Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ars Technica Review Slams Duke Nukem Forever

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the huge-shocker-here dept.

Kethinov writes "Ars Technica writes one of their most negative reviews of a game in a long time, referring to Duke Nukem Forever as 'barely playable' and 'one of the worst games from a major studio in quite some time. The jokes border on hateful. The graphics are a blurry mess. The shooting is unsatisfying.' Their verdict? Skip this one."

8 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. duh? by jaymz666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? Was there any doubt?

    1. Re:duh? by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, all of the stuff that made DN3D so great is missing here. They've taken the worst cliches of modern shooters and stuck them onto something that looks superficially like Duke Nukem, while leaving out all of the good stuff from modern or classic shooters.

      I still can't believe they went for a 2 weapon limit, given the extent to which DN3D was about playing around with loads of cool and eccentric weapons. They even have the cheek to have a "joke" in there where Duke takes the mickey out of Halo power armour. Hate to break it to you, Duke, but you have only 2 weapons and a recharging shield bar. I'm no fan of the Master Chief, but the modern Duke looks like nothing more than a hanger on to his coat-tails.

      Now if they'd wanted to do a decent Halo joke, they'd have confined the player to a pistol and shotgun up to that point, then put the third gun next to the Halo power armour. When Duke went to pick up the third gun, he could have got the "hold X to swap guns" message, but on pressing it, he'd just add a third gun and say something like "Two gun limits? Who the hell do you think I am?" That would have been a neat jab at Halo - and would have made for a better game to boot (especially when he later went on to pick up 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc weapons as well).

  2. Re:14 years of hype by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Read the review. He didn't say it didn't live up to the hype, he said it was a terrible game. The humour is not risque, it's just offensive. The gameplay was tedious, a cover-based shooter, but without any support for cover except walking around a corner. The levels were linear and unimaginative. The one good point he identified in the game was that it was short.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Re:14 years of hype by revscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hype? More like "running joke". DNF wasn't hyped so much as it was ridiculed and made the butt of jokes.

    And not in a good way, either.

  4. Re:Here's the good news... by Gotung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In some sort of bizzaro world fashion the movie would probably turn out awesome.

  5. Re:What's wrong with calling it Faggs? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it's just not that funny. It's the kind of pun that you'd think was hilarious when you were 12, and then you'd either grow up, or you'd go on to make Duke Nukem Forever. Compare the humour in DNF with Duke3D or DN:MP, which had lines like 'guns don't kill mutants, I kill mutants.' Manhattan Project managed the same sort of cliche'd over-the-top macho action figure satire, but was actually fun and made you laugh (and I'm not saying that from the perspective of nostalgia: I played it for the first time over Christmas). It sounds like DNF doesn't, it just makes Duke Nukem sound like a dick.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Re:One of many by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hadn't spotted the PCGAMER review. That was a good, decent thing they did there, giving DNF 80%. They've sent out a nice clear signal that I should absolutely never let any of their reviews factor into a purchasing decision. Good of them to give me a warning like that, wasn't it? Refreshingly honest, in a curious way.

    This is not an 80% game. Five years ago, it might just about have been a 50% game. In fact, even that's generous. Resistance: Fall of Man is a vaguely similar fps which launched with the PS3 around 5 years ago and it is infinitely superior to DNF in every conceivable way.

  7. This is getting fucking ridiculous by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm the last person who should be defending this game as I've been taking the piss out of it for 5 years. I've never been a fanboy of the sequel, never did I have confidence it would ever deliver anything at all. I liked the original as a teenager but that's about it.

    Regardless though, I've nearly finished the game (Australia, we got it 4 days early) and I can say if you liked the original game, this is a fantastic melding of the original and modern day gameplay. This game is getting slammed far far too excessively.
    I guess it was to be expected - but I personally went in expecting garbage and got a half decent game. It's certainly better than diluted trash like Crysis 2.

    The game is a little obnoxious for the PC types but you know that going in to it, you wouldn't go to see Fast and the Furious 5 to expect high quality cinema. This game is trashy, dumb - yet quite fun, it's a guilty pleasure for my childish side and honestly the core gameplay itself? It's really fairly decent.

    The graphics while not top of the line (quite bad in spots) are also quite GOOD in other places, several scenes I've been outright surprised at how good they are.
    If you played the original game and you're in the 27 -> 45 age group with any sense of nostalgia, try it out with an open mind. Don't expect some thick storyline, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I know I was.
    P.S no it's not perfect, some scenes are frustrating in difficulty or not funny - but all games have low spots, overall, it's not even 1/3 as bad as some of these people are saying.