"Duke Nukem Forever Is Irrelevant"

2 Pages
←
1
2

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

"Duke Nukem Forever Is Irrelevant"

Come On And Slam

#31 Posted 19 September 2011 - 02:49 PM

Mikko_Sandt, on 22 June 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

Well CoD is anything but irrelevant. DNF is totally irrelevant compared to the CoD franchise. The fact is that DNF is heavily influenced by the franchise, not vice versa. This is because CoD is not irrelevant but DNF is.

....You...DARE...what...how...

I'm speechless.... How could someone do this?!

Duke_Forever

#32 Posted 19 September 2011 - 06:18 PM

They could be saying that there's no point in having a character like Duke in games anymore with so many other macho-man characters in gaming (which I disagree) or maybe people (like IGN) are just dumb and unintelligent.

Jeff

#33 Posted 21 September 2011 - 08:39 AM

These review sites are just pissed off because it took 14 years to release the game. So now they just want to point and make fun, which is unprofessional on their part.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#34 Posted 21 September 2011 - 01:38 PM

Or they could be saying DNF is irrelevant because it's been watered down. DNF is not Duke Nukem.

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#35 Posted 21 September 2011 - 07:36 PM

I don't disagree with the critics, "irrelevant" sounds like a good answer.

Duke Nukem Forever was hyped intensively before release, to turn out being a mediocre and uninspired game.

This post has been edited by Fox: 21 September 2011 - 07:36 PM

coheed82

#36 Posted 21 September 2011 - 08:13 PM

Micky C, on 19 June 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

In 100 years people are barely going to remember what COD was, except for a type of fish. It'll be games like Duke Nukem that'll eco through the ages. COD is like eating a plain piece of white bread in a quiet room with no windows. Duke Nukem is like eating a meatlovers pizza with your mates, washing it down with some beers, and cracking jokes all night long.

Heya Mickey C. i agree! oh and heya everyone else too ive been gone awhile. but if ya wanna know why then simply check out the link..

http://www.crydev.ne...=853295#p853295

im making a mod for crysis based on the upcoming game Skyrim!

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#37 Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:44 AM

"Irrelevant" doesn't mean "done badly".

Oook

#38 Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:00 AM

Bah, this comment is really irrelevant. How can be irrelevant the end of a fifteen years nightmare?
Also, I'm really looking forward for the DLC, from what we know about achievements it seems very cool.

DN4ever

#39 Posted 23 September 2011 - 02:31 PM

How come? Why is CoD relevant? You get a new one anyway every year, so what's the point hyping on that franchise 'cos they'll be back next year with more weapons, more perks, new maps and new crappy storyline. Duke Nukem Forever is absolutely relevant, because it's something very unique, you liked it or not.

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#40 Posted 23 September 2011 - 02:47 PM

Duke Nukem Forever is not unique, it's heavily inspired by modern shooter games

Anything "unique" from Duke Nukem Forever was already present in Duke Nukem 3D

This post has been edited by Fox: 23 September 2011 - 02:47 PM

ReaperMan

#41 Posted 23 September 2011 - 06:57 PM

Fox, on 23 September 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

Duke Nukem Forever is not unique, it's heavily inspired by modern shooter games

Anything "unique" from Duke Nukem Forever was already present in Duke Nukem 3D

O' really? What about the dedicated beer button, the um.... poop throwing and..... thats about it.

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#42 Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:26 PM

I have seen things like these in other games before, so it's not unique either.

Micky C

Honored Donor

#43 Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:51 PM

If one is to consider Duke Nukem irrelevant, then one would have to consider all games irrelevant, which they are to a degree as they serve no practical function in life (i.e they don't build bridges or cure cancer). In that case, you'd have to consider a great many other things irrelevant, and most ironically the game reviewers themselves, who made the comment in the first place, would be the most irrelevant objects of all, spending their lives writing irrelevant reviews about something completely irrelevant.

If games were colours, you can't just say "oh, purple and orange are relevant, but green? nah forget about green, that's completely irrelevant." It's really an all or nothing deal. So clearly all games, no matter how bad they are, are relevant in today's society.

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#44 Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:19 PM

I suppose a better analogy would be to compare games with art. Is art completely irrelevant? At least we can assure that some art is more relevant than other.

In DNF case, it would be like an artist in 2011 painting "Monalisa with a moustache", something which the critics would call irrelevant.

Perhaps DNF would be a revolutionary game in 2001, however probably any idea from it was already used by other shooters during these 10 years. Thus the current DNF doesn't add anything new to the gaming community (like it was hyped), and possibly the 2001 prototype would still be more revolutionary than the 2011 release.

This post has been edited by Fox: 23 September 2011 - 08:25 PM

Micky C

Honored Donor

#45 Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:41 PM

Yes that is a much better analogy.

All things considered, if DNF was exactly the same as it was released, but with really good, complex, non-linear level design, it would have been so much better, 'revolutionary' in a way. Kind of like science was rediscovered after the dark ages.
The level design was by far the biggest letdown for me, it was the one thing I was completely sure DNF would get right. It didn't even occur to me that DNF would have anything but the best levels. It was a real let down Posted Image

.

If the next Duke game has those levels, then it'd be one of the most relevant games of the decade.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#46 Posted 23 September 2011 - 10:04 PM

DN4ever, on 23 September 2011 - 02:31 PM, said:

Actually, being unique would make it irrelevant. COD is relevant because it sets the standard for what sells. Doesn't matter whether it's good or bad.

Oook

#47 Posted 24 September 2011 - 01:15 AM

Fox, on 23 September 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

In DNF case, it would be like an artist in 2011 painting "Monalisa with a moustache", something which the critics would call irrelevant.

Sure? Do you know Mr Brainwash?
I have to say I found DNF very original (at least, more than most current FPS). I love the Duke Burger level, I haven't seen before such amazing platforming level like this on a FPS. And I really enjoyed killing pigs with the Mighty Foot and, since DN3D, I haven't touched a freezing weapon or a shrinker!

ThePinkus

#48 Posted 24 September 2011 - 01:38 AM

coheed82, on 21 September 2011 - 08:13 PM, said:

Boys and girls, THIS is what irrelevant is

thelegend4ever

#49 Posted 24 September 2011 - 03:53 AM

Duke Nukem the character is NOT irrelevant...despite what the critics want you to think. DNF however, brings NOTHING new to the table. Do I agree with everything the reviwers said about the game? No. I think the game is still enjoyable, but the fact is, the community for it is long dead, save for a few people. It's a shame the the series is becoming more of a mockery than anything. I believe Duke will get his rep back as the badass he once was (according to many people) one day. I was hoping that would happen with DNR, but, eh, we know what happened with that. Maybe Duke Begins will be the true "rebirth" for the franchise.

This post has been edited by thelegend4ever: 24 September 2011 - 03:54 AM

Martin

#50 Posted 24 September 2011 - 04:02 AM

Duke Nukem is irrelevant, in the scheme of things. That's no cuss, as I don't believe irrelevance to be an insult. It's not because DNF sucks balls. Duke Nukem as a character is not relevant to much at all. Who cares? People need to stop chucking terms around like 'relevance' as an insult, because it just makes them look ignorant.

Fox

Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#51 Posted 24 September 2011 - 06:39 AM

Captain Awesome, on 23 September 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Actually, being unique would make it irrelevant. COD is relevant because it sets the standard for what sells. Doesn't matter whether it's good or bad.

Who determines what is good or bad? Which games exactly would you consider better than the likes of CoD?

This post has been edited by Fox: 24 September 2011 - 06:40 AM

McMaster

#52 Posted 24 September 2011 - 08:14 AM

Hey guys, I have a question:

What's big, grey and really doesn't matter?

Spoiler

Thank you.

Jimmy

Let's go Brandon!

#53 Posted 24 September 2011 - 06:20 PM

Fox, on 24 September 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

Who determines what is good or bad? Which games exactly would you consider better than the likes of CoD?

Uh... I don't think you got what I was saying. He was basically saying he didn't understand how CoD was relevant even though it sucked in his opinion. I was simply saying it was relevant because it sets the standard for what sells. We all know that sales doesn't always mean a game is good, or bad. Tons of shit games have sold millions, and tons of great games have sold hundreds.

Come On And Slam

#54 Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:32 PM

I suppose irrelevance can't be anything that can be complained about, because the COD characters are BEYOND irrelevant. They just get re-hashed, and they have no damn personality. At least Duke Nukem isn't a fucking robot.

Martin

#55 Posted 25 September 2011 - 06:08 AM

I'm biased, but I enjoy the Brits in Modern Warfare. Especially in the first one.

"What the hell kind of name is Soap, eh? How'd a muppet like you pass selection?"