Pitchford: People Love Duke; St. John: Clueless Critics

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Silly Randy, you don't have to defend this game. Thanks be to unto Mr. Pitchford for actually bringing this out, but this is that fat moron's fault, not yours.

EFF YOU GEORGE BROUSSARD!
 
G

Guest

Guest
It was OK.... but for a such a long development.... what where they doing? the pre release videos showed the only fun/funny bits. the rest just fizzled plently of action. but way to little interaction and unique ideas, if you where in it for they character like me and his zinger qoutes i was dissapoint... despite the fact i missed most as they came during heavy sound moments so you couldnt hear them anyway.

Please Release a revamp pack/patch, i'll even pay more the idea of the game is good. need more gore, bullet damage specific to body part with random ragdol deaths or half deaths with more then a couple execution techniques. YES i love the idea of executing the injured.... but not the same way a thousand times!
 

senkasaw

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2010
466
0
18,960
55
My buddy has been playing it and...meh.

I don't think people who were disappointed were expecting MW2 or anything, but they were expecting something more than "meh." Look at where 10+ years of development got Starcraft 2... 2k Games could have done better than "meh." Of course I am sure all of the hype and expectation isn't helping. If it didn't completely blow people away it was bound to disappoint (kinda like U.S. presidents).
 
G

Guest

Guest
It's just a bunch of reviewers who have to be politically correct and sensitive to the feelings of a bunch of pussys. They can't take a joke anymore. Duke was fun because of its crude humor and shooting stuff, DNF delivers on that.

If you don't like the humor then its obviously not for you and the critics can go back to watching the paint dry in LA Noire.

 

mlopinto2k1

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,433
0
19,280
0
How could you screw this game up? Just doesn't make sense. Someone TOOK the game and looked at it like cash cow. Get it out they said! Get it out as fast as possible! This thing will be a monster! Yeah, ok.
 

malphas

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
It was obvious it was going to be mediocre at best, and that's exactly what it is really. The development time doesn't mean much since it was started from scratch several times during then. Gearbox basically took an unfinished game from the mid 2000's, polished it up into something presentable and let people finally play a game that's become near mythological during it's prolonged development, if you go in with that in mind and realistic expecations then it's worth a playthrough.

It's a shame they didn't just finish up the version they were making with id Tech 2 back in 2001 or whenever, rather than switching to the Unreal engine. From the trailers and footage it looks like it would have been pretty good for its time.
 

dapneym

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2008
45
0
18,530
0
To be perfectly honest, I really never expected much from Duke Nukem Forever in the first place. The trailers never really got me all that excited, and as more and more press came out about it I just got a more negative view of the game. The humour itself seems stuck in the 1990s. Maybe it's just me, but a game that centres around degrading women (and gays to a lesser extent) and massive amounts of base humour just isn't going to make a good game.
 

jsheridan

Distinguished
Dec 2, 2010
64
0
18,630
0
what happened to rating games for gameplay and not just based on visuals? The game is fun to play, I mean obviously because people are buying it. The graphics are dated but critics should mention how the game plays and the story....
 

someguynamedmatt

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2010
1,551
0
20,160
165
[citation][nom]dapneym[/nom]To be perfectly honest, I really never expected much from Duke Nukem Forever in the first place. The trailers never really got me all that excited, and as more and more press came out about it I just got a more negative view of the game. The humour itself seems stuck in the 1990s. Maybe it's just me, but a game that centres around degrading women (and gays to a lesser extent) and massive amounts of base humour just isn't going to make a good game.[/citation]
From that comment I can tell that you're one of those pansies who support gay people and hate it when people bash on women. And that's why this is being reviewed so badly. Society back in the 1990s didnt consist entirely of little bitches who whine because they're afraid of a little "base" humor. And until people start to grow their backbones back, this is the way it's gonna go for anything similar to DNF.
 

Miharu

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2007
241
0
18,690
3
I agree. Look like some critic started on 80 by removed 20 out of the usual chart. (perhaps for make them wait 14 years...)
(Perhaps they waiting for a 14 years developpement to be polish as a jewel...)(perhaps they became gay playing too much on their i*Thing.)

DNF is not the game of the year (meh is allow) but it's should have at least 75-80 on 100. Even bad game get 70 on 100 so I can't really understand 49 on 100.
 

malphas

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Miharu[/nom]DNF is not the game of the year (meh is allow) but it's should have at least 75-80 on 100. Even bad game get 70 on 100 so I can't really understand 49 on 100.[/citation]
Game scores like that are nonsense and always have been though, if you're doing a scale from 0-100 then 50 should be an average mediocre game, with varying levels of badness/goodness either side of that, instead it works like 90+ for good games, 80+ for OK games and 70+ for bad games, with the rest of the scale being redundant.
 

doorspawn

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
173
0
18,680
0
@senkasaw
Where did 10+ years of dev get SC2?
The worst DRM in existence. Better graphics. Game engine (game logic, not graphics) on par with their previous release 6 years earlier (lacks functional water that WC3 has, 3 cliff-heights (WC3=16), 1/4 tile height resolution (compared to WC3)). Editor is an order of magnitude more complex when doing the same things compared to WC3.
SC2 has not become what they wanted, the ultimate eSport. And that's down simply to it not really being very good.
 

therabiddeer

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2008
369
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]doorspawn[/nom]@senkasawWhere did 10+ years of dev get SC2?The worst DRM in existence. Better graphics. Game engine (game logic, not graphics) on par with their previous release 6 years earlier (lacks functional water that WC3 has, 3 cliff-heights (WC3=16), 1/4 tile height resolution (compared to WC3)). Editor is an order of magnitude more complex when doing the same things compared to WC3.SC2 has not become what they wanted, the ultimate eSport. And that's down simply to it not really being very good.[/citation]
How is SC2 the worst DRM in existence? Have you ever had issues with installing or running it? Are you an idiot? Better graphics, better game engine (both graphics and logic), no reason to have more than 4 "real" terrain levels and you have just as much height to work with. It is a bit more complex, but you can do WAY more, and they are constantly making improvements and have a big editor release coming with HotS to simplify many things.

Also, SC2 HAS become the ultimate eSport. It is doing fantastically amazingly well. I reference you to MLG columbus from just about a week ago... which pulled in 16k attendees and another 450k+ people watching the stream online. And the amazing thing is... this was in AMERICA. Also, IGN has a SC2 league as well as numerous other leagues that are popping up. An equal number are around in europe and of course korea has the GSL.
Watch this and tell me you dont get excited watching it: http://tv.majorleaguegaming.com/video/mlg-video/977857427001-idra-vs-mc-pool-play
Basically, no... you're wrong.

PS: Duke wouldve been way better if it werent for the 2 gun-at-a-time limit and no duke boot.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]malphas[/nom]Game scores like that are nonsense and always have been though, if you're doing a scale from 0-100 then 50 should be an average mediocre game, with varying levels of badness/goodness either side of that, instead it works like 90+ for good games, 80+ for OK games and 70+ for bad games, with the rest of the scale being redundant.[/citation]

people only really want to play good games, so people only really make good games.

when a game is bad, its REALLY BAD. and there are a few.

i personally think that a 1-10 rating system, that is weighted, and a final precent would be the best way to go.

like a fps gets a 30-40% of its rating from graphics alone (not realism, but how well it all flows, because its one of the few games thats selling point IS graphics) but a survival horror game would get weighted 30-40% on sound, and racing would get 50-70% on game play (good or bad graphics, good or bad sound, racing games live and die on game play alone, where others can get compensated from other aspects)

duke i believe (not haveing played it) is about
7/10 graphics
8/10 game play (personal taste)
10/10 music (if they dont fuck up the sound track, which i dont think they did)
and a 5/10 over all presentation (from what i hear of later levels.

coming in somewhere around a 7-7.5/10
 

Geef

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2006
466
8
18,965
73
Miharu
DNF is not the game of the year (meh is allow) but it's should have at least 75-80 on 100. Even bad game get 70 on 100 so I can't really understand 49 on 100.
This made me think of an interview about the movie Dude Where's My Car? I saw. He was talking about the reviews after the movie came out and he was like "What do you expect from a movie called Dude Where's My Car?"
 
G

Guest

Guest
From that comment I can tell that you're one of those pansies who support gay people and hate it when people bash on women. And that's why this is being reviewed so badly. Society back in the 1990s didnt consist entirely of little bitches who whine because they're afraid of a little "base" humor. And until people start to grow their backbones back, this is the way it's gonna go for anything similar to DNF.
I am also a liberal who dislike sexism and homophobia, and I am not very impressed by DNF, but those two aren't necessarily linked.
Duke Nukem 3D was a darn good shooter at the time, doing stuff that no other FPS had ever done. That is why Duke is such a hero today, not only because of the pixelated nude women and badass comments.
DNF just seems like the most haphazardly put together FPS of all time, with some design decisions that just leave you wondering what the team(s) were doing all those years. For instance, why the f.. has he rechargable health and a two weapon limit?? This is Duke Nukem FFS!
 

gmarsack

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2009
320
0
18,780
0
Seriously, the graphics blow.. I honestly would have given this game more praise if they stuck to the sprite-based system of the Atomic Edition. All they had to do was make another expansion and it would have been glorious. Minimum System Requirements: Pentium 60, 12 MB RAM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS