You misunderstood another time. I was not talking about the Gamestudio forum only. I was talking about a lot of PC gamers forums I visited to get an idea how they react to modern shooters. And they did not accept Crysis 2 very well. Half of them hate DNF for several reasons: technology behind it, the humour. And the other half likes it.
But I think many haters exist because they had higher expectations, for reasons, I dont understand. I mean honestly: This is a very old game with a long development cycle, an old engine and based on an old cult game. It never was meant to please everyone and it was clear that it will not look like Battlefield 3.

The thing that excited me most about this game was, that it is the first shooter sequel that indeed meets the spirit of its prequel. Crysis 2, Unreal 2, Farcry 2 and others did change hero, location, gameplay and more. They just exploited the name of the original one. This time it was indeed very similar to the original and because of that it is indeed old-school.

Actually all these debates dont matter anyway, it sells great.

I can't take responsibility for that misunderstanding when you say "these forums" over and over again. In English we use "these" to refer to something that is present (eg: "These forums are for Gamestudio projects; please refrain from posting Unreal Engine 2.5 projects here."), something that has been mentioned immediately prior (eg: "The game is decorated with medium brown, grey-brown, red-brown, and grey. These are my favourite colours!"), or to lead into a list (eg: "These are my favourite things about DNF: poo, wee, and sluts.").

Jibb

You dont need to explain yourself, I understood and told you that I was talking about more than the Gamestudio forum. But thanks for then English lesson. I know I cant phrase it perfect.

Anyway I did make my points about gameplay vs. graphics and everything else is a matter of taste. Since I like more intelligent gameplay I am happy that this software has been released and I am even more happy that it sells well. Of course it is not as complex as a strategy game, but it is a fresh experience especially since Valve does not make any new HL sequel.

I would like to see more games like that.

Well I've finished it today and it took me about 10 hours. I think that's not too bad compared to other shooter's singleplayer and it was a fun experience all the way through. I even might give it a try on Damn I'm Good...

Now in retroperspective I've got a new minor complaint: It seems to play it a bit too safe concerning the humor. I mean it sort of lives too much from things introduced in Duke Nukem 3D. Duke's "smooth talking" doesn't seem to have "evolved" that much and there are rather little new sayings. They also hesitated to put in the actual gross parts which pretty much is around the boss fights / the cinematics. I mean those probably where the most memorable moments of Duke Nukem 3D: Ripping off the bosse's head and "shitting down its neck" or the eyeball kick on the football field. Duke Nukem Forever utterly fails at delivering such moments. They just recycled those moments from Duke Nukem Forever and added nothing new. Oh well - there's one pissing thing that's new but it's hardly worth mentioning as it's rather lame...

It feels a bit like they were trying to avoid the ultimate "adult ratings" by including such over the top moments. I think that's sort of sad as DNF really lacks some of those unique moments . If we're ever going to see another Duke Nukem title I hope they'll get that point right. And they also might want to introduce those Synthetically Mutated Attack Robot Terrorist Sharks from the comic...

I don't think I have done so! Or at least, I definately did not ever intent to insult you. What I said - or maybe only meant to say - was that it'd be dumb to assume that there could ever be some kind of objective truth that would clearly state "Players will enjoy it/not enjoy it". You wrote something similar, and I called you out on it. But I was really just referring to the fact that this can generally not be done. The way the phrase works, I believe it is clear this way.
If it isn't, then I apologize. I did not want to insult you. Sorry if it came across that way, I definately don't want that.


Now, with that out the way...



This is something I've read several times from you, and I wonder where this belief is coming from? You're stating that the developers said that in an interview, and I believe you when you say that. However, I do not believe the developers when they do.
I have played games on consoles that were complex, and if they find themselves unable to map weapon switching to one of the modern controllers (that easily have 12 buttons (or more?)), then there is most likely something fundamentally wrong with their control scheme. I could switch weapons in Metroid Prime, so there.
There is also another point to be made here, which is that the variety of weapons, and the amount I can have in my inventory does not equal complexity. Instead, the latter can be achieved in numerous ways, but I believe there is no point in bringing this up here.



Great, variety is always good.
Variety does not necessarily equal "intelligent" gameplay, though. In fact, "intelligent" is such a strong word that brings up so many associations that are, naturally, mostly about thinking that I feel the word may be misplaced here.

Isn't the game at its best when it is about "mindless shooting", possibly with some gore-related humor? That is, of course, okay, but it is definately not "intelligent". For me, a game only deservers this particular moniker if it actually displays either very clever, unusual mechanics, and also has an intelligent story with good characters. I'd argue that games like the ones I've linked to earlier fulfill these criteria, but from all I've read about Duke Nukem, that game doesn't (and neither does it want to, which is okay)

I mean, maybe I'm in the minority here. But driving sections or physics puzzles may add variety, but not something worthwhile in regards of the game being regarded "intelligent". You sure wouldn't use "Duke Nukem Forever" to introduce someone who is not familar with videogames to them, right? I wouldn't, and the reason is very much because the game is not intelligent.




We can argue about the humor all day long, I suppose. If you like it and enjoy it, great, more power to you! It's not my kind of thing, and that must be respected as well (which from the sound of it you do, so this wasn't meant as critic to you or anything, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding :))




This may be true -- I am terribly uninformed as to how games sell. I believe, however, that such a thing can never boil down to one single reason [at least not outside exotic scenarios]. Too heterogen is the mass of people who play videogames - even the fans of the single genre "FPS" (which, unlike others, is unusually well-defined). This is what should keep the market full of surprises (though it doesn't work too well).
What I mean to say with this is: I sure hope it is not just about graphics. They may play a bigger role in FPS-games, but I do hope that things like reviews, etc. influence the public as well.
And I'm pretty sure Duke Nukem Forever will sell fine, even if on name alone. Maybe not enough to actually break even if you want it to bring in enough money to cover the whole who-knows-how-many-years-development-cycle, but the last development cycle at its new developers I'm sure it'll bring back in.

I consider indies working in different genres as FPS (though we can argue all day long again what qualifies as "Indie" and what not, but I'm sure you'll agree too that most actual indie-developers (by which I mean those who may actually FINISH their games) don't create FPS-games), so I still find this comparision difficult to make. Obviously, Valve are independent, and they create Half-Life, but those is such a different beast of a game, that I'd feel bad comparing it to DNF, same genre or not.




I had to quote this, because I find it interesting. You argue that a true-spirited sequel should keep a majority of its elements, including characters, story, location and gameplay, the same. However, many of the well-known franchises don't. Think Final Fantasy, which only ever keeps its gameplay, and even then changes a lot (small elements of the story, such as chocobos, shall not bother us). It might be argued that Zelda only ever keeps is gameplay the same, too (though the world and characters have the same name, and at times even look, they are different in every other way - especially their backstory and motivations change).
Grand Theft Auto is another big-name franchise that changes many things.
So I agree with you in that many things change, which can be frustrating if you want to know what happens to a certain character. For instance, if there was a miracle to happen today, and a sequel to "Last Window" would be announced, that would tell us the next part of Kyle Hyde's story, I'd be ecstatic! Alas, such will likely not be, as nobody bought those masterpieces.

But what exactly qualifies a franchise? How much must be preserved in order for two games to be actually considered a "sequel"? Surely, there have to be certain, common rules. How come I have a hard time thinking of anything, then? Any ideas?



They matter to ME, because I think lots can be learned from discussions like these

I've just completed the game and except the last ~3 parts (including the finale) the campaign was pretty awesome!
Still, almost nothing from the wonderful E3 2001 trailer made it into the final game and that's a really bad thing, because that trailer kicks ass, even today!

Duke Nukem Forever E3 2001 Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDlB2P1leRM

Sorry for misunderstanding.


Actually I wrote or at least intended to write that if someone loves old-school games and has access to that kind of humour will definitely enjoy it. I have read so much excited and positive user reviews. So it is not a bad game it just is not for everyone.


I share your doubts, I also wondered why it should not be possible to map weapon change to a consoles button. But that is what they told. So maybe it is just a design decision that we both cant understand at this moment.


No, but the kind of weapons can be fun and at least create a bit more variety. I have to mention that you not only carry 2 weapons, you also have grenades, a mobile trap and a hologram to distract enemies. Because of that it adds a bit strategy. I played it at medium difficulty and often needed these elements to survive especially when fighting bosses.
It definitely felt more complex than Crysis 2 as an example.


Yes, it of course is a shooter and not comparable to any strategic games. So I would not try to debate too much about the term "intelligent". Anyway I gave enough reasons to explain why it is more complex than most today's rail-shooters.

In terms of story it is quite simple though: Aliens came back and took the women to give birth to a new alien brood. The Duke is pissed and strikes back even when the president told him not to do so.
Actually I am happy that it is not a complex story about treachery and a network of intrigues. This would absolutely destroy the mood of this game.


I always wrote that this game is only for people who like this kind of humour. Some other people hate it because of that. So this is another reason why there are some groups of people loving or hating it.



It is only hard to compare because DNF ist more aimed toward fun while HL2 is a more realistic scenario. But really, if you play it, then they are very similar. You run around, solve puzzles, interact with the environment, you drive a bit, get out, get some gas, walk into a mine, kill some alien larvae, break some wooden planks, solve a phyics puzzle. HL2 is the game that is actually the most similar to DNF.


Actually you are right, not everything has to be preserved. There can be new elements and new story twists of course. I was talking about the feeling, the spirit, the mood. It is often hard for me to recognize a sequel as a new version of its original. I did not find the mood of this great peaceful alien world with these kind and religious Nali in Unreal 2. The good old mixture of aliens, fantasy and sci-fi was just missing in part 2. We got another military shooter instead.

FarCry and Crysis were a bit open with an exotic scenario and lots of options to walk, to drive to steer a boat. Crysis 2 was just a narrow shooter in New York.


Good question and I think there is no general answer. In the end it should meet the same mood of the original, the features that most fans remember when they talk about that game. And FarCry / Crysis will always be remembered as beautiful Island shooters with a quite open level design.
The Duke is remembered as a cool guy with some harsh and funny speaking while killing aliens and interacting with a environment that has been build with lots of detail and interactivity.


Yes, I mean, it does not matter to the Duke at all

In the end I think I will remember this game much more than Crysis 2 as an example for several reasons:

Crysis 2 is located in New York, that is all. I saw great locations in DNF like a western town, took a ride on a lorry in a mine, had some funny monster truck driving, visited some nice alien places and jumped through a burger restaurant while miniaturized. The driving with the hoister was new to me and the boss fights were challenging in medium difficulty. I found it funny to set traps and to listen to the jokes.
Crysis 2 was just shooting and hiding. I had some options to make me temporarily invisible and some melee attacks. But in the end it was very repetitive. But it got higher ratings.