DNF - Today is the Day

Yes, today is the day. I just got the balls of steel edition of Duke Nukem Forever.

hi Frankboy, das ist die erste Wertung bei hitmeister - ist da was dran??




heute Morgen schon wurde die ps3 version für 40 angeboten

Grafik ist ganz hübsch, Ladezeiten sind echt heftig unkristlich.
Kritik an der Steuerung ist berechtigt, Gegner-KI angemessen, da es sich hier eher um einen Funshooter als einen Taktikshooter handelt. Das mit den Waffen ist auch heftig schlimm, nur jeweils 2 verschiedene?? Oft genug in die Situation gekommen, dann die Falschen dabeigehabt zu haben... aber da schafft hoffentlich bald eine Modifikation Abhilfe.

Ist halt einfach ein vollkommen innovationsloser Shooter mitn paar faden Sprüchen nebenher (kommt nichtmal an die Mono-/Dialoge aus Postal 2 ran), der sich wirklich nur wegen seinem Namen verkauft. Fühlt sich an wie Prey, wobei ich vom Feeling her eher was wie Bullettime erwartet habe.

Edit: am Schlimmsten fand ich persönlich aber die übertriebenst schlauchförmig gestalteten Levels... da hätte man in über einem Jahrzehnt Leveldesignmässig wirklich was besseres hinlegen können...

Wuähhh! Jetzt hab ich schon bei GamesOnly.at per Express bestellt, aber meine Balls of Steel Edition ist noch nicht da. Ich hoffe das wird heute noch was - passenderweise wird bei DHL gerade die Paketverfolgung überarbeitet und ich hab keine Anhaltspunkte ob das heute überhaupt noch was werden kann...

Wegen der Kritikpunkte: Ja, das mit den 2 Waffen finde ich auch blöd. Ist aber der einzige größere Kritikpunkt den ich habe. Ich erwarte einfach eine sinnlose Ballerei mit viel Gewalt und Humor. Auch Schlauchlevels sind für mich kein Problem - das war bei DN3D ja nicht anders und das spiel ich mit dem High-Resolution Pack auch heute noch. Das die Grafik ein wenig altbacken ist ist schade, ich fand das was ich gesehen habe aber immer noch ziemlich gut und Leute die argumentieren, dass das auf PS2 Niveau ist kann ich nicht wirklich ernst nehmen...

BTW: Derzeit verhandelt wohl ein Indie Entwickler mit Gearbox über eine DN3D Reloaded Remake...
http://www.dukenukemreloaded.com/

Ich freu mich schon auf das Spiel und bin mal gespannt auf den Schwierigkeitsgrad - der soll in der höchsten Stufe ein wenig unfair geraten sein...

Scheinbar ist das so wie mit dem covern von Liedern. Entweder man fühlt die Emotion im Lied, dann braucht man es auch nicht zu interpretieren - oder man macht es eben nach. Und dann stimmts halt nicht.

Ich denke, das, was die Entwickler damals bei ihrem Spiel an Emotionen reingesteckt haben, die kann man zwar notieren und versuchen nachzumachen - aber irgendwie stimmt dann halt was nicht.

DNukem ist nun einmal ein Arnold Schwarzenegger Plagiat. Und zum Erscheinen des Originals gab es seinerzeit die große Schwarzenegger-Hysterie. Die gibt es halt jetzt nicht mehr. Und ich bezweifle, dass von den jetzigen Entwicklern dieses Felleing rübergebracht wurde. Ich habs ja schon mal geschrieben... das komplette Comic-Feeling ist nich umgesetzt worden. Dann ist es kein DN mehr.

Also ich hab jetzt 2 Stunden gespielt und mir macht's ne Menge Spaß! Die Grafik ist jetzt nicht so schlecht und schon mit Liebe zum Detail gemacht. Mal gucken was in den späteren Maps noch so kommt. Ladezeiten sind ein bisschen lang aber auch nicht übermäßig. Und die Sprüche und zwischensequenzen machen das auch locker wieder wett Mir macht DNF auf jedenfall um einiges mehr Spaß als Crysis 2 weil's halt mal kein Shooter von der Stange ist.

Nehmt bitte die Wertungen nicht ernst und schon gar nicht die Kommentare der Kiddies. Der Duke scheint ein Streitthema zu sein, einige lieben es, einige nicht. Gamestar gibt 68 Punkte und zerreißt es ziemlich mit falschen Begründungen, GamersGlobal gibt 8.5 von 10 und lobt es eher.
Die Kids ärgern sich, dass es keine Mischung aus Crysis und COD ist, die Fans freuen sich ein Loch in den Bauch.

Aber die Fakten sind folgende:

geile Sprüche:
politisch unkorrekt, sexuell, Anspielungen auf Games und Filme mit Arnie und Bruce Willis. Er meint z.B. eine Energierüstung (siehe Crysis) wäre was für Pussies oder Keycards braucht er nicht (während er eine Tür mit Gewalt aufbricht)

interaktive Level:
man kann viele Objekte zerstören, Säulen, Mauern, Kisten usw.

Minispiele:
Ich habe schon Billiard gespielt, Automaten gezockt, Lichter, Türen, Klos oder Duschen aktiviert, Modellfahrzeuge gesteuert, geschrumpft gekämpft und gefahren

Physikrätsel:
ähnlich wie in HL2 kann man Kisten stapeln, Fässer bewegen und damit z.B. Container kippen und neue Wege eröffnen

Ballern:
Waffen sind geil, nur 2 auf einmal (wegen Konsolenkontrollern), aber es liegen überall neue rum. Das Ballern macht spaß, man muss ständig ausweichen und im Normal-Modus sind Feinde schon recht gefährlich. Es gibt riesige Bosse und riesige Wummen.
Zielhilfen können optional ein- und ausgeschaltet werden.
Es gibt automatische Selbstheilung, uncool aber funktioniert.

Grafik:
Die Unreal2.5 Engine wurde aufgebohrt. Die wichtigsten Texturen sind knackscharf. Es gibt Postprocessing, Ambient Occlusion und dynamische sowie statische Schatten. Der DOF nervt aber lässt sich ausschalten.
Die Kids da draußen in den Foren von Gamestar und co jammern aber über die Optik, weshalb sie es nicht für den Vollpreis kaufen wollen.

Ladezeiten:
Ich lese oft Jammern über Ladezeiten, aber bei mir lädt bisher jeder Level bis maximal 4 Sekunden. Keine Ahnung, was da bei anderen schief läuft.

Leveldesign:
Am Anfang hat man unglaublich viel zu entdecken. Es macht Spaß. Später gibt es einige Schlauchlevel, das war früher in der Tat besser. Aber durch die Action ist es eigentlich ok, gerade wenn man mit einem Miniaturauto durch ein Level rast, ist man froh, dass es nicht zu komplex ist.

Story:
Die Story wird in FPS Sicht erzählt, wie in HL2. Man bleibt immer im Körper vom Duke, Leute quatschen ihn an oder Monitore zeigen Schnipsel de Story.

Bewertungen:
Einige Redakteure meinen, der Duke hätte den Trend verpasst, weil er kein Deckungssystem und keine Zwischensequenzen hat. Was für ein Unsinn, warum muss der Duke sowas haben?

Fazit:
Mich erinnert das Spiel in erster Linie an den Original-Duke, ein wenig an Prey, Bulletstorm und an Half Life 2. Die Spielmechanik mit Ballern, Rätseln und der Abwechslung ist im Grunde HL2, aber gewürzt mit Coolness und mehr Fun. Die Automaten und Interaktivität und einige technische Level sehen nach Prey aus und der Rest ist der Duke. Die Absurdität, das Fokussieren auf den Spaß und das Blut erinnern an Bulletstorm.
Es gibt leider Konsoleneinflüsse, es ist nicht perfekt, aber das spaßigste Spiel derzeit, besser als Bulletstorm, einige behaupten es wäre besser als Bioshock 2 (obwohl es weit schlechter bewertet wurde).
Fans müssen definitv zugreifen, Hirn ausschalten und einfach genießen.
Leute die auf realistische Tötungsszenarien ala COD oder BF stehen, können den Humor nicht begreifen.

Yay - jetzt ist's doch noch bei mir angekommen. In diesem Sinne frohe Pfingsten! ^^

@Machinery_Frank:
Ich sehe das ganz ähnlich wie du. Dich dürfte dann auch Serious Sam 3 interessieren. Mal ein Zitat aus diesem Interview:

Haha, na klar interessiert mich Serious Sam.

Der Spruch auf den Bohnen!
Zu geil - so sehr hat mich ein Spiel schon lange nicht mehr zum Lachen gebracht...

So, does it worth it's price? Duke Nukem is back?

Als ob das schwer wäre....

Considering the time you spend gaming? Yes, its singleplayer part is about twice as long as in other shooters of today (it of course depends on how fast you run through - many levels have lots of "eastereggs" to offer you won't get to see if you just run by...

You just need to be aware that it's for like 80-90% a "classic" shooter. Don't expect cover systems or blinking arrows telling you where to go (not that this would be difficult to figure out in DNF although it has its moments where you have to sort out the right way to proceed). Also don't expect any fancy AI. You'll also need a good portion of humor to enjoy this...

For me it's the best shooter I've played in a long while (not that I've played too many though as I don't like what most modern shooters have to offer). I especially like its diversity and level design. You don't just crawl through the levels and just shoot stuff - there's always something interesting or new. I think this is where the game 3DRealms wanted to create in the first place really shines through...

For people like me who couldn't for the life of them understand the hype for a game like this (and especially given it's development history, and especially after switching to a completely different developer), I heartily recommend RPS' "live-blog"-playing of the first few hours of the game. You should read it even with no interest in the game, because RockPaperShotgun's authors are easily the most talented in all of game journalism, and because the comments from the community add such a neat little bit of sadistical fun to it. So go and read it!. While you're at it, you might want to read their Review.


Now that you're confronted with those cheaper, better alternatives, why not instead spending your money on actual good games that do not insult your intelligence, instead reward you with clever stories and good, innovative game mechanics?

Oh, right. Hype. I forgot.

Duke Nukem 3D was the first game I've ever played, even now sometimes I love to play it on old PC with XP so all I was expecting is good sequel, I'm going to buy it, even if it's worst game ever, simply cause of the reason that I was waiting for it so long

Wait two more months and it will cost only half.

It is a very good sequel, dont worry. It has the same humor, even more interactive environments, more mini games, it even has physics puzzles. Because of the variety, the guns and the puzzles and the fps view story telling, it feels very much like Half Life 2. So if you prefer a more interesting and varying game like HL2 over simple shooters like COD MW, then the Duke is the perfect and the right game for you.

Actually I enjoy this game a lot and many other people enjoy it. But a lot of COD kids hate it, really, they write very emotional posts against it. I wonder why. Also I think that the hype created some people with high expectations and they might also be haters now. I dont understand why, I personally never believed that it will become the next generation of games. From my experience with bad sequels I expected another bad sequel. But I was positively surprised that this game feels a lot like the old one but better looking, more content, more gameplay mechanics, more variety.

It also is not perfect. Modern shooter guys have problems with the old-school design and old-school fans dont understand why it has automatic healing and a restriction of 2 weapons at the same time. Levels are also a bit more linear than in the old days.

But really, if you read these passionate hater blogs and reviews, then it sounds to me, that they fell into some hype and are now disappointed that the game indeed is "only" a better Duke Nukem, just a remake of the original game, the same good old story, the same fun. I really enjoy it, honestly.
And below each of these blogs and reviews you will find people who agree and people who disagree and many people who enjoyed the game. Probably this kind of macho humour really is not for the current kind of casual gamer mass.

True! I also never expected it to be the game that woops the entire genre. I just expected a rather classic shooters with lots of good ideas that accumulated over the years. So far this turned out to be true - there's lots of diversity in locations, gameplay and atmosphere. I really like that and couldn't name another recent game offering this to that extent...

dont worry, its all just hype backlash. i wonder if these people realize that all there emotions can all be summed up with one general sociological concept, and not a real opinion based on playing the game.

I'm of the "COD kids" (to be more sharp MW kid ), but that doesn't make me oldschool hater. I love old style shooters, and in most cases I don't care about games graphics, for me more important is gameplay (recently I played Doom (the first one) and first Quake, I love them so much!), there are a lot of games with impressive (not bad) graphics, but they just boring...

yes just because you like cod doesnt make you instantly a hater. I like cod too. i hate its single player but its multiplayer is very addictive. something about the competition in it.

If you enjoy gameplay over graphics then you will enjoy it. There is no psychological phenomena around it. I told you the pure facts. It has gameplay with lots of different options and a lot of variety. With all these puzzle games and physics, the destroyable environment and the fun it is in the end a good game.

If you need perfect graphics and you just watched all these E3 trailers, then you might be disappointed about the Unreal2.5 technology behind it. It still offeres ambient occlusion, static and dynamic shadows, normal spec mapping, dof and motion blur, but the models and animations differ in quality in some levels.

There was indeed hype around it. But the hype-infected turned into haters after its release because of their high expectations. People like me who just expected another Duke game love it like it is.

Another problem is: This game is technically not really comparable with these new games. It is from another era. That is the same as if you try to test an old cult car from the 60s or 70s today. It would fail each test because of missing technology and missing security features. But it might be fun to drive it. And fun is actually what this game makes right. But really, the humour is not for everyone, some people feel pissed because of it. Some women in the USA already fight against this game and bring it to the court.

Besides that this game is on number one in sales statistics all over the world, here in Germany, at Steam and in other places. But I think half of them really enjoy it while the other half bought it only because of the hype and will turn into haters. So you will find 2 big emotional groups all over the internet hating and loving it.
While I personally enjoyed it, I still have the guts to admit, that it could be made better with good old health packs, quicksave, more open level design and with more weapons on the hero's shoulders. Because of that it is not a perfect game, but it is still a fun game, better than each rail-shooter out there.

And yes, I was talking about the single-player experience. In terms of multiplayer I prefer Left4Dead 2 anyway

Another sad finding of this DNF debate for me is: When a good game, that is longer than today's shooters and offers more variation than these shooters gets such bad rating then they would rip our small indie games apart. I mean, shooters like Crysis2 are really simple compared to DNF, better looking, but no gameplay and no humour and no fun. And still, these games get better rating.
This shows very clearly that graphics sell games better than gameplay and it probably ends the debate that raises over and over in this forum.

Well I wouldn't phrase it like that. I think that it's just the shooter genre which is very picky about graphics. Think of e.g. Dragon Age 2 - its graphics were semibad for modern standards (compare it to e.g. The Witcher 2 which wasn't even done by a team that big) but it still got great ratings...

I think the problem with shooter reviews most magazines do is that they select some "reference games" like e.g. Crysis or CoD. Any game then has to compare with those and wherever they don't follow the forumla they gather demerits...

Yes, you are right. This probably applies more to shooter games. But it might become a trend for the western mass market.

i think it also is affected by your goal/size. if your intention is to compete with the big dogs, the graphics may be needed, but if you want a successful indie game, good graphics could get you an unfinished game, or complaints about the gameplay, and people arent willing to buy an indie game unless its got some sort of addicting gameplay. (i would guess.)

Hey Frank, kann es ein dass du auf Gamestar.de als Machinary_Joe unterwegs bist?

----

I like the game. It could have been so much more (storytelling), but it`s really fun to play. Some ideas are unique (shrinking), it´s rich in variety (rc car, shirinking, monster truck, physics puzzles, interactive world) and very humorous. I also don`t regret to have bought the limited edition. The artbook is very interesting and valuable, the comic strip is nice and the Duke statue is epic, although made in China.
I really waited 14 years for this game. First saw it in a gaming magazine in 1998. Duke 1 and 2 were my first games along with Commander Keen and Duke3D one of my first shooters besides Unreal. The game is fun to me as a retro shooter player and Duke fan.

Now, I haven't played DNF, but I've read reviews, including the RockPaperShotgun-review I linked to earlier. Before we continue, let me make clear that there is no other outlet avaible that I trust more. They have proven several times that they absolutely know how to review and judge games, and they seem among the most fair and enthusiastic among the gaming press.
They didn't like it.
And they are definately not ones that only care about graphics.

Instead, you're phrasing your sentences as absolute truth. Which is dumb, because "liking games" is, by its very nature, something subjective. You can find certain elements in games that make it likely to be enjoyed by more people, just as you can find flaws that will cause people to not like it. This is as "objective" as reviews can get. But so much in games is about "feel" that sentences like "There is no psychological phenomena around it" are unclear at best and plain wrong at worst.

Here's my take on it: "Duke Nukem Forever" introduces several gameplayelements that, so far, haven't been used much. The shrinking, for instance. Such elements are generally well-received, though. But if the gameplay doesn't stray far from "kill-all-enemies-open-door-proceed", then complaints about it being repetitive are justified.

Humor in games is always difficult, and from what I've seen and heard, I'd be embarrassed and ashamed to play this. It sounds dumb and childish, but maybe that is what people want and expect from this. In that case, good for them, but as with everything else, people should be allowed to hold a negative opinion on this.




This is actually a nice analogy, and I feel I understand your point better with it. In other words, you expected and wanted certain "old-school"-elements in your game, and you're glad you got them. And this is fine!
However, some of those "old-school"-elements died a good death for a reason, and some elements, such as quicksave, are now expected standard. If you don't have that, then an argument like "it is supposed to be old school!" shouldn't save you from criticism regarding an obvious oversight. However, you admitted yourself to this, so I think we agree on this point?

Maybe I'm the wrong person to post in this thread, what with my complete lack of interest in this game, but I just wanted to clarify a few things. And I also felt that the nameless "hater"-group was a bit unfairly bashed on in here, and deserved a defense



Wait... what? I don't know what you're trying to say with this. Are you saying .... Duke Nukem gets a bad rating because it is... different than indie games? Huh, what? Longer than indie games? Has higher production values?
Seriously, I don't get it. Can you rephrase this?



Well, it's either that, or maybe people actually enjoyed Crysis 2 more than Duke Nukem Forever.
Come on, let them be entitled to their opinion, just as you are to yours

btw... price tends down. Today you pay on hitmeister for the pc version only 28, for xbox 32Euro. This is less then the half start price. And this only in not a week. I think, that such sales system come very close to the real price of video games.

Error:

First of all I agree with a lot what you wrote. Of course all this is a matter of taste. And I am not against any other taste.

I dont like that you call me dumb, I really always appreciated your postings and this is the first time I see you falling into such cheap behaviour.

You said oldschool gameplay died for good reasons. Yes, you are right, it died because it does not fit well to the consoles. I know from DNF interviews that they integrated auto-healing and restricted number of weapons only because it works better on consoles. Todays linear level design is another result of it, especially in shooters. Games like Stalker show that open level design can still work, but linear and simplified rail shooters just sell better. So in the end it is just a decision to make more money, it does not mean that it is plain better, it just feels better for the standard consoles player.

You have to understand that a consoles player is sitting in his living room on a chair with a small controller in his hand. A fast paced action gameplay is not perfect for this scenario. But a rather slow gameplay with autohealing and a cover system is more relaxing in this case. Actually the Duke was not like that, Unreal was not like that, Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, they all were not like that, but these games were PC games. That is the difference.

Today you have to pay 100 million to make a decent shooter and this will not work on a PC alone, it has to be cross platform. It is a development for some reasons and does not mean that I, as a PC gamer, like this trend.

Regarding the gameplay elements: The Duke is more than a shooter. You drive through several levels, you control a remote controlled miniature car, you solve physics puzzles, you control a crane, a hoister, moving platforms and more. Compared to the big shooters it is not only more varying it is also much more intelligent gameplay, similar to Half Life 2.

If you feel offended by the humour, then the game is not for you just like Al Bundy might offend some people or Charly Harper or Leslie Nielsen. But this setting is exaggerated and unreal and thus kind of funny. Another part of the jokes is to create some relations to other games and other movies. It does not work if you dont know these games and movies. I mean there are side blows toward movies like Phantom Commando or Predator as an example. Not everybody knows these ones today.

The sentence regarding indie games was just as simple as that: Nice looking simplified shooters sell better than shooters with better gameplay but not so polished graphics. Even Crysis 2 sold weak because it did not become a new graphics revolution but everybody is looking forward to BF3 because of the great graphics. Almost nobody in these forums wrote comments or questions about the gameplay. These shooter games sell by graphics and we cannot compete in this area. So it would be a bad idea to make an indie shooter, we have to restrict to niche markets and casual games.

Crysis2 vs. DNF. Well, almost all people in these forums talked bad about Crysis2, it was too narrow, bad AI, too linear, almost no driving, too much simplified, a consoles game. All people who liked the Duke found Crysis 2 boring and many of them even did not finish it. This tells me something about it.
Of course there will be XBox 360 fans who enjoyed Crysis2, because it is a good consoles shooter, better than others. And also PC gamers played through it. But I dont talk for them, I talk for me and what I have read in several PC gamers forums.

It's okay, no one called you dumb.Sure, they have reasons behind their making the game wussier (regen health, 2 weapons at a time), but that doesn't make those good decisions. Serious Sam for XBox and Serious Sam 2 on XBox were well-received, ridiculous amounts of fun, and offered no such thing as health-regen and weapon limitations. I agree that one can argue in favour of reduced weapons because of the button layout on a controller (and argue against it citing the likes of Serious Sam and other games that didn't make such compromises), but certainly not regenerating health. Console gamers (with the exception of Wii) consider themselves as hardcore as PC gamers (those consoles aren't cheap, and their games cost a small fortune).This is speculative at best. I think you're thinking about the Wii. Here's some speculation of my own: regenerating health came as a means to prevent that a player is forced to continue without enough health to have a reasonable chance at survival; cover systems came about not as a means to sit back and relax, but to simulate real life gun-fights where participants do not run around a corridor dodging projectiles. I know console gamers -- PS3 and 360 gamers -- and they are generally nothing like Wii gamers in terms of tastes and expectations for games.
Really? I got the impression that most of those comments were simply the expectations of users who never played it, with the only exception being alpha strike who bought it and disliked it -- and we all know how specific his shooter tastes are. I'm not saying he has poor taste, but that's hardly a consensus. Alibaba liked it a lot.

Basically, I think the poor reception of DNF is more than just its 12-year-old humour -- it's that it made compromises that cost it some of its all-important fun factor, as well as design choices that made it less fun. There are those who hate it more as a reaction to it being worse than it should have been, but I think your like for it and forgiveness of its (apparently glaring) flaws is a reaction to the extreme haters. There are plenty of us who don't like it because it met our expectations that it was always going to be rubbish.

I think Indie developers normally make games with a much better focus, and their games are more fun for it. I don't think you have to worry about indie FPSs because of a dodgy game that bit off way more than its development team could chew.

Jibb

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.