Why was Duke Nukem "critically" panned?

[Erik_Twice]

Was it really that bad? Because it got scores like 3 out of 10 in an industry that never gives less than a seven and thinks Halo has amazing level design.

So why? Did Gearbox forget to bribe them like every other company? Was the game really that bad? Or are the "reviewers" just jumping ona chance to make themselves look cool? Because every single "review" I have read are a waste of words.

Any comments on the issue?

[AppleQueso]

I really do wonder what they expected from a game with a development history as problematic as DNF. It's not like they didn't KNOW about the development history.

[retrosportsgamer]

Was it really that bad? Because it got scores like 3 out of 10 in an industry that never gives less than a seven and thinks Halo has amazing level design.
So why? Did Gearbox forget to bribe them like every other company? Was the game really that bad? Or are the "reviewers" just jumping ona chance to make themselves look cool? Because every single "review" I have read are a waste of words.

Any comments on the issue?

Man, isn't this the truth? It's refreshing when you find folks that think a little bit deeper and aren't paid by advertisers. I was reading an essay that mentioned an old website (since shutdown since they didn't make any money) - crispygamer.com. Anyone read stuff there?

[noiseredux]

so wait, do any of you contend that Forever is a good game?

[o.pwuaioc]

so wait, do any of you contend that Forever is a good game?

It wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. At times it was really fun. And I'm not even a fan of this type of game.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

As a fan of Duke Nukem, I thought it was crap. First off, the graphics were painful to look at. Not just technically, the art was just plain gross in every way. Then they limit you to 2 weapons. Probably the biggest blow was the fact they turned what was a very maze like, open shooter into the on-rails style of Call of Duty. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make a game bad, but it doesn't belong in a Duke Nukem game. Especially when it was as poorly done as it was.

Was it really that bad? Because it got scores like 3 out of 10 in an industry that never gives less than a seven and thinks Halo has amazing level design.

So why? Did Gearbox forget to bribe them like every other company? Was the game really that bad? Or are the "reviewers" just jumping ona chance to make themselves look cool? Because every single "review" I have read are a waste of words.

Any comments on the issue?

Okay, I'm fucking sick of this. The reviewers aren't bribed, and neither are the companies. I don't know where you people fucking get this. As a general rule though, baiting (fan or flame) earns more hits which earns them more money. Also, reviewers are people too, and are perfectly entitled to their opinion. Sure you may not like Gears of War and Halo, but that doesn't make them bad games.

Also, regardless of how you feel about Halo's gameplay, it has historically had good level design.

[Pulsar_t]

I warmed up to DNF at first, but a couple of hours into the game I had to uninstall it. Everything felt like a cheap mod and the "humour" was rather ridiculous. I enjoyed the Brothers in Arms games and Borderlands but Gearbox couldn't have saved DNF even if they had had another 5 years.

[jfrost]

Was it really that bad? Because it got scores like 3 out of 10 in an industry that never gives less than a seven and thinks Halo has amazing level design.

So why? Did Gearbox forget to bribe them like every other company? Was the game really that bad? Or are the "reviewers" just jumping ona chance to make themselves look cool? Because every single "review" I have read are a waste of words.

Any comments on the issue?

Okay, I'm fucking sick of this. The reviewers aren't bribed, and neither are the companies. I don't know where you people fucking get this.

From here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010 ... tailed.ars

[MrPopo]

I had fun with it. Yes, there were several design decisions I disagreed with, but at the end of the day I was blowing shit up at a fast pace and that was fun.

[Xeogred]

Call of Duty vibes? Pa-leease. I felt like the later half of the game felt very FEAR / Half-Life 2 inspired, hell the vehicle segments and having to get gas for your monster truck for some shooting action in between was like straight up Half-Life 2 right there. Call of Duty is the last thing I'd think to compare DNF to. Not to mention the campaign was longer than 4 hours.

The game was fine. Play it yourself to form your own opinion. It's also worth noting the console versions were garbage compared to the PC release, and my PC isn't even that great at all but the game looked and ran way better than what I saw my friends play on the 360. WAY better. Hate to say it, but yeah.

It also made me remember how much I miss three story tall minotaurs with rocket launchers arms. Boss battles bitches, how I miss thee in FPS's.

The reviews thing was definitely bullshit. I don't think there's any hilarious conspiracy's going on, it's just that most reviewers out there suck anyways and a lot of people probably just saw X group give it a low score, so they tagged along. Mentioning the cliche' 7-10 scale is definitely funny and true though. So you could consider DNF a 6 perhaps, which is still fine.

If you guys haven't check out this guys rant on the whole situation. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but he's got some good points. The Game Informer stuff is hilarious and he just really hits upon the idea that most reviews blow chunks anyways. That's why nowadays I just stick to Gametrailers or something where I can actually see gameplay footage myself and judge better than just reading junk.