complaining about how "offensive" it is and "objectifying" women in a Duke game leads you to wonder if the reviewer had played the original. Same thing with the Alice: Madness Returns reviews. Reviewers complaining about the platforming and puzzles, as well as the music. Those three things are what made the original game such a hit with fans and made it financially successful enough for EA to finally bring out the sequel. Its the same with DNF. They complain about everything in the game and say its "nothing" like Duke 3D, when it in fact is. Plus they're all trying to be politically correct "OMG thats wrong" reviewers. Look at IGN's review. Then look at their review of Mortal Kombat. They actually complain about the level of violence in Mortal Kombat. Did they play ANY of the previous games? I mean, seriously.

Reviews mean absolutely nothing at all. They're just a single persons opinion. They should be taken with a grain of salt because they in no way reflect how YOU will feel about the game yourself. Let's not forget that a lot of these reviewers also recently gave Crysis 2 glowing reviews talking about great it was and how spectacular the graphics were. We all know how that turned out Basically Call of Duty with aliens and the nano suit. And the graphics weren't anywhere NEAR as good as the original, except for the character models.

Anyway, I love Duke Nukem Forever. It's fun. People complain about two weapons at a time? At first I thought it would be bad. But as you play the game, you find that you always have both a weapon you NEED as well as a weapon thats FUN. Slow movement? I guess people forgot what Duke Nukem 3D was like. Bad controls? How is the control bad? If mouse movement is not right on your system, then its your system. Linear levels? No different than the original game. People seem to forget that Doom, Quake, Duke, Unreal, Half-Life, etc., basically all of the big shooters from the 90s, had an entrance and an exit, and often hid the linearity of the level by requiring backtracking through already explored areas of the map. Scripted events? So? They drive the story this time around. Duke 3D had no real story driven scenes. I don't see how people can complain about the weapons either. A pig leaps at you and you nail it in the head with a shotgun and the head explodes and the body goes flying backward.

I honestly believe that the vast majority of people who are complaining about the game have NOT played it. The reviewers who don't like it never played the original, or already showed they don't like Duke prior to reviewing the game (again, such as Ars, where the reviewer made many previous comments in the past about his distaste for Duke) so they were biased against the game from the start.

It really is a fun game though. It plays like a 90s shooter. If you play it as intended, circle strafing, shooting everything that moves, using strafing to dodge attacks, then its a lot of fun. But if you play it like one of the many cookie cutter modern war games, and have absolutely no sense of humor, then it won't be fun.

that's funny you said. review on gaming web sites you can't just ignore. people work professionally which you don't understand. score effects on public big time which you have no idea even though you still think some of games are fun to play for yourself. that's why some like you shouldn't review any game because you have no accurate judgement in public way. plus, even user reviews in meta critic are really bad. you don't want to play that kind of bad game at all or don't want to throw money for nothing.

 

[mosx]

Another problem with the culture of reviews was GTAIV. I'm a huge fan of the GTA series and I currently have all the games (including Stories, London etc). GTAIV was released to 99% reviews but the game itself was nowhere near as original, inventive and fun to play as San Andreas - and that didn't get 99%. But to reviewers it could do no wrong. It was the pinnacle of gaming to them.

As much as I love GTA4, I have to agree. San Andreas was a better game. But GTA4 received better reviews. Maybe because it pandered more towards the "hide behind a wall and suck your thumb" generation, as Consultant put it.

I have yet to read a positive review of the game. Just like everyone else, I loved the original version and waited for this, at some point I gave up waiting but was excited to see it finally get released. It had a lot of potential but some how they really dropped the ball.

From what I've seen, the only people who speak badly about the game are those who insist on jumping on the "let's hate Duke" bandwagon. With the review of Duke Nukem Forever it was really a matter of seeing who could hate it more than the others. Then those who claim to have played it and hate it prove they really haven't played it, when they make comments about things like "rape" occuring on screen. That NEVER happens. In fact, "The Hive" is far more tame in this game.

First I agree with-second only played Doom but did not find it "linear" as you said. The Arstechnica review you mention has a graphic showing a typical map from Doom. Lots of places to explore-secrets, tricks like descending ceilings that can squash you or your enemies if you are clever.

Duke has environmental ways of taking out enemies or at least hurting them to a point. Doom was more of a point A to point B game, with the exploration thrown in as an extra. You really could beat the game without exploring at all.

I sort of agree about taking the offensive aspect too seriously-I mean violence and crass humour are nothing new right?

Exactly. And how can one find Family Guy funny but Duke "offensive"? Of course, the Ars review was another one of those "let's hate it worse than the other guys!" reviews and wasn't exactly honest with some of the things that happened in the game.

Still I've read too much about poor gameplay and graphics in other reviews to expect that the ball was dropped here. I mean come on this was in "development" for 15 years and how many teams!

Game plays a lot like Duke 3D. Some of the graphics are pretty good. Other times you can definitely tell its right out of 2005 running Unreal Engine 2.5.

Those complaining about controls don't know how to move / strafe.

As former player of quake multiplayer, I find Duke to be pretty easy. But I can see why it's difficult for the hide behind the wall and suck your thumb generation.

Heheh, exactly.

that's funny you said. review on gaming web sites you can't just ignore. people work professionally which you don't understand.

Sitting around playing free videogames that publishers send to you then writing your opinion isn't exactly a difficult job. And if you read the IGN or Ars Technica reviews, those reviews are FAR from "professional".

score effects on public big time which you have no idea even though you still think some of games are fun to play for yourself. that's why some like you shouldn't review any game because you have no accurate judgement in public way.

You must have missed it when Gamespot fired an editor for giving a game a low review. A game that just happened to have the publisher sponsoring the site.

Game reviews reflect public opinion? I wouldn't say that. Look at Crysis 2. It was loved by all reviews, yet the people who have actually played the game constantly rip on it. Reviewers claimed it had "gorgeous" graphics, yet the actual players point out the fact that the game doesn't even look HALF as good as the original.

Best part? Despite glowing reviews, Crysis 2 is essentially DEAD now. It sold decent at first. But its dead now. Virtually no one plays online on the PC version, and the Xbox and PS3 versions are rapidly becoming ghost towns.

Look at Duke. The response to the reviews have been nothing but backlash against the reviews. For every one person who agrees with the review you have dozens upon dozens of people who say the game is great.

plus, even user reviews in meta critic are really bad. you don't want to play that kind of bad game at all or don't want to throw money for nothing.

Yeah, but how many of them have actually PLAYED the game? User reviews on websites like that require no proof of ownership or having played the game at all. I've been reading forum posts at various sites and in response to reviews. The people who dislike the game and claim to have played it can only say the negative things that the reviewer has. In one case, as I said above, someone tried to say there was rape in the game, when there is not. So all the haters who supposedly played the game jumped on that bandwagon and made fools of themselves proving that they in fact did NOT play the game.

 

[0098386]

that's funny you said. review on gaming web sites you can't just ignore. people work professionally which you don't understand. score effects on public big time which you have no idea even though you still think some of games are fun to play for yourself. that's why some like you shouldn't review any game because you have no accurate judgement in public way. plus, even user reviews in meta critic are really bad. you don't want to play that kind of bad game at all or don't want to throw money for nothing.

As a developer myself I've got lots of ties to games journalists. All the time I hear them complaining about how they have to like games because "its in the interest of the site/magazine". Quite frequently smaller sites will run reviews through an editor who will remove sections that might damage the relationship they have with publishers and PR firms.

Since I got in touch with these people my reliance on reviews has dropped through the floor and are no longer reliable. So many games get glowing reviews - but are god awful terrible, so many great games go under the radar or (in the case of Duke) misunderstood.

But speaking of linearity. Duke Forever is a lot more cinematic than previous Dukes. When that happens out goes exploration, it has to. You can't mix a strong, linear narrative with the opposite in gameplay. When that happens you have Roman ringing you every 2 minutes, or you get completely lost as in Oblivion or Zelda. You pick one or the other and in modern games, unfortunately, if you don't have a cinema-experience crammed into a game then your game is destroyed.
Besides... games like FFXII and DNF (even TF2 and Left4Dead) introduce exploration and variety in the form of your character, their stats and their loadout. The levels are linear but its how you set yourself up before you attempt them that introduces the exploration element.

That Ars review was awful for that map comparison and shows a complete lack of knowledge on the difference between gameplay eras. It's present in every game so why isolate it for Duke Nukem Forever?

 

[El Cabong]

Loved Duke3D.

Wanted to like DNF, if only for some enjoyably mindless shooting + bad jokes.

Hated it.

 

[gman901]

The poster who said Crysis 2 is dead and not that impressive graphically in my opinion is way off. I just played about 2 hours of it on my MacBook air 11" and had a great time with it. The graphics seem a lot more realistic than Warhead but I have not played the original Crysis in a while to compare. Also, regarding the new Duke game, I think it is a crappy game and agree with many of the reviews. The problem is that I kind of like playing it for some reason. I do not like the long load times, but I find the game fun to play even though I know it's a bad game.

 

[nonameowns]

the demo is so bad that it's not even worth pirating it.

Sorry, DN3D is better.

 

[mosx]

Loved Duke3D.

Wanted to like DNF, if only for some enjoyably mindless shooting + bad jokes.

Hated it.

Proof you played it? So far I've seen everyone who claims to have played DNF and says "I loved Duke 3D" actually hasn't played DNF. And people who say they love Duke 3D but don't like DNF also seem to have a very different memory of what Duke 3D actually was versus what they think it was.

DNF is essentially D3D modernized.

The poster who said Crysis 2 is dead and not that impressive graphically in my opinion is way off. I just played about 2 hours of it on my MacBook air 11" and had a great time with it. The graphics seem a lot more realistic than Warhead but I have not played the original Crysis in a while to compare. Also, regarding the new Duke game, I think it is a crappy game and agree with many of the reviews. The problem is that I kind of like playing it for some reason. I do not like the long load times, but I find the game fun to play even though I know it's a bad game.

You're playing Crysis 2 on a MacBook Air? wow. Heh. Yeah, that system will NOT be able to play the original Crysis or Crysis Warhead on even medium settings with a playable frame-rate, unless you like 640x480 resolution.

Crysis/Warhead have significantly higher resolution textures. To the point where a lot of textures do not show any sort of pixelization or filtering artifacts when you're up close. The textures in Crysis 2 aren't even as high resolution as the original Gears of War game. Crysis 2 lacks dynamic lighting. The single player levels are practically corridor style. In Crysis they're wide open with lush jungle environments with trees that have individual leaves blowing in the wind, instead of cardboard masses of leaves like Crysis 2. Oh and the post processing. Crysis only has a little bit. Crysis 2? Wow, theres so much it blurs the entire picture. Crysis also has somewhat destructible environments. Some buildings can be destroyed, trees can be cut down and land in a somewhat realistic way. You can't even get a reaction out of a tree by shooting it in Crysis 2.

What long loading times in Duke Nukem Forever? On the PC the loading times are mere seconds. The loading times are significantly faster than any of the previous few Call of Duty games, and even more significantly faster than Crysis 2.

the demo is so bad that it's not even worth pirating it.

Sorry, DN3D is better.

Prove Duke Nukem 3D is better.

I hate to break it to you, but the final game is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the demo. In fact, the demo for DNF doesn't even include full levels. Just small portions of two levels. The first level plays EXACTLY like Duke Nukem 3D. If you actually played both games, you'd know this. The second level in the demo also plays exactly like Duke Nukem 3D, except with the two gun limit and regenerating health. Again, those of us who have actually played both games know that DNF actually does play like Duke Nukem 3D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s That guy basically has it right.

 

[gman901]

Yeah, that's what I thought before trying to play the Crysis games on the Air. I personally find them playable. I think warhead was a little smoother at 1280 x 720 then Crysis 2 at the same settings; however most real gamers would scoff at the framerates I was getting - about 25 fps in Warhead and 20 fps in Crysis 2. I know most gamers would feel that is unplayable, but I really did not notice it and really enjoy playing them on the Air. I was considering getting the new M11x R3, but I only play about 5-6 games seriously and I would not want to give up the Air's portability and OSX.

 

[El Cabong]

Proof you played it? So far I've seen everyone who claims to have played DNF and says "I loved Duke 3D" actually hasn't played DNF. And people who say they love Duke 3D but don't like DNF also seem to have a very different memory of what Duke 3D actually was versus what they think it was.

Lol.

"I don't agree with your opinion, therefore you are a liar!"

It's great that you feel the need to defend a game that you enjoy, but I don't feel the need to indulge you with photos/videos of my TV with DNF on the screen.

 

[0098386]

Proof you played it? So far I've seen everyone who claims to have played DNF and says "I loved Duke 3D" actually hasn't played DNF. And people who say they love Duke 3D but don't like DNF also seem to have a very different memory of what Duke 3D actually was versus what they think it was.

Heh, I find this too. It's all over the internet - people who haven't actually played the game, or at least to a point where the puzzles start dropping in, or the boss fights become more intense or where the story escalates.

But hey people are allowed to either not have a real opinion or follow what others say. I wouldn't do it but I know plenty who do.

DNF is essentially D3D modernized.

I wouldn't say so. Having recently played through Duke3D there are some big changes. There is a lack of environment exploration, levels are larger (occasionally to the point of being dull) and there are more secrets. The story does follow the same route of; aliens in city, fight aliens on their turf, go back to city, nuke.

Oh and that final boss was way too easy. Brilliant run up though. I absolutely loved the rising water section (I even made a game with that formula a couple of years ago) and all the jokes that followed. "I was expecting a monkey"

 

[mosx]

Yeah, that's what I thought before trying to play the Crysis games on the Air. I personally find them playable. I think warhead was a little smoother at 1280 x 720 then Crysis 2 at the same settings; however most real gamers would scoff at the framerates I was getting - about 25 fps in Warhead and 20 fps in Crysis 2. I know most gamers would feel that is unplayable, but I really did not notice it and really enjoy playing them on the Air. I was considering getting the new M11x R3, but I only play about 5-6 games seriously and I would not want to give up the Air's portability and OSX.

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that to run Crysis and Crysis Warhead on the absolute highest settings, you'd need a GPU thats 10-20x more powerful than the GeForce 320m, depending on what frame-rate and anti-aliasing and other filtering options you'd want. That sort of GPU can actually be had for around $150-$200 these days. Crysis on highest settings versus the settings the 320m could run it fluidly on.. well, it looks like a completely different game. The difference is about the same as a movie on DVD versus blu-ray disc.

Crysis 2, on the other hand, was made to run good on half decade old consoles. And even then, the Xbox 360 version runs at 1152x720 while the PS3 version runs at 1024x720. The difference between "High" and "Extreme" settings in Crysis 2 are not really that dramatic at all. On "High", trees pop up weirdly to full detail as you walk towards them. That doesn't happen on "Extreme". Massive amounts of post processing are added when using "Extreme". Some rough edges are smoothed out as far as polygon count is concerned. But no dramatic difference in texture resolution or overall details like Crysis.

You could always have gone for a lower-spec'ed MBA and gotten a desktop PC You paid an extra $400 for your Air with the 4GB RAM upgrade, 128GB SSD, and 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo. That $400 would pay for most of the cost of a mid-range gaming PC that could run any modern game at 1080p at 60 frames or close to it.

Lol.

"I don't agree with your opinion, therefore you are a liar!"

It's great that you feel the need to defend a game that you enjoy, but I don't feel the need to indulge you with photos/videos of my TV with DNF on the screen.

First, I said no such thing. If you actually played the game it'd be pretty easy for you to describe parts of the game that only those who have played it would know about. But you didn't. If one supposedly played Duke Nukem 3D and had an accurate memory of what the game was like, they'd know that DNF is actually a bit more tame in some respects, and the game plays pretty similar. Again, watch the video I posted.

Anyway, again, I say this because the vast majority of people who don't like it who claim to have played it make up things about the game that simply aren't true. In another forum I saw people saying "OMG DUKE KILLS RAPE VICTIMS IN THIS GAME" WTF? Seriously.

Second, TV? Thanks for admitting you "played" it on a console. The console version of Duke Nukem Forever runs at 1152x640 with no anti-aliasing. It also has lower quality textures, shadows, lighting effects, and post processing compared to the PC version. A $130 GPU (GTX 550) can run this game at highest settings at 1080p at 60 frames per second. Pair that with $50 of 4GB of RAM and a $100 quad core CPU and you'll have a system that blows away the consoles.

Heh, I find this too. It's all over the internet - people who haven't actually played the game, or at least to a point where the puzzles start dropping in, or the boss fights become more intense or where the story escalates.

As Consultant said, it's too much for the "hide behind a rock and suck your thumb" generation. These people aren't used to having to actually dodge things.

I wouldn't say so. Having recently played through Duke3D there are some big changes. There is a lack of environment exploration, levels are larger (occasionally to the point of being dull) and there are more secrets

There is a little more level exploration in Duke 3D. But to be honest, it really is still a "point a to point b" game. The exploring is just there if you want to see it. I've found quite a few secrets on my playthrough of DNF though.

Oh and that final boss was way too easy. Brilliant run up though. I absolutely loved the rising water section (I even made a game with that formula a couple of years ago) and all the jokes that followed. "I was expecting a monkey"

Heh nice.

 

[0098386]

There is a little more level exploration in Duke 3D. But to be honest, it really is still a "point a to point b" game. The exploring is just there if you want to see it. I've found quite a few secrets on my playthrough of DNF though.

I like how he joked about old map designs too "Red card key my ass...", brilliant little touch.

I'm glad they did leave that whole-
New map
Find card key
Go further
Find another card key
Go further still
Find final card key
Complete level

I can't stand new hand-holding gameplay techniques, but there are aspects to old gameplay that I really dislike. I believe DNF is the first modern FPS to find a comfortable in-between.

And I must say playing this on max on my iMac (well, 1080p rather than 1440p, with FXAA); this game looked quite good! I tried with lower settings just to see what console gamers were getting and it certainly wasn't pretty.

 

[El Cabong]

First, I said no such thing.

Sorry, I guess you were really saying, "Your opinion is incorrect because it isn't mine."

Again, watch the video I posted.

Watching someone play this game is even less fun for me than playing it myself, so... no. Thanks.

The console version of Duke Nukem Forever runs at 1152x640 with no anti-aliasing. It also has lower quality textures, shadows, lighting effects, and post processing compared to the PC version.

I didn't realize that anti-aliasing and better lighting effects = good gameplay and level design; sorry again.

 

[rickvanr]

I'm not a huge gamer, but I've been playing this game for about a week now on and off and it's wildly fun!

I've got the settings on Ultra or Ultimate, can't remember what it's called, but the graphics look great to me, but then again I guess I don't know any better

 

[mosx]

I like how he joked about old map designs too "Red card key my ass...", brilliant little touch.

I'm glad they did leave that whole-
New map
Find card key
Go further
Find another card key
Go further still
Find final card key
Complete level

Yeah I loved that little joke.

I can't stand new hand-holding gameplay techniques, but there are aspects to old gameplay that I really dislike. I believe DNF is the first modern FPS to find a comfortable in-between.

I agree. I love the game. I really hope they make another and it doesn't take more than a couple of years to get pushed out. And I hope it gets a full Unreal Engine 3 treatment too.

And I must say playing this on max on my iMac (well, 1080p rather than 1440p, with FXAA); this game looked quite good! I tried with lower settings just to see what console gamers were getting and it certainly wasn't pretty.

It does look surprisingly good, all things considered. It does have sort of a few years old look to it, thanks to UE 2.5. But it does actually look decent. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of the development of the game was done from the homes of the developers after being laid off from 3DRealms and they decided to take it upon themselves to finally make a finished product.

I do wish the game had some more customizable options. Maybe an option to let up on the depth of field blur a little bit.

Oh yeah, according to vgchartz, DNF has sold a little over 560k copies across from June 11th until June 18th. Keeping in mind thats sales of only 4 days of availability in the US and 7 days in EU and AU. Sales data for this week is not yet available that I know of.

Not bad for a game that was universally panned by critics! That many sold would have already brought in more money than all of those critics will ever see in their lifetimes combined. So much for reviews meaning anything.

Sorry, I guess you were really saying, "Your opinion is incorrect because it isn't mine."

No. Saying that, again, those who have claimed to have played the game are usually proven to have not played the game. So, again, if you've actually played the game it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some sort of evidence to back up your statements.

Watching someone play this game is even less fun for me than playing it myself, so... no. Thanks.

Thanks again for proving me right. Video has no gameplay footage. Its a video where a non-professional game reviewer rips apart "professional" reviews with actual evidence and speaks the truth about DNF.

I didn't realize that anti-aliasing and better lighting effects = good gameplay and level design; sorry again.

Don't forget textures and other things. Let's also not forget that the game runs terrible on the consoles, so that'd take away from the fun. Plus controllers in general are especially awful for FPS when theres no CoD-style auto-targetting. The PS3 controller is especially bad. But your comments prove you haven't actually played the game. So..

I'm not a huge gamer, but I've been playing this game for about a week now on and off and it's wildly fun!

I've got the settings on Ultra or Ultimate, can't remember what it's called, but the graphics look great to me, but then again I guess I don't know any better

It's a fantastic game. It really is. Theres some slight quirks in it, but overall its incredibly fun. We need more games like it and less games like Call of Duty.

 

[El Cabong]

So, again, if you've actually played the game it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some sort of evidence to back up your statements.

Opinions aren't facts and hence don't typically require evidence; however, I will say that my favorite part of the game was turning it off and never playing it again, which is evidently a sentiment shared by many.

Thanks again for proving me right. Video has no gameplay footage. Its a video where a non-professional game reviewer rips apart "professional" reviews with actual evidence and speaks the truth about DNF.

Proving you right about...? As I've said, I initially chose to not watch it because I thought it would be gameplay footage, which I find even less fun than actually playing the game (bad memories etc). Now, I will choose to not watch it because listening to some random guy whine about reviews is even worse, so... yeah.

Don't forget textures and other things. Let's also not forget that the game runs terrible on the consoles, so that'd take away from the fun.

When I was bored to death playing this game, I wasn't thinking about textures. It doesn't run terribly, but it does have terrible gameplay, imho.

It's a fantastic game. It really is.

It really isn't.