If you enjoy gameplay over graphics then you will enjoy it. There is no psychological phenomena around it. I told you the pure facts.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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, 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
