Calm Down About "Duke Nukem Forever"
- Thread starter Austin Howe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I get it. However you must undertsand your point is based on both you hating this mechanic and your unability (we're all different gamers) to play it right.Treblaine said:
I CAN do what you apparently think is impossible, believe it or not, on very challenging games as well (as long as the level design allows it); the system doesn't bother me, I hate the alternative you praise, but that doesn't mean it's suited for every player; like I said, I get that you don't like it and why; it also doesn't mean it's intrinsically bad (or "not good") as a game mechanic, nor that it shouldn't be in this game.
To be fair, at least for the case of Duke Nukem 3D, a big part of the appeal of that game was having access to a large, really neat arsenal, and how it interacted (primitively, but still) with the environment.9Darksoul6 said:
I'm curious as to why they felt the need to take away access to what used to be a really cool arsenal.
To appeal to console fans? Gears of War and Mass Effect both have a 4 slot weapon-wheel; Resistance: Fall of Man had an even larger arsenal. None of those games were hindered by their weapon-selection controls.
No, it's quite clear that Gearbox slapped those features in because those are currently the most popular style for FPS controls; not the most effective for the style of game they were working with.
(I generally don't like people putting words in my 'virtual mouth' xD).Atmos Duality said:
You're probably right.
As I stated before, it's also possible that Gearbox did it because of there's not a great weapon variety in the game, and because (the general consensus is that) some guns just suck, and limiting your arsenal can kinda force you to use them.
But, yeah, the two-weapon system is somewhat popular these days... so that could be the case, and it most likely is.
Some people, next thing you'll tell me the Matrix got two sequels.Speakercone said:Oh, massive amounts of denial... yeah that's healthy.Inkidu said:What comment?Speakercone said:I deny that I read that comment.Inkidu said:
...and so on and so forth
Captcha: One of the words was upside down and backwards. :/
We're all used to the unsophisticated heads of internet trolls, so it's only to be expected that when a game that took 14 years to develop turns out to not be all that, they'll leap on it and attack it brutally without thinking things through, such as who they should be blaming. The truth is that the idea of a game that's been in development for a long time being some amazing masterpiece that'll make everything feel mediocre is extremely misled! The main reason is the ambition from the start; it isn't planned that the game will take that long because they have big plans for it, it happens unintentionally because of whatever issues arise, but whatever it is they have to spend more time doing, usually it isn't expanding the game. As the years go by, the game remains at its core the same game that it was at the start, and so when its finally released, it feels like a game that belongs in whatever year the game started development. Duke Nukem is a dated FPS with futile attempts to make it SEEM new by adding the cliches of modern shooters (regeneration, two-weapon limit), Alan Wake was completely inoffensive, but pretty dated, once again playing like a game from a previous generation (because it is), and Gran Turismo 5 finally appeared but found that everyone had moved on in the past 6 years and it was way behind the PGR and Forza series!
After beating the game, it unlocks video footage of the different versions of the game.
This version was developed mostly by Triptych (though they remade some material visible in the 2001 trailer). Gearbox fixed a few bugs and developed the multiplayer part.
This version was developed mostly by Triptych (though they remade some material visible in the 2001 trailer). Gearbox fixed a few bugs and developed the multiplayer part.
Seriously, it may not be the greatest game of all time, heck, it may not be as good as dn3d was...but it's not THAT horrid! Yes, there are many quicktime events, two weapons max does not really fit this game, and some puzzles could use some work...but it's still fun!
The game doesn't suck. It offers more than most modern FPS games and that's a fact. Don't make me start comparing it to CoD. I'll just say that it offers a lot more.
It has a long enough campaign and I find it replayable to a certain degree. Same can't be said about most FPS titles today. Graphics aren't bad at all. There is nothing wrong with graphics. I don't know what are people talking about. It's ridiculous. The graphics are the same and sometimes better than most FPS games today (CoD for example). It's not a gray/brown shooter either. It's very colorful and character models are highly detailed with a lot of polygons and great textures. Animations are good too. Sure the game doesn't have a story, but it doesn't need one. It's not supposed to have a story. It's supposed to be one big joke. That's Duke for ya. Gameplay is similar to most modern shooter so any bitching about that automatically means you hate every modern shooter. But the way it's done in Duke is actually better because the campaign offers diversity. It's not a rail shooter. It has exploration elements. And that's something today's shooters don't have. Not to mention mini games along the way, puzzle elements and the fact that the campaign always tries to keep things fresh. Sure it would be a lot better if 2 weapon limit never existed, and if Duke didn't have regenerative health. But other than that it's more than I hoped for, and definitely more than other modern FPS titles have to offer. All of this Duke hate is unjustified. I think it's psychological. If reviewers say it's bad, gamers will say it's bad. Think for yourself. It's a great game. Multiplayer is also a lot of fun but I won't get into it now because I'm a single player kind of gamer.
It has a long enough campaign and I find it replayable to a certain degree. Same can't be said about most FPS titles today. Graphics aren't bad at all. There is nothing wrong with graphics. I don't know what are people talking about. It's ridiculous. The graphics are the same and sometimes better than most FPS games today (CoD for example). It's not a gray/brown shooter either. It's very colorful and character models are highly detailed with a lot of polygons and great textures. Animations are good too. Sure the game doesn't have a story, but it doesn't need one. It's not supposed to have a story. It's supposed to be one big joke. That's Duke for ya. Gameplay is similar to most modern shooter so any bitching about that automatically means you hate every modern shooter. But the way it's done in Duke is actually better because the campaign offers diversity. It's not a rail shooter. It has exploration elements. And that's something today's shooters don't have. Not to mention mini games along the way, puzzle elements and the fact that the campaign always tries to keep things fresh. Sure it would be a lot better if 2 weapon limit never existed, and if Duke didn't have regenerative health. But other than that it's more than I hoped for, and definitely more than other modern FPS titles have to offer. All of this Duke hate is unjustified. I think it's psychological. If reviewers say it's bad, gamers will say it's bad. Think for yourself. It's a great game. Multiplayer is also a lot of fun but I won't get into it now because I'm a single player kind of gamer.
Yes, it's our fault for taking the awesome trailers at face value, and not expcting them to throw a fucking curve ball with the regen health and arbitrary two weapon limit when even Boarderlands had four.
[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/137/1291284470782.jpg/]
Sadly, it will probably be next week seeing as it just came out internationally and he needs a week to get through the game. This week will probably E3PureChaos said:
On topic
Frankly, I'm not surprized that it is getting thrashed this early on. When Gearbox started making a dozen meaningless trailers, delayed the original release date that was suspiciously close to Brink's, gave the demo only to those who pre-ordered, and was constantly advertised on every site with the word "game" in it's HTML code, I gained a good idea that it was just some cash in on a decade old joke.
They didn't do that for Team Fortress 2Dapz said:
Seriously, Team Fortress was made in 1996 and they worked on the sequel for ELEVEN YEARS before it was finally released in the Orange Box and you know what... it was gooooood! And people had nothing but praise for it, to spite a decade of speculation, teasing and constantly moving release dates.
People were VERY keen for Duke Nukem Forever when they heard it was committed to be released, it was only when we came to learn what it actually entailed that the forum rage began.
Gearbox want to have their cake and eat it, they want to simultaneously claim that they are a throwback game for old-skool gamers and also a modern Halo type game for the much younger generation.
Hmm I didn't think you meant "not be all that" as "not being that good".Dapz said:
"all that" I interpreted as like, not the best bestest ever. And also isn't that kind of obvious, of course if any game isn't good people are going to say that, with the hope the developers will learn!
DN:F has gotten a lot more attention and hype than Brink (a similar meh title) just like Modern Warfare 2 that failed to deliver (though in less obvious areas like campaign pacing and multiplayer balance) and got rage for to spite being only 2 years in production.
The more attention a game gets, the more people are going to have an opinion they want to share. If it is a poor game, the opinion isn't going to be good.
When $60 is on the line - a lot of money to most people - if a games is merely "not good" then it is BAD, as with a high investment is high expectations.
