Duke Nukem = Very Dissapointing

[Chappy]

Duke Nukem Forever could be out-done by the original Duke Nukem 3D just by updating the graphics.

I didn't pay a cent for DNF and i still feel ripped off simply because i spent the last 10 years watching the periodical hype and speculation on this bloody game.

I played the original Duke Nukem 3D, i played the crap out of that game and i still think DNF is a steaming pile of rubbish.

[BigDirtyJase]

Well I kinda noticed from the demo videos at PAX (I think it was PAX) that it was going look crappy. I think I said in another thread that Gearbox Software simply brought the Duke Nukem IP and basically finished DNF off and left it how it was...

This is what you get when a developer/designer (George Broussard) can't make his mind up on designing the game, putting in items that he saw in other games...changed the game engine on from Quake 2 Engine to Unreal Engine and it basically drove 3D Reams broke...13 odd years of devleopment would do that. (if you notice in DNF some of the one liners Duke says are very old dating back to events during the devleopment timeline)

From what I heard that Gearbox Software has stated that they will develop DLC for DNF a start working on a brand new Duke Nukem game using the lastest graphics and what not..

Only problem is that Duke Nukem (in terms of one liners and stuff) is very old and needs to be updated somewhat

[EeLeYe]

How much of the game have you guys played? The first half hour is shithouse.

I'll admit I felt the same as you guys until last night when I actually gave it a decent go. The fun factor is definitely there... After you look past the average graphics and primitive engine.

That being said, it shouldn't take a good hour to get "into" a game.

Hopefully the next Duke will be made properly.

[25GTT]

Just installed Deus Ex Human Revolution. So far is $hits all over Duke Nukem forever.

[zebra]

You know duken nukem forever is 11 years old right?

lets go back to games that are 11 years old and compare it to that?

Quake 3?

[Chappy]

  On 19/09/2011 at 1:06 PM, zebra said:

You know duken nukem forever is 11 years old right?

lets go back to games that are 11 years old and compare it to that?

Quake 3?

It was released this year, it is not 11 years old.

An 11 year old game would be freeware by now, not $90.

It is in the price bracket of a brand new game, it is being marketed as a brand new game therefore it is to be compared to other brand new games.

[oweban]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_3D <----- 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever <----- 2011

[zebra]

Let me rephrase...Development on DNF started around 11 years ago. By a company going broke (3d Realms)...then proceded to go broke...5/6 years later it (3d Realms) was bought out and DNF was released with only a few minor changes to that 11 year old game.

So by all accounts it should have been released 2002/2003 and would've been on par with games of the time.

I havent bought the game simply to preserve my memories of DN 3D, because after playing all the console versions of the game PS1 and PS2 etc they were rubbish

[Chappy]

  On 19/09/2011 at 11:27 PM, zebra said:

Let me rephrase...Development on DNF started around 11 years ago. By a company going broke (3d Realms)...then proceded to go broke...5/6 years later it (3d Realms) was bought out and DNF was released with only a few minor changes to that 11 year old game.

So by all accounts it should have been released 2002/2003 and would've been on par with games of the time.

You will be hard pressed finding a gamer over the age of 20 who does not know that already.

It is no excuse for releasing a sub-par game.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Chappy

[bozodos]

bros the current build actually dates from ~2006, pls disregard anything previous.

also duke 3d was released in the same era as quake with vastly better graphics, yet still held its own through awesome level design, gameplay and interactivity, unlike the consolised piece of shit sequel (the last build of it specifically, the 99 and 2001 demos looked awesome for their times).

[zebra]

  On 20/09/2011 at 1:19 AM, Chappy said:

You will be hard pressed finding a gamer over the age of 20 who does not know that already.

It is no excuse for releasing a sub-par game.

What game ever has reached expectations though...Ive been dissapointed in every game released in the last few years

and "any gamer" who was expecting DNF to be absolute top notch has their head in the clouds.

Hell look at all the teaser videos...they told me staright away that the game was going to be a bit "meh" and wouldn't appeal to non Duke die hard Fans

[bozodos]

I was one of those die hard fans who followed the entire timeline of development - and ever since I saw them demoing it on Xbox instead of PC I knew it was doomed.

[zebra]

I followed it on and off (any time I remembered it) and yeah, knew it wouldnt be the classic DN3d, much like anything rehashed its never the same as the original/classic/cult version

[Chappy]

  On 20/09/2011 at 8:14 AM, zebra said:

What game ever has reached expectations though...Ive been dissapointed in every game released in the last few years

and "any gamer" who was expecting DNF to be absolute top notch has their head in the clouds.

Hell look at all the teaser videos...they told me staright away that the game was going to be a bit "meh" and wouldn't appeal to non Duke die hard Fans

Anything released by THQ recently.

Go check out the thread for Space Marine, i don't see anybody there expressing disappointment.

And DNF is not just a letdown from peoples expectations (i personally didn't have any) but it is a complete failure in comparison to any other FPS on the market today.

The game is downright boring, it is a chore just to keep going in the hope that it might get fun.

This game is not just bad, it is painful.

You can't justify this by saying it is really a game from 2006, the development time is completely irrelevant. You wouldn't buy a 2006 model car today at the brand new price for the 2011 equivalent, so why is it ok to do the same with a game?

This game is marketed and sold as a brand new game released in 2011, therefore it should be judged by 2011 standards.

If it went straight to the 'classics' bin on the day of release and sold for $15, people would not be nearly as hard on it, but it didn't.

No amount of excuses or explanations can make up for the fact that this game is a complete failure in everything they set out to achieve.

[25GTT]

Completely agree Chappy, if you are using the argument that it is based on a game brought in development from years ago, then maybe the price should also reflect that.

As far as modern games go, i think Deus Ex has risen the gaming bar for me again. looking forward to the next Mass Effect as well. Gears of War 3 on PC maybe in the near future, then there is Skyrim coming soon etc etc There is plenty of good modern games out there at the moment.

[bozodos]

agree with playing the game being a chore - somehow they managed to totally stuff up the game dynamics.

[oweban]

  On 23/09/2011 at 2:12 AM, 25GTT said:

Gears of War 3 on PC ......... good modern games out there at the moment.

agree to disagree. To me, GOW is cover to cover shooter with a HURRRDURRRR mechanic thrown in for 13 year old boys to get pumped up to.

[Beer Baron]

well thankfully it's now priced at $40 at JB so whilst it may not be worth $90 it's probably fairly priced at $40 given it only just came out recently.

[Chappy]

I would still feel ripped off if I spent $40 on it.

[MUZT3K]

Even Gt5, its $34