Gearbox Claims Reviewers Were Unfair Toward Duke Nukem Forever

Mike Kayatta

Minister of Secrets
Aug 2, 2011
2,315
0
0
Gearbox Claims Reviewers Were Unfair Toward Duke Nukem Forever



Gearbox cofounder Brian Martel thinks Duke Nukem Forever and Half-Life have a lot in common ... other than the bad reviews, that is.

"Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all." Those were the words spoken by Brian Martel, one of Gearbox's five founders, in response to the negative reaction gamers and critics shared regarding Gearbox's latest FPS, Duke Nukem Forever. DNF had difficulty across the board, earning a bevy of poor reviews [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8949-Duke-Nukem-Forever-Review] generally sharing words like "incomplete," "deeply flawed," and "forgettable." According to Martel, that's only because reviewers weren't giving it the credit it deserved.

When asked if DNF's critical reception was fair, Martel responded, "I think that if we were going to review the reviews fairly, no."

"We wish [they] were a little less caustic," he later continued. "We're not quite sure where some of the anger came from." Later, Martel even added that he believed reviewers were using the game as "a soapbox," implying that writing a review for DNF simply gave game journalists a reason to blather and rant.

The evidence Martel offered for his claims was that DNF shared much in common with Valve's famous Half-Life series. "We've had this internal debate," he said. "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had.

"I think we all have a nostalgia and love for that particular brand. Obviously Gearbox got its start working on Opposing Force so we love Half-Life. But is the current gamer, would they have the same love for that? It'd be interesting. I think the same kind of thing happened with Duke."

Another Gearbox founder, Randy Pitchford, had previously mentioned a similar comparison, claiming, "The last time I had a really solid experience like [playing Duke Nukem Forever] was Half-Life 2."

After a pretty bad PR scandal [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111038-Duke-Nukem-Forever-PR-Agency-Threatens-Sites-Over-Bad-Reviews-UPDATED] involving the gaming press over the summer, it's a bit surprising that Gearbox is still going on about how unfair reviewers were. Yes, it's no secret that Duke Nukem Forever had a mountain (range) of unfair expectations to overcome, but the anticipation helped sales just as much, if not more, than it supposedly hurt reviews. And regardless of expectations, bad is still bad. Something tells me that had the company spat out something of legitimate quality, reviewers (and gamers) would have noticed.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-03-gearbox-duke-nukem-forever-wasnt-reviewed-fairly]


Permalink
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Is he serious? Where not going to be happy it was made at all if the final product isnt up to snuff. This is hardly on the reviewers.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Mike Kayatta said:
"I think we all have a nostalgia and love for that particular brand. Obviously Gearbox got its start working on Opposing Force so we love Half-Life. But is the current gamer, would they have the same love for that? It'd be interesting. I think the same kind of thing happened with Duke."
OK, Gearbox. You want to play the "we're too old skool to be appreciated" card...

Then explain the 2-weapon limit and rebounding health? That's not very Half Life! That's not "old Skool"!

Where is the jetpack? Where is the mighty boot? I mean the REAL mighty boot for use any time not that Halo-like butt-whack.

The problem was DNF wanted to be both a modern Halo-like game and a classic 1990's shooter at the same time, the problem was it ended up doing a poor job of both. The rebounding health clearly does not work for so many places in the game, and the 2-weapon limit on such an arsenal is insulting.
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
So you came in and finished up a game which after so many years in development hell was bound to a steaming pile of dookie, and you're going to blame the reviewers for it being bad? The "be thankful you got it at all" bullshit is a really classy touch though.
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
Mike Kayatta said:
"Everybody should really be thankful that it existed to some degree at all."
I think people are thankful it exists. At least it wouldn't be the eternal tease.

Though... Maybe it shouldn't have come into existence.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
Just make Borderlands 2 worth getting and I'll forget how much of a jackass you sound like right now.
 

BlackWidower

New member
Nov 16, 2009
783
0
0
Brian Martel said:
"We're not quite sure where some of the anger came from."
OOO! I know! It's from 15 years of development!

Brian Martel said:
"Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had."
I'm probably talking out of my ass, but I thought most of the complaints came from the shit story, and the one dimensional characters. It had little to do with the game mechanics.

Basically, I'm saying they're talking out of their ass.
 

Soviet Steve

New member
May 23, 2009
1,511
0
0
While it is true that few people gave them credit for finally getting DNF out of the way, I don't think it excuses the quality of the game. It was going to be bad regardless of what they did, though I hold out hope that future Duke Nukem titles will improve.
 

go-10

New member
Feb 3, 2010
1,557
0
0
2 weapon limit was shit and I don't remember having a turret level every other stage in any 90's shooter
also Duke ain't Wolverine or X-23 his health won't magically come back

also "old skool" don't work anymore, look at Rage that was horrendous, so I do agree with the whole HL wouldn't be received the same as it was back in its day but that's still no excuse
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
I do agree, the game was never going to be reviewed fairly. Everybody was Christs second coming, and no game would up to 14 YEARS of hype.

That said, that is not enough to explain how horribly the game was reviewed.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Pitchford's various comments have been embarrassing enough, the rest of the company should steer clear.
 

Lt. Vinciti

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,285
0
0
Thats cute...


Someone needs to fire/remove Mr.Brian Martel because he is obviously a blind idiot....and a *****!
 

Fasckira

Dice Tart
Oct 22, 2009
1,678
0
0
If Half Life were released today then most likely it wouldn't be received well. The difference is however that at the time when Half Life was released it was fairly groundbreaking in a market that favoured mindless FPS action.

Do yourselves a favour Gearbox and dont try and compare your mediocre realisation of what was a pretty good name to a game that came out years and years ago. Accept that the game could have been handled a lot better and relied less on the name to carry the sales.

I remember the song they used in the advert ("Stroke Me" by Mickey Avalon) more than the game, thats how forgetable the game was.
 

erbkaiser

Romanorum Imperator
Jun 20, 2009
1,137
0
0
Probably /if/ DNF had come out in 2000, it would have been received better (a 7/10 perhaps). But that's exactly why it was NOT liked in 2010: a game that feels 10 years old, but captures none of the charm of a decade old classic, simply sucks.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
Maybe you shouldn't have made a shitty game then Gearbox. You want good reviews, make something with quality, and don't try to finish something that is destined to never, ever, ever live up to expectations, especially when the shit that's in there is as terrible as it was. Either you guys should have just scrapped it and started the whole damn thing over, or you should have never gotten the license in the first place. At the very least you shouldn't have hyped the shit out of it. You guys are the ones who fucked up, not the reviewers.
 

Bobic

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,532
0
0
GZGoten said:
2 weapon limit was shit and I don't remember having a turret level every other stage in any 90's shooter
also Duke ain't Wolverine or X-23 his health won't magically come back

also "old skool" don't work anymore, look at Rage that was horrendous, so I do agree with the whole HL wouldn't be received the same as it was back in its day but that's still no excuse
http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/rage/results

Rage actually appears to have been received reasonably well. 80ish is a perfectly respectable score. So old school can still work. Assuming rage is all that old school. I haven't played it.