BeyondUnreal Reviews Duke Nukem Forever

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
Twelve or thirteen years ago, BeyondUnreal's original home was just starting to take off. Around that same time, Duke Nukem Forever switched to the Unreal Engine and began a long and troubled development cycle. Around 2009 Gearbox Software reached out to the floundering 3D Realms and helped shove the final product towards the finish line, acquiring the rights to Duke along the way.

So here we are with game in hand. Good? Bad? Both? The game is selling very well and critics and fans are sharply split. Check out our review for one opinion.



 

Alhanalem

Teammember on UT3JB Bangaa Bishop
Feb 21, 2002
2,238
0
36
40
Ivalice
I think the game was mostly slammed just for not living up to 13 years of hype. It's hardly a bad game, and it makes you laugh. It's not an amazing game, but I don't feel it deserves the panning the press is giving.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
I think it was slammed because it's a game that feels, plays, looks and is clearly designed around 2004. Half Life 2 would take the same beating if it were released today. The game mechanics people are used to today are much more streamlined than they were back then and the game just doesn't feel that "good" for 2011.

Now, comparing it to games in 2004, it would have been pretty good...
 

Capt.Toilet

Good news everyone!
Feb 16, 2004
5,826
3
38
41
Ottawa, KS
I think it was slammed because it's a game that feels, plays, looks and is clearly designed around 2004. Half Life 2 would take the same beating if it were released today. The game mechanics people are used to today are much more streamlined than they were back then and the game just doesn't feel that "good" for 2011.

Now, comparing it to games in 2004, it would have been pretty good...

So why didn't most reviewers do that? Seems to me they just wanted to jump on the bandwagon and give it a piss poor review, which is not right. The game is obviously the version they re started back in 03-04, so review it as such.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
So why didn't most reviewers do that? Seems to me they just wanted to jump on the bandwagon and give it a piss poor review, which is not right. The game is obviously the version they re started back in 03-04, so review it as such.
Why? The problem is, gaming has evolved. The old "drag out each level with repetitiveness" bores most people. You can't really pretend like a game came out in 2004 when it came out in 2011.

That said, many current reviewers don't really know what gaming was like pre-2005, especially on PC. Even if they do, it's likely they don't from a critical perspective.

And, of course, part of the problem is that the game has issues even when considered in terms of the 2004 era. I don't think it would have been more than a 7.5 game back then, so time hasn't been kind to it.
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
So is this a Pamela Anderson scale? 10 years ago she'd be a 9/10, in 2011 maybe a 5...

Nice way of getting around giving an Unreal game a score :p
Not sure if you meant the review, but we started a review or two ago not giving out scores and instead trying to present the positives and negatives.
 

N1ghtmare

Sweet Dreams
Jul 17, 2005
2,411
12
38
Where least expected
I was actually surprised how much running and gunning I was able to do in the game, especially in comparison to other games.

At first I thought it was going to play terribly because the level they put in the demo in my opinion is probably the worst level (in terms of game-play) in the entire game.
 

Vaginal Epiphany

New Member
Jun 11, 2010
138
0
0
Honestly, are you guys serious? This game doesn't even hold a candle to the original Unreal, not to mention anything from 2004. Completely uninspired level design, tedious back-and-forth combat (either between ammo caches in boss fights, or lol, cover) and puzzles so stupidly easy you're wondering why they're in the game in the first place.

Ugh. No matter how you slice it, DNF is a terrible game.
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
Honestly, are you guys serious? This game doesn't even hold a candle to the original Unreal, not to mention anything from 2004. Completely uninspired level design, tedious back-and-forth combat (either between ammo caches in boss fights, or lol, cover) and puzzles so stupidly easy you're wondering why they're in the game in the first place.

Ugh. No matter how you slice it, DNF is a terrible game.
I didn't see Duke in your Steam profile and I didn't see anyone say it held a candle to Unreal.

Oh, and Unreal 2 called from 2003/04 and says hi.
 

elmuerte

Master of Science
Jan 25, 2000
1,936
0
36
42
the Netherlands
elmuerte.com
COD: Black Ops can't hold a candle to the original Unreal either, or the original Dark Forces for that matter.

In fact, DNF is much more interesting and fun to play than COD Blops. And I also enjoyed DNF more than the original Crysis.

Of course, those are all my opinions.
 

-=WolverinE=-

New Member
Apr 16, 2006
227
0
0
The reason this game is receiving the negative reviews is that the reviewers are certainly NOT familiar with the game's history. When you play a Duke Nukem game, you HAVE to expect one liners and explicit content. This is what the game was about in the first place and DNF uses the same formula, and that's not a bad thing. Stop comparing the game to your "holy grail", and you might as well enjoy it for what it is - FUN!
 

nELsOn

bSnakeCastShadow = True
Aug 18, 2005
1,307
0
36
on a plane
www.nelsonmaps.wordpress.com
Nice read and a really fair review imo. Basically mentioned everything I noticed while playing, pros as well as cons.

I think the game was mostly slammed just for not living up to 13 years of hype. It's hardly a bad game, and it makes you laugh. It's not an amazing game, but I don't feel it deserves the panning the press is giving.

I agree. It's simply impossible to live up to this kind of hype. I played the whole game in basically two sittings because it was just fun to play.
One thing that definitely bothered me was the lack of blood decals though. Blood and gore is such an essential part of a Duke game imo and there's lot of it in DNF. But I never got any decals, when I stomped monsters or executed them, or parts of them hit walls... A minor detail, maybe, but there's blood on the camera and all, so...
 

Capt.Toilet

Good news everyone!
Feb 16, 2004
5,826
3
38
41
Ottawa, KS
Why? The problem is, gaming has evolved. The old "drag out each level with repetitiveness" bores most people. You can't really pretend like a game came out in 2004 when it came out in 2011.

That said, many current reviewers don't really know what gaming was like pre-2005, especially on PC. Even if they do, it's likely they don't from a critical perspective.

And, of course, part of the problem is that the game has issues even when considered in terms of the 2004 era. I don't think it would have been more than a 7.5 game back then, so time hasn't been kind to it.

Ok fair enough, but let me ask you this question. Super Mario Galaxy came out in 2007, got rave reviews, and is based on gameplay from 1996. Why wasn't it panned for having archaic gameplay, yet Duke was.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Ok fair enough, but let me ask you this question. Super Mario Galaxy came out in 2007, got rave reviews, and is based on gameplay from 1996. Why wasn't it panned for having archaic gameplay, yet Duke was.
Because the formula for 3D platformers has pretty much worked since 1996 :) There haven't been massive changes to that formula really at all since Mario 64. Conversely, FPS games have changed a lot since 1996 both graphically and in terms of gameplay/design.
 

Spiney

New Member
Jun 12, 2010
187
0
0
FPS games have changed a lot since 1996 both graphically and in terms of gameplay/design.

leveldesignclassic.jpg
 

hal

Dictator
Staff member
Nov 24, 1998
21,409
19
38
54
------->
www.beyondunreal.com
Yeah, and that's part of that stupid review. It's a funny, but misleading graphic because most older FPS levels were just as linear, but because of space limitations you ended up doing a lot of backtracking. Go find a key... come back to the door; rinse; repeat. It looks more complex because it folds in over on itself a lot whereas newer games aren't forced to do that so much... you're always seeing something new. Go get an actual modern FPS map and compare it to the old one instead of just using a simple line drawing versus an actual layout.

I agree that I see way too many cutscenes these days though.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
that picture is funny because it's true. seeing it again (the Doom map on the left side) really makes me long for the good ole days.
I don't care if you call it "backtracking."

with modern games EVERYTHING is either open-world or a linear cutscene trap which, no matter how glorious or adrenaline packed, still takes you out of the action and makes you feel helpless. even after you get control of your character again, you're left wondering when the next scene will cut into your play. as you walk along it begins to creep into your consciousness, like you're just waiting to step on a land mine.

why can't they design a shooter like they used to?
WELCOME TO GAME. HERE IS BRIEFING:
- COLORED KEYS OPEN COLORED DOORS
- SHOOT ANYTHING THAT MOVES
- FIND THE EXIT OR DIE TRYING

I want big, crazy, puzzle maps with dead ends and hidden rooms and secret powerups and special weapons and hundreds of mindless enemies. I want 10 different guns that I can use at any time. I want a health bar that doesn't regenerate unless you find a health pack such that your success is dependent on speed and accuracy, not finding "cover."

why can't they do this?
you could still have pretty graphics and BLOOM and stuff.
but stop trying to make everything a sandbox or a cutscene trap. why are there only 2 extremes and no middle ground?