DNF Will Be Better Than Alice

[CleverNickname]

Alice might be kinda meh, or even bad, but at least it's a typical game in a genre that hasn't been mutilated by becoming popular on the wrong platform. I bet Alice will have more weapons than the knife, that pepper-gun and, I don't know, the Jabberwock's staff or something.

And maybe it has tiring jumping puzzles (in... a platformer? those monsters!) in too many overdone vista-locations, but at least it has something worth looking at that way.

Even if I end up hating it, I'd rather hate one action adventure among many varied ones, than roll my eyes at the same crippling shortcomings of the 1287th post-Halo/CoD shooter.

 

[Thespian]

This post is perfectly valid.

In other news, Oranges are better than Apples. This is now fact. I know it because of my learnings.

Games being 'better' or 'worse' is a case of opinion. /thread.

I get sick of seeing this. You may or may not like a game, but I do not believe that matters of "better" or "worse" are a matter of opinion. Some games are BETTER than other games. You may like a bad game, but to say it's better than a good game is wrong.

It's like saying you like Nickelback and dislike Jimi Hendrix. Your taste is your opinion, but the fact that you like Nickelback does not change the fact that Nickelback is not as good as Jimi Hendrix.

No, it doesn't change that fact, seeing as "Nickelback is not as good as Jimi Hendrix" is not a fact at all. It's your own opinion. For example, I think that the Fifth Element or, say, Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch are at least thirty times better than Inception or James Cameron's Avatar. I know it seems like I am just hating those because they are popular, but nah, I like plenty of popular films too.
There are plenty of people who'd say that it's a FACT that I'm wrong. I'd say the opposite. Who's right?
Could it be that perspective differs from person to person?

Could it be that some people won't enjoy a horrendously over-hyped generic-looking game that doesn't know where it wants to go aesthetically, but will enjoy a highly stylized, story driven game with fun, challenging gameplay?

No, of course that isn't possible! Why, you have a whole paragraph of text up there supporting you! You MUST be right! It's a FACT!

 

[Elamdri]

This post is perfectly valid.

In other news, Oranges are better than Apples. This is now fact. I know it because of my learnings.

Games being 'better' or 'worse' is a case of opinion. /thread.

I get sick of seeing this. You may or may not like a game, but I do not believe that matters of "better" or "worse" are a matter of opinion. Some games are BETTER than other games. You may like a bad game, but to say it's better than a good game is wrong.

It's like saying you like Nickelback and dislike Jimi Hendrix. Your taste is your opinion, but the fact that you like Nickelback does not change the fact that Nickelback is not as good as Jimi Hendrix.

No, it doesn't change that fact, seeing as "Nickelback is not as good as Jimi Hendrix" is not a fact at all. It's your own opinion. For example, I think that the Fifth Element or, say, Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch are at least thirty times better than Inception or James Cameron's Avatar. I know it seems like I am just hating those because they are popular, but nah, I like plenty of popular films too.
There are plenty of people who'd say that it's a FACT that I'm wrong. I'd say the opposite. Who's right?
Could it be that perspective differs from person to person?

Could it be that some people won't enjoy a horrendously over-hyped generic-looking game that doesn't know where it wants to go aesthetically, but will enjoy a highly stylized, story driven game with fun, challenging gameplay?

No, of course that isn't possible! Why, you have a whole paragraph of text up there supporting you! You MUST be right! It's a FACT!

Well thanks for agreeing with me

 

[Thespian]

Well thanks for agreeing with me

Oh, very clever >_> I'd make a scathing remark but I actually fucked up that post as half of it should have been directed at the OP. I'm so handicapped today for some reason.

Anywho, I don't see how you can say that one thing being better than another isn't opinion.

If the purpose of two things is to be enjoyed, and I enjoy one more than the other, than hasn't it served it's purpose better? Isn't it, technically, the "better" thing?

 

[darthotaku]

I am getting Duke Nukem just because I like the Duke. sure it might not be all that great but for a fraction of a second I will become the happy little five year old who's seeing video game boobs for the first time ever and blowing up aliens into bloody flakes while doing it.
I'm not getting Duke Nukem expecting it to be what I want, I'm getting it so both my inner child and the bitter emo-poet 19 year old he became can both oggle tits and gore like we used to.

 

[Doclector]

I'm probably going to put it all on duke, because whereas I got a demo, albeit only once I had jumped a few hoops, which I enjoyed although I can see why some hated it, and Alice madness returns seems to have some ridiculous embargo placed on it's reviews, limiting it to only official playstation magazine, who, like the other official reviewers, I do not trust.

There is one thing official magazines tend not to lie about, though: technical faults. If I get a majority of reviews stating technical and gameplay mechanics faults, I simply won't buy it. This brings me to my problem; I have clues that point to Alice being technically broken, but not enough different and trustworthy reports to confirm it. Given this all comes at a time where financially, things aren't great for me, I can't buy a full price game on release on such little info, so unless more reviews pop up before June 10th, tea with the hatter is to be replaced by bubblegum with the duke.

Congrats, geniuses. Your attempt to hold back the majority of reviews just lost you a customer.

 

[Elamdri]

Well thanks for agreeing with me

Oh, very clever >_> I'd make a scathing remark but I actually fucked up that post as half of it should have been directed at the OP. I'm so handicapped today for some reason.

Anywho, I don't see how you can say that one thing being better than another isn't opinion.

If the purpose of two things is to be enjoyed, and I enjoy one more than the other, than hasn't it served it's purpose better? Isn't it, technically, the "better" thing?

Hahaha, sorry

The way I look at it, something can be broken down into two categories.

1st is Taste: Whether or not "I" the individual like something. Now, taste comes down to a matter of opinion.

2nd is Quality: This is where I disagree with the idea of using opinion as a shield. The reason is because quality, unlike taste, is something that can be quantified. We have ways to measure quality. The complexity of flavors, the fidelity of sound, the resolution of imagery.

For example, take liquors. Compare some 15 dollar swill to a 40 dollar bottle of premium liquor. You may LIKE the 15 dollar swill, but it doesn't change the fact that the 40 dollar bottle is a better liquor. It likely has a more complex flavor, with a cleaner finish, and a nice aroma.

EDIT: I should clarify that you only use quality to measure two comparable things. It does not for example make sense to compare an FPS to an RPG and try to argue that one is better. You can however, compare two FPS and try to argue that one is better.

 

[Thespian]

Hahaha, sorry

The way I look at it, something can be broken down into two categories.

1st is Taste: Whether or not "I" the individual like something. Now, taste comes down to a matter of opinion.

2nd is Quality: This is where I disagree with the idea of using opinion as a shield. The reason is because quality, unlike taste, is something that can be quantified. We have ways to measure quality. The complexity of flavors, the fidelity of sound, the resolution of imagery.

For example, take liquors. Compare some 15 dollar swill to a 40 dollar bottle of premium liquor. You may LIKE the 15 dollar swill, but it doesn't change the fact that the 40 dollar bottle is a better liquor. It likely has a more complex flavor, with a cleaner finish, and a nice aroma.

EDIT: I should clarify that you only use quality to measure two comparable things. It does not for example make sense to compare an FPS to an RPG and try to argue that one is better. You can however, compare two FPS and try to argue that one is better.

I hate to say this as it is such a cop-out argument, but what if you pour out both liquors, swap them, offer them to someone and they prefer the cheap one? Not just like, but prefer? What then? What if it just so happens to be a flavour they are more partial to? Again, wine is drank for the enjoyment and if you enjoy the cheaper one more, than is it not the best one?

The example works a lot better with films or games. I mean, for example, there could be a "Worse film" which has a character which one specific person finds it easy to relate to. Films are art, meaning they serve no function but aesthetic enjoyment, so Taste really makes Quality irrelevant.

I know it's a weak argument, but sadly it's true. Perspective is reality.

 

[EzraPound]

Alice might be kinda meh, or even bad, but at least it's a typical game in a genre that hasn't been mutilated by becoming popular on the wrong platform. I bet Alice will have more weapons than the knife, that pepper-gun and, I don't know, the Jabberwock's staff or something.

And maybe it has tiring jumping puzzles (in... a platformer? those monsters!) in too many overdone vista-locations, but at least it has something worth looking at that way.

Even if I end up hating it, I'd rather hate one action adventure among many varied ones, than roll my eyes at the same crippling shortcomings of the 1287th post-Halo/CoD shooter.

I sympathize with this view, though I do think that even if I'm proven wrong and DNF is a flop there's enough conceptual oomph there to put it a notch above most post-COD shooters in terms of interestingness at least.

"(as if design that wasn't arcane is a bad thing)"

I think you DNF guys want to get your story straight. Anyway, the demo was abysmal, and the only review of Alice I've seen so far has been bad. Randy Pitchford has also stated: "Scores for DNF won't matter, people will buy it anyway." This commonly translates to: "ffffuuuuuuu-".

I read this today and found it quite interesting: http://www.gamefront.com/gearboxs-randy-pitchford-reviewers-who-dont-like-duke-nukem-forever-will-be-held-accountable/

Anyway, if they're both crap (seems likely), then why you're encouraging people to buy one over the other at all seems pointless.

Well, in the thread about the DNF demo I read several posts that indicated people were forsaking Duke in favour of Alice--which comes out the same day--so I thought it necessary to weigh in on the matter inasmuch as pre-orders are concerned.

Also, I don't view Gearbox's adoption of features that are staples of more modern shooters is necessarily a bad thing. If you look at the pre-release information, much of it centered on the unique, nineties 'tude Duke offered as a character--how he wasn't "emo" and whatnot, as opposed to how Gearbox intended to recycle each and every gameplay tenant of DN3D in the sequel. If anything, it's encouraging to know that Gearbox seems to be trying to make DNF palatable as a shooter, rather than just an exercise in nostalgia.

P.S. Ever think that Pitchford's defensiveness about review scores could stem from the fact a number of critics--Yahtzee, etc.--have pointed out DNF will get ravaged if it's anything less than perfect?

 

[teebeeohh]

the duke was supposed to be like a 90s fun shooter but if you only have 2 guns this does not work. You know why it worked in bulletstrom? You always had the assault rifle, which could get you through any part of the game if picked a bad weapon loadout, it was designed to be efficient, not loud fun and visceral. All the other guns were loud fun and visceral. so you always had to guns with that were fun (for the most part) to use and the assault rifle in case non of your other weapons was suited for a situation.
I can forgive Duke Nukem everything else, but not the gun thing.

 

[Worgen]

the problem with duke is that it doesnt feel like duke, it feels like any number of other modern shooters but with kinda worse gunplay (just doesn't have any umph to it) maybe they just picked some bad levels for the demo but it left me feeling unimpressed, I havent canceled my preorder yet tho, I figure Ill wait for some reviews before I do that

 

[Gralian]

I fail to understand what the hell is so bad about wanting to tote around all 10 weapons on my back. It works for Gordon Freeman.

I'm not advocating the two weapon system here, i hate it as much as the next guy and i too am upset with gearbox for not making it essentially a Duke Nukem 3D HD. They were too afraid to go back to old school mechanics and instead rely on post modern contrivances like regenerating health, two weapon system, weapon melee (No mighty boot? WHAT THE HELL.), no more bullet-hell swarm of baddies on screen with more explosions and lasers and fireworks and bullets that makes you go "i have no idea what's going on but i hope i'm winning?!". Instead all we get is Call of Dukey. I mean... sniping? In a Duke game? What the fuck? I'm sorry to be so brash, but really. It's the first gun you acquire in the demo, (not counting the pistol or the rocket launcher boss thing) and it's a fucking sniper rifle?! Duke doesn't snipe. He runs right up to those pig cops, stares them right in the eye, and Mighty Boots them in the balls. Like a boss.

However, part of the problem i personally have with having Doom-style weapon management is that i never use more than one or two guns anyway. I'll have 20 shiny weapons and one "OH SHI-" big ass nuke thing, but i'll never use them, because i'll be telling myself "If i use it now, i might need it later, no ammo ever drops for this super duper luxury exotic weapon you only find once in a level, so i have to be careful..." and as a result i end up with a two weapon system anyway! The impression i got from the demo is that by placing new or exotic weapons at certain situations, you are encouraged to pick them up, use them then and there, then go back to the usuals. The reason for this is that it practically forces you to use the exotic super duper weapons of awesome instead of letting them gather dust in the inventory. See: Consumable Hoarding Syndrome in RPGs; when you don't use health potions or upgrades because you're saving it in case you MIGHT need it later. Whether that later is ten seconds or ten hours from now. The problem with the way gearbox have handled this is that it feels too heavy handed. It should be up to the player if they want to be held by the hand and told when and where to use their super deluxe toys. Let there be an option to enable to restrict weapon capacity if it helps, just don't force it on the player. Part of me wonders if it's restricted because 1) too many linear set piece sequences rely on a very specific armament (see the dropship mini boss fight in the demo) or 2) game balance would be thrown out of whack. Honestly,i'd rather have a screen full of more aliens than i can shoot and have it busier than the London Stock Exchange then have one or two pig cops run at me with perfect aim and be able to one-shot me at close range, or pick me off with pistols so i have to cower behind a rock for my health to recharge. Ego? What ego can you have hiding behind rocks all day.

Edit: OT, i've never heard of "Alice", and really don't know of nor care for the American McGee games. Except for Scrapland. That was pure awesome.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Well, I played the original Alice game and....yea, it really wasn't good. It had some neat art design, but the gameplay itself was just crap. DN 3D on the other hand, was just hilariously fun.....and I can almost say the same thing for DNF. Seriously, if only it let you carry more than 2 guns at once. Duke Nukem isn't CoD or Halo, it doesn't have to worry about "Realism", or any of that garbage, so why the hell can I only carry 2 guns? Unreal tournament 3, another PC game ported to consoles, let me carry every gun I could pick up, why the hell doesn't Duke!?

That aside, I'm alright with regenerating health, and the gameplay itself is pretty fun...but seriously, only two weapons at once just isn't Duke. I'll still probably get it, though maybe not at launch, and I am 100% sure I won't get Alice, so yea, I guess I agree with you, OP.

Also, why the hell are Duke's melee attacks NOT him kicking the enemies ass? Again, The Duke doesn't care about realism, why the hell is he hitting enemies with the butt of the gun!?!

 

[Elamdri]

I'm not advocating the two weapon system here, i hate it as much as the next guy and i too am upset with gearbox for not making it essentially a Duke Nukem 3D HD. They were too afraid to go back to old school mechanics and instead rely on post modern contrivances like regenerating health, two weapon system, weapon melee (No mighty boot? WHAT THE HELL.), no more bullet-hell swarm of baddies on screen with more explosions and lasers and fireworks and bullets that makes you go "i have no idea what's going on but i hope i'm winning?!". Instead all we get is Call of Dukey. I mean... sniping? In a Duke game? What the fuck? I'm sorry to be so brash, but really. It's the first gun you acquire in the demo, (not counting the pistol or the rocket launcher boss thing) and it's a fucking sniper rifle?! Duke doesn't snipe. He runs right up to those pig cops, stares them right in the eye, and Mighty Boots them in the balls. Like a boss.

God don't even talk to me about the sniper. Lets not even talk about how it's a 1 hit kill. Lets not talk about the part where you have to hide in downed ship to destroy the gunship or it will kill you in like 3 seconds. Duke Nukem doesn't HIDE from gunships with an RPG.

However, part of the problem i personally have with having Doom-style weapon management is that i never use more than one or two guns anyway. I'll have 20 shiny weapons and one "OH SHI-" big ass nuke thing, but i'll never use them, because i'll be telling myself "If i use it now, i might need it later, no ammo ever drops for this super duper luxury exotic weapon you only find once in a level, so i have to be careful..." and as a result i end up with a two weapon system anyway! The impression i got from the demo is that by placing new or exotic weapons at certain situations, you are encouraged to pick them up, use them then and there, then go back to the usuals. The reason for this is that it practically forces you to use the exotic super duper weapons of awesome instead of letting them gather dust in the inventory. See: Consumable Hoarding Syndrome in RPGs; when you don't use health potions or upgrades because you're saving it in case you MIGHT need it later. Whether that later is ten seconds or ten hours from now. The problem with the way gearbox have handled this is that it feels too heavy handed. It should be up to the player if they want to be held by the hand and told when and where to use their super deluxe toys. Let there be an option to enable to restrict weapon capacity if it helps, just don't force it on the player. Part of me wonders if it's restricted because 1) too many linear set piece sequences rely on a very specific armament (see the dropship mini boss fight in the demo) or 2) game balance would be thrown out of whack. Honestly,i'd rather have a screen full of more aliens than i can shoot and have it busier than the London Stock Exchange then have one or two pig cops run at me with perfect aim and be able to one-shot me at close range, or pick me off with pistols so i have to cower behind a rock for my health to recharge. Ego? What ego can you have hiding behind rocks all day.

The way I see it, there are three ways to get around Weapon hoarding:

1st is to design a system of Counters. Make each weapon in some ways better against certain types of enemies than other weapons. That way the player learns: Oh, so I use the freeze ray on this guy, the shotgun on this guy, the shrink ray on this guy, the devastator against this guy, the RPG against this guy...ect.

2nd is to design set pieces that FORCE the player to use their ammo. Don't give me so much ammo for one gun that I can get past a set piece without swapping to other guns.

3rd, make it clear to the player that there will ALWAYS be ammo if they need it. Players won't hoard ammo if they know they can get more relatively easily.

 

[Elamdri]

Edit: Gearbox also explained why you can only carry 2 guns. Its because they couldn't program in the ability to carry all the games weapons due to consoles memory limitations.

I don't know that I fully buy that. Commander Shepard can figure out how to carry an assault rifle, shotgun, sniper rifle, pistol, and heavy weapon all at once.

Grayson Hunt can figure out how to carry an assault rifle and two other guns at once.

Marcus Phoenix knows how to carry a pistol and two primary weapons.

HELL, in BORDERLANDS, their own game, you can carry 4 primary guns.

I mean, Duke's PISTOL counts as a weapon slot. I would rather they reduce the quality of the game's aesthetics and figure out how to teach Duke to not drop his pistol when he picks up a shotgun and chaingun.

 

[Yoh3333]

I've never even been the slightest interrested in either DNF or Alice.
From the first couple of trailers i got the impression that:
DNF: Duke is back? Meh, he'll propably do decently. Nothing special.
Alice: This looks weird (i didn't know about the earlier alice game) but it also seems to have some value to it. Not all that interrested personally though.

as time rolls on my views have now changed to:

DNF: Seems very very poorly made... As far as i can see the gameplay is not what everyone wants it to be and with good reason. My guess is a 6 or 5 for duke based on trailers / demo.

Alice: Later trailers with actual gameplay have left me to wonder if this game will fail on the gameplay side. Controls look to be wonky and combat seems downright awful to me. That might just be my gut telling me stupid stuff but heck. I see this as a 6.5 or 7.

That's my impressions of the 2 but i am NOT going to get either one. They seem way too boring

 

[CleverNickname]

if I'm proven wrong and DNF is a flop there's enough conceptual oomph there to put it a notch above most post-COD shooters in terms of interestingness at least.

If the best thing you can say about DNF is that it's kinda fun despite being completely CoD-like, then it's a sad sad day for the Duke and everyone who loves him.

If anything, it's encouraging to know that Gearbox seems to be trying to make DNF palatable as a shooter, rather than just an exercise in nostalgia.

But that's the point, they aren't. Shooters suck these days, and every reason why shooters suck these days ended up in DNF, which is the hilariously long-awaited sequel to one of the reasons shooters were so popular in the first place.

I'm not saying early-90's shooters were the pinnacle of gaming, but I am saying 2011 shooters are the pinnacle of Pure Suck?.

 

[Valiance]

Well, the first thing I do when I get DNF is to download the mod that will undeniably be made on day 1 (or week 1) that allows you to carry all the weapons at once, like God intended FPS protagonists to do.

Seriously though, I'm probably getting both games, and hopefully there will be ways to enjoy them. They might not ship enjoyable, they might not even deserve to be modded, but if it's left open, players will change the damage values on the weapons, change the health, change the level design, change how many monsters are where, create Serious-Sam style arenas, and do what you WANT a Duke Nukem game with the Unreal 3 engine is supposed to do - Painkiller but faster.

Anyway, a demo is a demo. There will be many more environments to go through, more baddies to blast, more guns to use, and hopefully the vehicle sections don't make me want to alt-f4 like they do in every mediocre FPS from the early 2000s. I'm disappointed with how it works, but I swear, the modder community won't let this game just slip and suck. If they have to put health and armor like the old game in, let you carry ~20 items, try to program in a holoduke, night vision goggles, portable medkit (STILL THE BEST HEALTH SYSTEM, READ THIS FPS DEVS), and steroids, they will.

 

[Trishbot]

The world, and the narrative, of Alice: The Madness Returns appeals to me far more. As a literary expert, artist, and game designer, seeing what's being done with Alice is far more exciting, from the sophisticated approach to the Alice narrative (that could easily have been juvenile and unnecessary) to the stunning visuals (the clash of whimsical fantasy and hellish corruption) to the weapons and gameplay (umbrella guns, physic manipulation, alternate forms and realities) to the legacy of the game itself (say what you will, American McGee's Alice is one of the highest rated, most beloved PC action games ever created).

Now, I WILL try DNF, and it's weird how it was announced back when Alice 1 was coming out, but it's roots are from a time that's long gone. It is the "Anti-Alice", crass and juvenile where Alice is refined and legitimately mature, chauvinistic and overly macho while Alice focuses on a female perspective and legitimate vulnerabilities, and stubbornly archaic and old-school while the new Alice game seems to have taken the lessons of the past several years into consideration when shaping a new sequel.

Now, I could be wrong. Maybe DNF will be the best thing ever, worth the 15 year wait, and maybe Alice will be a disappointing mess, but from my research and experiences, Alice absolutely excites me and I am eager to dive into Wonderland to see just where the limits of the developers' imaginations went. The fact they're throwing in the original Alice certainly doesn't hurt either, since that game alone is nearly worth a repurchase all on its own.