[trustn0!]

Consider me biased against MW3 seeing as i expect nothing but the same tiresome mechanics that pissed me off since COD4 if i did play it.

Its entire formula is what drives me up the wall,polished as it is.
I wouldnt have an issue with a so called "cinematic experience" if i gave two shits about its plot.

But i dont.

DNF is unpolished in its structure but at least i had a more satisfying experience with that than the 5 and a half hour wankfest that Black Ops was.

I thought i was playing an FPS,not a goddamn railshooter.
Fuck polish,give me more gratifying gameplay mechanics that go beyond the tiresome formula of "set your ironsights on the copy pasted unidentified terrorist while the clock strikes bullettime".

[Kathy]

Even if CoD is a turd, at least it's a polished one unlike DNF.

[trustn0!]

And thats where the great divide lies now doesnt it?

I dont consider DNF to be a bad game.
Not in the damn slightest.

Fact is,i enjoyed every minute of DNF.
Its has problems coming out of every piece it was stitched from and its so inferior to its predecessor its not even funny in hindsight and considering its history it is a disappointment.

But it is still far more interesting and gratifying than almost every FPS released last year.

[Come On And Slam]

trustn0!, on 06 July 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Consider me biased against MW3 seeing as i expect nothing but the same tiresome mechanics that pissed me off since COD4 if i did play it.

Its entire formula is what drives me up the wall,polished as it is.
I wouldnt have an issue with a so called "cinematic experience" if i gave two shits about its plot.

But i dont.

DNF is unpolished in its structure but at least i had a more satisfying experience with that than the 5 and a half hour wankfest that Black Ops was.

I thought i was playing an FPS,not a goddamn railshooter.
Fuck polish,give me more gratifying gameplay mechanics that go beyond the tiresome formula of "set your ironsights on the copy pasted unidentified terrorist while the clock strikes bullettime".

THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES THANK YOU.

[Martin]

I think I understand your position a lot more now, trustn0!. While our ways of seeing these things aren't the same, I understand you. Whereas I'm up for pretty much anything of good quality given the right mood (I'm sure I'd like a lot of your favourite shooters if I was inclined), you greatly prefer certain qualities in your shooters. I too admire old shooters for that. That sense of exploring the game world. I dare say the most crucial thing that separates archetypal modern shooters from the old greats is not their linearity, but the simple inclusion of the waypoint marker. This takes away that feeling of exploring, simply because you never have to find anything. Everything you need is shown to you. It's funny, before DNF I never actually noticed that things in COD you need to interact with are shown to you via flashing yellow. Whilst playing MW3 I saw it happen of course, and the funny thing is it reminded me of DNF. When I saw it in DNF, I noticed it. It was just kind of weird.

If you really ignore the waypoint marker and try and find the intel documents or whatever hidden collectibles are strewn through the levels in COD, you'll often find yourself in rooms or whatever that you'd never ordinarily be in just by following it. Given this, the game probably isn't that drastically more linear in terms of level-design than Half-Life. The real difference is that in Half-Life, there is not a flashing beacon on the screen at all times showing you where to go or what to do. You have to figure it out. COD is just the best in it's given little field - the tightly scripted linear shooter. I respect it for that, and indeed turn to it when that's what I want. You never feel like playing, or ever enjoy playing that sort of thing.

I also understand broader concerns of this style of game becoming too popular, as when I'm hankering for a new shooter of a different style, I can often find it difficult to find one. That's a problem. It may ultimately be down to COD's popularity, but that's not COD's fault. It's all those people who swear by it and only it, and aren't willing to try anything else. My mate Sean is a competition-level COD player. His clan are regularly in the top 100 in the world. I honestly don't know how good that actually is (how many clans sign up to these tournaments?), but he always eats me alive if we play. Anyway, he doesn't play anything else. I shit you not. 0 other games. Ever. If you give him the reigns of another game, he can't play it. He looks like a total non-gamer trying to play. I also know a few few people who pretty much only play COD (and only the latest one) online. I don't know, but I imagine these people make up a significant portion of the user base. I think they're the people that get into hysterics swearing if you kill them.

Anyway, I do understand your point.

[Mikko]

Martin, on 07 July 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I dare say the most crucial thing that separates archetypal modern shooters from the old greats is not their linearity, but the simple inclusion of the waypoint marker. This takes away that feeling of exploring, simply because you never have to find anything.

The marker of course makes perfect sense in a game like CoD. You're fighting a war, you know your objective: you're not expected to crisscross the streets of war-torn Manhattan looking for health kits, stumbling into random enemy soldiers and secret closets while your squad and tanks stand by. CoD works exactly the way it should and it's perfect for what it is. As you said, it's not CoD's fault if other games learn all the wrong lessons from it.

[Blue Lightning]

Mikko_Sandt, on 07 July 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

The marker of course makes perfect sense in a game like CoD. You're fighting a war, you know your objective: you're not expected to crisscross the streets of war-torn Manhattan looking for health kits, stumbling into random enemy soldiers and secret closets while your squad and tanks stand by. CoD works exactly the way it should and it's perfect for what it is. As you said, it's not CoD's fault if other games learn all the wrong lessons from it.

Agreed.

And it is also true that HL1 was fairly linear as someone mentioned, but it worked well for what it was...although I didnt like it as much as HL2, which had many secrets and extra routes.

But to DNF...as mentioned by others, DNF was too linear with no secrets or extra routes. And unlike the 96' game which was hilarious with puposely cheezy but smart one liners, DNF had some unfunny cheezyness (picking up a turd in the toilet is unfunny...drawing dicks in unfunny). It also had some bad mechanics (I have to press E to step on shrunkin foes?). And it had forced battles (Cant get around enemies or retreat really, like in the 1996 game...you have to defeat all of them to advance. Booo).

I hated driving in the 3rd person. Half Life 2 shows how well first person vehicles work. Did George not drive the buggy or the airboat?

DNF- Some good battle moments, some good one liners, some memorable moments keep the game from being a total loss. Bottom line is yes DNF was a dissapointment to many of us. Not the worst in the world, but nothing like the original. It felt thrown together...which it was. However, the addition to 4 weapons at a time was nice. For me, that upgrade is the only thing keeping it out of the 50's, score wise.

My score 65/100.

trustn0!, on 06 July 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

But it is still far more interesting and gratifying than almost every FPS released last year.

That aint saying much. FPS games have dramatically dropped in quality (in my opinion). I havent seen a good one since Bioshock II.

[Blue Lightning]

Sorry, accedently added a post, trying to edit last post.

[trustn0!]

Blue Lightning, on 07 July 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

That aint saying much. FPS games have dramatically dropped in quality (in my opinion). I havent seen a good one since Bioshock II.

Ill tell you one that i did like that came out this year.
Short and sweet and focused like a laser pen.

Darkness 2

[Blue Lightning]

trustn0!, on 07 July 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Ill tell you one that i did like that came out this year.
Short and sweet and focused like a laser pen.

Darkness 2

Yeah, I looked at some playthrough vid on YouTube. It might not be for me, looks very linear (I could be wrong) and it has mabye too much story? (Im not the story type, Im the exploration/adventure type). But I couldnt rate it, since I havent played it. It looks nice, has some very good gameplay mechanics and battles. I might try the demo at Steam.

But DNF is one of those games that MOST players will agree is below avarage. Trust me, if the game had been kick ass, Take Two would of given George the 5 million. I remember after Half Life 2 was released, everybody was talking about it and it was getting massive praise. That must of been irretating to George for some reason...he said "DNF will kick HL2's ass"!

Man, it wasnt even close.

And Im not an HL2 fan boy (although I love the game). Hell, Dark Messiah Might and Magic for the PC (2006) is in my opinion the most advanced FPS game out there to this day, and showed Valve about 100 new tricks WITH VALVES OWN ENGINE! Damn, those French can build a video game!

[necroslut]

Blue Lightning, on 08 July 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

But DNF is one of those games that MOST players will agree is below avarage. Trust me, if the game had been kick ass, Take Two would of given George the 5 million. I remember after Half Life 2 was released, everybody was talking about it and it was getting massive praise. That must of been irretating to George for some reason...he said "DNF will kick HL2's ass"!

Man, it wasnt even close.

IMO DNF was a bit like a punk record - the execution wasn't exactly flawless - and that will never go over with most people, especially not when it's so hyped up. People were just looking for reasons to tear it apart, and they found plenty of them.
I mean, to a lot of people Justin Bieber is the pinnacle of music, or Michael Bay the pinnacle of Cinema. Doesn't really mean a lot.

[Martin]

Good points, but ultimately the fans deserved way better, and for that DNF deserved to be critically-panned.

[Kathy]

necroslut, on 09 July 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

IMO DNF was a bit like a punk record - the execution wasn't exactly flawless - and that will never go over with most people, especially not when it's so hyped up. People were just looking for reasons to tear it apart, and they found plenty of them.
I mean, to a lot of people Justin Bieber is the pinnacle of music, or Michael Bay the pinnacle of Cinema. Doesn't really mean a lot.

That's the stupidiest analogy I've heard about DNF.

[LeoD]

Burnett, on 09 July 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

That's the stupidiest analogy I've heard about DNF.

Yeah, replace Michael Bay with Uwe Boll.

[trustn0!]

Martin, on 09 July 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

and for that DNF deserved to be critically-panned.

I disagree.

The fans DID deserve better,
But the game did not deserve to be treated the way it did by so called "professional reviewers" .

If that was the case for every game then why the hell did DA2 receive perfect scores even though every one and their mother can agree it was one of the worst RPGs EVER MADE.
Apply the same logic to FF13,RE5 and ME3.

If anything however i can say that i believe the criticism (unfair most of it was though) is actually a good thing for the series.
It hammers down the point that they have to give it their all in the next game.
Thats my take on it at least.

[necroslut]

Even though there is a lot not to like about DNF, I found even more that I liked. And maybe in a few years, when you have gotten over the feeling that you deserved better, you will too. It's certainly not flawless, neither in design or execution, but hardly the opposite either.

[Blue Lightning]

necroslut, on 09 July 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Even though there is a lot not to like about DNF, I found even more that I liked. And maybe in a few years, when you have gotten over the feeling that you deserved better, you will too. It's certainly not flawless, neither in design or execution, but hardly the opposite either.

The problem Necro is that DNF doesnt have any replay value because it is so linear in mapping and battle design. I doubt many of us will replay the thing.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

trustn0!, on 09 July 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

If that was the case for every game then why the hell did DA2 receive perfect scores even though every one and their mother can agree it was one of the worst RPGs EVER MADE.
Apply the same logic to FF13,RE5 and ME3.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Kathy]

trustn0!, on 09 July 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

If that was the case for every game then why the hell did DA2 receive perfect scores even though every one and their mother can agree it was one of the worst RPGs EVER MADE.

Speak for yourself, not everyone.

Blue Lightning, on 09 July 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

The problem Necro is that DNF doesnt have any replay value because it is so linear in mapping and battle design. I doubt many of us will replay the thing.

Yep, that's why not many people replayed Half-Life.

[trustn0!]

I can speak as a person who liked DAO even if the story did tick me off in the structure.
My first playthough really annoyed me but after i booted it up i really got into it.

DA2 however was a colossal failure in every regard.
And this isnt just me saying it.

You want a perfect example on why so called "game reviewers" fail at their job then look no further than that game

[Kathy]

trustn0!, on 09 July 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

I can speak as a person who liked DAO even if the story did tick me off in the structure.
My first playthough really annoyed me but after i booted it up i really got into it.
DA2 however was a colossal failure in every regard.

For you - perhaps, but you don't know if it was for "every one and their mother".

Quote

You want a perfect example on why so called "game reviewers" fail at their job then look no further than that game

You failed to understand that reviews aren't objective even if they are professional and that score doesn't mean much unless you read a specific review.

[trustn0!]

I never said anything about a reviewers opinions being objective or not(an oxymoron since an opinion by its definition CANT be objective)

Im calling them out however for not knowing what the hell they are looking for.

[necroslut]

Blue Lightning, on 09 July 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

The problem Necro is that DNF doesnt have any replay value because it is so linear in mapping and battle design. I doubt many of us will replay the thing.

It has to have some replay value, since I've played through it seven times, and will play it again. I also know I'm not alone here, even though we're clearly a minority.
I would really have loved if DNF was less linear, but it's not really like most FPS games today are any different or I'd play them instead.

[----]

For me the replay value (or lack of it) doesn't come so much from linearity but because I personally don't find the gunplay fun.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

fuegerstef, on 10 July 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

For me the replay value (or lack of it) doesn't come so much from linearity but because I personally don't find the gunplay fun.

It comes as an absolute knee-slapper to me that trustn0! downvoted your post, as if your opinion - no matter how heartfelt it may be - was somehow invalid, yet I think that's a completely legitimate criticism for ANY first-person shooter.

How can you force someone to like something that they don't get thrill and enjoyment from?

[trustn0!]

2 things before you start running your mouth

I thought the whole point of using a grading system on posts is to give validity to a post or another.

How much of a knee jerk response is that to complain about who downvoted who over what?
Just as anyone can do the same to my posts.

Second.
It was a mistake,i wanted to UPVOTE it because that is a valid grievance for some.
Beyond the shotgun,the guns needed to be a hell of alot meatier(excluding things like the shrink and freezeray)
Also while i liked certain encounters,there are plenty of instances where they had to tightened up.

DLC remedied this to a point but there are certain points where again it needed tuning.

One thing i dont get about the DLC is a fight right at the beginning of it.
First area you fight the bots in and they come via tubes.


Why the hell should there be a turret there?
They offer ammo and explosive boxes right around the corner and its a hell of alot more fun to shoot em up normally so why have the turret there?
To make things easier i guess?

But again it was stupid decision to have it at the forefront if i say so

[Graywolf]

Yes, its rubbish.

Duke 3D had an amazing lasting appeal, and not even need to count the mods/usermaps; the amazing content present through 4 great episodes are more than enough to make that package worthwhile. How the guy that developed such game creates such a dull, terrible and unpolished singleplayer experience years later? George completely lost it, i'm glad that actually DNF is dead now and we can now hope for a better future.

[Martin]

Indeed. I actually got a whiff of DNF on PC today, and it still stank. The shorter load times and better performance were welcome, but it was still a crappy game.

[hismasterplan]

What I found ironic in TDWCM, was after the elevator ride with Dylan before going to the transporter, Duke says something like "time to storm the fort." Then immediately I start sprinting and Duke runs out of breath, slowing down and breathing heavily. It was a classic showcase of why Duke and today's trends do not mix. I did enjoy the DLC better than the campaign, but like most stated. It's shorter, his character is cleaned up a bit. Level design and the health system; they couldn't help much, but hopefully it'll change in the next game. I'm sure the developers are ready to move on and won't be touching this game again.

[OpenMaw]

necroslut, on 09 July 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

IMO DNF was a bit like a punk record - the execution wasn't exactly flawless - and that will never go over with most people, especially not when it's so hyped up. People were just looking for reasons to tear it apart, and they found plenty of them.
I mean, to a lot of people Justin Bieber is the pinnacle of music, or Michael Bay the pinnacle of Cinema. Doesn't really mean a lot.

No. People were not looking for a reason to tear it apart. Reasons are very evident in the game.

People, on the contrary to the mass cynicism people seem to carry around, wanted Duke Nukem Forever to be good and indeed FREAKING AWESOME.