BeyondUnreal Reviews Duke Nukem Forever
- Thread starter hal
- Start date
-
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.
Old shooters are always a blast to play.
They can: http://store.steampowered.com/app/41070/?snr=1_4_4__13
And to be absolutely clear, DNF doesn't really have cutscenes except maybe the post-credits bit. Everything is done in-game.
I think if you looked at an overhead map of a level in most FPS games today, they would pretty much be similarly complicated to that Doom level.
The other problem is, if a game like Doom were to come out right now, people would whine about how repetitive and crappy it was to go back through the same looking areas over and over again. People complained about that with Halo, a more modern game that does a similar thing on several levels.
The other problem is, if a game like Doom were to come out right now, people would whine about how repetitive and crappy it was to go back through the same looking areas over and over again. People complained about that with Halo, a more modern game that does a similar thing on several levels.
bah.
I knew someone would mention Sam if I didn't. I should have added an exception, but Sam is really the only modern game to successfully translate the old-school FPS experience to today's market.
in spite of certain levels, Halo is not the least bit comparable to Doom.
also the whole "repetitive/back tracking" argument is a farce.
I can't think of a single first-person shooter that doesn't have some amount of tracing your steps through an area you've been previously, no matter how brief. whether it's open world or 100% linear, there are zones and/or resources that are going to be recycled across the playthrough.
assuming the gameplay is sound and the graphics are pretty, backtracking is a non-issue that goes largely unnoticed.
I realize I'm ranting.
Serious Sam (or any Doom "reboot" for that matter) is a rare endeavor that most games will never attempt.
I'm not comparing the games, I'm comparing the levels. And, yes, they are comparable because they use the same techniques. And people complained like balls about those levels.
Well, you can pretend like the argument is farcical all you want, but Doom was filled with not just passing through old areas, but scouring them for doors and switches that would get you items that were required for you to proceed. Nobody minds a quick pass through an old area, but they do mind an hours long foray into finding a red key which is the only way to proceed.
A game like Doom just wouldn't pass today. Sure, people who are stuck in the 90s and dying for a game that makes you hunt down keycards would get it and play it, but the rest of the gaming population wouldn't give it two looks. Why do you think there isn't a new Doom game that plays the same way? Hint: it's not because game developer WON'T make one.
I don't recall any Doom level ever taking an hour to complete, let alone to find a single key
the success of Serious Sam says otherwise.
but that's rare.
I realize that I'm being fanciful.
however I stand by the notion that people will play anything so long as the gameplay is enjoyable and the graphics are to date.
You either don't want to remember or got lucky.I don't recall any Doom level ever taking an hour to complete, let alone to find a single key
The problem is, Serious Sam isn't even as close to Doom as you'd like to believe. The only thing that is the same is the "run and gun, tons of enemies coming at you" thing. There is hardly any going sideways. The games are almost as linear as any other modern game. Serious Sam is more of a gameplay throwback than anything. I appreciate that because I love the gameplay, but it's not "Doom reborn" or anything of the sort.
And... SS3 is going to be as awesome as the first one. Forget the SS2 is shite argument, elmuerte, it doesn't count anymore.
That's a pretty healthy attitude given how different SS2 was from SS:FE and SS:SE. I still found SS2 to be an enjoyable shooter, though tragically different (in a bad way) from the original.
All I've seen from SS3 gives me hope. First of all, they've abandoned the cartoon character approach to enemy design and have gone back to the original mean and nasties. I love that they are promoting the game as run and gun, all man no cover, and a real weapon bonanza.
I hope they do it right and I hope it sells like crazy.
Jacks,
I can think of many of modern fps games that don't require you to backtrack.
well... to be fair, I was attempting to use the phrase "backtrack" interchangeably with "repetition" in level design.
sure, I guess I can think of a few games in which there is no backtracking per se; where you go from start to finish, don't have to turn around, and the end of the level is the last time you ever see that particular map. but I can't think of any that are able to avoid either backtracking or repetition without relying on the other.
those without backtracking usually end up recycling so many resources that, even in "different" levels, you feel like you've been everywhere before. that's probably the biggest problem I was trying to articulate.
sure, I guess I can think of a few games in which there is no backtracking per se; where you go from start to finish, don't have to turn around, and the end of the level is the last time you ever see that particular map. but I can't think of any that are able to avoid either backtracking or repetition without relying on the other.
those without backtracking usually end up recycling so many resources that, even in "different" levels, you feel like you've been everywhere before. that's probably the biggest problem I was trying to articulate.
Your position is a little unclear. I think you're advocating backtracking in a game as defined by revisiting the same areas and also areas that share the same graphical assets?
... and you're also saying that both new and old games use backtracking?
Is that good or bad?
I think the important point upon which we both agree is that modern FPS tend to lean too heavily on cutscenes and scripted actions and leave little time for the shooting.
... and you're also saying that both new and old games use backtracking?
Is that good or bad?I think the important point upon which we both agree is that modern FPS tend to lean too heavily on cutscenes and scripted actions and leave little time for the shooting.
I can guarantee you that they aren't. If someone wants to name a recent singleplayer FPS with a map editor, I can prove it. I've worked on a couple of games prior to E3 as a contractor, and if you strip the levels down to outlines of the playable area, you get something that essentially looks like two squiggly lines running roughly along side each other (and occassionally some enclosed obstacle in between those squiggly lines). Take a modern equivalent of Doom (say Halo 3, or MW2), and it's painfully apparent just by playing it.
Probably. Too many gamers have too little patience these days - this is why even puzzles in FPS games are getting down to the level of 'press X to continue' or 'shoot Y to continue'. It's getting a little depressing to be honest.
I played through Doom and Doom II within the last year and didn't suffer from these problems except maybe once or twice - and in 40 odd levels that's not bad. Most levels take around 20-30 minutes to play the first time, but they do involve a lot of getting lost and backwards-and-forwards. They key there is that it wasn't boring to do so in Doom, because the maps were generally built with lots of loops and pockets, as well as scripted things that changed the rooms you were in previously from time to time.
No Rest for the Living (Doom 2 chapter) was released two years ago and sold well
@Brizz:
Didn't they say that Doom 4 will go back to Doom's roots when it comes to gameplay (how that plays out in the end is to be seen, of course).
About linearity in DNF and how it could work otherwise in todays gaming-world:
As an example for awful linearity that breaks immersion at the same time I use the fire-extinguishers:
There are parts in DNF where you cannot go past a fire. THe solution is to make an extinguisher explode that is 30 centimeters next to it ... everytime.
This is stupid and also breaks immersion,because fires tend to only occur next to extinguishers.
I am not a friend of looking for keycards in some random places. But in the case of fires and extinguishers it would have worked well if you had a fire here and a fire station somewhere else. And right in that station there are also fire extinguishers. This contains logic and should be solveable for even the lowest of low mainstream gamers.
The fire station has of course several entrances and/or different routes through the building ... like basically every building in DN3D.
Didn't they say that Doom 4 will go back to Doom's roots when it comes to gameplay (how that plays out in the end is to be seen, of course).
About linearity in DNF and how it could work otherwise in todays gaming-world:
As an example for awful linearity that breaks immersion at the same time I use the fire-extinguishers:
There are parts in DNF where you cannot go past a fire. THe solution is to make an extinguisher explode that is 30 centimeters next to it ... everytime.
This is stupid and also breaks immersion,because fires tend to only occur next to extinguishers.
I am not a friend of looking for keycards in some random places. But in the case of fires and extinguishers it would have worked well if you had a fire here and a fire station somewhere else. And right in that station there are also fire extinguishers. This contains logic and should be solveable for even the lowest of low mainstream gamers.
The fire station has of course several entrances and/or different routes through the building ... like basically every building in DN3D.
Last edited:
The main thing that irks me with modern FPS' is that their gameplay mechanics revolve around limitation, where they used to revolve around choice.
The game presents you with a situation where there are maybe 2 or 3 solutions to the problem, yet there's always one which is vastly supperior. And as such the game nannies you into playing this way.
Even in games like Half Life 2 there was always a very clear way of doing things. It simply was presented as such.
Now if you play Quake for instance, the maps are more circular in layout.
This means you can play things in a different order, and also the bigger loadout, more creative weapons and higher rate of mobility allow you to tackle situations in a wide variety of ways.
In other words, you have the freedom -- not total freedom! -- to decide both on the micro and macro aspects of the game.
With macro I mean global tactics (non-singular) and micro I mean player to player combat.
In most modern shooters you only have choice in the micro aspects, and even in those there is much less diversity. Because most weapons are rather similar in nature, and there is less mobility -- 1. movement is generally more restrictive, and 2. map layout doesn't allow for easy flanking or backtracking.
Deus Ex is perhaps the best example of a game that allows you to take matters in your own hands. It is this aspect of choice and personal decision making that I lack in modern games.
In a sense you could say that most older FPS games were more liberal in their philosophies, and modern shooters are more collectivist -- you are a cog in the machine. You can rise above the average, but you're always kept on a leash by one limitation or another.
Is that to say older shooters are superior?
No! But, it is my opinion that they are indeed superior in certain aspects.
Scripted sequences can certainly spice things up, and limitations aren't a bad thing per se. But I think the dominant philosophy has shifted to much to making games like movies, rather than providing you with a set of goals and issues that you, as an individual are left to solve.
For me personally, at the end of the 90's there were Deus Ex and Half Life.
While both were great games, I vastly prefer Deus Ex for it's gameplay mechanics and mix of RTS and FPS. Half Life was an amazing experience, but in the end it was rather on rails. And I've been let down that the industry has moved move in the direction of the latter rather than the former.
Of course there are exceptions, Bulletstorm is very liberal in the micro aspects but hugely restrictive in the macro aspects. Crysis is rather liberal in the macro aspects, and also the player to player combat alows for unique approaches thanks to the suit system. Yet even in Crysis, despite it's strong sandbox aspects, I feel rather confined in my ways of approaching a situation, probably because there's a clear superior way of doing things most of the time. Or perhaps it's just me.
</rant>
The game presents you with a situation where there are maybe 2 or 3 solutions to the problem, yet there's always one which is vastly supperior. And as such the game nannies you into playing this way.
Even in games like Half Life 2 there was always a very clear way of doing things. It simply was presented as such.
Now if you play Quake for instance, the maps are more circular in layout.
This means you can play things in a different order, and also the bigger loadout, more creative weapons and higher rate of mobility allow you to tackle situations in a wide variety of ways.
In other words, you have the freedom -- not total freedom! -- to decide both on the micro and macro aspects of the game.
With macro I mean global tactics (non-singular) and micro I mean player to player combat.
In most modern shooters you only have choice in the micro aspects, and even in those there is much less diversity. Because most weapons are rather similar in nature, and there is less mobility -- 1. movement is generally more restrictive, and 2. map layout doesn't allow for easy flanking or backtracking.
Deus Ex is perhaps the best example of a game that allows you to take matters in your own hands. It is this aspect of choice and personal decision making that I lack in modern games.
In a sense you could say that most older FPS games were more liberal in their philosophies, and modern shooters are more collectivist -- you are a cog in the machine. You can rise above the average, but you're always kept on a leash by one limitation or another.
Is that to say older shooters are superior?
No! But, it is my opinion that they are indeed superior in certain aspects.
Scripted sequences can certainly spice things up, and limitations aren't a bad thing per se. But I think the dominant philosophy has shifted to much to making games like movies, rather than providing you with a set of goals and issues that you, as an individual are left to solve.
For me personally, at the end of the 90's there were Deus Ex and Half Life.
While both were great games, I vastly prefer Deus Ex for it's gameplay mechanics and mix of RTS and FPS. Half Life was an amazing experience, but in the end it was rather on rails. And I've been let down that the industry has moved move in the direction of the latter rather than the former.
Of course there are exceptions, Bulletstorm is very liberal in the micro aspects but hugely restrictive in the macro aspects. Crysis is rather liberal in the macro aspects, and also the player to player combat alows for unique approaches thanks to the suit system. Yet even in Crysis, despite it's strong sandbox aspects, I feel rather confined in my ways of approaching a situation, probably because there's a clear superior way of doing things most of the time. Or perhaps it's just me.
</rant>
Very good point Spiney and I would take this a bit further and say that they should have given you a choice whether to save your game at any point or not and maybe even given you a choice on whether you wanted regenerating health or health pack pickups (and the two-weapon limit or not). Obviously, the game didn't have the budget for this, but it seems like these new features may have been added near the end of the game's development at the last minute to make it seem more modern (or maybe just an easy transition to the console platforms). I wonder if those 3 features weren't in there, if people would be complaining that they weren't there and should be for it to be considered a modern shooter, which it is not?
Obviously, those 3 things are my biggest beef with the game and I haven't even bought or played it yet, but I think I might give it a try once it goes on-sale. I think hal gave a fair review and it has inspired me to give it a try even though I don't like some of the features. Now if I can only pry myself out of the Unreal universe long enough to give it a try.
Didn't notice the no score before, guess we'll have to await the new Nalicity for numbers
All the same, good review. IMO from what I've read and seen regarding DNF it's an all-right game regardless. I'll prolly get it when it hits below $20 because it looks like fun no matter what year it was...