Duke Nukem Forever dismantled by Eurogamer. 3/10, ouch.

[wip3outguy7]

I will try reserve judgement until I at least play a demo. That doesn't keep me from scratching my head over some of the design decisions?

Regenerating health?
Pop over the iron sights?
Dash button that prevents you from shooting?
Only two weapons at a time?

It's beginning to sound like a 1990s FPS trapped in modern day skin.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...It's a fucking run n' gun. I don't need a fucking dash button. I don't need to pop up over the goddamned iron sights for an accurate shot. I also don't need the fucking game to slow down so that I can line up shots. I want to quick swap between the RPG, Shrink Ray, Chaingun and Shotgun. I CANNOT do this if I am only allowed to hold 2 weapons. My health regenerates if I pussy out long enough?

*huff puff* Ok, I'm done. Sorry.

[isiolia]

I think it's not just the mechanics that are odd for people. I mean, if you want fast and crazy action FPS, you're probably playing Serious Sam already and don't care. It sounds a lot to me like they took the adolescent humor of Duke3D and marched it straight into offensive and unfunny (and not just from outgrowing it).
I mean, figure, these are a lot of the same reviewers/publications that lauded the new Mortal Kombat, and that didn't exactly grow up either.

[Jmustang1968]

I figured someone would call me on that, but retro gamers aren't the majority and most people grow out of gaming when things like college and jobs take precedence. This isn't anything new; you can't really argue that the original target audience of DNF hasn't been diminished over the past decade.

Now, it is one man's opinion, but he articulates good points and has actually played the previous entries in the series. Among the noteworthy points are the lack of any new weapons, spotty physics, linearity with drab corridors, hit and run gameplay without a cover system, etc.

I think you are way off base in the first paragraph. The mid to upper 20s are one of the biggest gaming market segments

[bladerunner]

I figured someone would call me on that, but retro gamers aren't the majority and most people grow out of gaming when things like college and jobs take precedence. This isn't anything new; you can't really argue that the original target audience of DNF hasn't been diminished over the past decade.

Now, it is one man's opinion, but he articulates good points and has actually played the previous entries in the series. Among the noteworthy points are the lack of any new weapons, spotty physics, linearity with drab corridors, hit and run gameplay without a cover system, etc.

I think you are way off base in the first paragraph. The mid to upper 20s are one of the biggest gaming market segments

Totally right. The average age of a gamer is 37 and has been playing games for 12 years.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp

[Lodestar]

I stand corrected. That's very surprising, though I still very seldom come across anyone over the age of thirty in the communities I'm active in.

There's more to these statistics than meets the eye, however.

The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 41 years old.

This isn't surprising at all, considering parents frequently purchase games for their kids.

I don't even want to get into the sub-debate about casual gaming and how it might skew some of these statistics. For example, Angry Birds is one of the most popular games out now and has a combined total of 200 million downloads. I'm just speculating, but can you really call the majority of those people gamers if it's the only game they've played or owned? Keep in mind Angry Birds is just a single title in what is now the biggest and most lucrative facet of gaming today: casual gaming. Pretty much anyone who owns a gaming-capable phone has played this game at least once, it's ridiculously cheap and not a risky investment.

The industry is quick to call anyone that owns or has purchased a game a gamer, but I will always have trouble seeing it that way... is everyone who owns or has watched a film a film buff? There's also a significant amount of people unregistered, and therefore unaccounted for in these statistics. What if a father bought a console for his five kids and they all share an account that's under his name and information? I imagine there being a lot of instances like this.

Anyway, I'm mostly biased so take all of that with a grain of salt, I'm unlikely to ever consider people that play Facebook games, gamers. I also realize that tiering gamers is a dark road with questionable ways of determining who is and who isn't a "gamer."

Personally, I'd like to see a study based on just three big platforms: PC, console and handheld. It should be based on which players are most active - anyone that has played only a few times or rarely signs on should be omitted from the study. It's very possible that these results would deviate a lot from ESA's.

Relevant/interesting: http://gigaom.com/2010/02/17/average-so ... old-woman/

[MrPopo]

You raise a good point that the statistics really change on how you define a gamer. But think of it this way. The NES was wildly popular, the SNES and Genesis as well. Those came out 20-30 years ago. Even if you want to say the PS1 was where games got really popular, that was 15 years ago. The 10 year olds who were raised on those games are now 25-35 years old. Just because you get older doesn't mean you stop playing video games. Many people cut back, sure, but they still will find a few they want to play on weekends. It might seem that a disproportionate number of gamers are young kids, but I think that's because they feel the need to vocalize themselves in a way that the veteran gamer doesn't. When you've been gaming for 20 years you seem to feel less of a need to trash talk the people you play with.

[bladerunner]

For myself, I can say I play games more now than I did when I was younger, mainly because my parents limited my game time and my funds were limited. Now I am 28, gaming for just over 20 years, and I play perhaps 5-10 hours a week, which I consider modest.

Back on topic:

I think I am halfway through DNF and the game is getting a bit better. It really does feel like an FPS from the turn of the millennium, which I think is good. The two weapon limit is the my biggest peeve along with the duck-n-cover system and inability to run all the time. Those things alone seem to be the product of newer FPS games and break the nostalgic rush. So far, I'd give it a 6/10.

[Jmustang1968]

I buy and play more games now that I have an income to support my gaming hobby. Before I got a game for bday or xmas or if I managed to save up.

[t0yrobo]

I'm not surprised by the critics reactions one bit. I'll just continue wishing that they make a proper sequel to Duke Nukem 2.

[BoringSupreez]

Gamespot's opinion is out now. 3.0 for 360, 3.5 for PC. No review for PS3 yet, but it'll probably be the same as the 360 version.