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