The Duke Nukem Forever demo

[TheSkaAssassin]

Alright, I sat down last night to play the game I, like most other gamers, have waited 12 long years for. Let me preface this review by saying I am a Duke fanatic. DN3D was the first video game I ever played, at the ripe age of 6 years old. Duke has always been a symbol of good gaming design.

This is not the Duke I once loved.

The demo contains parts of two separate levels. The first level being a modern day recreation of the end of Duke Nukem 3D, the battle with the Cycloptic Emperor. This isn't new, as anyone who's seen any video knows this. Then the demo cuts to a desert environment. There's a driving section which threw me for a loop, but the tragedy started when you were asked to leave the truck to go get more fuel. The game then descends into COVER-BASED SHOOTING.

Lets get something clear, I don't have a problem cover based shooters. In games like Modern Warfare, where you have the guise of realism, they work. The Duke Nukem series, from day one, took realism and threw it out the window. Cover based shooting has no business in this game. The power up for restoring your Ego (shield) is a can of beer, but it makes the screen all fucked up. Yeah I get it, he's drunk now lol. I was under the impression that Duke wasn't a total pussy and could handle more than one beer at a time. I was sixteen the day I had my first beer and I was fine.

It's not even the combat that ruined DNF for me, the graphics are terrible; PS2 level, AT BEST. It looks like pure fucking shit. Now, this comes with an asterisk. The demo had to be downloaded, so MAYBE JUST MAYBE they had to take the edge off the graphics.

This is a game that I'm about to drop $100 (yeah, I pre-ordered the Balls of Steel edition) for and now I'm second guessing myself. I don't get it Gearbox, why throwout the appeal of Old School shooters for something realistic? This could have stood for something great. Duke Nukem Forever: Cure for the Modern Shooter. Instead, you pissed it all away.

To answer your question, yes I'll still probably buy the game.

 

[Fleischer]

There is Duke Nukem demo?

Only pre-orders can currently play the demo.

 

[DR3AMCATCH3R94]

ive played the demo and am gonna be sinkin 100 dollars in this game too, but i have to disagree with you. yes while i was a bit upset at certain points (like only 2 guns and "ego") but on the topic of graphics, i say that there better then most modern games like fallout new vegas and others. i also didnt notice cover based shooter partially because as soon i started the demo i went into duke mode, ie. circle strafing, although it doesn't seem to fit any more to duke himself.

 

[nothtr]

The beer is 90% ABV, duh.

Btw, the graphics (for me) were pretty solid, except maybe the model for the vehicle in the second part of the demo.

As someone never actually playing the original games, I found the demo to be hard to get through. I had to take a break after the first section and play a good game for awhile (APB reloaded ).

 

[Shoggoth2588]

This is a game that I'm about to drop $100 (yeah, I pre-ordered the Balls of Steel edition) for and now I'm second guessing myself. I don't get it Gearbox, why throwout the appeal of Old School shooters for something realistic? This could have stood for something great. Duke Nukem Forever: Cure for the Modern Shooter. Instead, you pissed it all away.

Sounds like Gearbox dropped the ball on Duke Nukem Forever. This is the second thread I've read about people being dissatisfied by the game and really I'm not surprised. The last thread I've read mentions watching Yahtzee's review of Bulletstorm again for a clear picture of the Duke Demo.

To answer your question, yes I'll still probably buy the game.

And that's why Gearbox won't learn it's lesson. Not that you specifically buying it after playing a bad demo will have a significant effect. What I mean is, you're not the only person who was dissatisfied and yet you still plan on not only buying the game but you plan on buying the Balls of Steel edition. The biggest statement you can make at this point is to cancel your preorder and tell Gearbox why. It won't be a significant gesture but that's only because nobody is going to do that. Everyone will look at DNF as that one piece of vaperware that ended up making it. Maybe next year we'll find out Starcraft Ghost is still being made. Then by 2013 we'll have it and be disappointed with that too.

For the record: I haven't preordered the game. I haven't played the demo and, I do plan to buy Duke Nukem Forever...once it's a $20 bargain game. That's my same plan for Bulletstorm and other non-gearbox titles like Alpha Protocol.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Modern Warfare isn't a cover based shooter to begin with

The comparison falls flat

And since the comparison is like half the review

The Review falls flat.


Check around other posts on this board to see how User Reviews are usually handled. And good luck on your next attempt

 

[TheSkaAssassin]

To answer your question, yes I'll still probably buy the game.

And that's why Gearbox won't learn it's lesson. Not that you specifically buying it after playing a bad demo will have a significant effect. What I mean is, you're not the only person who was dissatisfied and yet you still plan on not only buying the game but you plan on buying the Balls of Steel edition. The biggest statement you can make at this point is to cancel your preorder and tell Gearbox why. It won't be a significant gesture but that's only because nobody is going to do that. Everyone will look at DNF as that one piece of vaperware that ended up making it. Maybe next year we'll find out Starcraft Ghost is still being made. Then by 2013 we'll have it and be disappointed with that too.

I still want to buy the game out of nostalgia, out of fandom (sue me), and out of hope that it still might be a fun game.
Plus, what would the internet be like if people like me didn't use it to complain about things.

Modern Warfare isn't a cover based shooter to begin with

The comparison falls flat

And since the comparison is like half the review

I had three points in my review. The changing of Duke as a character, cover based shooting, and the awful graphics. I used the phrase "cover based shooter" three times and "modern warfare" once. I fail to see how that causes the entire review to fall flat.

 

[mjc0961]

It's not even the combat that ruined DNF for me, the graphics are terrible; PS2 level, AT BEST. It looks like pure fucking shit. Now, this comes with an asterisk. The demo had to be downloaded, so MAYBE JUST MAYBE they had to take the edge off the graphics.

I pretty much agree with everything else you said (except it's not a cover based shooter, it's just got regenerating health and you have to go hide to let it recharge; cover based shooters are games like Gears where you glue yourself to cover and pop out to fire), but I don't know where people keep spewing this line of bullshit from. Would someone tell me where all the PS2 games that look better than Duke Nukem Forever are? I would sure like to play them, because they must be damn good looking games with some great looking enemy models and some great textures. The only thing that looked bad graphically in the demo was that monster truck, but everything else was far beyond what any PS2 game I've played can put out.

Why is that line the standard party line for "I didn't like the graphics so I'm going to exaggerate to the extreme", anyway? Every time someone doesn't like the graphics, they always seem to claim "PS2 could do better!" or something similar. And every time I've seen the game they're saying that about, it's always very far from the truth.

So please. If you're serious, tell me what aside from the monster truck in that demo is worse than a PS2 game, and tell me what PS2 games I should play to see better graphics. If not, well good job continuing that meme I guess.

I had three points in my review. The changing of Duke as a character

You said nothing about Duke as a character, unless you thought talking about the beer for health but messed up screen gameplay mechanic somehow counts as Duke's character, which it doesn't.

 

[Morgan Howe]

it is kinda cover based because if you run out guns blazing(Duke Style) you get your ass handed to you.
duke is an invincible bad ass, he should not get drunk, he should be able to survive 100 billion bullets, and he does not hide. also the guns do some pretty shit dmg in this game, take like half a clip of the devastator to kill a red pig cop, and that thing is supposed to be an amped up machine gun.
gear box just wanted to rip off halo and most other non realistic shooters, we didn't wait for duke this long and pre-order because we wanted to play every other game thats already out there :/
its a disappointment to duke, and the demo graphics were utter shit, when they would even render.

 

[Smooth Operator]

This exact thread was created yesterday...

But anyway, cover based shooter to me implies the standard wack-a-mole gameplay where everyone on the map takes cover than you wack em as they pop out, Duke doesn't have anything near that, only regenerating health that forces you to go stand in a corner because you were bad... such a fun mechanic

And that pretty much sets the tone for the entire game, they are half way modern and half way old school, just enough to get stuck in the bad part of town where noone really likes you.

 

[Stranger of Sorts]

I was talking to a friend who played the demo at the "Gadget Show" show a while back. He said it was the biggest waste of 12 years of work he'd ever seen.

 

[8bitcontroversy]

God, I hope this game doesn't turn out to be a pile of shit that's been "fermenting" for over a decade. (Sorry for the comparison)

 

[Dick Johnson]

duke is an invincible bad ass, he should not get drunk, he should be able to survive 100 billion bullets, and he does not hide.

Seriously? Is that really the game you wanted to go run out and spend your $60 on?

i fealt pretty much the same. a lot of people thought this would mark the glorious return of old school fun shooters, but it's not even old school fun shooters going out with a bang, it's just the last dying twitches of old school fun shooters as it's body is taken over by the modern gripes as you've just listed.

My honest opinion is you can't go back; you can never go back.

There will always be those who feel nostalgic for the way games used to be. Some people still say that Goldeneye 64 was the best FPS ever made, but last time I tried to pick it up it felt pretty well unplayable with clunky graphics, movement, mechanics, everything. Was Perfect Dark Zero a success using the same general mechanics as Perfect Dark, Goldeneye's predecessor? While the game wasn't bad, I'd say not in he least.

And you look at games like Doom 3 you really have to take account for just how much that game broke its own mould to become something that would be acceptable to today's gaming generation

For this reason I never had much hopes for DNF.

And no, the graphics aren't that great for a game 12 years in the making. Not saying they are Ps2, but it looks like to be around HL2 quality graphics and that came out in Nov. 2004...

 

[Wilcroft]

There is Duke Nukem demo?

Only pre-orders can currently play the demo.

Isn't that going about it the wrong way? I mean, isn't the idea of a demo to give people a chance to try your game for free, so you can get them interesting in buying it? Why would you need to hook people who have already committed to buying it?

 

[Fleischer]

Isn't that going about it the wrong way? I mean, isn't the idea of a demo to give people a chance to try your game for free, so you can get them interesting in buying it? Why would you need to hook people who have already committed to buying it?

Methinks this is a ploy by Gearbox to get people to preorder DNF with the lure that they can play it first by preordering. I'm guessing that the demo will be available to the general public later.

 

[Morgan Howe]

duke is an invincible bad ass, he should not get drunk, he should be able to survive 100 billion bullets, and he does not hide.

Seriously? Is that really the game you wanted to go run out and spend your $60 on?

Y
E
S