Why Duke Nukem Forever Was Alright.

[Denamic]

Duke Nukem used to be all about fast-paced balls to the wall action with a kick-ass attitude.
DNF was a mediocre corridor shooter with regenerating health and 'Duke Humour' awkwardly forced in.
It was bastardised.

 

[banksy122]

DNF wasn't just another DN game. I enjoyed it for the Nostalgia, but it was far from a good game in any respect. It didn't have anything that made Duke Nukem good, but what most people forget is the reasons DN took so long, and the reason Gearbox took over and released the shit that was DNF.
Most of the 10+ years it was being developed was all legal battles and no actual game development, when Gearbox got it, it was a pile of shit, and they did their best at polishing it to make a return.
The main reason Gearbox bought Duke Nukem was because Randy loved Duke and didn't want to see him die. I think that Gearbox pushed DNF out so they could work on a new Duke game from the start. There is no official word on this, but it is just what I think. If anybody expected DNF to be even mediocre, they had no idea behind its creation and the legal battles.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well everything is alright when you have really low standards.

But what DNF actually did was make the old parts worse and bring in new parts that were bad, and I don't remember the other Duke games doing that so I'm not convinced on the "just another in the series" line.

 

[Daveman]

It was barely playable for me. There are games I don't like but I make myself play through them to give them a fair chance, like Halo 3 and Gears of War. DNF was impossible to play through. After four hours of playing I was absurdly bored and frustrated.

Duke Nukem shouldn't be boring.

I got it for £3 on sale because I thought at least then I wouldn't feel ripped off if it was as bad as everyone had said. But I still felt ripped off.

In fairness, I don't blame Gearbox for it. They just wanted to get it out there as some people had worked very hard on it and it'd be a shame not to see a game people had been waiting over a decade for. So they basically deliberately released a turd for nostalgias sake.

 

[Slvrwolfen]

It was bad-ish because after Yahtzees first presentation I was expecting to be cooking on Mars or something and going after that achievement where you get married and have three blonde kids and shit while wiggling your ears to escape a villainy death trap.

 

[Twilight_guy]

With a game like DNF it doesn't matter weather it was good or bad. It was in development for a decade and was the butt of every development delay joke for years. It was doomed and its contribution to history will be an eternal punchline. It could have dispensed free blowjobs and crapped kittens and rainbows and it would still be a punchline in history. Its quality is almost irrelevant in talking about it.

 

[maninahat]

But after 10+ years of development time it should have been more than just "another Duke Nukem game" and that's why it sucked.

And I'd argue that if it were anything more than just another Duke Nukem game then it wouldn't BE a Duke Nukem game.

We're talking about a game whose predecessor is based off poop jokes and pixilated breasts...what did you want from DNF? Political humor and...well..better quality breasts? Because at least one of those was delivered.

Then perhaps the reason why its sucks is, well, we've grown beyond tacky one liners and strippers? That might seem implausible in an age of COD's screaming homophobes, but the reality is that even COD games strive towards grander things: things like pathos, the horror of terror attacks, and the dehumanising aspect of modern warfare.

So in a time where it is widely acknolwedged that women should be better represented in games, and where people expect more cerebral elements to even the most dumbest of shooters, Duke's tit slapping, mindless shtick feels a little too old and a little too unfamiliar.

 

[maninahat]

The game was a piece of fucking shit.

The thing that hammered the nail into the coffin was when your standing in front of a mirror and jump, the mirror didn't properly reflect the jump at all.

Yep...that was the game-breaker for me right there...and by that I mean the mirror in the elevator in the prologue haha. I stopped playing after that elevator ride.

I have to say, that's probably the most bizarre reason for anyone to ever quit a game, ever.

I remember a time where mirrors didn't have reflections. That was like...8 years ago.

 

[Squilookle]

You know, I'd love to see a rant from someone who played both DNF and the new Serious Sam, pitting the two together in direct comparison to show why they succeeded/failed, and what aspects worked/didn't work etc.

 

[GoaThief]

If you're a bit of a voyeur, check my recent game history on Steam, a well-timed thread indeed.

I'm really enjoying DNF, it's not sub-par but it's not great - just fair/good. I could go into more detail but I won't as Duke has a lot of hate in this politically correct day and age, this game was always asking for trouble and no amount of talking will change anyone's stance.

One thing I will mention though as it doesn't come up often is damn Gearbox and their deliberate crushing and hindering of modders. That was one big thing the original Duke 3D had going for it but Randy and co cannot monetise public creations so they decided to end it. I guess it's all the Borderlands fans who keep Gearbox bathed in a positive public light.

 

[Verkula]

But after 10+ years of development time it should have been more than just "another Duke Nukem game" and that's why it sucked.

It was more like 10+ years development hell.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I appreciated your bioshock 2 thread but I can't agree here, DNF was very dull and missed the fun of Duke which was crass big guns, big breasts but done in a joyous way, the weapons were dull and duke shouldn't be this lumbering, hell Subject delta was far more nimble in comparison.


DNF isn't bad per say, it's not a broken mess of code it's just not very memorable.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I never quite got the DNF hate. I only played DN3D a few months before the DNF release and I was massively underwhelmned, and not just from a 'this game is a bit old fashioned' perspective.

When I was younger I played stuff like Doom and Quake, and I will still occasionally play them for nostalgia's sake, and DN just didn't measure up for me. Duke NUkem ain't funny, it ain't a brilliant FPS, and it ain't some hallowed old standby that should be lathered in tongue baths by fans.

Admittedly I didn't play DNF much, only once or twice round a friend's house, but it was exactly what I expected from having played DN3D. Not awful, but nowhere near the landmark everyone said it was.

 

[MagicAD]

RJ makes an excellent point, DNF was just another Duke Nukem game. The mistake he makes is then saying that that makes it alright. DNF sucked rancid dogs' bollocks because it was another Duke Nukem game.
It isn't that I hate Duke Nukem per se. I think that there is a lot to be said for sexism, bad jokes, lacklustre and generic gameplay, unimaginative writing...oh no, wait, those things suck. Duke Nukem sucks and it always has. When I was 12, pressing space bar for badly rendered boobies was OK. Now I want something more from my games than mediocrity with a titty facade. Has Duke Nukem ever provided that? Not that I remember, and I remember when it was a scrolling platformer with no titties. I think it might have been the first game I ever completed.

 

[GoaThief]

Two weapon limit

I don't have a two weapon limit on my DNF...

 

[GoaThief]

/snippage

The general theme of your complaints I can agree with but I don't find them having such a massively negative effect on me as it seems the case is with you. However, Serious Sam plays quite differently from Duke 3D, always has done despite it being a nod back to the oldschool. Environments, plot, humour, movement, level design have always been Sam's own flavour rather than directly plagiarising the likes of Doom, Quake or Duke... in fact, in my experience so far the amount and type of secrets in SS seem excessive and borderline detrimental to pacing. Saying that I've not tried SS3 yet so things may have improved on that front.

 

[Thanatos5150]

I mean seriously, what was everyone expecting?

A game that was Fun to Play.
I cannot stress that enough. I can forgive the boob jokes, the unrepentant chauvinism and and the general immaturity of it all. I expected that going into Duke Nukem.

The actual game, however, had a difficulty curve that wasn't, uninspired game-play and somehow managed to make it not fun to pick up the Devastator - which is basically a machine gun that shoots missiles - and start blasting enemies with it..
I returned the game to the Redbox by the second turret section. (Because like hell I was going to buy it outright.)

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Loved it and it`s multiplayer.
Yeah, the impact of some weapons could`ve been better combined with the enemy reactions (deahtragdolls) but i really liked the enviromental puzzles and bossfights. After playing so many modern war games it felt refreshing to play something more oldschool. The things i dislike were the health regeneration and the weaponlimit. Making fun of Halo and having the same weapon restriction was really lame. Another thing were the loading times and while some level looked pretty good others were just horrible (Vegas outdoors). It may wasn`t the second comming of christ but by no means such a bad game.
All the negative is mostly nitpicking from my side. To me the only real downer are the loading times.

The multiplayer was great fun. The oldschool feel was awesome and i loved that they included a ratmap (the dlc had one more but no one brought it anyway). No perks, everyone got the same chances.

I read people claiming that Bulletstorm is what DNF should have been but i`m glad that i can play both games anytime.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Honestly I like the game. I wasn?t expecting something revolutionary or a master piece I was just expecting a Duke Nukem game. And after growing up and seeing Duke go from DN3-D to Time to Kill to Planet Of The Babes (Yep the Duke Nukem games of my generation folks) A Duke Nukem game to me is just a game that lets you play as Duke.

And that?s all I wanted. And that?s what I got and I really enjoyed being the Duke again in a modern game.(Though it is debatable just how modern the game is heh)

But I will admit I do have some gripes but they are pretty small I guess.
1) The Pallet: I wish they had been braver with the colors and environments in this game. Throw more vibrant limey greens in there and more neon reds and blues and less browns. Really give it some odd rock and roll flavour (Just like Time To Kill)

2) Gameplay!: Again I wish they hadn?t felt so obligated to go the guide lines of modern shooters. To me a Duke Game shouldn?t play like Modern War Fare it should play like Unreal. Jet packs, bouncing off the walls tooooons of explosions ect.

Other than that. I was just digging being the Duke again and cooking me some Bacon.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

You know, I'd love to see a rant from someone who played both DNF and the new Serious Sam, pitting the two together in direct comparison to show why they succeeded/failed, and what aspects worked/didn't work etc.

I played both of these games and I can write you why I liked SS3 and didn't liked DNF that much, but it won't be necessary a rant.

What Serious Sam 3 did well was that it delivered a game with old school gameplay formula,which was up to modern quality standards. That it had the right balance between old and new. It was what you could call ''a good sequel''.
* Its story wasn't a bad rehash as in Super Mario games,but it didn't either presented a completely new story that ignored and undid the story of the series's past games. While nothing that worth an oscar,it was a story good enough to what the game needed.
* Its gameplay featured some new features,but these new features ADDED to the original gameplay, instead of replacing the game's old features,so what players who played premier liked in the old games,found it in Serious Sam 3,and at the same times found some new things.
* It was a game that managed to reproduce the same good feelings older games of the franchise did, without feeling that much samey that it becomes a negative factor,as in some over-rehashed Nintendo games.

In conclusion Serious Sam 3 was a game that featured everything the fans loved in the older games of the series and expected,and even more than that.


The problem with Duke Nukem Forever is that it had an identity crisis. It was so different than Duke Nukem 3D that it couldn't please this game's fans,and at the same time it was so unfamiliar to players who never played and liked the original that it couldn't get them interested enough in playing it.
I've recognized what seems to be a pattern. When a game of a specific franchise comes out that is very different than the older games of that franchise,the franchise's fans will get disappointed by it because it doesn't provide the same kind of experience they were expecting, and when players who never have been fans of the series see the fans of the series say that a game is disappointing,they automatically assume that it's a very bad game so they won't even try it,even if it could be enjoyable to someone who never played the old games of the series.
Take a look at the Elder Scrolls series.
With each new installment on that franchise,a huge amount of players who played a prior installment will say that the new one isn't as good as the old one and is disappointing because it is much simplified. But at the same time the newer game of that series can be enjoyable to people who never played a game of the series before and blow their minds.
The point is,that when a franchise changes too much from installment to installment,there will always be people who wished that the series kept their favorite features of the previous installment,and will get disappointed or even hate on that new game,even if that new game could be enjoyable to some people. But that is not always the case.
Duke Nukem Forever changed way much from Duke Nukem 3D, which as expected made fans of Duke Nukem 3D to dislike it and hate it,but at the same time it didn't featured something special enough to make someone that DNF is his first game of the series to play, to like it enough.

Its this awkward moment when a game series that feature unique features and gameplay originality decides to drop to the ocean every original feature the series had and made them special,to become a homogenized copy of another game/s,namely Halo.
Those who would like to play DNF,would want so in order to experience a new experience,something different,something original. If gamers wanted to play something that plays like Halo,they would play Halo,the real thing who brought us health regeneration and weapon carriage limitation.They won't get interested in playing a Halo clone when they got the real and original thing in their hands. That was what the developers of DNF didn't understand.

Ripping off Halo's features doesn't mean that your game will sell as well as Halo did.
It wasn't health regeneration in particular that made Halo a successful game,health regeneration isn't a panacea. What did Halo a great game was that it offered something NEW and FRESH that we hadn't seen before. Halo's success factor was that it unveiled to us a completely new way to play games and that was what made it great,not the very specific new things that it introduced. The irony is that Duke Nukem 3D was also a great success in its time because it had the same factor: It brought new things to the genre we hadn't seen before.
One would say that the success factor is innovation. And yes,innovation can elevate an experience to new heights,and thus offer more sales,but for DNF to be well received and successful it didn't even had to be inventive. All it needed was to just KEEP ITS ORIGINALITY.
Because ironically what made DN3D special back then could even be considered refreshing in this time and age,because many of the things this game did are so long forgotten by the modern industry that could blow new gamers's minds.

You wanna know how DN3D felt back then ? Imagine a game with the interactivity and destructible scenery of Red Faction and Bad Company,the mind-boggling effect of Portal,and the replay value of a 3D Mario game where you have to collect 120 stars..
DNF is way less interactive than DN3D,its puzzles where boring and felt like they got in the way,and it had no replay value.

Another thing has to do about the tone and appeal of DNF,and how it is presented. Different than DN3D.
If Duke Nukem 3D was a movie,it would be like Alien with a couple of funny moments. A dark survival thriller with terrifying beasts that just happened to feature a few jokes in it.
If Duke Nukem Forever was a movie though,it would be an Austin Powers movie. A satirical comedy that features evil guys that are more comedic than horrifying.
Now Serious Sam might be the only hero and franchise we can compare to DNF because they both started as old-school gameplay shooters,but the difference is that while the essence of Serious Sam games IS to make fun and jokes on the industry,Duke Nukem's core was that it was a serious game on its main thing that JUST happened to feature a few jokes.

Now I'll agree with you that Duke Nukem as a hero was made up from cliches of 80's action movies,and as such the references in Duke Nukem 3D where relevant,as most people who would get to play it would be familiar with these 80's movies.And a thing that makes DNF out of place is that many of today's gamers won't be familiar with these 80's movies. The logical evolution would be that Duke Nukem Forever showcased some elements of more recent movies that the players would be familiar with,like perhaps Harry Potter,or Avatar,or something. That is the aspect of Duke Nukem as a character that could be conceived as irrelevant. But the interesting thing is that even if someone never had seen the movies that the game refer to,like me for example,would still be able to find Duke cool for what it was in Duke Nukem 3D. I hadn't seen the 'Evil Dead' movie,or 'They Live' when I played this game,but I still found the remarks taken from this movie smart and cool. Duke Nukem Forever features references that can only be considered cool or funny,or having anything special,by people who have experienced what Duke is referring to. If you never played Half Life,you would never find the lines "A crowbar could come in handy" or "I hate Valve puzzles" having anything cool or special.

In conclusion,the reason why Serious Sam 3 is better than Duke Nukem Forever other than just being funnier to play,is because Serious Sam 3 was a PROPER sequel,one that kept its originality and the things that made the series special,one that featured all the features those who played past games of the series were expecting to find,a game that felt like it was a continuation of the past games of the franchises.Duke Nukem Forever unfortunately didn't did that. It sacrificed its originality to become a Halo clone,things that made the series special were absent and the fanbase didn't found what it was expecting in it,and the game felt like a game of another series with Duke and his humor shoehorned in it.

If you are unfamiliar with the Duke Nukem and Serious Sam series,I can give you examples of other series that had the same huge fault DNF has,and SS3 doesn't.
The Sonic the Hedgehog series. Since they became 3D in order to copy and imitate the trend Super Mario 64 brought,they lost what made them special. The 3D installments of the series just doesn't offer the same feel and gameplay fun the old 2D Sonic games offered. Because not everything fits everyone.
On the other hand,look how Mario games keep featuring what has always made the series special. Well Mario might be a bad example because it goes WAY over that way than it is recommended, because obviously staying so true to originality that you somehow have to explain Princess Peach's 19th kidnapping is difficult... But even though,Mario fans like new Mario games.

A developer has to find the right balance between changing things for newer things and keeping things for originality. If a game is too different than an older installment,it will feel nothing like its past installment and could as well be named with a completely different title that doesn't relate at all to the past games. But if a game keeps re-using the same concepts and ideas way too much,it will start to feel like a remake or a rehash of the older installment. Duke Nukem Forever regarding that aspect,lost the balance. It replaced many things that fans wanted and expected to see in that game with new shit nobody was expecting to find in this game,making it feel like a game of a different series that somehow Duke got in to it. Serious Sam 3 on the other hand has the right balance about what should be changed and what not. It still features the features that made players love the series,and it still feels like an original Serious Sam game. At the same time it has a new chapter on story,some new guns,some new enemies,some new gameplay modes,new soundtrack and new graphics,which make it feel like a true Serious Sam game,but at the same time it doesn't feel that much of a rehash as some Mario and Zelda games. Serious Sam 3 plays how you would expect a game that came perhaps 2 years after Serious Sam: The second encounter would play,but with modern graphics and quality standards.
Duke Nukem Forever doesn't play as you would expect a direct sequel to DN3D would play,and it barely fits modern graphics and quality standards. The beneficial major factor here between these 2 games is that SS3 kept the originality of the series and offered to fans what they expected and loved but with modern quality standards,while DNF didn't kept the originality of the series and thus didn't offered the fans what they expected and loved,and it arguably had modern quality standards.

P.S. Sorry for this WALL OF TEXT,but having played both games I decided to be serious about this and analyze what and why.