Are our standards too high for Duke Nukem ?

[hermes]

Don't get confused. Duke Nukem 3D did some pretty impressive and revolutionary things for its time. It allowed you to aim up and down, the level and enemies design was very original and the interactivity was really impressive for a game pre-source engine.

Duke Nukem Forever, on the other hand, feels like its cashing on an old concept, adds little to it and revolutionize nothing.

In other words, DN 3D did a lot of new things besides the character... DNF added nothing new, not even the character.

 

[Mordwyl]

Yes, and we should. For all games. Panning a game like this could euthanize the drivel that's been getting released in the present, giving players more bang for their bucks.

 

[MR.Spartacus]

Hows about I only really wanted Duke3D with prettier graphics, and for some reason wound up with a crappy Halo knock with bad graphics and abhorrent load times.

 

[DominicxD]

Our expectations are pretty much irrelevant now. They would only have came into play had the game actually been good.

 

[00slash00]

After reading reviews and playing Duke nukem Forever , I wonder if out standars are too high for Duke nukem. I'll explain what i mean . Everything about the game IS Duke nukem , this is what a Duke nukem game is supposed to be like , it's the same things we knew and loved about the game, but it gets so much criticism. Why is that ? the game is average / good on it's own merits , but i think that a mix of expectations and the evolution of gaming makes Duke Nukem Forever less that par. The Bar is so high for new video games, that this one didn't stand a chance, because our standards for a game made 10 years ago, and our standards for games made today are different , they are higher now . That is why many people cannot enjoy duke nukem forever, in my opinion.

So my question is : Do you think are standars are too high for a game like Duke Nukem ? or is the game really as bad as everyone says?

when i heard the game was actually coming out i thought it wouldnt have the same appeal except for nostalgia because what gamers looked for back inb the 90's, and what they look for today, are different. however, i dont think thats the problem. i dont think its that our standards are too high, i think its that this doesnt feel like a duke nukem game. it feels like a hybrid of modern fps games, with some occasional duke one liners. there is not nearly enough shooting to make this feel like a duke game and instead a lot of the shooting seems to be replaced by puzzling solving, platforming sections, and extremely boring driving sections (the section with the rc car...oh my god). im aware that duke 3d had some light puzzle and platforming as well, but i never felt like it took me out of the experience. in this game, it did. and of course the big thing that most people have complained about, the regenerating health and 2 gun limit. also the hive level, what the fuck...duke 3d was primarily about mindless shooting and funny one liners, a lot of which are crude bathroom humor and sexual innuendos. but when you get to the hive, all of a sudden there are girls getting raped by aliens?!

this is a duke nukem game by title only. having replayed some of duke 3d recently, this feels very different, and not in a good way.

 

[an874]

To somewhat repeat what Yahtzee said in his review, this game should not have even been released because nothing you deliver would be enough to satisfy over a decade of waiting. That said, this game still isn't Duke Nukem as he makes fun of valve puzzles at point and then proceeds to do them (not smashing it to pieces as he should), or only carries two weapons and has regenerating health while making fun of modern shooters with lines like "power armor is for pussies." The reviews of this game were quite in my opinion.

 

[Woodsey]

"Everything about the game IS Duke nukem , this is what a Duke nukem game is supposed to be like , it's the same things we knew and loved about the game, but it gets so much criticism"

Huh? No it isn't.

And aside from that, it is a shit game in its own right.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Nope. Actually a game reviewer I know said that he feels dirty after his video just because he was trying too hard to like it. He lowered his own quality expectation just because of nostalgia. And that is bad.

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

If it's fun, looks at least somewhat good, and plays well enough than it's a good game regardless of what era it's from (or what era it looks like it's from). My friend (poor guy) bought dnf and I played it with him and it did not meet any basic criteria for what a game should be; because it was not fun, looks like crap, and doesn't play well at all. Old games like golden axe and streets of rage look good according to the system they were on, very fun, and good controls. The graphics of DNF do not match what an average PS3/Xbox 360 looks like but that is certainly not what made it crappy. I've seen old ps2 games that look better than dnf and I would rather play those because even the somewhat good ones played better than the sloppy mess that is dnf. From what i have seen and heard from other people, not even nostalgia saved this game; you know a game is terrible when nostalgia can't even save it.

 

[Rhedd]

I loved Duke Nukem 3d; used to play it online and create levels for it. I don't hate DNF, but I won't be playing through it a second time, and I won't be remembering it fondly a month from now, let alone 14 years.

I didn't have any particular standards going in, in fact I enjoy retro gaming. DNF could have been a throwback to what made those early FPS fun. But instead of fast and frantic, simple, action where you plow through dozens of enemies at a time, it takes too many leads from modern, more "serious" FPS, while retaining other issues that have been phased out of the genre for good reasons.

You only ever seem to face 2-3 enemies at a time, they all take way too many shots to kill, teleport all over the place and have unnerving accuracy. Duke, on the other hand, can only carry 2 guns, runs at a crawl, and takes about 3 hits before he has to hide like a sissy. It just doesn't add up to fun gameplay.

Most of the times I died felt unfair - like I'd get trapped in a corner by a berserk pigcop, and couldn't turn fast enough to aim at him, or would get shot through scenery. And when I won I felt cheap, because I'd gamed the system, i.e. killing the battlelord on the dam by simply crouching behind a car that he was stuck on and lobbing pipe bombs over.

So, erm, in short, what Zhukov said:

My standard was, "have some fun."

The game did not meet it.

 

[9Darksoul6]

I had some fun with it, and I enjoyed the extra suff (the shrinking puzzles, interactive objects, etc.), but I couldn't stop thinking while playing how well it would have been received if it was released 6 years ago; I will admit that by today's standards the game's shit, though.

 

[Iznat]

Yes, yes standards are WAY too high for Duke Nukem. You can rant all you want about how it was disjointed, or how it was sub-par because of Multiple Studio Development Syndrome, or because it doesn't stand up in the face of modern shooters. But the truth is that it was YOU - the internet in general - who overhyped it, regardless of the content of its predecessor, or the development time, or the humor surrounding the franchise.

The cold truth here is that we knew what we were getting into with this game. If you actually thought that Duke was going to be anything other than a run'n'fun kill fest with no sensible story and toilet humor, then you sir win first place in the Delusional Olympics.

If you can't accept the fact that this game could never fucking live up to this god damned expectation without tacking on another year or two of development time to rebuild the engine and the story then you must never take any enjoyment from any franchise you follow because nothing could reach your way-too-high nostalgia based-bar that likens that 'one game you really loved above all others' to some kind of deity.

(Written by Accountfailed and Iznat, because fuck yeah; joint effort.)

 

[EonEire]

Randy Pitchford said that people didn't "get" Duke and that's why the scores are low and that the sales do not reflect the review scores.

Two things wrong here, your "reto" feel excuse is nothing more then that Randy, an excuse for bad design, because some Commodore 64 games have loaded faster then DNF, or was the inexcusable length of loading for a "retro" feel as well? Second you talked this game up to high heaven, bashing Halo & CoD to name two, you went out of your way to make sure you generated as much hype and drama surrounding an already drama oriented production with DNF's history. So those sales figures reflect nothing more then people taking you as a man of your word, that this was something to look forward too and it would be worth the wait. Randy, that wont happen again, nobody will give you the benefit of the doubt again.

At least Peter Molyneux is somewhat endearing in his crazyness, you Randy are just a scam artist and you managed to bag some loots for it, fair dues but the next product with your name near it is not a purchase for me.

 

[Anachronism]

Are our standards too high? Well, I'll take a direct quote from Duke himself:

"Yea, but after 12 fuckin' years they should be."

For a game that jokes at how long it took to make said game, it should at least be up to snuff (gameplay and graphics wise) to games that have been released in the last decade.

Agreed with this. Considering the utterly ridiculous length of time the game has been in development, it's perfectly reasonable for people to expect it to be better than it is. Had it been released in, say, 1999, shortly after Duke 3D, then it probably would have been considered great. It is still undoubtedly a Duke Nukem game, but after so long in development I'd argue that that simply isn't enough.

Sidenote: given how expensive new videogames are, I don't think it's ever unreasonable to demand better from the latest big-budget release.

 

[Kirex]

I don't really give a shit, whether I am viewing it through nostalgia glasses or not, I am having fun with it. If you don't, that's fine, I don't see the need for talking about standards or trying to convince someone of having fun with something he is clearly not going to get any out of.

 

[AgentCooper]

I enjoyed the hell out of Duke Nukem: Forever and no one person or review can tell me other wise.

 

[Irridium]

This isn't a Duke Nukem game.

Duke Nukem never had to cower in a corner for his health to regenerate. Duke Nukem never had to carry just two weapons. Duke Nukem had a mighty boot which he could use at will. Duke Nukem could move at 60mph and still mow down enemies.

I expected a Duke Nukem game to be fun to play, and to have the above things included. It was not fun to play, and did not have those things.

 

[Toriver]

Our standards are too high for any game in existence anymore. I would love to see a game from this year that actually gets the same amount of positive reaction that most games get in negative reaction nowadays.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

The cold truth here is that we knew what we were getting into with this game. If you actually thought that Duke was going to be anything other than a run'n'fun kill fest with no sensible story and toilet humor, then you sir win first place in the Delusional Olympics.

And the colder truth is that DNF even failed to deliver on that.

 

[vxicepickxv]

So, which Dev team is to blame for the shortcomings? Is it just Gearbox? Is it 3d Realms? Who failed to make this a quality game?