[GrabbagRules]

Ok, maybe not so much, but I have to express myself. I know this subject has probably been done to death, but I feel I have to express my criticisms towards people who continually bash DNF like a bad habit. Now do I think the game is a masterpiece? No way, not by a long shot (D3D fan all the way), however, I feel the game is good enough. It's successful at employing a proper Duke experience and it plays functionally. Still, admittedly, the game is mediocre at best and I wouldn't have gone on a critical rant towards the reviewer that rate the game so low had it not been for the fact that they do it for the most asinine and stupid reasons. Allow me to list them and give you my take:

1. Reviewer: I can't believe how bogus this game is! It took 12 years to make, so it should have been awesome.
My take: They always start the review with this statement. First of all, it didn't take 12 years to make on the Unreal 2.5 engine. It took 14 years to develop on the Quake Engine, only to scrap it and develope it on idTech2 Engine, then scrap it for UE1, etc. Second, where do they get the idea that if a game takes so long to develop that it will be awesome when usually it means problems as taking place. Isn't that why it's called "Development Hell"

2. Reviewer: The graphic are terrible and outdated.
My take: Outdated maybe, but terrible. It's only about a generation behind. It's on par with idTech4 as far as visuals yet nobody bashes its graphics. Seriously they make it out like it has PSX graphics from 1996.

3. Reviewer: The gameplay machanics are so old fasioned. It involves too much platforming and run-and-gunning.
My take: It started development in 1997. Those were normal gameplay mechanics back then.

4. Reviewer: They added to many modern elements like limited weapon capacity and regenerating health.
My take: Being an old school gamer, I can agree and yes two weapons is too little for Duke, but these type of elements are the norm now and had to be implemented to cater to the modern fps snobs.

My take on 3 & 4: Is it too old school or too modern? Make up your mind.

5. Reviewer: It's so misogynistic and perverted and vulgar.
My take: What the heck do you think D3D was? A kid's game. D3D was misogynistic and perverted and vulgar. You can't blame DNF for not only following the tradition, but increasing it to modern standards. People find the humor immature and out of place in a Duke Nukem game when really it's just the developers exploiting the freedoms they didn't have in 1996. In 1996, if D3D had a scene where Duke recieved oral sex from two women, retail stores would be forced to sell the game either in a backroom or behind the counter. And let's not forget the shit fit the media had over the content they already had, despite that by today's standars, the sexual content alone wouldn't recieve a rating higher than T.

6: Reviewer: Loading times are too long. They're like 48 seconds.
My take: Sometimes I wonder how old these reviewers are. Seriously? Less than a minute is too long for you? I'm 23 years old, and began using the internet in 1998. Unless you surfed the web with a 56k dial-up modem, you don't even know the meaning of, "load's too long." I put up with that for five years, and back then, there was no facebook, no myspace, no twitter, and no youtube. I survived. And since you'll have an easier time getting through a 48 second loading screen, I don't want to heat these kind of complaints, because now you're just nitpicking.

So overall, I don't approve of the criticism. Did I expect Duke Nukem Forever to be a hit? No, and personally I feel anyone that did was foolishly giving there hopes up. I just didn't foresee so many people bashing a game that although wasn't the best, was good enough.

Your opinions are welcome (criticisms included).

[Kathy]

It would have been better if you included actual quotes from the reviewers.

[Mad Max RW]

You're seven or eight months late.

[ReaperMan]

How about we have a burial of DNF and never talk about it..... was all a bad dream.

[X-Vector]

Duke Nukem Forever naysayers don't deserve a proper burial.

I say rape them, torture them, dissect them and leave them to the maggots.

[ReaperMan]

X-Vector, on 26 January 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

I say rape them, torture them, dissect them and leave them to the maggots.

......your weird.

[X-Vector]

My weird what?

[ReaperMan]

X-Vector, on 26 January 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

My weird what?

You want to rape men.

And the fact that you want to rape people in general is weird.

[GrabbagRules]

An example, but not the only one I've seen.

I didn't think I needed a to link proof considering I stated the most overused statements. And I just admitted I was late, you didn't have to rub it in my face. Look when I said burial, I meant I was sick of hearing the same asinine nitpicking. I'm not a DNF fanboy and never was. I'm just saying that if a game is going to be bashed so relentlessly, it better suck, not be a mere mediocre dissapointment like DNF was.

I though I was making a reasonable statement, but guess not.

[LeoD]

Nay.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

People dislike Duke Nukem Forever. It doesn't matter whether their reasons are rational or irrational, they dislike the game, and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. Just like there are people who like the game, and they won't change their mind. Move. On.

[GrabbagRules]

Ok, point taken. End of discussion.

[Mad Max RW]

ReaperMan, on 26 January 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

How about we have a burial of DNF and never talk about it..... was all a bad dream.

I disagree. If we forget then history is bound to repeat itself. However, learn from the past and not dwell on it.

[Micky C]

The reasons why a lot of people around here seriously dislike Duke Nukem Forever has nothing to do with a lot of those points. However there several different horrible, horrible gameplay mechanics which when work in unison make DNF a bad game. It's not so bad that it has horrible game mechanic A or B or whatever, it's that they have them all in the same game. The people here are usually smart enough to overlook things like the long development time and the graphics. And for the record, while they did make some assets for it to experiment before they got the quake 2 engine, DNF was never on the Quake engine.

[ReaperMan]

I though they worked on the Quake engine after experimenting with build and then updated to quake 2?

[rasmus thorup]

There are far worse people than dnf haters. There are actually people hating games that doesn't even have a trailer yet. Those games are often the most liked games in the world, and the people hating them, are the trolls. They are only trying to piss you off. So the best thing you can do is to ignore them.

[thatguy]

rasmus thorup, on 26 January 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

There are far worse people than dnf haters. There are actually people hating games that doesn't even have a trailer yet. Those games are often the most liked games in the world, and the people hating them, are the trolls. They are only trying to piss you off. So the best thing you can do is to ignore them.

Or people who hate a game because they didn't see gameplay in a teaser video....rarely you'll see gameplay in said format. :/ Or people who complain that a teaser is short and so on.

GrabbagRules, on 26 January 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

1. Reviewer: I can't believe how bogus this game is! It took 12 years to make, so it should have been awesome.
My take: They always start the review with this statement. First of all, it didn't take 12 years to make on the Unreal 2.5 engine. It took 14 years to develop on the Quake Engine, only to scrap it and develope it on idTech2 Engine, then scrap it for UE1, etc. Second, where do they get the idea that if a game takes so long to develop that it will be awesome when usually it means problems as taking place. Isn't that why it's called "Development Hell"

True and false. 12 years to develop a game. You don't have to scrap the design document and so on. All the concept art should all still be in tact...yet the gameplay itself still sucked. 12 years to build up and polish the game mechanics.....yeah.

Where does one get the idea that 12 year long development of a game should be awesome? Because they are wasting the money of people funding them and you expect that the blood sweat and tears would actually be put into something worthwhile. Development hell has nothing to do with the failure of 3d realms. Development hell was brought upon themselves. Development hell is used when something takes too long to make progress. Nothing kept 3d Realms from progressing except probably the people managing the project. Think about it, if people could remake Duke 3d just for fun and better than DNF, then maybe their whole tactics was all wrong.

Valve didn't take 12 years and still manages to provide well thought out experiences for the players. More thought than what DNF got.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

s.b.Newsom, on 26 January 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Valve didn't take 12 years and still manages to provide well thought out experiences for the players. More thought than what DNF got.

They were definitely pushing it close with Team Fortress 2, though, which spent a whopping nine years in development.

It was still worth the weight.

[thatguy]

The Mighty Bison, on 26 January 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

They were definitely pushing it close with Team Fortress 2, though, which spent a whopping nine years in development.

It was still worth the weight.

Actually they weren't working on it for the longest time. Unlike 3d Realms, Valve had a whole catalogue of games to work on. Half-life 2 being the main focus since they were developing the source engine. Then counter-strike source, then Team Fortress 2. Especially since TF2 is just a mp game. Half-life was the main focus. Now Episode 3 is taking forever, but that doesn't change the fact they are making other games. DNF was the primary/only focus for 3d Realms development team. And that took 12 years.

[Sangman]

The Mighty Bison, on 26 January 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

People dislike Duke Nukem Forever. It doesn't matter whether their reasons are rational or irrational, they dislike the game, and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. Just like there are people who like the game, and they won't change their mind. Move. On.

You're on a forum catered towards (well not really but it seems to be mostly drawing a certain audience) Eduke32 users and Duke Nukem fanboys, what do you expect

[Micky C]

Forget the graphics, forget the broken promises, forget the hype and development time.
1) At the end of the day, people just wanted a Duke Nukem game that at least vaguely resembled Duke 3D. However what we got was a game that was about as far from Duke 3D as we could possibly get. That's why some people hate DNF.

2) What it tried to do instead is copy every other game out there, but the photocopier must have been broken or something because it didn't copy across very well, and we just got a poor imitation of every other game. That's why other people hate DNF.

3) Now instead of being purely old school or purely modern in gameplay, it somehow managed to take the worst of both worlds (two weapon limit, linear levels, regenerating health, and boring platforming sequences and unoriginal puzzles) and put them in the same game, instead of the best of both worlds. However this is more a mishmash of points 1 and 2.

4) Now ignore the first line of this post. Take the graphics, broken promises, the hype and development into account, and although this shouldn't be a reason, this is why even more people hate DNF.

Check out this gameplay mechanic one of the developers talked about. This wasn't just some proposed idea, it was an actual functioning thing! It was in the game, and it sounds awesome. If this level of thought and care was put into every aspect of the game as I imagine it was at one stage, DNF would have truely been an amazing, revolutionary, and ultra fun game.

Wieder, on 04 January 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

One of my favorite weapons that didn't show up in the final game was one of the takes we had on a flame thrower. Essentially it was a standard flame thrower, the flame wall from Rise of the Triad, and a "trap layer" via a lingering cloud of gas.

The flame thrower aspect was the least interesting, this was around the Castle Wolfenstein awesomeness. It also had an alternate fire that did a basic form of the Flame Wall from ROTT which shot out several "balls" of fire that crawled along in a row climbing over short walls and such burning things in their path. At the time virtually everything that wasn't world geometry was able to be grabbed and thrown, caught on fire, and destroyed. So you'd send a wall down a hall and watch each thing light up and burn to a crisp as it went by.

The most fun for multiplayer though, was the gas laying. Basically you just left a cloud of gas around you. However due to the intricacy of the systems, all sorts of things would set the gas off and explode. If you walked in you would cough and take mild damage. If you fired a pistol or other weapon that had a "flame" while inside the gas, it would explode (similar damage to a pipe bomb). If you walked through with a flame thrower where the pilot light was lit, boom. If someone else was inside the gas, and you shot a piece of metal and it sparked, boom. If you threw a metal physics object into it and it hit another metal object which caused a spark... boom. If you caught a plant on fire, threw the plant into the gas cloud, boom.

The sort of traps you could come up with were a riot... because there were so many different ways of leaving a gas cloud behind in unexpected ways and have them set off.

Leave a gas cloud near a microwave, start the microwave... boom.

Notice how what I've talked about has very little correlation to what's in the first post, yet a few of those points have some grounding based on what I have talked about. Seriously, all the points in the first post were based on some kind of fact. Different people will have different opinions of how much or what kind of humour and platforming/puzzle solving should be in the game, but overall, the reviewers are right.
So please, go ahead and tell us there's no reason to hate the game. I dare you. Please come up with one reason why we should play DNF over any other game that no one can come up with a counter argument for.

You can't just ignore countless shitty points of a game and say "besides all those things, it was an ok game" because then developers will get the impression it's ok to make new shit because they think people will buy it.

[Kathy]

ReaperMan, on 26 January 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

I though they worked on the Quake engine after experimenting with build and then updated to quake 2?

They experimented on id Tech 1 (Quake1) engine while waiting for id Tech 2.
http://forums.3dreal...358&postcount=7

[Martin]

ReaperMan, on 26 January 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

How about we have a burial of DNF and never talk about it..... was all a bad dream.

Amen to that!

ReaperMan, on 26 January 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

You want to rape men. :lol:And the fact that you want to rape people in general is weird.

You didn't notice that he was having a pop at your grammar? You said "... your weird." when you should have said "... you're weird." To which he said...

X-Vector, on 26 January 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

My weird what?

... implying that you were talking about a weird possession of his. His weirdness doesn't belong to him, it is him.

Just saying!

[ReaperMan]

Grammar jokes suck.

[LeoD]

ReaperMan, on 27 January 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Grammar jokes suck.

A weird opinion that is.

[ReaperMan]

LeoD, on 27 January 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

A weird opinion that is.

Ironic since you spelled point wrong in the "Replacing HRP zip downloads with SVN checkout script" thread.

LeoD, on 27 January 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Pojnt no longer valid since Subversion 1.7........

[Martin]

Perhaps a thread dedicated to tracking and recording bad grammar is in order? Cu1pri75 g3t n@m3d & 5h@m3d!

[LeoD]

Martin, on 27 January 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Perhaps a thread dedicated to tracking and recording bad grammar is in order? Cu1pri75 g3t n@m3d & 5h@m3d!

Derailing of dead topics is more fun.

[Kathy]

Martin, on 27 January 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Perhaps a thread dedicated to tracking and recording bad grammar is in order? Cu1pri75 g3t n@m3d & 5h@m3d!

As an non-native speaker I would love it.

[LeoD]

Helel, on 27 January 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

As an non-native speaker I would love it.

Here you go!