Why was Duke Nukem "critically" panned?

[KillerJuan77]

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

I really liked it, I expected unfinished garbage TBH and I ended up with a pretty decent shooter.

[Zing]

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

[BoneSnapDeez]

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.

"Bribed" might not be the right word, but the big name video game reviewers are certainly in the pockets of developers. Take Game Informer magazine, they are in the business to sell games (at Gamestop). And such, hyped up games they know will sell (Halo, Gears of War) will get raving reviews no matter how shitty. Negative reviews are simply reserved for more obscure games. No one is going to be swayed by a reviewer calling a NIS game a piece of shit. JRPG freaks like me will buy it anyway and "mainstream" gamers never had it on their radar in the first place.

If you want trustworthy reviews, check out fan sites, GameFAQs user reviews, etc. IGN and Game Informer are the last places to look.

[Xeogred]

Yeah, in the video I posted about the guy ranting about DNF (he gave it a fair 6.5 himself), he brought out a Game Informer issue that had the Witcher 2 review. Quoted most of the review and it was nothing but complaints and complaints, major issues, practically describing the combat as impossible and other elements in the game being broken, but it got a 9.25 in the end. Way to go .

[Erik_Twice]

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.

That surely seems to be the case. It's...weird to say the least.

If you guys haven't check out this guys rant on the whole situation [...]

I think it was a very good rant. The magazine part where he showed a review where the critic calls a game a disaster but gives it 9.25 out of 10 was amazing. Thanks for the link.

(That said, his comments on game difficulty are way off)

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.

While fortunatedly it doesn't apply to everyone there have been dozens of examples out there, taining every major videogame site around.

Jfrost already linked an article about the Call of Duty Spa and IGN saying that they couldn't give a certain game less than a 7 under fear of Sony removing the ads shouldn't be hard to find. We also have the amazing Kane & Lynch 2 reviews that ended with a critic fired after writting an honest review of the game and giving it a 6.

Let's be frank, the gaming press has an unhealthy amount of bullshit. And I'm not talking about how the hate shmups, I'm talking about conflict of interests, lies and lack of profesionalism. Big issues when it comes to press.

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.

They are entitled to it. However that doesn't mean they are right.

I don't think Halo is bad because I don't like it. I don't like it because it doesn't suit my personal preferences but I think it's bad because of the weapon and level design as well as some mechanics.

I think it's perfectly possible to like bad games and hate good ones. I do so myself!


I wrote a long paragraph about Halo's level design but I deleted it by copypasting so I will make only a short statement. I find it quite bad, like a linear Quake. For me the defining part of the game was this bridge near the beginning of the game that was littered with boxes and you had to cross. It felt horrible, it was the FPS equivalent of those modern Castlevania games with dozens of enemies randomly placed in a corridor only that the entire part of the game I played was like that. Ugh.

[KingDavid73]

personally, I thought DNF was a decent game. Not amazing, but it was a fun playthrough and was actually pretty funny.

[saturnfan]

I have not played Duken Nukem Forever yet, although because I was a big Duke Nukem 3D fan I do plan on picking it up. Because of the negative press and horrible reviews, it should be in the bargain bin sooner than later.

However, I do want to say that I feel all the 3s and 4s out of 10 it got is pretty ridiculous. In my opinion, a game that gets 3/10 is one that A) technically broken (massive and frequent slow down, bugs, glitches, etc.) B) flat out boring and C) painful to play. I find it hard to believe that the game could be that bad, especially when compared to other mediocre games that are kind of boring.

Game Informer, surprising, probably gave it the most honest review at 6.75. Duke Nukem might be a mediocre game, but I can't imagine it painful to play through.

[KingDavid73]

Game Informer, surprising, probably gave it the most honest review at 6.75. Duke Nukem might be a mediocre game, but I can't imagine it painful to play through.

It wasn't a pain at all. The only negative was the longish load times. I hear the PC version runs much more smoothly than the 360 version (which is the version I have).

[MrPopo]

I have not played Duken Nukem Forever yet, although because I was a big Duke Nukem 3D fan I do plan on picking it up. Because of the negative press and horrible reviews, it should be in the bargain bin sooner than later.

It's 50% off on Steam right now, so $10 for a copy. The game requires Steam anyway, so you don't gain much with a hard copy.

[fastbilly1]

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.

A good friend of mine wrote for several big websites that I will not name, for a time a couple years ago. He often had new toys that would magically appear at his doorstep courtesy of publishers. When he was at E3 he had his flight, hotel, food, and entertainment all covered by one of the company's.

Did he get bribed by them giving him money, no. Did they bribe him with liquor and free toys, yes. A bribe is a bribe, and he did what they all do and fell in line for more freebies.

On the flipside, he did make 35,000ish a year and worked 100 something hour weeks.