New Release - Duke Nukem Forever: The Doctor Who Cloned Me
91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The_Marine;33703513]Serious Sam 3 pretty much takes a steaming dump on it.
[url]http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/serious-sam-3-bfe[/url][/QUOTE]
That seems to be only the case for reviewers though while the users give it a fair score.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;33703761]They both have pretty terrible scores for the same reason: they tried to modernize an old game. They tried to turn something that was innocent (though gruesome) fun into a "realistic" shooter (in the loosest sense of the word). The only reason anybody bought these new games is because of the brand (gimmick). They expected it to be better, and most of the people who are too blind to see that a game is a game, and not its name, will blindly defend it. But if it wasn't Duke, or if it wasn't Sam, these games would be lauded as the worst games of all time, like Meller Yeller above me said.
I prefer to just stick with the classics.[/QUOTE]
71 isn't a terrible score, it's just average.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;33703914]I enjoyed DNF. I turned off my soopar srs gamer mode and turned on my 90's kid mode. It satisfied my 90's kid mode.[/QUOTE]
It's definitely not the horrendous piece of shit everyone make it sound like, but it's not the game of the year or worth much in comparison to Duke Nukem 3D.
They're all outta gum
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33703792]DNF is one of the worst games of all time, anyone that says otherwise just has buyers remorse.[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot. I picked the game up very cheap in a sale and there were parts of the game I truly enjoyed. No, it's not what it could have been, but it was still good in my opinion. I'll buy this DLC as soon as I get money because I'm not afraid to admit I liked DNF. You're just a bandwagon idiot.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33704121]I was talking about people that bought it at launch for 60+ dollars.
Good job though being a douche and reading too much into it.[/QUOTE]
How are we supposed to intepret
[quote]DNF is one of the worst games of all time, anyone that says otherwise just has buyers remorse.[/quote]
as being directed ONLY to people who paid full price at launch?
I bought it for $50 on Steam and I don't have any remorse.
And the thing is, I can understand if you don't like a game. That's fine. But every time a thread regarding DNF is posted we don't need posts that say OH JUST KILL THE GAME OFF ALREADY, WORST GAME OF ALL TIME, ANYONE WHO ENJOYED THIS IS DUMB, etc.
Anyone who can not stand this game exists to the point they throw a bitch fit any time its mentioned really need to grow the fuck up. Honestly, stupid bunch of immature fucktards.
[editline]13th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33704238]Good for you, you're in a minority, not even 1%, almost everyone hated it, there's a reason the game sold like shit (It didn't even sell a million copies) and has terrible reviews from pretty much everyone.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see this statistic.
The 1% stuff I mean.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33704238]Good for you, you're in a minority, not even 1%, almost everyone hated it, there's a reason the game sold like shit (It didn't even sell a million copies) and has terrible reviews from pretty much everyone.[/QUOTE]
Don't know about you, but I think it deserves atleast 4.5/10
just my opinion though.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33704271][url]http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1182168p1.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I said I'd like to see the statistic that says only 1% of players enjoyed DNF.
Oh wait, that doesn't exist, because you pulled that out of your fucking ass.
[editline]December 13th 2011[/editline]
And besides, there's many bad reviews because almost every critic reviewed the console versions. The console versions were ports off the PC version and they suffered some serious port-caused issues (long loading times, uglier graphics, poor frame rates etc) and the PC version has none of those.
Most people listen to critics too, which they shouldn't, which is why it has poor sales. Plus, most gamers today play on consoles.
From what I've heard this game only gets decent after about halfway in which would explain why I can't think of one good point about it. I only got about 1 1/2 or 2 hours in before I quit after getting bored because all I was doing was playing stupid minigames and watching cutscenes and only saw like 2 enemies.
Still that's pretty bad considering how the whole game isn't much longer than that.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33704121]I was talking about people that bought it at launch for 60+ dollars.
Good job though being a douche and reading too much into it.[/QUOTE]
[B]ANYONE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE[/B] was your exact wording, but you know.. I'm supposed to know exactly what you mean when you post vague generalizations like that.
[editline]13th December 2011[/editline]
Oh, and now that I read the rest of your posts, my original conclusion about you stands. You're an idiot.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;33704306]And besides, there's many bad reviews because almost every critic reviewed the console versions. The console versions were ports off the PC version and they suffered some serious port-caused issues (long loading times, uglier graphics, poor frame rates etc) and the PC version has none of those.
Most people listen to critics too, which they shouldn't, which is why it has poor sales. Plus, most gamers today play on consoles.[/QUOTE]
So the PC version suffers from none of the problems I mentioned?
So if all the reviewers played the PC version, the game would enjoy critical and commercial success?
People really need to stop using the piss poor "you're playing the wrong version!" argument.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33704271]
4.5 is a terrible review, in this day and age anything below an 8 is bad.[/QUOTE]
For me 4.5 is slightly below avarage, maybe cause it didn't exceed what you expected. But then again what kind of game can do that after 12 years of wait.
[QUOTE=Black;33704449]For me 4.5 is slightly below avarage, maybe cause it didn't exceed what you expected. But then again what kind of game can do that after 12 years of wait.[/QUOTE]
This "12 years of hype" thing is not a good excuse at all. People who had never played the old Duke Nukem games hated it just as much as the people who were hyped because they liked the original.
It just plain and simple suffered from tons of really bad design decisions.
[QUOTE=RatInfestation;33704448]So the PC version suffers from none of the problems I mentioned?
So if all the reviewers played the PC version, the game would enjoy critical and commercial success?
People really need to stop using the piss poor "you're playing the wrong version!" argument.[/QUOTE]
It certainly would have helped give the game maybe a 7 or 7.5 at least.
I own the PC version and rented the 360 version to compare. I don't know what it is, but the gameplay feels more fluid and comfortable on PC, it feels fast paced too. The console version just felt wrong when playing. The graphics take a brutal hit on the 360 version compared to the PC version. Loading took forever too, practically a whole minute for respawning after you die. The PC version takes 5 seconds to load up a checkpoint and about ~20 seconds to load a new map.
Frustration like those usually end up lowering scores.
Don't be a dumbass.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33704497]This "12 years of hype" thing is not a good excuse at all. People who had never played the old Duke Nukem games hated it just as much as the people who were hyped because they liked the original.
It just plain and simple suffered from tons of really bad design decisions.[/QUOTE]
Taking a distance from comparing DNF to the older DN games for am moment here.
Do you really mean that DNF deserves less than a 4.5?
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;33704533]It certainly would have helped give the game maybe a 7 or 7.5 at least.
I own the PC version and rented the 360 version to compare. I don't know what it is, but the gameplay feels more fluid and comfortable on PC. The console version just feel wrong when playing. The graphics take a brutal hit on the 360 version compared to the PC version. Loading took forever too, practically a whole minute for respawning after you die. The PC version takes 5 seconds to load up a checkpoint and about ~20 seconds to load a new map.
Frustration like those usually end up lowering scores.
Don't be a dumbass.[/QUOTE]
Of all the complaints I've heard about this game, those issues aren't any of them.
The main griefs with this game are ones that go across all the platforms and I can pretty much guarantee it would have been just as low.
It was perfectly fluid for me but that didn't stop it from having bad gameplay.
Holy shit 54 posts and not a single mention whether this DLC is any good or not.
DNF wasn't what people wanted. WE GET IT. All this discussion already happened, and we don't need to go through it again.
But this DLC is all Gearbox's work, whereas the game was 3D Realms' work, with Gearbox just finishing the polish.
So has anyone actually tried this DLC? is it any good?
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;33704533]It certainly would have helped give the game maybe a 7 or 7.5 at least.
I own the PC version and rented the 360 version to compare. I don't know what it is, but the gameplay feels more fluid and comfortable on PC, it feels fast paced too. The console version just felt wrong when playing. The graphics take a brutal hit on the 360 version compared to the PC version. Loading took forever too, practically a whole minute for respawning after you die. The PC version takes 5 seconds to load up a checkpoint and about ~20 seconds to load a new map.
Frustration like those usually end up lowering scores.
Don't be a dumbass.[/QUOTE]
Don't fool yourself.
DNF's problems extend far beyond the technical issues, issues which are small potatoes when compared to the non-stop rollercoaster of awe-inspiringly terrible design choices regarding the gameplay itself.
By your logic, The Witcher 2, one of the most critically acclaimed games of the year, would end up getting a critical beatdown because it had a buggy launch.
If it wasn't for the "Duke Nukem" on the cover, DNF would be indistinguishable from your average obscure budget-priced Russian FPS circa 2008.
[QUOTE=RatInfestation;33704782]Don't fool yourself..[/QUOTE]
I'm not. (:
[editline]13th December 2011[/editline]
Also DLC is pretty fun. Has some funny parts too.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;33704796]I'm not. (:
[editline]13th December 2011[/editline]
Also DLC is pretty fun. Has some funny parts too.[/QUOTE]
How do you access it? I can't see any options on the menu.
[QUOTE=Spooter;33705587]How do you access it? I can't see any options on the menu.[/QUOTE]
Downloadable Content section.
[editline]December 13th 2011[/editline]
Don't really see how that's funny but ok.
ITT: Disregard New Release, argue about base game.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;33702833]Not DNF's fault you have a sleeping disorder.[/QUOTE]
ITP: my opinion is the only right opinion
if you ask me DNF was fairly shitty for it didn't hold true to the rest of the series, where was the comedy and gameplay that made duke nukem so great, in this we got a shit throwing wimp who could only carry 2 guns for a duke nukem, it wasn't a bad game, but it wasn't duke nukem like it should be, they realy should think about making a patch where it adds a game mode where you can carry all the weapons, and instead of regening health, health packs
[QUOTE=viperfan7;33706566]ITP: my opinion is the only right opinion
if you ask me DNF was fairly shitty for it didn't hold true to the rest of the series, where was the comedy and gameplay that made duke nukem so great, in this we got a shit throwing wimp who could only carry 2 guns for a duke nukem, it wasn't a bad game, but it wasn't duke nukem like it should be, they realy should think about making a patch where it adds a game mode where you can carry all the weapons, and instead of regening health, health packs[/QUOTE]
something tells me even if the developers update the game with better acting lines, along with the ability to carry all weapons and the addition of health packs, there will still be a group of unsatisfied butt hurt gamers who will cry about other small parts of the game making it look like the most smelly ugliest piece of shit in history
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;33707773]something tells me even if the developers update the game with better acting lines, along with the ability to carry all weapons and the addition of health packs, there will still be a group of unsatisfied butt hurt gamers who will cry about other small parts of the game making it look like the [b]most smelly ugliest piece of shit in history[/b][/QUOTE]
Trust me its already like that, couldn't get it much worse.
[QUOTE=Terragen;33707932]Trust me its already like that, couldn't get it much worse.[/QUOTE]
that isn't my point
no matter how haters will view it, it will still be viewed the same by them. for example;
"man fuck dnf piece a crap it needs upgrades! better acting! carry more wepons!"
[quote]+Added more lines for Duke
+Added health packs
+Added ability to hold all weapons and more[/quote]
"hmm.. well its still a piece a crap! it need more babes! more blood! better animation!"
[quote]+Added more babes
+Added an option to enable more gore
+Changed animations[/quote]
"well it still bad game! needs more story, what a bad game. didn't accomplish anything, deserves a 0"
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;33708093]that isn't my point
no matter how haters will view it, it will still be viewed the same by them. for example;
"man fuck dnf piece a crap it needs upgrades! better acting! carry more wepons!"
"hmm.. well its still a piece a crap! it need more babes! more blood! better animation!"
"well it still bad game! needs more story, what a bad game. didn't accomplish anything, deserves a 0"[/QUOTE]
Those updates fix some small gripes but the major design flaws with DNF can't be fixed without basically making a new game.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33708136]Those updates fix some small gripes but the major design flaws with DNF can't be fixed without basically making a new game.[/QUOTE]
This.
If people can like fucking CoD I can like Duke Nukem: Forever.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.