PC Gamer lauds Duke Nukem Forever

[EzraPound]

PC Gamer--one of the only English-speaking magazines whose review of Duke Nukem Forever I can find online, and the biggest PC games magazine in the UK & US--has, in what should provoke a sigh of relief from PC gamers concerned with receiving an undercooked port, given the game an 80. They wrote that:

Check unrealistic expectations at the door and forget the ancient, hyperbolic promises of self-deluded developers before you even consider buying this suddenly corporeal ghost of PC gaming history. The development-time-to-awesomeness ratio isn?t impressive. If you can do that, Duke Nukem Forever can at least mostly succeed in its aspiration. After all of its tumultuous history, it?s ended up as an entertaining FPS wrapped in juvenile, smut-laced humor. Its gameplay is a hybrid of old-school and new, and it won?t wow players with stunning visuals?its window of opportunity for that passed years ago?but it does put on a good show of alien ass-kicking by working what it?s got.

DNF is a throwback to the age when shooters were long single-player experiences first and multiplayer games second, and as such the eight-player multiplayer modes aren?t going to challenge Call of Duty or Battlefield for the competitive crown. It?s often hilariously effective at showing us a good time, though?the 10 maps, which are diversely designed with the same wide range of locations as the campaign, are built to create goofy and memorable moments when combined with Duke?s weapons. Moments like shrinking and squishing a guy carrying a babe-shaped flag back to his team?s base, or hitting a jetpacking enemy with the Freeze Ray, causing him to fall to the ground and shatter. And those laser tripwire mines? Hilarity ensues.

It?s a healthy chunk of game, too. The Steam clock read ?10 hours played? when I?d finished the single-player run on normal difficulty, and that?s without devoting time to posting a high score on the pinball machine or conducting a thorough search for secrets. Completing the game unlocks classic, why-doesn?t-anyone-do-this-anymore cheats like character head scaling, and I might have to replay at least part of it just to see that absurdity in action.

I?m sure that years of anticipation will spoil Duke Nukem Forever for some?there?s no getting around that at the end of that long road is only a good game and not an amazing one. It is what it is. He may not be at the top of his game, but even after all this time, Duke still knows how to party.

Of course, the review isn't perfect, and nor are most of the others I've read--if anything, Duke Nukem Forever's release is bittersweet, reminding us as it does that the "window of opportunity" for the graphics to be excellent mentioned by the reviewer probably applies to the game itself. But on the other hand, from the reviews I've read I get the impression that if you were excited enough about the release of DNFto pre-order, you'll probably enjoy the game: few reviewers have doubted that, if you can put your 1997 glasses on, DNF offers a dose of single-player focused shmup nostalgia and humour that you're likely to enjoy. And the late '90s was the apex of shooters, right?

The other factor worth considering, here, is that in our current marketplace single-player shooters aren't exactly abundant, and so enthusiasts of the genre will probably note that Duke's ten-hours plus of gameplay seems epic-poem length by comparison to much of what's released. I mean, what single-player shooters is Duke really competing with? The only ones I've played since Half-Life 2 I really enjoyed were Far Cry 2 and--though it's a richer experience in split-screen--Borderlands (and yes, I played BioShock--it was just a watered-down version of System Shock 2, no pun, and its style of exposition had this weirdly corporeal element since most of it was lazily relayed via audio tapes strewn around). In this environment, it's simply not implausible that Duke--provided a certain generosity towards the satire and whatnot--ranks among the best in years.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I'd heard that the controls are terrible on the demo does it say anything about that?

 

[GiantRaven]

It saddens me that 10 hours can be considered 'long' for a videogame in this day and age.

 

[repeating integers]

It saddens me that 10 hours can be considered 'long' for a videogame in this day and age.

10 hours sounds good to me. About as long as you can make an FPS without lots of filler... or a really, really convoluted story.

 

[Woodsey]

That review is the exception to the game's reaction, not the rule.

I await PCG UK's verdict.

 

[Sacman]

Yeah I read the review already and I'm thoroughly disappointed by the fact that you can only hold two weapons I don't think I'm gonna buy the game now... well not until someone takes it upon themselves to mod that bit out...

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

It saddens me that 10 hours can be considered 'long' for a videogame in this day and age.

I think it's more for FPSs and not other genres. Which is sad because FPSs have a ginormous following, yet devs pretty much decide to release a multiplayer game with some sort of singleplayer story attached, like an afterthought.

 

[lowlymarine]

I'd heard that the controls are terrible on the demo does it say anything about that?

I played the demo a few days ago - admittedly on my laptop with a GeForce 310M, so I had to turn all the settings down to keep it solidly above 30 FPS - and I didn't see anything wrong with the controls. The default mouse sensitivity is pretty low but that's just a personal preference thing; other than that they were functional and fully remappable.

Oh, and some people have been whinging about aiming assistance and how it's on by default; setting aside that the original had it that way too (remember that BUILD was the first major engine that even HAD full mouselook, and a lot of players would have been controlling the game fully with the keyboard), it clearly states "Only applies to XBox 360 Controller for Windows" when you hover over the option.

 

[OakTable]

PC Gamer says Dragon Age II is the RPG of the decade. So, no, I don't trust them.

 

[GiantRaven]

10 hours sounds good to me. About as long as you can make an FPS without lots of filler... or a really, really convoluted story.

Well sure, but I would consider a 'good' length different to a 'long' length, if you catch my drift.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The mixed reviews:

-Community/User reviews: Almost entirely negative.
-Professional Reviews: Leaning more positive.

Obvious sources of bias on both sides:
-Community/User: Completely Honest reviews will likely be drowned out by Troll reviews. Generally, the more angry, the less credible since they are exaggerating to get attention. People love to hate things on the Internet. Hell, the #1 show on this website is based on that very principle.

-Professional Review: It's so hard to trust these. For one, there are so many bad/mediocre games get a good grade these days. That alone should tell you something.
Two: Anyone who knows even the basics of the business knows that advertising revenue pays the bills, and the #1 patron of these magazines are game publishers; whose product is under scrutiny here. Cue the obvious Business vs Ethics dilemma.

But most important of all: Criticism is still subjective material. You might get a better idea of an experience from someone else, but you will never know yours for certain based on that information alone.

 

[MightyMole]

It's got a 55 Metacritic score currently. Of course, of all the critic scores, the only one I recognized was Joystiq (Though I admittedly don't really know them or how credible they are) and they gave it a 40. This really won't effect my purchase, but its just kind of weird to see it getting so much negative feedback.

 

[Hobonicus]

I remember the Gamespot reviewers of Halo 1 and 2 docked it points for having a short 10 - 12 hour campaign.

:/