Duke Nukem Forever review controversy

Huh, really? With the exception of PC Gamer, almost all review I read had the exactly opposite reaction: "The game was more than 12 years in development. If it is not the best thing since slice bread, it cant be anything else than horrible game."

In my opinion...it was a huge downgrade from the original...it improved in a few areas, such as plasmids gaining new powers as they level up, but everywhere else, it was a big downgrade everywhere else...so many wasted potentials.

...or maybe I expected too much from it...

It was sort of my reaction of Resident Evil 5 compared to my much more positive reaction to Resident Evil 4...only to a much bigger scale, since instead of improving on the game, Bio Shock 2 got worse.

Hence why it sucked...and I give it a 5. But some of the reviewers gave it 2 out of 10 and put too much emphasis on the "offensive humor". The game was bad, but not 2/10 bad. Ignore the fact that it took 14 years to make, and this game will not be as bad as people keep saying it is...bad, but not as bad.

Ignore all the hype, all the advertising making it look like it'll be an awesome and highly anticipated game, etc. Will people be as mad if those didn't exist?

edited 18th Jun '11 3:15:55 PM by Signed

"Shooting while not spectacular works well, with puzzles providing welcome, if flawed diversion and humor will be considered funny by many, despite (or maybe because) being offensive and often pretty stupid"?

4. It's a sub-par game really and lacks the fun of the 3D.

From what I've read from the reviews, I can understand their reasoning. Speaking purely for myself, I found Duke Nukem 3D to be a fun shooter for the time in was released, but the infantile humour actually detracted from that. The same with Shadow Warrior (also by 3D Realms). I haven't played Duke Nukem Forever, but if judging from the reviews and pre-release hype they focused even more on that "humour" it would be enough for me to deduct one or maybe two stars from the score. That would be enough to reduce an otherwise three star mediocre shooter to two or one - the scores I've been seeing. If the humour makes it less fun, then it's worse as a game.

I also don't see the point in companies inflicting bans. Sure, you might put some temporary pressure on a handful of reviewers to act favourable in fear of ad dollars. But the news always gets out, and it makes it look like the lower scores were the correct ones and no-one is going to fully trust reviews of your games again.

Of course, by it's very nature, a review is a subjective bit of work and thus for the most part can't be wrong. If a reviewer says they're not biased because of Hype Backlash, why should we necessarily believe that they're not being accurate or honest?

Anyways, I have to sympathize with game reviewers as no matter what game they choose to give a negative review to, a bunch of fanboys/fangirls (in some cases, developers) will get mad at the reviewer and heap bile upon them.

edited 18th Jun '11 8:30:41 PM by CBanana

How is the game so offensive? It can't be anymore offensive than the second True Crime game I'd imagine.

<Mod head peers around the doorframe>

Hey, can you try to keep this thread to talking about the reviews? otherwise it's just duplicating this one about the game.

Thanks.

<Mod head disappears>

I just read Ars Technica's take on the whole thing. I'll just list my opinions on Ben's review and the article after it.

1. So in other words.... people have so far silently accepted a network where they give good reviews in exchange for money and ads, but get offended when someone breaks kayfabe and says that this is explicitly how said system works. The PR group wound up fired for something that I think in my opinion, is entirely justifiable. You can say a game is bad without calling someone a racist uncle or misleading readers with sensationalist drivel. If you do your job but do it poorly, it's still a bad job, and you shouldn't be rewarded for it.

2. I'm pretty sure no one raised this much of a stink over Conker's Bad Fur Day despite the fact that it had the same kind of low-brow humor found in DNF. Actually, that game got good reviews. Apparently a furry squirrel spouting sexist jokes is okay, but get a muscle man saying it and it's offensive. Seriously?

3. This is a game where: the men are all dumbasses— soldiers can't draw out a plan on the board to save their lives and even when I simplify it by erasing all the circles except one, label that one "Me" and erase the casualties tally, the guy watching me still can't understand the plan; Duke advocates steroid use to a child wanting to be just like him; the President trying to push peaceful human-alien relations winds up dead; aliens are planning the same hostile takeover that they tried in the last game (and in a couple of unrelated movies); the women are just as expendable as everything else. According to Ben, I'm only supposed to be offended by that last part.

Yeah, I'm not going to that site again.

edited 19th Jun '11 7:36:58 AM by EmptyHandle

Completely agree there.

Its why I'm never going to Destructoid as long as Jim Sterling reviews there.

I can provide logical arguments against points 2 & 3 if you want me to prove that the ars technica review is specifically one worth being written but I'll just focus on the more macro number one point.

At any rate, just because a review has a different perception from you doesn't mean it's a bad review. In fact many gamers who play the game might have the same reaction as the reviewer in question.

Gamers also need reviewers to not hold back their opinion for two reasons:

1) An undecided buyer needs to trust that the reviewer is writing his truthful opinion so that he/she can actually use the information presented.

2) Negative reviews often give critical information on a game's flaws. Heck, I personally find negative reviews more useful than positive reviews even for games I ended up liking.

Whenever the gaming industry manipulates reviews behind the scenes, we lose a chunk of our trust placed in reviewers and at the same time we lose a part of spectrum of information we're supposed to have.

Negative reviews are there for the undecided readers, not for the gaming industry or for anyone who takes criticism of something they like as an attack on their personal identity.

edited 19th Jun '11 11:09:43 AM by CBanana

The point isn't that negative reviews are bad, its just we could do without 'professional' reviewers giving out vitriolic statements like Jim Sterling does that says something like "if you like this game you are a pathetic excuse for a human" or some garbage like tat.

Its only acceptable if its someone like Yahtzee, who constantly says he's not a professional reviewer (despite people treating him like one)

Even if I disagree with Jim Sterling's hyperbole, I advocate against the gaming industry manipulating the gaming press as a form of censorship. I may not agree with Sterling but I will still strongly defend his right and his platform to say it.

x5 I seriously doubt he said you're not supposed to be offended by all that stuff, just that the sexist stuff was particularly bad.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH. This is a thread that I've been waiting for.

This thread actually informed me of the company trying to curtail some of the heat around the game's negative reception. Now I'm reminded of when Acclaim threatened to pull advertising from Electronic Gaming Monthly for its treatment of their Total Recall licensed game. Electronic Gaming Monthly shrugged and refused to edit their reviews in any way in a display of something very close to journalistic integrity. I'm just saying that no one, especially the Redner Group and/or 2K Games, should be surprised at whatever backlash comes their way by trying to threaten the more negative reviewers into changing their opinion.

I say that review scores are meaningless too. Can you really "score" what you feel or don't feel in your heart?

To be honest, if I were a paid reviewer, if I enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever, I wouldn't care how long it took to make. If I didn't, however... I would still try to find more meaningful criticisms than that. A game doesn't suck just because it took years to make.

This.

This so hard I think I sprained something.

I read the Ars Technica review. That did not happen in the Ars Technica review.

The Blistered Thumbs review starts with the issue of introducing Duke Nukem to younger gamers, and offers up this little slice of funny: "We old people should get ready to do a lot of apologizing."

The review isn't entirely negative. One of the problems with this game's reception could be that a mediocre game can be harder to pin down that one that is flat-out bad. Mediocrity is just there, sucking up latent, precious, valuable life energy, like an ineffectual, distant family member. People may be upset that it isn't the best FPS ever, or hilariously bad enough to justify its existence either way.

Could also be that we've had lots of games since Duke Nukem 3D that have Darker and Edgier in terms of content and humor. Problem is, some of them are really, really good, good enough to get past the attempts at comedy if they aren't to your taste. (Personally, a lot of the jokes in Grand Theft Auto aren't really to my taste sometimes either. Ooh, 69s and hidden male genitalia everywhere! Soooo clever.) The novelty is gone.

Another quote from the review: "(Did I really just say that side quests make up the most enjoyable part of a Duke Nukem game?!)" Yes. Yes, you did.

Just in case, does anyone know what X Play has given the game yet?

Tomorrow, according to the G4 website.

I knew that this game would have a mixed reception, but I liked DNF for what it is and would gladly give it an 8/10 in my book just because of how fun it is (I frankly don't give two shits about relatively petty things like new-school shooter conventions/mechanics, characterization, or datedness). It's like the video-game equivalent of Chinese Democracy, though I fall into the latter camp on that one.

edited 20th Jun '11 5:01:00 PM by troperwithoutaname

Oh, good. Perhaps they took their time with the review 'cause... y'know.

Oh look, another undeservedly-bad review. Though given that it's G4, I'm not the least bit surprised. And why is it always the 360 version with the flaming reviews? From what I hear, the PC version's really not that bad...

edited 21st Jun '11 4:02:38 PM by DemonSharkKisame

Yeah, the PC version will/may be getting modding tools and such, I hear.

Plus, the fact that it launches through Steam may be a helpful factor.

edited 21st Jun '11 4:04:37 PM by RocketDude

I seem to recall reading that the 360 version was handed out for the review copies for most outlets. So blame 2K.

Also blame 2K for releasing a terrible, terrible port and slapping $60 on it.

Y'know, not everyone will have the same reaction as you towards a game. Just saying.

Mind you, this thread would certainly be spiced up if a few posters started arguing that there's an active reviewer conspiracy going on against the game.

There's totally a conspiracy against Duke Nukem. It's being organized by people trying to vaginalize men and let women ruin this country.

Which I actually just slightly paraphrased by the way. From an actual Duke Nukem review comment from a really enraged fanboy.