glassdragon

I am actually having some fun, it's the duke we all know. It certainly isn't a high caliber game, but I don't think duke should ever be a high caliber game. It's nothing but dick and fart jokes for god sakes.

Liver&Onions

I can't beleive fucking Duke Nukem is ripping off Bulletstorm in the dick and fart department.

glassdragon

Duke WAS the original dick you heretic

flashburn

I'm glad to hear at least a few others somewhat enjoying it, like I am.

Liver&Onions

Please, Bulletstorm came out LONG before DNF did. What a rip. If Grayson knew this was happening, he'd make sure to kill the dick off Duke.

flashburn

I know the chances of it happening are slim to none, but I'd love to read a "tell all" type book talking about the development of Duke Nukem Forever. It'd be really interesting to hear from all sides about it's development as it went through different designers, engineers, engines, developers, etc. I'd also love to know what kind of shape it was in when Gearbox got their hands on it, and what they worked on.

Poink

Until that happens, this article is as close as we'll get (this was written before Gearbox came into the picture, I think).

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_duke_nukem/

wmansir

I think you have to beat the game to see this, but one of the extras is a development timeline, but it's really just a few dozen or so announcements and news stories that are already public knowledge.

The funny thing is nearly all the events on the timeline are grouped in the first and last third. There's a gap of about 6 years in the middle where the only event is one of the half dozen "3DRealms announces Duke Nukem Forever will utilize the XYZ engine."

JTH182

I'm enjoying it, except for the ridiculous online system (at least for PS3).

Hopefully they tweak the multiplayer a bit. It seems too difficult to find a game to join. Also, the default setting is to keep repeating the same map (dumb)

chuckd21

I didn't get to play for too long last night, but I've enjoyed what I've played so far. It's clearly a bunch of last-gen ideas, but that doesn't automatically make it bad in my book. Plus Amazon just told me I get another $2 off, so this game officially cost me $5.

TheMadMonk

I'm sure the book would be announced, then canceled, then a new author would be brought on to work on it, then the publisher would go out of business, then it would be canceled again, then nobody would hear anything for 6 years, then a new team would be brought in to rewrite it from the ground up, then a large part of the team would quit after arguments on what font and spacing should be used, then they would finally after about 15 years release it, and have it turn out to not be very good anyway.

old-boo-radley

People who thought Duke Nukem Forever was going to be The Seventh Seal of video games need their heads examined. I mean, really, now?

Barth

I just played it another couple hours today putting me about 5 hours in. I honestly can't figure out where these 3-4 out of 10 scores are coming from. Unless the last half just falls off drastically it seems more in the 7ish range. Maybe the reviewers are basing it on that its been in development for 12 years which isn't really fair. It started 12 years ago but hasn't been worked on that long.

chuckd21

The reviews seem to be like this:

* This took 12 years?
* Poop jokes? Really?
* Shooters have evolved, therefore this sucks.

flashburn

Pretty much. I suspect the old school PC gamers are enjoying it more than others. I've also heard the console ports are pretty poor.

chuckd21

PR firm handling Duke Nukem reviews cut loose: http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-...-nukem-threats

Kedrix

If that's the firm that handles all 2k releases, looks like I am out of a review title (and future stuff as well). Not good unless the distribution list went back to somebody else.

flashburn

The guy already apologized about it, I don't think anyone is going to be blacklisted.

Groucho

I blacklisted Kedrix years ago.

rennervision

I've been playing the PC version all day today, and I agree it's been a fun ride. If I was to be completely objective, I would say for a Duke fan it's at least a 7.0 and a real treat to finally be playing an updated version of classic Duke Nukem 3D.

If I had no prior feelings toward Duke, I would say the game is a 6.0 for various issues including somewhat dated gameplay. (I don't, for example, think the platforming parts are necessarily bad or boring, it's just that they have a whole been-there/done-that feel to them for anyone who has already played a Half-Life game.) If this game had come out in this same form 14 years ago, everyone would be praising it endlessly and declaring it Game of the Year. (Assuming there was a PC back then that could even run it!)

But there is no way the PC version is deserving of a 2 or a 3 out of 10. It would have to be the most broken, laughable embarrassment to video games since Big Rigs, and that is not what this is. It's very polished if you can accept its graphics to be on par with games like Doom 3 which does not look bad at all. In fact, it might even be too polished after 14 years of development to the point where everything is so scripted, it's fairly easy to figure out what to do next since it's the only path or course of action you can take.

The level of vitriol in some of the reviews truly bothers me - especially since I think you could take many critics' complaints and apply them to any other highly-reviewed game right now. (Crysis 2, for instance, with its tight, linear gameplay is a major disappointment to me after experiencing the openess and free roaming of Crysis 1, but somehow it gets a pass.)

Just want to offer an alternative opinion to the very vocal majority out there!

cartman

I've only gotten to the Vegas Strip so far, but I'm really enjoying it. I'll join in the "WTF is with the 2/10 scores?!". It's not the most beautiful game ever, but it's also not ugly, and it's fun. I've not had any problems with tearing or controls either. I'm playing the PS3 version, for what that's worth.

chuckd21

I'm about a fourth of the way through, and it's a perfectly acceptable video game. I've enjoyed blowing shit up, some of the dialogue has made me laugh... It's fine for what it is. Does it hold up with other AAA $60 titles? Nope, and it should have been about $40. It's a shiny last gen game. But I'm having fun.

glassdragon

Daiktana was worthy of a 1,2, or 3... What a piss poor shitty game. This however is not worthy of it. I would agree that it should have gotten a 6 to 7 which is about average.

in short, this game does NOT belong in the same ratings category as what is called the worst fps ever.

rennervision

I'm getting a kick out of reading some of the lower scores on metacritic. One review actually gives it a 0. Seriously?

Microsoft would have to market Excel as a "fun, puzzle solver" for me to give a game a 0. Obviously you're letting 14 years of expectations affect your judgment. The whole world must have really expected this thing to be Game of the Millenium!

I'll admit I was also guilty of thinking "this is going to be the greatest game ever since it's taking so long." But after a reality check, I can say I'm now mainly disappointed it's not heralding in a new age of first person shooters. I hate this whole "two weapon limit/regenerating health/no quicksave/constant hand-holding like 'press this key to do that' prompts/inear gameplay sprinkled with QTEs" phase we're in now. Hopefully Half Life 3 doesn't sell out and do this "when it's done."

Drexl

I blame the regenerating health on the move away from HUDs. They don't want to put a health bar on the screen, but they have to give you some kind of visual cue. But, people would complain if they had to spend lots of time playing in red or black and white because they don't have a med pack nearby.