[QUOTE=Marcolade;30425257]Or if you're not a complete stuck-up faggot and you know how to kick back and have fun.[/QUOTE]
so basically if you have the mind of an 8 year-old
[editline]1[/editline]
judging by the fact that you called somebody a faggot for disagreeing with your opinion on a video game I would say I'm not too far off
[QUOTE=Sanius;30428727]so basically if you have the mind of an 8 year-old
[editline]1[/editline]
judging by the fact that you called somebody a faggot for disagreeing with your opinion on a video game I would say I'm not too far off[/QUOTE]
Your insults would be funnier if they weren't seeming with hypocrisy.
Oh nice, rating me dumb, you sure showed me, Sanius.
I saw that one coming miles away.
[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]
That DNF wouldn't be good, that is.
A parody character like Duke Nukem doesn't really make sense in today's culture. It made sense in the 90s because it parodied the ridiculous action heroes in movies like Rambo or pretty much any Arnold character.
Today though most our action heroes aren't body builders and they don't say cheesy one liners, so unless you're a diehard Duke fan something like DNF is going to feel like a bad game from 2003.
even if you're a Duke Nukem fan this game is going to seem incredibly bad (because it is)
the only thing about it that resembles Duke Nukem is the titular character. there are essentially no elements left over that identity it as a Duke Nukem game
did I mention that it's incredibly bad?
[QUOTE=Marcolade;30425257]Or if you're not a complete stuck-up faggot and you know how to kick back and have fun.[/QUOTE]
Finding this game to not be fun doesn't make you a stuck-up faggot. It seems like anytime a bad game comes out that people were hoping would be good (which is almost every bad game), a few people defend it with the sole reason that 'it's fun'.
Clearly anyone is entitled to find the game fun, you can't argue against that. But you should never call someone out for a identifying a bad game for what it is and not lowering their standards for no reason.
[QUOTE=stepat201;30430903]Finding this game to not be fun doesn't make you a stuck-up faggot. It seems like anytime a bad game comes out that people were hoping would be good (which is almost every bad game), a few people defend it with the sole reason that 'it's fun'.
Clearly anyone is entitled to find the game fun, you can't argue against that. But you should never call someone out for a identifying a bad game for what it is and not lowering their standards for no reason.[/QUOTE]
What I mean is, I wish people would learn not to be overly serious about fucking everything these days. I guess the game IS pretty damn bad, especially for what it [i]could[/i] have been. But to be fair, it also could have been a lot, lot worse.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;30431159]What I mean is, I wish people would learn not to be overly serious about fucking everything these days. I guess the game IS pretty damn bad, especially for what it [i]could[/i] have been. But to be fair, it also could have been a lot, lot worse.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone's being overly serious. To be honest it's a good sign that this game is getting such awful reception. The game industry is still pretty childish as a whole, and too often we see poor, un-innovative games getting great reception from critics and the press.
If you look at the film industry, horrible movies like Transformers 2 do very well at the box-office, which is fine cause the industry has to make money, but they get the horrible reception from critics and press that they deserve. The film industry has matured to that point, but in gaming it seems as though all a game has to do is have high production values and it will automatically get a 9 from sites like IGN.
What I'm saying is, bad games should get horrible reviews and reception alike. It will help the industry move forward and encourage developers to really innovate and all that.
[QUOTE=amute;30424420]That's all fun if you're like 8[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=80673&dateline=1307489499[/img]
You were saying?
Shitty boxart, shitty game.
Eh i think the games fun, and i had a laugh with it.
Didn't live up to the hype but it was never going to with 12 years waiting.
For what it is, it isn't a bad game.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;30431159]What I mean is, I wish people would learn not to be overly serious about fucking everything these days. I guess the game IS pretty damn bad, especially for what it [I]could[/I] have been. But to be fair, it also could have been a lot, lot worse.[/QUOTE]
It has NOTHING to do with being serious. It has everything to do with finding boring and cheesy forced humour not funny. Gearbox knew it was going to flop, so it just filled it with so much forced humour and stupid little actions you can do to keep fanboys like you happy. Gearbox thinks VERY low of its audience, and they just eat it up.
Now answer me this, do you find Lolcats funny?
[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=killz2much;30431736][IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=80673&dateline=1307489499[/IMG]
You were saying?[/QUOTE]
That's my avatar, I would have forgotten all about it if you hadn't shown me. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Artyom;30419086]DNF wasn't nearly as bad as people are saying it was. Stop bitching.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling its being hit like Portal 2 was.
[QUOTE=amute;30432684]That's my avatar, I would have forgotten all about it if you hadn't shown me. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
You're taking a whack at people saying they are 8 years old if they enjoyed DNF.
Yet you like Modern Warfare 2.
What did you guys expect from a game that has been both in development for 12 years, and had its original company disbanded and then hand the game over to another company.
[QUOTE=killz2much;30432901]You're taking a whack at people saying they are 8 years old if they enjoyed DNF.
Yet you like Modern Warfare 2.[/QUOTE]
DNF has forced humour, parodies something that was popular in the 1980's, absolutely HORRID gameplay and graphics, and pretty much tries way to hard to be funny, expecting the "it's so bad it's good" thing to fall over itself.
Here's a good quote from the eurogamer article:
"As for Duke's offensiveness, it's barely even worth considering. He's more Jeremy Clarkson than Frankie Boyle, so toothless and desperate in his attempts to seem risqué and reactionary that the only sane response is to roll your eyes. This is far more coarse than Duke 3D ever was, the humour uniformly witless, a parade of blunt profanity, childish poo and wee jokes and obvious innuendo that makes it feel more of a piece with Duke ripoffs like Redneck Rampage and Postal 2: similarly weak games which failed to mask their lack of polish and ideas under a stained duvet of juvenile outrage."
MW2 is a shooter with a political thriller story. It doesn't have any of that, and it's actually fun to play. and it has replay value.
If you're too childish to realise the difference then maybe you shouldn't make comparisons.
[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Bee Gees;30433109]What did you guys expect from a game that has been both in development for 12 years, and had its original company disbanded and then hand the game over to another company.[/QUOTE]
Quality?
[QUOTE=amute;30432684]It has NOTHING to do with being serious. It has everything to do with finding boring and cheesy forced humour not funny. Gearbox knew it was going to flop, so it just filled it with so much forced humour and stupid little actions you can do to keep fanboys like you happy. Gearbox thinks VERY low of its audience, and they just eat it up.[/QUOTE]
All Gearbox did was take what was there and finish up the game. They didn't mess with any creative direction. Remember that they just picked up development for the last few months.
Blame 3D Realms, it is their game.
[QUOTE=subenji99;30433205]All Gearbox did was take what was there and finish up the game. They didn't mess with any creative direction. Remember that they just picked up development for the last few months.
Blame 3D Realms, it is their game.[/QUOTE]
Well honestly, it's easier for me to blame 3d realms than gearbox, because in the past Gearbox has made great games. Plus borderlands was funny and a good game.
[QUOTE=amute;30433191]
MW2 is a shooter with a political thriller story.
[/QUOTE]
Gold.
May have taken 12 years but i feel that there should have a bit more content and definitely more boobies.
i wanted duke to be a complete throwback to classic shooters, back when they were good.
secrets, numbered health and hard as shit everything. something that didn't take itself serious, one that was silly but fun to play. dnf wasn't any of that - it was a modern shooter with a veil of college humor and it didn't live up to the duke nukem name at all.
dnf also, in my honest opinion, ruined the image of duke nukem. i can't really find a good way of explaining this, but hopefully you'll understand what i mean.
in dn3d duke wasn't a potty-mouthed asshole, he was a badass, chill parody of the cliche action hero. he said holy shit alot, but he also said holy cow and stuff too. dnf lost that "holy cow", silly and chill part of duke nukem, and in the process changed who duke was as a character. now all that is left is the try-hard edgy douchebag duke nukem - and in my opinion that's not really duke at all.
i hope you guys can try to understand what i mean - i couldn't find a good way to put that feeling down on paper.
they made him look like a total queer too
[img]http://gyazo.com/14774ac56a4380d70f9ea02ea028c121.png[/img]
this is what duke looks like. he is a parody of the cliche action hero, his arnold esque face suits that.
[img]http://gyazo.com/08ce1e042c4c42a0db68d5354054b51e.png[/img]
all this says is douchebag tryhard.
[QUOTE=amute;30433191]DNF has forced humour, parodies something that was popular in the 1980's, absolutely HORRID gameplay and graphics, and pretty much tries way to hard to be funny, expecting the "it's so bad it's good" thing to fall over itself.
Here's a good quote from the eurogamer article:
"As for Duke's offensiveness, it's barely even worth considering. He's more Jeremy Clarkson than Frankie Boyle, so toothless and desperate in his attempts to seem risqué and reactionary that the only sane response is to roll your eyes. This is far more coarse than Duke 3D ever was, the humour uniformly witless, a parade of blunt profanity, childish poo and wee jokes and obvious innuendo that makes it feel more of a piece with Duke ripoffs like Redneck Rampage and Postal 2: similarly weak games which failed to mask their lack of polish and ideas under a stained duvet of juvenile outrage."
MW2 is a shooter with a political thriller story. It doesn't have any of that, and it's actually fun to play. and it has replay value.
If you're too childish to realise the difference then maybe you shouldn't make comparisons.
[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]
Quality?[/QUOTE]
Did that eurogamer review actually say Postal 2 was shit? Postal 2 was fun as hell and it was hilarious and really fun to play, tons of replay ability as well. Yeah so I'm not trusting that review now.
Also really? MW2 has a "political thriller story"? yes what a great story, generic evil Russians find dead US agent because they apparently Russia is run by trigger happy 12 year olds and attack the US, and what great replay ability, doing the same thing over and over and over again and it only lasts an 1-3 hours long the campaign, 3 is even pushing it.
Dragon Age 2 is has more replay ability then MW2.
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;30433961]Did that eurogamer review actually say Postal 2 was shit? Postal 2 was fun as hell and it was hilarious and really fun to play, tons of replay ability as well. Yeah so I'm not trusting that review now.
Also really? MW2 has a "political thriller story"? yes what a great story, generic evil Russians find dead US agent because they apparently Russia is run by trigger happy 12 year olds and attack the US, and what great replay ability, doing the same thing over and over and over again and it only lasts an 1-3 hours long the campaign, 3 is even pushing it.
Dragon Age 2 is has more replay ability then MW2.[/QUOTE]
bud everyone has their opinion on games but that eurogramer article has basically summed up duke nukem in one witty punch. the guy who wrote that is right, it doesn't feel like duke nukem.
[QUOTE=Dachande;30434213]bud everyone has their opinion on games but that eurogramer article has basically summed up duke nukem in one witty punch. the guy who wrote that is right, it doesn't feel like duke nukem.[/QUOTE]
Well I'll try to read through the review but it's really hard when they say the game is basically Postal 2 so it's bad but I had a blast playing it. Maybe that just tells me I'll have a blast with DNF. But I agree with what you said, in DNF it seems as he is trying way too hard with the personality, it's trying to force it to people who never played Duke before and make them understand it but does really help us long time fans.
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;30433961]Did that eurogamer review actually say Postal 2 was shit? Postal 2 was fun as hell and it was hilarious and really fun to play, tons of replay ability as well. Yeah so I'm not trusting that review now. [/quote]
Postal 2 was a terrible game, the only thing that kept it alive was the over-the-top offensiveness.
[quote]Also really? MW2 has a "political thriller story"? yes what a great story, generic evil Russians find dead US agent because they apparently Russia is run by trigger happy 12 year olds and attack the US[/quote]
First off, where have you seen this done anywhere? Have you even played the game? Like seriously, it's pretty easy to comprehend. But apparently it doesn't have enough shit jokes, so fuck that right?
[quote]what great replay ability, doing the same thing over and over and over again and it only lasts an 1-3 hours long the campaign, 3 is even pushing it.[/quote]
You haven't really played the game have you? It's called a story inside of a first-person shooter. Meaning, you follow the story, while playing a first person shooter. Wow, that was difficult to understand.
And lol, what do you think duke nukem is? Same tired old enviroments using the same shitty weapons. And postal 2? you use the same wacky weapons to shoot terrorists who all look exactly the same for the entire game.
[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;30434338]Well I'll try to read through the review but it's really hard when they say the game is basically Postal 2 so it's bad but I had a blast playing it.[/quote]
Glad you find toilet humour and forced offensiveness funny. I'm sure you're proud.
You would strike me as a diehard Duke nukem fanboy, honestly.
Ive been waiting 12 years for this game. I'm getting it and will enjoy it if its bad or not.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;30431159]What I mean is, I wish people would learn not to be overly serious about fucking everything these days. I guess the game IS pretty damn bad, especially for what it [i]could[/i] have been. But to be fair, it also could have been a lot, lot worse.[/QUOTE]
I don't see whats wrong with finding cheesy one liners unfunny. Just because Duke Nukem is a satire of a stereotypical action hero doesn't mean it's oh so hilarious whenever he says "balls of steel."
[QUOTE=amute;30434458]Postal 2 was a terrible game, the only thing that kept it alive was the over-the-top offensiveness.
First off, where have you seen this done anywhere? Have you even played the game? Like seriously, it's pretty easy to comprehend. But apparently it doesn't have enough shit jokes, so fuck that right?
You haven't really played the game have you? It's called a story inside of a first-person shooter. Meaning, you follow the story, while playing a first person shooter. Wow, that was difficult to understand.
And lol, what do you think duke nukem is? Same tired old enviroments using the same shitty weapons. And postal 2? you use the same wacky weapons to shoot terrorists who all look exactly the same for the entire game.
[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]
Glad you find toilet humour and forced offensiveness funny. I'm sure you're proud.
You would strike me as a diehard Duke nukem fanboy, honestly.[/QUOTE]
You strike me as a die hard MW2 fanboy, considering you should check my steam profile, but assuming makes you looks really smart.
Considering your also generalizing Duke Nukem with old tired enviroments, I guess you haven't ever played a Duke Nukem game but are just judging from reviews, at least I play the games before I judge them, considering the first Duke Nukem game came out in 1991 and Duke Nukem 3D came out in 1996 and DNF started development near 2000 or a bit later would mean the environments aren't old or tired considering they weren't used yet, or one of the early people to use them.
Please know about something before you talk about it, thanks though.
It was over-hyped and people are going in expecting the absolute wrong style of game. I can't blame them with all the stupid, gritty twitch-shooters on the market that call taking out 30-50 guys a mission realistic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
