Duke Nukem Forever review

Duke Nukem Forever has released at long last, and it's more of a whimper than a bang. The game shows its age and fails to live up to its own legacy.

184
Duke Nukem Forever is both a victim and a benefactor of its own notoriety. Stripped of its bawdy humor and fame, it's a bland, forgettable shooter, devoid of any outstanding qualities, and utterly unremarkable. By any other name, this game wouldn't even register as a blip on gamers' collective radar. While fourteen years of anticipation may force its mediocrity under a microscope, it's also the only reason anyone is talking about it. Try as I might, it's impossible to enter a game with so much legacy behind it without some expectations. As a child of the 80s, I grew up with Duke Nukem. I expected that, while the humor might fall flat, the underlying shooter would hold its own. How wrong I was. Just as the character remains true to the archetypes of old action flicks, the gameplay shows its age through-and-through -- mostly to its detriment. In spite of all of the time that went into the game, 3D Realms wasn't able to expand upon the qualities that made the older Duke Nukem games so definitive. Duke Nukem 3D had its share of racy jokes, but its true claim to fame was its variety of creative and brutal weapons, like the Shrink Ray, HoloDuke, and Devastator. Over a decade later, we're merely given our old toys back. While there's some fun to be had in using the Shrink Ray or HoloDuke again, I'd rather have new, creative weapons. The modern FPS market is bursting with developers offering inventive weaponry, which makes the decision to simply retread old ground disappointing.

Duke Nukem Forever opens with a throwback, then carries that idea throughout the adventure.

Encounters range from the mindless to frustratingly difficult and, at least on the Xbox 360, each death is punctuated by long load times, even when the game is installed. Combat never hits that sweet spot that made me feel both challenged and satisfied. The limited variety of enemies makes playing each chapter drag on longer than it should. Those seeking quantity over quality will enjoy Duke's longer-than-average single-player campaign. Everyone else will find that it overstays its welcome. Aside from being a shooter, Duke attempts to be a jack of all trades. During Duke's various outings, he solves puzzles, drives a miniature R/V car (after shrinking to a tiny size, of course), and navigates his Duke-branded monster truck to the Hoover Dam. These moments break up the monotony, but aren't fun enough in to justify their long playtimes. That's not to say that all of DNF's experiments never work. A platforming segment that forces mini-Duke to navigate a fast food restaurant was actually refreshing and smartly-designed -- but these moments are too few and far between. Oftentimes, navigating through the world is, like combat, frustrating or boring. The game gives poor navigational cues, sometimes with no clear direction on what the next objective is. When it does offer a hint of what to do next, it's by shading an object a garishly bright orange. There's no middle ground. Either you're being led down a narrow corridor with objective markers screaming at you with color, or you're hopelessly lost and wandering aimlessly until you figure out which identical hallway to explore. Though it's unsurprising, it was sad to find the humor relying merely on old catchphrases. Duke is an arrogant misogynist... and that's the joke. Get it? During the course of the game, DNF also cracks wise at shooter royalty like Halo, Gears of War, and Portal, among others. The problem, of course, is that these are all much better games. A quality Duke Nukem would have been able to nail the joke, but coming from such a remarkably average shooter, the tone is seriously off. Duke makes some effort to hide its long development cycle, but it's always obvious that this was a game built on top of a game built on top of a game. Constant texture pop-in and ugly scenery is distracting, especially since it happens after every load. The faces of human characters are uniformly grotesque, which is especially ironic in the case for the so-called "babes." While the single-player is an authentic, albeit stagnant, throwback to the series' roots, multiplayer is nearly the same game you played years ago. Providing the "Hollywood" map from Duke Nukem 3D shows how the new maps are more open, but only by a bit. Even the newly created maps are still generally small, corridor-filled spaces with a few usable routes and power-ups scattered neatly in familiar crevices. Aside from a few minor tweaks, like the attention-and butt-grabbing "Capture the Babe" mode, multiplayer is so shamelessly unchanged, that it's almost kind of charming. For older gamers like myself, it can provide at least a few hours of nostalgic frag-fest fun before we put it away to play more modern games. There is a reason we've moved on, after all, and it's unlikely to win many new converts. Duke Nukem Forever is more interesting as a cultural artifact than it is as an actual game. And to its credit, it banks on that history with an impressive swath of goodies, like old screenshots, concept art, and trailers after finishing the campaign. If you want all of your Duke Nukem Forever nostalgia in one place, the game serves as an adequate museum. After such a sordid development, Duke Nukem Forever's greatest accomplishment may be that it exists. It fails to appeal even as kitsch, and it's hard to see this game as anything but the a relic of its era. This aging series, like its hero, has failed to keep up with the times. [The review for Duke Nukem Forever is based on the Xbox 360 version of the game, provided by 2K Games. Also, it is important to disclose that 'Shacknews' is listed in the 'Special Thanks' section of the game's credits, as a reference to this community and its members.]
Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 14, 2011 6:00 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Duke Nukem Forever review.

    Duke Nukem Forever has released at long last, and it's more of a whimper than a bang. The game shows its age and fails to live up to its own legacy.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:09 AM

      I respectfully disagree that the driving or the combat was, or became, boring. Game, like all, has its faults and frustrations esp on 360 but I wasn't bored.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:16 AM

      The only saving grace of this game is it's out of the way and if Gearbox wants to make a proper return to the Duke universe it can happen now. Hopefully on a decent timetable too.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:31 AM

        I don't think that will happen unless this sells extremely well by some stroke of luck.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:42 AM

          Ya they paid millions for a IP and are going to let it rot. Always bet on this guy right here, finger on the pulse.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:44 AM

        Agreed. I'm staying far away from DNF, but will be interested to see what they come up with next for the IP. I'm hoping it's simply not a one time money grab by Gearbox, or that the reviews of DNF scare publishers away from funding a sequel.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 3:01 PM

        An open-world Duke Nukem game would be really cool.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:16 AM

      Yowtch. And from the bastion of Duke fandom too...

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:45 AM

        The Front Page of the Shack was never the bastion of Duke fanbois. You must journey deeper into the colon of the Shack to find the true home of the Duke.

        Join the chatty bitches...

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:25 AM

      Not trying to be rude, but I would have preferred for Xav to do the review for various reasons. He seems a lot more a part of the Shack "community."

      I guess it might be a smart decision on Garnett's part to offer up the freelancer for the lynching though. =)



      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:31 AM

        They should have Xav review the PC version (where it's really suppoesed to be played). I have a PC I built for $700 over a year ago and I haven't seen any texture pop-in and load times are shorter than Portal 2. I've only played about an hour (and a large chunk of that is just introductory silliness) but so far it's what I expected.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:45 AM

        I don't understand, why does that matter at all?

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:12 AM

          Because Xav might've agreed with him. hooray for validation

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 7:23 AM

            Actually no, but nice assumption.

            Xav always has the PC gamer view on things. So does the vast majority of the shack community.

            Xav also interacts with the community more than any other editor.

            DNF obviously has a lot of ties to shacknews. Hence it being listed in the credits.

            I just think it would be more interesting to have an editor more in touch with his community give his opinion on a game that so much of the community is interested in.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 7:33 AM

              So does the vast majority of the shack community

              This was true at one point, but not so much any more. Also, I still fail to see how being more in touch with the community would make his review any more significant.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 8:36 AM

                Well, I don't post here much because of all the elitist PC b.s. They're certainly the most vocal on this site. See the numerous posts in this thread about how it's stupid to review the 360 version of the game because it was clearly "meant" to be played on PC as an example.

                Xav's review wouldn't be more significant. It would be more relevant. This review is no more relevant to the majority of this community than IGN's or Destructoid's or Giant Bomb's. Having a freelancer who doesn't participate in the community do a review for DNF is the exact reason you have a splintered community of "shackers" (who only past in Chatty), "front pagers" and "evil Gamefly overlords."

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:27 AM

      This review is just fucking depressing and idiotic. Everyone who was trying to see DNF as the greatest FPS on earth will be let down, everyone expecting a decent final wrap up of the mess that DNF went through (and do not play it on the console) will be pleasantly surprised .

      • Zek
        reply
        June 14, 2011 7:47 AM

        And what sort of review score do you think a "decent final wrap up of a mess" deserves? Also, he did play it on a console and he stated that quite plainly.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:35 AM

      The DNF review for Shacknews should have been done by Dognose and should have just been two words.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:37 AM

        Durajim speaks what the masses are thinking.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:36 AM

      I'll probably wait for the $4.99 Steam Holiday Sale price and play it in one sitting.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:48 AM

        This is what I'm waiting for, I doubt at this rate we will have to wait for a holiday sale to get this game at bargain price

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:53 AM

        I'm just glad I came to my senses and canceled my $100 Xbox 360 Collector's Edition and got it for $37 on the PC from that Green Gamer site. I'll at least be able to get in some Dukematches while they're going on.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:06 AM

        Yep, it'll be part of my 2012 Summer of mediocrity. I'll also be playing Homefront then.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:08 AM

          Haha, funny because it's true. Although I wasted my 60 on Homefront

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:40 AM

      "This aging series, like its hero, has failed to keep up with the times."

      I don't believe Duke was trying to keep up with the times, it was expected to be a throwback to what FPS's once were.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:55 AM

        only it didn't even do that properly, what with recharging health and two weapons at a time. The problem with the game is that it didn't know WHAT it wanted to be..a throwback or something modern.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:09 AM

        It isn't really a throwback to what FPS's once were... it straight up IS an example of what FPS once were. This isn't like watching That 80's show and thinking about how funny the 80's were... it's like finding lost episodes of the friggin A-Team and throwing it up on TV. I know the game was released now so it has to be reviewed as a modern game... but I think a lot of reviewers are missing the point. This is not really a modern game. Yeah, a lot of things have happened in the industry in the past 12 years or so... a lot of lessons have been learned. Huge chunks of this game ARE from the past.. and was not able to benefit from the lessons learned in the past decade of gaming. Even though the game is coming out this week... it almost has to be reviewed like a lost archive piece from the past.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:40 AM

      Not a very well done review. Over a decade later, we're merely given our old toys back. While there's some fun to be had in using the Shrink Ray or HoloDuke again, I'd rather have new, creative weapons In this day and age of modern war shooters being so popular, those kinds of weapons are almost new/reborn since they've not been used in a game in probably a decade+.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:41 AM

        Oh, and it's kind of odd to me that they reviewed the 360 version--this is Shacknews ffs.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:59 AM

          Yea, poorly written overall. Kind of odd they would review, solely, on console for this title.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 8:20 AM

            Why? It's clear as day that DNF was built for consoles and suffered somewhat for it. A review of the console version is fitting.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:50 AM

        Yeh, I don't understand why modern war shooters are being mentioned at all in reviews across the board. Duke is not trying to be that, so don't compare it to that.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:42 AM

      And yet the majority of people bashed 2K Games when they told 3DR to take a hike. Can you imagine being the people at 2K Games when 3DR asked for more money 2-3 years ago? I'm going to take a guess that 3DR showed 2K some of the game that they had developed and immediately though "No more"

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:42 AM

      Why on earth was this reviewed on the 360? this is a PC game first and foremost and most reviews reflect that.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:47 AM

        Really? The demo I played smelled like a console game

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:49 AM

          mine didn't smell like anything :(

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:53 AM

          The game was definitely designed with consoles in mind, but 3DR developed the PC version more or less in full and the console ports were handled by Gearbox, afaik. And poorly. Hence the console versions having more issues.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 6:55 AM

            I don't believe that one bit personally. The FOV, the "DO THIS! HIT 'E"" nonsense, the driving, the weapon limit......sorry but it screams console first. It doesn't really surprise me either given 3dr's staff preferred the 360 to the PC and weren't shy about saying so.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 6:58 AM

              Read the first sentence again.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 7:00 AM

                Also, remember the size of the team that was actually working on the game before it was sold to Gearbox, it wouldn't have been feasible for them to do the console ports all by themselves as well.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 7:10 AM

                And because the project was only limping along prior to that, it makes sense that they went with a single, console focused multiplatform design a while ago. Less work for everyone if the PC version is more or less ready to be ported as is with minimal design changes. Which is why you get stuck with stuff the 2 weapon limit and a game that feels like it was ported from the 360 instead. Plus a shitty fov, which could actually be tweaked until Gearbox locked it down.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 7:24 AM

              You talk as if PC never had weapon limits.

              Hell, take Wolfenstein 3D.

              4 weapons. It's really two. 1 melee weapon, and then the rest are just different ROFs for the same damage. DNF has 2 primary weapons, pipebombs, tripmines, and melee. That's 5.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 7:28 AM

                You do realize this is Duke Nukem we are talking about right? Regardless of what other game did what Duke should be able to carry any and all weapons, isn't that the point of being Duke to feel like the ultimate badass? I played the demo and I can tell you that I did not want to get rid of any of the weapons I had come across and having to choose which ones I wanted to carry really sucked ass.

                • reply
                  June 14, 2011 12:24 PM

                  Yeah, WTF happened to Duke, can apperantly bench press 600 lbs but can only carry 2 weapons and run for 8 seconds. Duke got old in the last decade. Pretty lame.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 7:30 AM

                It's okay for DNF to do something folks, because we can pick and choose a past game to compare it to!

                Give me a break, modern day weapon limits are a product of console-first mentality. Unless of course it's a tactical game and the limit is a big gameplay element (Crysis, Rainbow Six)

              • Ebu
                reply
                June 14, 2011 8:13 AM

                You're comparing one of the first FPSes with one of the most recent.

                Really ZZ Top?

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 8:22 AM

                Wolf3D had four weapons period.

                DNF has fifteen.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:09 AM

          nah, he's right when playing on the xbox I can feel that it's primarily been designed with the PC in mind, but with copious 'inspiration' from console games.
          Aiming, cross-hairs, etc. is really awkward on the xbox.
          Its like a bastard-child in between, but leans slightly towards the PC.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:22 AM

          No it didn't, avatar.

          And even then, since you shit on the game so much, why did you buy it on Steam?

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 7:24 AM

            Because it's DNF and as I stated many time to your deaf ears - I'm playing it regardless.

            Nice to see you obsess over me so much you'd create an account to troll. Get a hobby Zuljin, because you definately need one other than 4chan browser.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:52 AM

        because unfortunately that's where most of the user base is for the front page of this website.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:53 AM

        "The review for Duke Nukem Forever is based on the Xbox 360 version of the game, provided by 2K Games"

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:05 AM

        Though PC is my obvious preference for multiplatform reviews, we were only provided advanced access to the Xbox version. Had we waited for the PC version, we would have a Duke review until a week after launch. A late Duke review on Shack? Unacceptable!

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:39 AM

          Xav, please do the PC review. We'll happily wait.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:49 AM

          Horse shit. The Shack always is late to the party with their reviews. Why not just do it proper.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 10:18 AM

            We're late to the party when it makes sense. Like Brink where the core of the game is online or The Witcher 2 where the game warrants an extended look. As for this game, we had a review copy in time and the publisher decided it wanted its reviews based on the Xbox 360 version--as that is the version it provided to outlets. This is what our review is based on.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 11:03 AM

              Fair enough. Just seems that it would make sense to review the PC version considering the fan base here on the Shack is going to care about the PC version. Who's to say that it might have reviewed better, and all the kiddies coming in from Gamefly would see, a hopefully more positive review, and want to rent the game from Gamefly then.

              $$$$

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 3:35 PM

                Tinfoil hat alert. Our job isn't to make the game rent or sell better.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:54 AM

          Distributing the console version of a game to review is, to me, asking for trouble. So to some extent, they asked for it.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 9:43 AM

          I'll be waiting for your PC review. Yours, and not anybody else's.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 10:18 AM

            I'll save you the time: same game, better textures and loading times.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:21 AM

          You have a UK staffer, you could have used her as some sort of games mule to play the PC version early :p

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 2:16 PM

          Xav you don't have to give explanations to the trolls, its the same effing game
          on all platforms.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:38 AM

        Its the industry standard for multiplatform releases, unless the site specifically reviews PC games separately. It's easier for the reviewer to get up and playing it right away, and it usually means the publisher has fewer technical issues that are likely to lower the score. Also, it's the platform that most of the people who are buying day 1 will be buying for.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:00 AM

        Publishers don't provide early PC review copies of multiplatform games. They just don't. The risk of piracy is too great, and 9 times out of 10 the console version was the lead platform in development anyway.

        It's up to the publisher to put their best foot forward and send out the best version of the game, so don't fault reviewers for evaluating the material they're given. It's not within the purview of the review process to somehow intuit which version of the game will be the best, and wait for that one. That sort of information usually isn't even available prior to a game's release.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:04 AM

      Reviews across the board (the ones I've read, that is, at destructoid, eurogamer, and shacknews) have panned it. Time to accept that Duke fails to live up to expectations (the fault of a 14(?) year development cycle) and move on.

      Grab it during a sale if you must, but all signs point to it not being worth the full price.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:10 AM

        perhaps not, but I sure had fun for several hours between loading screeens that is last night.
        can't wait to get home and finish the fight

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:30 AM

        Basically this. Nostalgia seems to be the only thing holding this game up, and that wears off quickly. :(

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:05 AM

      Your review is even more sub-par than the game
      I agree on some parts and I don't find DNF good but the way you build up the review and the fact that you review the 360 version is painful.
      My bet is the next patch is going to remove shacknews from the credits :)

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:08 AM

      Here's my review of this review


      Blow It out your ass

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:09 AM

      I think today's CAD says it all

      http://v.cdn.cad-comic.com/comics/cad-20110613-2a6e0.png

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:24 AM

      OUTRAGE!

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:28 AM

      Not surprised. I preordered on Amazon, played the demo, and was pretty disappointed. It reeks of "2006 game." Gameplay itself is really clunky and uninteresting.

      I cancelled the preorder. I'll probably wait to pick it up for $20 on sale in a few weeks or month or whatever just to satisfy the curiosity factor.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:33 AM

      You mean DNF isn't that great? I am shocked at this development.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:41 AM

      Lots of things come to mind when I read all the reviews lately. The reviewers are kind of shackpiling, just like we would on someone who has said something stupid.

      Duke was great in its time. That time has passed. The people who loved it in its heyday have moved on. We have families, kids, jobs. The toilet humor and half assed attempts at boobies just don't tickle us like they used to.

      Combine that with an old engine, shitty outdoor textures, and a lot of unpolished gameplay (tons of mini games, none of which do anything well) and it just becomes a waste of time and money to a lot of people.

      I'm glad the reviewers are blasting it. Because marketing is touting it like it's the next best thing since sliced bread and a lot of people are going to be disappointed. There are people who work hard in the industry to make great games. And then there's this. Make no mistake, monumental effort was put into this game, but it was all done in the wrong places at the wrong time. I think a lot of people in the industry probably feel pretty angry that someone can go this long with a game in development, completely fail, get bailed out by a large company and then expect to walk away rich.

      I know I would.

      Duke was great when it was great. Hail to the king that once was. Duke has no place in this decade.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:45 AM

        I don't think there's room for many clones of Duke but Duke Forever itself definitely does have a place in this decade, for people who still love the decade it came from. I've quite enjoyed the game - I don't think they need to make much more of it but I've been pleasantly surprised at just how good it is.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:52 AM

          Sure, maybe there's a nostalgic place for people who liked it way back when. People who are new to the franchise are likely going to be sorely disappointed.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 7:52 AM

            It wasn't made for those people.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 7:53 AM

              Then the game is going to fail because the market of nostalgic people is not large enough to support a game these days.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 7:53 AM

              This game is similar in a way to the new Rambo movie - it's a throwback to an old era done well. Maybe not as well as the new Rambo ( which is fucking awesome ) but it's pretty darn cool.

              I got a nostalgic feeling playing this, it reminds me of duke in very clever ways.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 8:00 AM

              I am still not sure who the game was made for.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 8:01 AM

              Except that's the exact problem. Here we are, over a decade later, and Gearbox is marketing it to the world like it's an amazing AAA game. Everyone involved wants to make bank off it, and their real target market is people who want to play a nostalgic game. That's why I'm glad reviewers are bashing it. Maybe it will keep the people who "It wasn't made for" away.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 8:04 AM

                I think you're seeing things which aren't even there. Even without nostalgia, it's fun and DOES surprisingly have the mechanics of many modern games - maybe it's no Heavy Rain for production or GOW3 or MW2 but it's got many modern day concessions.

                If you don't like it, fine :/ I've enjoyed it regardless. Fuck I wish I could have said the same for Crysis 2 with my 50$ (Verbatim ! >:( )

                • reply
                  June 14, 2011 8:31 AM

                  I guess I'm not being clear. My beef is not with the fact that DNF exists. I think it's great that it's seeing the light of day. It will give those of us who have waited on bated breath for so long a chance to play it. For what ever that's worth.

                  My beef is that Pitchford and Gearbox are out there throwing a ton of money into marketing this thing as a AAA game. Touting it as the second coming of Jesus. Saying it can hang with and supersede some of todays top franchises. In the open market, not the niche of nostalgia gamers. That is my problem.

                  I will buy and play DNF because I've followed it as long as anyone else around here has. I'm just not willing to hand over $60 for a little nostalgia. I'll wait until it's $20 or less.

                  • reply
                    June 14, 2011 8:35 AM

                    Given that the marketing efforts have been repeatedly criticized and at one of the videos centered around throwing feces, I'd say they haven't been marketing this like a AAA game. But whatever.

                  • reply
                    June 14, 2011 8:45 AM

                    That's pretty much marketing's job.

                    Even if you have a shit game (not saying DNF is), you don't go out and market it as a shit game.

                    I mean, the ipad isn't really magical either.

                    • reply
                      June 15, 2011 6:08 AM

                      Yep. Marketing is all about selling, period. What are they going to do, spend money on ads and knock their own product?

                      Personally I am really enjoying this game. It reminds me of Half-Life 1, which I also really enjoyed, but with a lot more interactivity and humor.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 11:26 AM

                Really? Because it felt to me that they were marketing it as a Duke game, which is just simply to be obnoxious. I never heard them claim it was AAA or top of the line tech.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:58 AM

          You're being awfully lenient Abrasion. This extreme leniency is not good for the kid!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:02 PM

        I can't say anything to your points about the quality of this Duke game, because I haven't played it and haven't been able to get my hands on the demo even. But you are wrong to say "Duke has no place in this decade."

        That's just pure bullshit. Just because gamers have gotten older and had families, doesn't mean we don't still like the occasional toilet humor filled game. There's nothing wrong with a game that tries to live up to (or down to, depending on your perspective) the style and feeling of some of those older, more "immature" games.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:43 AM

      why should i even bother reading reviews when games like black ops take number one on all charts. deeply unoriginal and dull, and yet somehow a "great" game according to the press.

      • Zek
        reply
        June 14, 2011 7:50 AM

        Being unoriginal doesn't make it not a great game. Quality is quality.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:59 AM

          dukes originality far outweights the borefest that is the same call of duty campaign every year.

          • Zek
            reply
            June 14, 2011 8:03 AM

            Whatever parts of it are original don't outweigh how crappy a game it is.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:54 AM

        I agree wholeheartedly with this man. At least for me I find reviewers very rarely match up with my tastes, and the games I found boring often get top scores.

        I like this game and think it's pretty fun, the only reason it's a letdown to some people is because they put completely ridiculous expectations on it that it really had no hope of living up to in the first place.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 8:31 AM

          I don't know about the rest but I expected more of a Duke-style than a Halo-style game.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:22 AM

        Black Ops only has an 87 metacritic. Portal 2 got a 95. Black Ops was even beaten by LA Noire, which was flawed but completely original.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:29 AM

        It sounds like DNFs failings go way beyond originality. The reviews saying it doesn't even hold up to the original when it comes to map layout and where they've pitched the humour in particular stand out to me.

        I'll get it when it's cheap.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 8:06 AM

      The giant bomb quicklook is pretty horrifying too.

      http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-duke-nukem-forever/17-4385/

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:33 AM

        i wonder if releasing a dated game like this will hurt the franchise and come back to screw gearbox from making their own

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 8:39 AM

          Well the only thing that determines whether a game gets a sequel or not is if it sells well.

          Right now DNF is the top of the Steam charts, but Steam's userbase is - as of right now - fairly aligned with the type of gamer who would buy DNF. So we'll see.

          The thing about the Call of Duty series is that they can sell on momentum alone. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but the game series could stink really bad and they'll still sell for some number of years before the client base gets burned out (see: Guitar Hero)

          But once again DNF is an anomaly - they don't have a game out every year, or even every 2-3 years. So will it sell well enough to overcome bad reviews? Who knows.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 8:53 AM

            the steam sales numbers are probably not going to have a big say in the eagerness of making a sequel though. we'll have to see what the NPDs say

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:36 AM

        Those load times are pretty shocking

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:49 AM

        I got motion sickness just watching that video.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 8:48 AM

      Coming out of my self-imposed exile to comment...

      Disclaimer: I was a huge Duke3D fan. I still have my Atomic Edition/Duke Caribbean/Duke it Out in DC (one of my favorite expansions to date) disks, XBLA port, etc. The 2001 E3 trailer still gives me goosebumps. And while not of dognoseian proportions, I've been eagerly awaiting and looking forward to DNF since those first PC Gamer screenies back in 1997, and unlike most people I know, I never gave up hope.

      That said, I've got DNF and while I've only played it for an hour and a half, I'm really enjoying it. It's feels like being brought be back to the 1990s and the fun I had while playing Duke3D. It's enjoyable, Duke's..well...Duke..and so far it is exactly what I thought it would be and hoped that it would be, which is a nice throwback to the 90s style of gameplay with some new stuff added in here and there. Is it perfect? No, and frankly I don't think anyone seriously thought that it would be.

      Does it have flaws? Sure, but what game doesn't? Like it's been said a thousand times, the graphics are a bit dated (but still enjoyable, to me anyway), some of Duke's mannerisms (really, just the gratuitous use of fuck just doesn't sit right with me), the two weapon limit, the regenerating health...mostly stuff I already knew about, but it still doesn't make it any easier to swallow. But it is what it is, and I accept the game even with these flaws.

      I think part of the backlash is multifaceted: It's been 14 years from announcement to release..it's been a joke in the industry, and that colors people's perceptions. I also think that the TF2 helped fuel the fire, in as much as it was nearly as long in development..and when it came out, it was (and still is) fantastic. Also has been noted, the audience has changed..this is a game designed for those of us who played Duke3D when it was new, not those who first played it as an XBLA port. And because it's been so long in development (half my life!), some of those gamers tastes have changed. Since it's kinda relying on the "It's Duke Nukem/it's a retro thing", that is kind of a niche audience in many respects...but it's still an enjoyable game to those of us who were looking forward to such content.

      There's also the "Everyone loves to shit on something" aspect to things. And not to fall into that trap myself, but I don't like a lot of modern FPSes. I cannot play them on a console due to the control scheme, and I was never a fan of the Call of Duty/Battlefield style of FPS. It actually kinda surprises me that those games (which were, in my opinion, second tier FPSes originally) have gotten to be so popular. But that's neither here or there.

      Duke Nukem Forever is definitely a throwback to the more "original" style of FPS with some of the modern trappings. Is it for everyone? Prolly not. But I am enjoying it, so far I consider it enjoyable and rewarding for the amount of time I've waited. It is what it is: A sequel to Duke Nukem 3D that continues, for good or bad, that same style of gameplay. And that's all I was expecting and looking forward to playing. And I thank Georgeb3DR, Gearbox, and everyone else involved who help bring me that experience.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:53 AM

        I don't have a problem with it being 'dated' or it's low-brow humor but I still can't see myself paying more than $30 for it either. The 2-weapon limit is a huge downer as is the fov.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 5:55 PM

          The two weapon limit really wasn't as annoying as I expected it to be. With weapon placement/drops in game it really wan't a problem.

          After playing though the game twice I haven't had any major issues. I really don't understand the FOV bitching. No problems with it here.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 8:53 AM

      During the course of the game, DNF also cracks wise at shooter royalty like Halo, Gears of War, and Portal, among others. The problem, of course, is that these are all much better games. A quality Duke Nukem would have been able to nail the joke, but coming from such a remarkably average shooter, the tone is seriously off.

      This statement is - as it was in the review I've read elsewhere where you probably have this from - utter bullshit. What does the quality of the parody have to do with the quality of the games it's trying to make fun of? Zero.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:55 AM

        people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:30 PM

          I have bulletproof glass!

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 8:54 AM

      I'm upset they reviewed the 360 version which is known to be a big pile. I'm having a blast playing the PC version on my 55" plasma.

      I dont understand the hate, I'm having a great time.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:56 AM

        i dont understand these comments since most (if not all) the criticism comes from gameplay, tone and it feeling dated. the platform doesn't change what they don't like about it.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 5:57 PM

          The only real diffference I've seen shown is lower quality graphics and much longer load times on the 360 version.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 6:26 PM

            which aren't really the platform's fault. much better looking games are out there with lower load times. but either way thats a small part of the criticisms, no?

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 9:00 AM

          Not to be that guy, but nothing was stopping the shack from buying the European version on Steam when it was out. I understand they weren't given a copy, but a review site should expect to buy it's games once in a while and they would have had 3 days to play.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 9:10 AM

            It's possible they already had a review copy from the publisher at that time. Also if that's the version the publisher wants you to review I think the assumption is that it is the 'best' version available (they're generally not going to intentionally give you an inferior product to review).

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 9:53 AM

              We can't really discuss what the shack overlords are thinking, but I would have hoped that a review site would review each version of the game so we can figure out which version is the one to buy.

              Maybe the PS3 version is the one to get on a console, who knows?

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 10:02 AM

                Well I don't think they usually do that and yeah, it's a safe bet that when you're handed a copy of the game then the developer/publisher has their best foot forward.

                We may not like the results or agree with what the developer/publisher did in this case, but Shacknews is in the right here (in that they reviewed what they were handed)

                • reply
                  June 14, 2011 10:06 AM

                  The gaming magazines before the Internet would do this, they would review each console's version especially back in the day where you had to figure out if you were suppoed to get Aladdin for the SNES or Genesis or even Mortal Kombat.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 11:27 AM

                SELLOUTS CATERING TO PUBLISHERS

      • gmd
        reply
        June 14, 2011 8:58 AM

        ON MY 55 INCH PLASMA WOAH BIG SPENDER

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 8:59 AM

          he forgot his "rig" specs to complete the package

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 9:31 AM

            Well, cut him some slack, he was probably raging too hard from hunching his back while sitting on his milk crate instead of his gaming required comfy couch.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 9:00 AM

      It's not a very good game. I played the first 3 hours of it last night and had 2 crash-to-desktops and finally gave up. I tried multiplayer and I played the classic map with the movie theater and it looks like they reused the textures from the original map on top of the 3d models for everything. The weapons are pretty powerful in multiplayer but it feels really clunky when you play it. I get it that its Duke Nukem all over again but a lot of games have come out since Duke 3D, and they did take a lot from other games when they made this one, but they didn't seem to apply what made those games fun or innovative, they just aped some features like the 2 weapon limit, or the loose driving, or whatever. It's a mishmash and its generally bad but I will play it through to the end. I just wish I had bought the game for $10-15 on a steam sale.

      Blasting pig cops with the shotgun is still fun though!

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 9:06 AM

      Anyone check in with Dognose yet? I'm afraid he might've hanged himself by now.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 9:10 AM

        i believe he was enjoying himself immensely with the demo so i dont see why he wouldnt like the final product.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 9:16 AM

          I really like sprinkling a bit of salt on my food once in a while, but I wouldn't want to chug directly from the shaker.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 9:42 AM

        He's too busy having fun playing DNF to hang himself

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:19 AM

        I believe he said he wouldnt be able to play til the 18th!

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 9:08 AM

      you get a free duke figurine with purchase @ Toys R Us.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:25 AM

        Great! My 8 year old would like that when i buy this game for him. Good thinking Toys'RUs!

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:49 AM

          lol yeah wife and I were laughing about that last night.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 9:41 AM

      >reviewing duke nukem forever on a console

      ohboyherewego.jpg

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 10:02 AM

      Huh, so you reviewed a bad console port of a PC-focused game and it had problems? Shocking.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:14 AM

        Gearbox gives the most flawed version of a terrible game to critics to review. I wonder who the dumbass is in this equation?

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:01 AM

          The developer does not distribute the review copies.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:06 AM

            Did it come from Dahanese then?

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 11:38 AM

              It's always the publisher that handles review copies. Someone at 2K in this case, not necessarily (in fact, probably not) dahanese.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:25 AM

        no worries the PC version is not a different game, still full of mediocrity

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:26 AM

        Do you think games should be reviewed separately, per platform? I'm genuinely curious what people think about that.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:29 AM

          I think so, that's the point of the review to let me know where best to spend money. It seems like there is a generic review not to piss off fanboys which is lame.

          Even if it's a paragraph or two in a single review. These days the content will be mostly the same, but let me know which version has a better out of the box experience.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:38 AM

          In some cases, yes. When a game is developed for a specific platform and then ported to others, I feel that the game should be reviewed on the lead platform. I understand from Xav's post that the 360 version was the only one Gearbox provided, but I'd definitely be interested in seeing them review the PC version when they have their hands on it.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:09 AM

            Well then blame Gearbox for their stupidity then, not Shack

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 11:37 AM

              I agree that it falls to Gearbox to make sure their product is as uniform as possible across platforms. Yet is it fair to ding them for a poor console turnout if the pc game is more solid? If Duke costs more on xbox, but performs worse, should that be reflected in the review?

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 11:42 AM

                I mean blame Gearbox for making the 360 version available for review, rather than PC

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:42 AM

          Game Informer used to that back when i had a subscription for them. Don't know if they still do it or not.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:02 AM

          What kind of manpower do you think outlets have to dedicate to one game?

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:06 AM

            I can definitely understand doing a review for all 3 SKUs on games, but it seems like fewer and fewer sites are doing separate reviews for console and PC titles these days. Makes it hard sometimes to find out whether or not the PC version of a particular game is worth getting on PC or not. Although, with a game like DNF, it sounds like the only significant difference between the console and PC SKUs are load times, texture resolution, etc.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:34 AM

            Oh I understand you can't take forever to review every version of every game. I wish there was some way each version could be touched upon, since some games aren't uniform across the platforms. The only way I find feedback like that is from aggregating player reviews, though most aren't as "unbiased" as game reviews try to be.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 4:30 PM

            Well, I think there should be considerations made for each version when one of the versions might not have the problems the others have.

            IGN's review of DNF is a good indicator of this. They blast the game for super long load times and frame rate issues, and even list those problems in their final analysis in the review score. However, the PC version's load times don't seem to be as long and the PC version has less framerate issues. It then seems unfair to score the PC game without those distinctions known to the reader.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:06 AM

          Super NES Mortal Kombat v Genesis Mortal Kombat. There can be differneces amongst them. This may be an extereme, but control-wise and loading wise DNF on PC plays great to me.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:47 AM

          No. Reviews are subjective enough anyway that it's pretty easy to infer that your experience may differ on your platform of choice

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 1:15 PM

          Yes.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 1:29 PM

          not unless there are massive differences. In this case, there isn't.

        • reply
          June 15, 2011 6:19 AM

          Yes and IMHO multiple reviewers should be involved. I LOVED Electronic Gaming Monthly's review system. They'd have 3 reviewers on most games and 4-5 reviewers give their opinions on AAA titles. This was back in the 90's.

          They'd have one longer review then 3 short and to the point reviews, all with a 1-10 scale. And they'd review for separate consoles.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:09 AM

        Am I missing something here? The complaints about DNF aren't control based.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 12:13 PM

          Well-observed, good sir! The controls worked fine on a 360 pad, and points like texture pop-in and load times were minor gripes at most. The more serious issues aren't really platform-specific.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 12:24 PM

            You have some nerve showing your face in here Mr Watts. Some nerve indeed.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 12:41 PM

              Maybe Duke's balls rubbed off on me.

              ... wait that came out wrong.

      • gmd
        reply
        June 14, 2011 11:21 AM

        looking good !! http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/duke-nukem-forever

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 10:51 AM

      So it's kinda like they should have just remastered it. Or have they already done that by releasing it on xbox live arcade?

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 11:08 AM

      Oop metascore 58

      better wait for the bargain bin

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:18 AM

        X-Men First Class is sitting at 65 on Metacritic. I weep for people who only check things out based on aggregate review scores :(

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:27 AM

          only way to be sure

          If Gearbox doesnt want the give a demo except when you pre order the game of bought Borderlands

          Metacritic is all I have

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:31 AM

            the demo is available for everyone now, isn't it?

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 11:34 AM

              I was not aware of that my bad

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 11:38 AM

              where do I find this demo I fail at google

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:35 AM

          Movie reviews generally are positive above 50. Game reviews cluster around 75+ because, unlike movie reviewers, game sites generally don't give 1 or 0 stars (or anything below 5/10).

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 11:20 AM

      i am one of the biggest shacknews fans out there.. but really i am VERY disappointed by this review. i expected better from you shacknews. what a let down. you failed to understand the game - and you were so close to it during all these years.
      poorly written.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 11:21 AM

      Our review stands; however, I'll install the PC version now and maybe I'll do some comparisons to it along with a look at how the game performs in 3D (mixing the past with the FUTURE of gaming) and see if that turns into anything worth writing about.

      I do this for you... All of you complaining MOFOs.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:28 AM

        Agreed Xav

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:29 AM

        I expect the differences will be pretty minor. Still the same game just a bit more accessable

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:30 AM

        Sorry Xav! If you don't like DNF you're obviously a terrible journalist.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:31 AM

        hmmm sounds like we got a hater here

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:32 AM

        Xav, you've made peace with the fact that regarding anything notable on the Shack, 5-15% of the audience will _always_ disagree with you, yeah?

        I mean the PC vs console comparison might be fun (and worth the hits) but yeah... Anytime we do moderation changes, we know that a certain number of people will always hate whatever the change is no matter what. No. Matter. What.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 11:34 AM

          5-15%? LOL

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 12:17 PM

          You should really know better, it's 95-99% of the audience!

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 12:22 PM

          I disagree with this post!

          • reply
            June 16, 2011 2:25 PM

            You're objetively wrong and should probably not exist!!!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:37 AM

        I want you to play it on the PC but with the 360 controller. Anything less is unethical journalism and you should be deported.

        • gmd
          reply
          June 14, 2011 11:44 AM

          sega genesis controller

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:50 AM

            This is a serious matter and your so called "jokes" are ill timed.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 12:24 PM

            You can play Atari games with a Genesis controller.

            ALso, i almost typed commercial. I was like what that doesn't make sense!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:41 AM

        AWSD or arrow keys?

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:42 AM

        until then: rockpapershotgun pc review http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/13/wot-i-think-duke-nukem-forever/

        and eurogamer made a more in depth comparison of all 3 versions on the technical side http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-duke-nukem-forever-face-off

        if you had german in college try http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/duke-nukem-forever/artikel/technik_check_duke_nukem_forever,43239,2323553.html and the other articles and review

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:42 AM

        good.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:43 AM

        Chorizos y lentejas!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:34 PM

        If the game didnt suck then there wouldnt be so much outrage. your review is fine, 3DR and george are to blame

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 12:54 PM

          there are very good parts in the game. for example the bossfights are awesome. very challenging (in terms of skill). it's an oldschool game - it's just as much fun as you are. you need the be creative - try shit out and be curious - the game rewards that :)
          also, there is a great variety of environments .. casino and vegas (worst levels right at the start, especially outside vegas - clearly night level by design but somebody turned the lights on there), a cave, a dam, desert and more. i had a fun time playing it - this was a refreshing old school shooter with its flaws.

          i said the review was weak, because it doesn't highlight that. it just bashes the game, which is bad and doesn't reflect the game i played.

          but yes, a lot have made up their opinions - i don't try to be a fanboy here, i'm just trying to explain why i said this review was weak.
          it highlight only one side of the coin.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:41 PM

        Thank you for humoring us curmudgeons. :)

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:58 PM

        The effort is worth everything regardless of the outcome, Xav. It's much appreciated.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 1:31 PM

        way to cave to pressure. now they're just gonna walk all over you

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 1:33 PM

        Besides graphics and obviously controls is this realy going to matter? It's not a different game with different levels and gameplay on PC.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 1:35 PM

          You say that as if graphics and controls aren't important in a game where a common criticism in console reviews is graphics.

          To say nothing of the load times which are mainly just pissing off the reviewers.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 2:24 PM

            Must be the Xbox version then, I barely have time to read the actually quite amusing loading screen tips on PC, and I don't even have an SSD.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 5:21 PM

            You really think those points would take a 6/10 game and make it 8/10?

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:01 PM

        If you haven't played yet you might be pleasntly suprised.

        I really liked the game flaws and all. There is fun to be had, really!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:42 PM

        You can't give in! You can't give in!!! /Dent

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 9:45 PM

          Oh, I won't. A bad game is a bad game. It doesn't matter what platform it's on.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 9:46 PM

            Note: This is a general statement. I have not made it through enough of Duke Nukem Forever to have a definitive opinion on the game.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 11:34 AM

      The biggest tragedy is that Gearbox now owns the IP. They are one of the most average developers out there. Every single game they put out has glimmers of greatness but overshadowed by bugs, incompetent design and downright shoddy support.

      Of all the developers to get the Duke IP, one of the worst choices would have to be Gearbox.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:26 PM

        Not really. They are former 3D Realms guys and took in some of the DNF team after shit got blowed up. They kept it in the family.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:34 PM

        Going to have to agree here.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:37 PM

        yea it would be much better to leave it in the hands of a developer that releases once every 20 years or so

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 12:49 PM

          It's not a binary decision here. There are many other options besides Gearbox and 3DR.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 12:58 PM

            I seriously doubt DNF was a highly sought after IP despite what it seems a majority of the shack thinks. Certainly not important enough for some AAAAA studio to drop whatever it's doing and start work on finishing DNF. Back in 1990 the IP was hot shit but they haven't had a major release in almost 20 years. There are plenty of much more popular, modern IPs laying around that no one is using.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 12:59 PM

            just an FYI deadfish works at gearbox so he is going to have a personal stake in this argument.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 1:00 PM

              wait, I am getting him mixed up with another fish named shacker.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 1:12 PM

                yea i was like wtf?

                • reply
                  June 14, 2011 1:32 PM

                  I had a massive brain fart for about 30 seconds, then I was like no wait deadfish is the guy with all the guns. Dopefish still works at gearbox as far as I know so I got confused.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 7:57 PM

                yeah that would be me, not deadfish

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 1:10 PM

            I don't think there were many other options considering the legal turmoil surrounding the IP when 3DR closed.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 1:32 PM

            Which one would you choose?

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 1:38 PM

            Humor me, who would you like to have it?

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 5:22 PM

            And who stepped up?

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 3:06 PM

        Sounded like Obsidian there!

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 11:36 AM

      Lol, so much fanboy hate in this thread.

      Just because I grew up on Duke Nukem and enjoyed it, doesn't mean I have to like DNF just because, especially since it is a bad game.

      And $60 for this? No way.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:38 AM

        Oh and fuck the nostalgic, corny, cheesy, wannabe humour. It was not funny then, and it's especially not funny now.

        Jeff from GB put it perfectly. Duke is that odd, funny uncle that you find funny as a boy, but now it's just plain sad.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:38 AM

        Looks like you're a hater!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:40 AM

        Fanboys will stare at a pile of crap and see gold, there is no changing that in some people.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:54 AM

        that's the key phrase: "grew up".

        you succeeded where Duke did not.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:04 PM

        You're calling it a bad game but you haven't played it because you're balking at $60, correct?

        Are you judging this based off of reviews or the demo?

        Honest question - if you don't want to pay $60 based off of the demo that's a valid stance (i.e., the demo should have been better or - if it couldn't represent the game in a demo - not existed. Especially with the wonky way they released it.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:21 PM

          Every one is entitled to their own opinions and some reviews are worth taking into account. Especially when taking into consideration that most games are rated a fair bit higher than they should be, (at least from my observation. If numerous reviewers all seem to have a shared consensus on what they think of the game and have gone through the effort of explaining WHY they dislike or like a game, why not take that seriously as a consumer? As human beings with minds of our own we are perfectly capable of reading a review and deciding whether or not to believe in the points being brought up by the writer(s).

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:46 PM

        well worth the 35 dollars for the PC version.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 3:13 PM

        this. I don't think it's terrible but it's fucking hilarious the way people are bashing everyone who says they didn't like it

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 11:49 AM

      Shack posts a review and it is getting slammed by people who don't appear to have played the game yet. Who to trust.. who to trust.....

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 12:02 PM

      Oh look, another console review. GTFO.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 12:42 PM

        Buncha babies in this thread!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:38 PM

        Because they have different gameplay for the console version because that seems to be a lot of what he's talking about.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 9:47 PM

        Oh look, someone that acts like a frontpage baby.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 1:00 PM

      The game is pretty terrible. My fanboy lust for D3D is the only thing keeping me playing it.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 2:17 PM

      DNF: the return of matt hazzard!

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 3:41 PM

      I may have to buy this purely as a museum piece. I was going to make my own "collector's edition" with a pair of size 13 boots and a pair of chromium steel pinballs.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 3:44 PM

      Holy crap, there are some nasty responses to this review. I think it's fine for the record. It seems to line up with every other review out there.

      Damn, take it easy people. If you don't agree with the review who cares, just be happy that you enjoy the game... children, all of you.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 3:47 PM

      In the beginning of the game, you get to pick up a turd from inside a toilet....interesting use of foreshadowing.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 4:39 PM

      Why is there so much "EVERY REVIEW IS WRONG....THIS IS THE GOTY....NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT", going on?.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 4:46 PM

        yea the shack pretty much needs an intervention

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 4:51 PM

        This shit works a lot like weather predictions and what people want to accept.

        When the weathermen predict the weather is going to be nice, everyone assumes they are correct. When the weathermen predict it will be bad, people will be like FUCK WEATHERMEN DON'T KNOW SHIT.

        It really depends on the persons point of view and what they want to believe.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 4:51 PM

          i.e if I want to like this game, I'm more willing to believe a good review than a bad review.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 4:48 PM

      This game is a steaming pile of shit.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 4:54 PM

      I'm looking forward to this weeks Weekend Confirmed.

      They usually give a pretty honest and sometimes brutal idea of how good/bad they think the game is. They generally don't worry about upsetting anyone.
      There is usually someone on the opposing side who will defend the game and let me know the redeeming qualities, however in this games case perhaps there won't be.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 5:15 PM

        I'm really looking forward to see if Mr. 2n1t has anything positive to say about this or if he's willing to break his vow of optimism.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 5:02 PM

      After watching giantbombs quicklook and just listening to Jeff's exasperation of playing through it I'm convinced that other than wanting to see this game finally published there is no reason to play it. It reeks of either hoping people will buy it because its been a joke for so long or they hope that people aren't smart enough to leave it alone.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 5:22 PM

        I'm glad I watched the quicklook before buying it. It looks like F.E.A.R. 1 at best in a lot of those shots. The groaning in that level they showed was enough to put me off of the game...then mini-duke showed up.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 5:08 PM

      Giant Bomb review has been posted:

      http://www.giantbomb.com/duke-nukem-forever/61-20721/reviews/

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 5:42 PM

        wow, jeff sounds like he caught the plague at e3.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:50 PM

          I thought it was Brad for about five minutes into the video.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:07 PM

        (((if you're the sort of person who followed 3D Realms all the way down and you're feeling like you need to know how this crazy tale ends, you should play Duke Nukem Forever)))) --- This is what i did....... I bought it, full price - like a fool. What a turd. From the 2 hours I played - it is clear that Half Life set the bar that killed 3Drealms.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 6:19 PM

          Were you expecting Shakespeare? The first game had no narrative, no dialog. All it had was quips and a bunch of visual gags. This game is the same thing. It's a throwback, an homage to a relic.

          Just enjoy it for what it is or come to the realization that your tastes have changed over the years. That's fine, people grow. Duke didn't.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 6:52 PM

            but it's not a throw back when they shoe horn in modern elements like regenerating health and two gun limits. Stop saying it's a throw back! a throw back would have health packs and all the weapons you can carry.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 6:59 PM

              If anything, that's a consolization problem.

              • reply
                June 14, 2011 7:07 PM

                but hold up, DNF was developed with the PC in mind, according to the man himself GeorgeB. so i mean you can keep rationalizing away the bad stuff away, but in the end you have to take it for what it's worth.

                • reply
                  June 14, 2011 7:17 PM

                  Not rationalizing anything. Just like the game has save points rather than just regular PC style saves, some things were changed to make it cross platform.

                  • reply
                    June 14, 2011 10:34 PM

                    All the important things you mean

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 6:53 PM

            Have you tried playing Duke 3D anytime recently? It's still as amazing as it ever was and a blast to play.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 7:02 PM

            Shakespeare is full of dick jokes though :/

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:15 PM

        hahaha
        "I'm trying to figure out when this game would have had to come out to be ... good."

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:13 PM

      Just played a few hours of it.

      It's Duke. That's both good and bad. Had this come out a long time ago, even on an earlier engine, I think people would be happier. It feels just like the first game, except this time the NPCs talk (and curse WAY too much, IMO). That really is the only difference in the presentation, as far as I can tell thus far.

      The problem is that people compare it to modern games. I don't know if that is fair or not. Duke is what he his. The original game wasn't exactly King Lear and this isn't either. The first game had one liners, it didn't have a story. This game, coming in the age of some pretty epic stories in games, is a total throwback to an old style of playing.

      I am enjoying it. I am taking it for what it is: a view back to an old style of gaming that doesn't really exist anymore. Maybe it is nostalgia, but that's not a bad thing.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:57 PM

        that's a bullshit way of looking at it though. HL2 was made to surpass HL1 and it did. You shouldn't excuse a shitty sequel because it's like the original. Look at the 2d version of duke and duke 3d. There is always room for improvement and "making it like the original" shouldn't be an excuse for shitty modern gameplay.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:02 PM

          HL1 had a helluva story. HL2 took it a step further and had a better story and prettier graphics.

          Duke Nukem 3D, as fun as it was, had almost no story. Duke Nukem has a bit more narrative and prettier graphics.

          DN4 is true to the original. A mindless shooter that has some funny shit in it and a lot of Junior High School humor.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:20 PM

      HE REVIEWED THE 360 VERSION!!!! WHO IS THIS "XAV" AND WHY DOES HE HATE AMERICA?!

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:24 PM

        He mentions in the Quicklook that he also played the PC and PS3 versions and agrees that the PC version is far superior in framerate and load times.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:26 PM

      Where's George? Where's Randy? Where are all the fan boys? All I know is that all haters have come out and they have loads of ammunition. Sad, but true.

      Somehow we all knew this game was going to be a train wreck.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:54 PM

        george has been answering questions as recently as yesterday to his credit. Randy is cowardly and won't bother unless he can throw someone under the bus to take the blame, ala the art director and FOV.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:55 PM

        Remember when RomSteady did a blog entry on piracy and the comments piled on him? And he defended himself in the comments? And it only got worse from there? And it would have been better had he just not bothered?

        Yeah, the Shack is like 100x worse these days.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 6:56 PM

        what exactly would you want George to say here?

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:42 PM

          That's a good question, actually. And I am not really sure how to answer this....

          Does George, Scott, Randy or anyone involved in the DNF creation process owe me or any fan an explanation? Heaven's, no!

          I often think about the actions of my employees (in no way am I implying 3drealms owes me anything - just as frame of reference) and some decisions that they make. Sometimes I am just bewildered by their thought process that all I am looking for is ... some kind of explanation.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 6:55 PM

      Say what you want about Duke Nukem Forever, but it really is the first game to come close to successfully bringing a 2D franchise into the 3D world. Doom 3 failed, in my opinion. Doom 3 was not Doom, by any stretch. And well before that, Blood 2 failed horribly.

      I think the downsides of Duke Nukem Forever are all due to 3D Realms second-guessing themselves, and going back to the drawing board when modern games were coming out during the game's development. Ironically, all the things people dislike about DNF are things that were inspired by more modern games.

      I beat the PC version of the game, and I enjoyed it a ton. Looks like a lot of the bad reviews are coming from people who foolishly played the XBOX 360 version.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:02 PM

        it's the same damn game. Please explain how THE GAME magically gets better with shorter load times and a mouse and keyboard

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:22 PM

          What? That's like every shackers main complaint about console games.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:11 PM

        gta

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:26 PM

        2D franchise into 3D world?

        What do you mean?

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:27 PM

        What? Super Mario 64? Zelda64?

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 7:32 PM

          Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, Ninja Gaiden, there's a ton of'em.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:30 PM

        Wut? I don't even....

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:32 PM

        Duke....3D?

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:36 PM

        Even dognose wouldn't have your back on this one, bro.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:38 PM

        Did you ever play Metroid Prime

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:52 PM

        Well, he's right, but there aren't a lot of other examples. He means 2D shooters I take it. Duke3D was more like 2.5d. It used sprites that would rotate. Quake was the first true 3D shooter.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 8:07 PM

          What about RTCW?

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 10:24 PM

            You mean the game built on the Quake 3 engine.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 10:32 PM

              I meant it was a good 3D game made from a 2.5D game, since WWBD tried to legitimize the OP's stupid post.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:09 PM

        you lost me at successfully bringing a 2D franchise into the 3D world

        pretty sure you've never played a single video game prior to 2008

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:11 PM

        I'm glad you enjoyed the game, but as others have said, 2D games have been successfully converted to 3D for years now. Not all of them, but more than a few.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:24 PM

        what the hell is going on in this post

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 8:33 PM

        lol no

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 9:30 PM

        the quality of doom3's sound design redeems any shortcomings with the rest of that game.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:04 PM

        he's referring to the fact that the doom / duke3d engine were 2-d.5 not true 3d (ie: quake)

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:21 PM

          If that's the case then Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2 wants to have a word with him.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 10:23 PM

        my brain reached an impasse trying to comprehend this load of nonsense.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:15 PM

        Whatever. You make a few good points but don't kid yourself; Doom 2 wasn't any less 3D in gameplay than Doom 3 was. Same with DN3D and Forever. These games did not have to change in gameplay because they took the step from projected billboards to 3D geometry, they changed because they were new games.

      • reply
        June 15, 2011 1:59 AM

        er... what

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:34 PM

      George? I wonder where George is after all these negative reviews and wonder what his thoughts are with a game he's put so much of his life into and what it's become after all these years????

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:50 PM

        oh stop it. i've seen him on here answering questions recently. Randy on the other hand..

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 9:43 PM

          haha...yeah, it's all Randy Pitchford's fault?

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 10:24 PM

            the terrible xbox port is, absolutely.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 10:28 PM

              i mean im surprised we haven't gotten a 'well the load times are at the discretion of the designers. The lead designer wanted long load times to blahblahblah' post.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 7:55 PM

        I'm sure he agrees with a lot of the criticism. That's why he didn't deem the game ready to release.

        • reply
          June 14, 2011 10:08 PM

          Well there are two facts here. One, I didn't release it, and two, I didn't work on it past mid 09. That said I do think the reviews are overly harsh and not in the realm of reality - at all. To me, it's hard to justify less than a base of 70 with +/- 10 pts based on bias, so basically, 60-80 range is reasonable, imo. But, it is what it is and all you can do it sit back and watch. I'm watching.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 10:33 PM

            you're a good egg if nothing else. no lashing out, just calm rational responses to everything.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:20 PM

            I enjoy the game, George. It is very fun and I don't feel like my money was poorly spent.

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:47 PM

            George, I don't know you and you don't owe me anything. I can't even begin to imagine how you must of felt during the legal matters of giving up not only your IP, but something you personally invested over a decade of hard work into.

            However, the fact you made a post stating you didn't release or touch it for over 2 years is really just kind of pathetic. It's almost as if you're ashamed or embarrassed that it's even out. Mind you just short a year ago you posted pigs flying on your personal Twitter and for the most part seemed happy at it's current development and possible release.

            Regardless of not touching it since 09, you had plenty of time and resources to complete it numerous times before 09. In my personal opinion, the 2001 footage was the best ever seen and I truly believe at that point is when DNF was at it's finest point. I think people are still taken back on why that version never saw the light of day... even now. Hell, I think most would rather play that, than what is currently available.

            I won't disagree on the fact that some reviews are a bit over the top, but I think a lot of the positive views from the fan base are a bit too lax on the game as well. I don't believe DNF is terrible or un-playable, however, wielding a $50-60 pricetag is ludicrous for a game of this quality with what is currently available.

            I mean, I get it. You didn't release it or touch it since 09. Obviously it wasn't ready. It never was. Gearbox grabbed it, added a few things and 2K forced it out the door.

            It is what it is.

            • reply
              June 14, 2011 11:53 PM

              Why don't you roll him around in the dirt a bit more. There was obviously something wrong with the 2001 version to the point that he and others likely felt that it needed to be revamped. They gambled and things didn't turn out right, but the way you put things there, it almost seems like you're offended with his choices.

              It almost makes me think that Gearbox taking over Duke was just a way to keep the 2K legal dept. off his back.

              • reply
                June 15, 2011 12:09 AM

                Just my opinions on the matter and I was quite nice about it considering what I actually felt like posting otherwise. After all this is open discussion isn't it?

                As for the 2001 DNF. I highly doubt they would of went through so much effort making the trailer and releasing it publicly at such a large event like E3 if they were not happy with that version of the game.

                I think it was more so the fact new engines rolled out around that development cycle shortly afterwards and they simply wanted to make the game look better or possibly do more, rather than release a product that could very well of been finished as it was.

                • reply
                  June 15, 2011 2:05 AM

                  What do you know about it to criticise people that were there when it was happening?.... what you read on news sites? Forgive me if your a industry insider but you must be arrogant as hell to attack a guys work without knowing the details!

                  Thats just my opinion...

          • reply
            June 14, 2011 11:58 PM

            Would you say you had a great deal of influence on what was released though? I can't imagine the game is that much different after Gearbox took over? Or would you say the majority of stuff you oversaw was cut from the game or changed dramatically after it left 3DR stopped working on it?

          • reply
            June 15, 2011 4:50 AM

            Sounds like someone is washing their hands clean of this 14 year mess. typical

          • reply
            June 15, 2011 6:34 AM

            I raised my son till he was fifteen but lost custody. His step-father released him into the world at age 18. I have nothing to do with my son being a shit-bag at 20. It's his step-father's fault.

          • reply
            June 20, 2011 10:35 AM

            So what you're basically saying is that after 14 years you're a D to a B- game designer...awesome. You should be proud your hard work paid off so well. Keep it up dude :)

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 7:41 PM

      What the hell happen to Duke Nukem Forever game? I heard that game got many bad reviews. Please give me more details of it. =[

      • reply
        June 15, 2011 7:41 AM

        You're responding to a review of it retard

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 8:09 PM

      I have yet to play it myself, but having watched some extended PC gameplay it seems fun and funny. I'm not getting the hatred.

    • reply
      June 14, 2011 9:17 PM

      I don't quite get why everyone is saying this game represents what FPS games used to be. If anything, it represents what FPS games are today. Regenerating health, 2 weapon limit, unlimited ammo crates, no pick up items scattered around the level, limited FOV, zooming down your weapon to make it more accurate, a sprint button which causes you to be unable to shoot or strafe, having to take cover rather than weaving all over the place steamrolling your enemies, vehicle sections, pressing a button to activate little cutscenes, on-rails sections, the list goes on and on. The last game I played that had all these elements in it was the critically acclaimed Killzone 3, released way back in the days of 4 months ago. And guess what? Modern Warefare 3 is going to have everything on that list, and people are still going to go apeshit for it. I get the impression that people saying this game represents the old style of FPS haven't actually played any old FPS games. Furthermore, I rarely ever hear critics give any examples of what they wanted in the game. RPG elements maybe? Open world gameplay? A gravity gun?

      It also bothers me that people whine about Duke as a character. We live in an age where Kanyes and Grand Theft Autos and South Parks constantly win awards and define American pop culture, but yet Duke is bad because he's too politically incorrect? Am I missing something?

      I'm not saying the game deserves a good review, but the reasons critics give for the game being bad just confuse the hell out of me. If I were reviewing the game, I'd probably give it a mediocre score because it is too much like a generic modern shooter.

      • reply
        June 14, 2011 11:09 PM

        ^^^ This. I think people are a bit shocked by the misogyny and want to use the "throwback" label for the whole thing. In the gameplay dept, excluding some stuff that was rehashed from Duke3D, everything else is just a mish-mash of stuff since then. The combat doesn't go back any further than the first Halo.

      • reply
        June 15, 2011 2:00 AM

        Yep, FPS's today are so borrowing. Easy, lack of control, lack of variety and choice.

        Give me a janky STALKER or a decent RPG any day of the week!

        • reply
          June 15, 2011 2:01 AM

          boring... not borrowing! But that too i guess... they are all the same :-)

    • reply
      June 15, 2011 2:04 AM

      If video games were actors DNF wouldn't be Johnny Depp or Leo DiCaprio; no, DNF is more like Mickey Rourke: he disappeared for 15 years and came back ugly and broken, but with more character and heart than his preening peers combined. The impossible amount of man-hours put into creating Duke Nukem Forever, and the dogged determination of those who worked on it, seep from the game's pores to give it a kind of authenticity not seen in a big title since Diablo II.

      Duke Nukem Forever could be a lot better--and with the IP in the hands of a monied studio the next Duke surely will be.

    • reply
      June 15, 2011 5:04 AM

      I appreciate you raping my childhood.

    • reply
      June 15, 2011 5:13 AM

      I agree almost completely with this review and it's a hallmark of the latest generation of games for roughly the last six years.

      While DNF might've started out as something amazing, perhaps with a vision, after changing hands so many times it ended up in those of your standard developer preying on the latest fads. It's no different then a CoD funnel with worse graphics, terrible wack-a-mole, and less fun.

      Only thing that really breaks it up is you get to see boobies and aliens pop out of girls abdomens; depending on your preferences that might make or break what little there is to this game.

    • reply
      June 15, 2011 11:34 AM

      I can't help but feel vindicated and justified about when I went on a total rant about this game when it was at the seven year mark with nothing was being said nor shown by the developers and the vast majority of Shackers at the time met my comments with ridiculous fanboisms and duke defense force excuses. Ultimately my account got nuked because I further commented on how these arguments and adoration for the character were ludicrous. It feels good after seven more years to find out I was right the whole time....But I didn't come here to gloat about it, I came here to say VALVE, NOW GOING INTO THE SEVENTH YEAR SINCE HL2...YOU'RE NEXT!

      • reply
        June 15, 2011 11:42 AM

        Why aren't you counting the episodes? Episode Two launched in 2007.

        • reply
          June 15, 2011 12:08 PM

          He could focus on the Black Mesa mod, that's my new target. Valve is getting up there though, I wants me some EP3.

          • reply
            June 15, 2011 2:29 PM

            I kinda wish Valve would buy out the Black Mesa guys and finish it off (and put the Valve level of Quality into it).
            I know they said they are going to let them build it and are happy for them to do so, and also the Black Mesa team have stated that they will never sell it. I kinda wish they did, I don't know any Single Player Mod's that have come out and have actually been great.

        • reply
          June 15, 2011 12:48 PM

          nope, those were just renamed expansion packs imo.
          Hey Xav while I have your attention, why is it that journalists at least in America are afraid to press Valve on this? When it comes to HL , Valve's become wayyy too aloof and I don't see how the silence is helping them at all anymore, in fact after this e3 it's become deafening.

          • reply
            June 15, 2011 12:53 PM

            Knowing Valve they are keeping silent to build anticipation because when they do finally reveal ANYTHING half life it will be epic. Still...waiting this long for any kind of news sucks hardcore.

          • reply
            June 15, 2011 2:27 PM

            I think no matter how many times they ask 'When is HL3 coming out?' Doug or whoever will just say with a smirk (we are not ready to reveal anything at this time).

            Pick your battles.

    • reply
      June 15, 2011 3:42 PM

      Let's not forget that most of the real bad reviews came from the console ports of the game, according to what I've seen. Keep in mind, that it seemed like since the very beginning since I followed this game, the PC was going to be the preferred platform. I was prepared for this, and to me, I felt that paid off.

      • reply
        June 15, 2011 8:18 PM

        Then those sites should give separate scores for PC and Console. I personally am having fun with the PC version and I really don't understand the 2/10 and "F" $#it. I mean this game is not perfect, but it really doesn't deserve these half @$$ reviews from game sites. If you don't like the character or the jokes that's fine, but don't slam the game so hard that people who actually care about reviews think that it is an unplayable piece of garbage, because nothing could be further from the TRUTH..... the PC version is fun and that's all that matters: 7.8/10

        -Chris P

    • reply
      June 16, 2011 11:00 AM

      This review is biased, and somehow I think the guy didn't even finish the game.

      • reply
        June 16, 2011 11:30 AM

        Greatest comment ever.

        • reply
          June 16, 2011 12:31 PM

          here XAVdeMATOS, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s this explains exactly why i disagree. Please, take it as a heads up and oh yes, i don't think you're a fucking idiot ;)

          • reply
            June 16, 2011 2:44 PM

            This clown even admits he is a Duke Nukem fan boy. So you guys go from one extreme to the other. How is this review not biased either?

    • reply
      June 16, 2011 3:20 PM

      I came here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum !