Shooting people in the dick isn't coolAbandon4093 said:
duke should get health from those slappable tit things, they could be like health packs.
Duke Nukem Forever Review
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
Recommended Videos
duke should get health from those slappable tit things, they could be like health packs.
Well reviews be damned it looks like my friend is buying it tomorrow anywho so I guess I'll be able to see for myself. To be completely honest everyone's opinions on the game have been so adamant to one side or the other it's just as exciting to find out the truth for myself as it is to play a new game. Only bummer is that it will cut into our co-op GL playing and that makes me sad gamer.Koios said:
Well, that makes it two bad reviews I've seen today for this game. Here and Destructoid.
Still, I'm supporting Gearbox on this, regardless of the review scores. They took a chance on the IP, and the game, so I'll respect them for that and buy it.
From what I have seen of the game, I'll likely enjoy it for a full play-through, and the Balls of Steel bonuses are the extra perks for me. The multiplayer I can get some thrills from as well, once I get another CAT-5 for my 360.
------------
Still, I'm supporting Gearbox on this, regardless of the review scores. They took a chance on the IP, and the game, so I'll respect them for that and buy it.
From what I have seen of the game, I'll likely enjoy it for a full play-through, and the Balls of Steel bonuses are the extra perks for me. The multiplayer I can get some thrills from as well, once I get another CAT-5 for my 360.
------------
Thanks for pointing that out. I had a feeling at least one media outlet would make something like this.Eri said:
Remember, in gamer logic, below 90 means that a game sucks. It's stupid.Slycne said:
OP: Overall, Gearbox just missed the point. The only way this shooter would succeed would be by throwing all modern shooter conventions out of the window. Running 50 mph, having an arsenal of weapons, and placing medkits over non linear levels. Instead, they put in regenerating health, a two weapon limit, and cover based combat.
It seems as if there is nothing left to do with this game but to fling it at the wall to see how it sticks: by slicing into it or by splattering all over it in a brown,drippy blob.
That is, until a comprehensive patch is released that overhauls the entire game play experience, negating the accuracy of reviews like this one. Now that would be a hilarious joke played on the player.
That is, until a comprehensive patch is released that overhauls the entire game play experience, negating the accuracy of reviews like this one. Now that would be a hilarious joke played on the player.
I'm disappointed with the review, mostly with the "F-you viewer I'll just waist your time and then tell you to read the review".
never expected much from the game, and that's why I'm getting it. This game shows more about how badly a game can be mismanaged then how bad a game is. I mean 12 years, that's not 12 years of planning and plotting, that's 12 years of developers not giving a damn, and dicking around, leaving us with this. Duke Nuke was abandoned long ago, but not in the way were Duke is left to wander off, and possibly into a better home, but locked in a shed because the people with the key don't want others to get him, and plan to hoar him off later for money. That's what is going on with this game, enjoy what you can, but don't be surprised about how bad it is.
There is probably a lot of wasted potential in this game. The ego bar sounded like an epic Idea, and I can easily think of how it can work well, but it turns out it is the rechargeable shields from "Halo". So far that's all I have real seen, as the review only tells me "DON'T BUY THIS GAME, IT'S SHITTY SHIT OF A SHITTY GAME, DON'T BUY IT!!!!" thanks for the non info, I did read the review, but it would have been nice if you had shown me how bad the game is intend of throwing a tantrum and doing a "top 5 of what I hate about this list"
So when I play the game, and return it, I'll let you guys know how bad it was, but no video from me, not my skill set.
never expected much from the game, and that's why I'm getting it. This game shows more about how badly a game can be mismanaged then how bad a game is. I mean 12 years, that's not 12 years of planning and plotting, that's 12 years of developers not giving a damn, and dicking around, leaving us with this. Duke Nuke was abandoned long ago, but not in the way were Duke is left to wander off, and possibly into a better home, but locked in a shed because the people with the key don't want others to get him, and plan to hoar him off later for money. That's what is going on with this game, enjoy what you can, but don't be surprised about how bad it is.
There is probably a lot of wasted potential in this game. The ego bar sounded like an epic Idea, and I can easily think of how it can work well, but it turns out it is the rechargeable shields from "Halo". So far that's all I have real seen, as the review only tells me "DON'T BUY THIS GAME, IT'S SHITTY SHIT OF A SHITTY GAME, DON'T BUY IT!!!!" thanks for the non info, I did read the review, but it would have been nice if you had shown me how bad the game is intend of throwing a tantrum and doing a "top 5 of what I hate about this list"
So when I play the game, and return it, I'll let you guys know how bad it was, but no video from me, not my skill set.
Or even better, just play the original Duke games. I mean why does everyone want a modern game for nostalgia's sake when you can just play the originals that gave you that nostalgia in the first place? Unfortunately, because everyone has their rose tinted goggles on their old games, any remake is going to be lambasted in some way simply by virtue of not being the original they remember.WOPR said:
even if the game was a perfectly roasted suckling pig served on a buffet tray carved from the wood of the divine cross at a banquet hall in the lost continent of Atlantis, every video game reviewer would saw it's balls off.
it's safe to say that this game has had one of the most incredible amounts of hype of any game due to it's overly long hiatus and development time. when a game like this comes out, critics and reviewers immediately search for and set their focus on what is bad, ignoring everything that may be good about it.
therefore reviews like this can't be trusted because every critic would love nothing more than to rip it to shreds.
it's safe to say that this game has had one of the most incredible amounts of hype of any game due to it's overly long hiatus and development time. when a game like this comes out, critics and reviewers immediately search for and set their focus on what is bad, ignoring everything that may be good about it.
therefore reviews like this can't be trusted because every critic would love nothing more than to rip it to shreds.
While watching that video, all I could think was: "Yeah. 'Satire'. Suuure."
Seriously, who didn't see this coming?
Seriously, who didn't see this coming?
Trilliandi said:
I played the game, trust me comparing it to those games was the only way to go
Why you ask? Because it copies the same mechanics that they do
It doesn't take you back to nolstagia filled days of running and gunning, it takes you to the scripted event and linear corridors of COD
You even hide behind rocks and buildings while your health regenerates FFS
I don't agree with this guy alot, but on this review he was dead on
I don't blame Gearbox though, I blame 3D realms the timewasting gits for leaving them with this mess to put together
even with its modern shooter conventions of regenerating health and the hero being kind of a pussy... it was the first game in a long time i've been able to actually run-n-gun through once i got in the right groove.MiracleOfSound said:
even Perfect Dark Zero is a better example of old school shooting! And that game is 5 years old!
the problem is that it FAILS to be anti-pretentious and anti-modern because it takes on those elements too muchNautical Honors Society said:
You know, I think a lot of us were looking forward to Yahtzee's review of Duke Nukem Forever (I sure was), but now I think he might not even do it.
If DNF is as bad as this review makes it out to be, Yahtzee might just (appropriately) say, "If this is all Duke Nukem is, then a two-year old joke review is all it deserves".
If DNF is as bad as this review makes it out to be, Yahtzee might just (appropriately) say, "If this is all Duke Nukem is, then a two-year old joke review is all it deserves".
I can't tell if that's a typo for "eminently forgettable" or a clever way of saying you forgot the game five seconds after hitting "post" on the review.Russ Pitts said:
You didn't read what I said did you?Koios said:Review scores aren't everything, as they too come down to personal taste. The reviewer clearly hated this game, I find it enjoyable. If I can enjoy it, are the numbers wrong? No, because they reflect someone else's taste. Therefore, you can't judge the 'correctness' of the decision on other peoples' reviews. The only way to know for sure if you'd like a game is to watch somebody else playing through it and ask yourself these questions: Do I think I would have fun playing that game? Is there something that destroys the playability of this gameYureina said:In any event, I wasn't going to buy this game no matter what scores it got. Bad scores though... certainly make me feel more "right" in that choice.
I said that I wouldn't get DNF no matter what reviewers scored it as. The implication here is that my personal taste overrides any potential worth that DNF has. My only interest in this game is mere curiosity about how a game that took so damn long to make ultimately turned out.
In other words... your response to me was pretty much saying what I already think, and expressed, to some extent, in my post. :3