So many reviewers, ZP included, have been too hard on this game. While the game was conceived 12 years ago, it was redone a number of times on different engines. Those engines, starting as early as Quake II and the original Unreal engine, also frequently meant that the game changed hands a number of times.

Considering what the game started as in 1999 and what it turned out to be, I don't think it's fair to put all kinds of blame on the publishers of today and the final product they turned out.

I would say that the game turned out like an episode of "Chopped" where chefs are given a metaphorical ingredient set of "Duck heart, Watermelon, and Tortillas" and are expected to whip a good game out of it in a timely fashion.

Taking that into consideration I think they put out a decent game that I had fun playing. Saying over and over again that the game took twelve years to make doesn't tell the whole story and we should expect better from our game reviewers.

So they should give the game a better review because of the hardships in making it? That's just silly...at the end of the day this is a product and reviews are meant to be a guide to what a consumer may or may not deem worthy of his or her money.>> ^JiggaJonson:

So many reviewers, ZP included, have been too hard on this game. While the game was conceived 12 years ago, it was redone a number of times on different engines. Those engines, starting as early as Quake II and the original Unreal engine, also frequently meant that the game changed hands a number of times.
Considering what the game started as in 1999 and what it turned out to be, I don't think it's fair to put all kinds of blame on the publishers of today and the final product they turned out.
I would say that the game turned out like an episode of "Chopped" where chefs are given a metaphorical ingredient set of "Duck heart, Watermelon, and Tortillas" and are expected to whip a good game out of it in a timely fashion.
Taking that into consideration I think they put out a decent game that I had fun playing. Saying over and over again that the game took twelve years to make doesn't tell the whole story and we should expect better from our game reviewers.

How long it took and how many times it changed hands does nothing to the fact that 2k and gearbox released a sub-par game.

@rottenseed I'm not saying they should give a better review, but I am saying they shouldn't put quite as much weight on that point. Shut the fuck up about the 12 years already and tell me about the game. I looked at roughly 5 or 6 reviews and skimmed a few more and they all amounted to variations of saying this:



Tell me about the game in an objective way instead of repeating "After 12 YEARS in development why isn't my PC shitting bricks of gold while I'm playing Duke Nukem Forever?!?!"

@JiggaJonson because the hype adds to the market value. The hype that's been building for all those years makes the game more desirable. People will be more likely to pick it up, regardless of bad reviews, just to be able to play it. This is why it should factor into the review, especially in this case.

The game is shit. I just watched a behind the scenes video including interviews with various people who were part of the dev team during one time or another. They said how part of their mistake was the lack of set milestones and how they just aimed to "make the game great and awesome". As a result, they supposedly kept re-visiting finished parts of the game and reworked them numerous times, aiming at perfection with no set goal of when it would truly be done. And I just have to say: You got to be fucking shitting me. It doesn't show anywhere in the game at all. This game is mediocre at best, top to bottom.

If you consider everything, it should be rated somewhere from 3 to 5 out of 10.

Sub par. Not great. Yes. True.

But it's true people are being hard on it. It's like a 6/10 game. There's a lot of those. ZP was right in pointing at BioShock 2 - they are both on the same level, roughly.

And atleast they didn't pull an Ars Technica and whine and bitch about how offensive it is... That's like whining about salt being too salty.

*animation

Adding video to channels (Animation) - requested by ant.

I think what really, really fucking grates is that people thought that after all this time there would be something to show for the insane development time. Something, however rough around the edges, that we could SEE could actually, conceivably actually take so much time to create. Some amazing play mechanic somewhere, some insanely complex branching storyline with twists and turns and huge replay value... SOMETHING.

But no, all it was was a company with FUCKING TERRIBLE management. Just insanely, incompetently, amazingly SHIT management. This could be a review of the 10th Duke Nukem game by now, because the game that shipped should have taken a couple of years tops. THAT'S IT.

Those who lead the development of the game should fucking bow their heads in abject shame and embarrassment at how much they fucked up and how little there is to show for it.

I don't blame Gearbox, they did what should have been done long ago, polish the turd and ship it out. Hopefully they'll make enough money to make a PROPER Duke Nukem game with a PROPER development timeframe, and better humour.

It can't be reviewed completely objectively, it just can't, so stop whining that it isn't. Every game comes with the baggage of whatever expectations it's laden with, and DNF was laden more than any other game in history, and that is entirely on 3D Realm's shoulders.

"You know, if I didn't know the history of this game.. I would have said it seemed a bit rushed!"

HAHAHA

@spoco2 yeah but those were all things we already knew going in. We knew the game wasn't delayed because of some epic secret something, the mismanagement has been widely publicized for years now.

Acting like you were EXPECTING some kind of groundbreaking something when you knew the game was delayed and fraught with problems because of mismanagement, to me, means you're just another sheep jumping on the "12 YEARS FOR THIS?!!?" bandwagon. And that's just dishonest and unfair imho.

But that's kinda the point JJ...

Even the most objective person in the world reviewing this game will point out the numerous flaws, anachronims and downright failure points of it. So it'll rate poorly. Then you let history back in the room and it's even worse...

Meh, you guys are missing a sunny spot in all of this, being that the game actually came out. I understand some history has to go with it, all I'm arguing is that it shouldnt carry so much weight and that we should (try to) be objective.

To be fair, I feel it should go both ways, in the same way that the history of this game shouldn't drag it down quite so much, I don't feel that Bioshock 2 deserved half of the praise it got (88 on metascore, really?). That game was mediocre, as ZP aptly points out, yet when you round out all the reviews available it gets a 9 out of 10.

@rottenseed would you say a 9 out of 10 from the average reviewer was good guidance towards purchasing a half-assed Bioshock 2?

This review told me almost nothing about the game itself. Your comments have told me far more.

[removed my comment about BJs and such. I am talking too much on the interwebs.]

I dunno, I think it was better off as vaporware. At least then it was legendary, now it's just meh.
>> ^JiggaJonson:

Meh, you guys are missing a sunny spot in all of this, being that the game actually came out.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'duke, nukem, forever' to 'duke nukem forever, yahtzee, escapist, zero punctuation, review' - edited by xxovercastxx

I had a go at the game and i believe it would have been nicer to let DNF die off a long time ago.

From the reviews I gather it is better than Star Wars, Episode 1. Perhaps the greatest standard ever for the measurement of how you can make your fans wait for years just to be bitch slapped.

This is the shortest game I have ever purchased. You blast one monster in an in-game game, take pisses and draw with turds, then take an elevator down from Duke's penthouse. The game fucks up and all I get is a cursor overtop of the door as it opens... and sits there... playing the elevator music for hours.

What a shit piece. No clue what you guys keep yacking about, I guess I didn't piss in the urinals in the right order.

I just don't get why they had to hire 13 year-olds to do the writing. Searching a titty bar for popcorn, a condom and a fucking vibrator? Seriously? There's raunchy adult humor, then there's just utter juvenile shit.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I just don't get why they had to hire 13 year-olds to do the writing. Searching a titty bar for popcorn, a condom and a fucking vibrator? Seriously? There's raunchy adult humor, then there's just utter juvenile shit.


That's mainly what my comment was about. The original Duke was lewd and suggestive. The new Duke is lewd and explicit. It's the difference between being a funny person and being a person who is convinced everything you say is hilarious.

I simply loved the *quality "you have pushed games off subway train platforms when they had less problems than this" line.

Quoted it at a meeting at work today. The jaw of someone else dropped upon realizing I was quoting Yahtzee in a very different context. Good times.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Krupo.