BeyondUnreal Reviews Duke Nukem Forever

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 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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 think was a pretty good review and pretty much how i feel about what i have played so far!

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.

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!

Nice read and a really fair review imo. Basically mentioned everything I noticed while playing, pros as well as cons.

SirTahngarth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Sir_Brizz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Also, because it didn't suck.

Sir_Brizz said:

FPS games have changed a lot since 1996 both graphically and in terms of gameplay/design.

Click to expand...

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?