Gearbox Software (Borderlands, Brothers in Arms, Duke Nukem, etc.)

[gunswordfist]

I want to check out a few giantbomb reviews to confirm a few things. Gamespot really turned me off to online reviews so I haven't been keeping up with them.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

To me, while the game gets a lot of poor review scores, all I see critics complaining about is that its design is too old-school and that after so many years in development its a game with a throwback to the old-school FPS design that gives the middle-finger to newer games (though there are some contradictions as the game does adopt some modern FPS elements like regenerating health and such), and it just seems that none of them can enjoy the joke and realize that this game is SUPPOSED to be a throwback to old-school FPS games with all sorts of meta references and that its just supposed to be a fun and humorous romp on the Duke Nukem character. All that IGN reviewer was focused on was how Duke Nukem was not as significant a video game character as pop culture leads people to believe. That is the most utterly pointless thing to write in a review when you're trying to sound objective and recommend a game to people. Anyone with half a brain knows that DN is more famous because of the phenomenally long development time for DNF than even for any of his older games, but either way that's not what the game is really about, its just about having old-school FPS fun.

And you know the funny thing? About 90% of the reviews so far all admit somewhere in there at that the game is "good fun" or whatnot but apparently that isn't enough because its not as polished as other FPS games or as modernized or whatnot. I just don't get this dumb-ass mentality among gamers these days. I have seen a lot of game reviews in which the critics down-rate the game for very minor issues or even sometimes some bigger issues but stuff they themselves admit is not game-breaking, but then go on to say that the game is "fun" but it won't offer much else....What the hell else do you need? I mean, I just play games for fun, personally, I don't know what everyone else plays them for, but my main purpose in gaming is to have fun. Why the hell does a game being successful at being fun (and therefore meaning that the game is successful at doing the main thing that its supposed to do) not seem to matter very much at all to reviewers anymore?

Sure, DNF gets an average rating of 4/10 while shit like Assassin's Creed with completely repetitive and shallow gameplay and mediocre at best mechanics gets numerous 8's 9's and even 10's because its presented really well....Like I said, this is why I don't listen to game critics anymore.

And just for the record, I'm willing to bet that F.3.A.R. will probably be panned for not having a CoD inspired multiplayer mode and actually trying to be unique in that regard. Of course, I can't say whether that game really will turn out good or not, but I can almost guarantee that critics will probably bash it. It just seems like that type of bait for them since its not some high-end Halo or CoD clone.

[Foggle]

Unfortunately, the critics complain that the game is too old-school while many of the Duke 3D diehards complain that the game isn't old-school enough. The reception is bad, but the game is great, and I'm willing to bet that many who enjoy it just aren't as vocal as the haters.

Sales seem good so far, though. It's been the top-seller on Steam for about a week and it topped the UK charts on the Xbox 360 as of release day. I just pray it sells enough so that Gearbox can make their own Duke game in the future and maybe some single-player DLC for this one.

And just for the record, I'm willing to bet that F.3.A.R. will probably be panned for not having a CoD inspired multiplayer mode and actually trying to be unique in that regard. Of course, I can't say whether that game really will turn out good or not, but I can almost guarantee that critics will probably bash it. It just seems like that type of bait for them since its not some high-end Halo or CoD clone.

Definitely. Critics bashed F.E.A.R. 2 for having nothing to set it apart from the crowd... Aside from, you know, the fact that it had a clever bullet-time mechanic, excellent AI, and cool mech sequences.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

In terms of F.E.A.R. 2, someone said that initially the game had a problem with the AI in which they'd flip down almost anything for cover and then you'd have some ridiculous sequences in which you'd have guys crouching behind things as small as small coffee-tables, and apparently that glitch was patched later, but not before most reviews came out. I'm not sure if that's true or not as I never got this game at release, but perhaps that affected its review scores a bit. Either way, though, most criticisms seemed completely unfounded to me. I even remember one critic saying that the game didn't look that great graphically....seriously....SERIOUSLY!?! So now if a game doesn't have CoD level graphics its worth less than it already was? That's bull-shit. For the record, I thought (and still think) that the graphics look great, and while not nearly the best I've seen for a game they are certainly above average in many regards, but even if they weren't I wouldn't give a shit. The first game has dated graphics by today's standards, but that doesn't stop it from being a really fun and thrilling game. Personally, while its not quite as good, I honestly feel that the 2nd game is still a really, really good game and a worthy sequel.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I'm pretty sure Gearbox got the IP for more than just this one game. But this game needed to come out.

[Foggle]

Personally, while its not quite as good, I honestly feel that the 2nd game is still a really, really good game and a worthy sequel.

100% agree with you. The first game is a bit better, IMO, but the sequel is still excellent.

[Foggle]

3.5/10 from GameSpot. DNF is actually getting worse reviews than ShellShock 2: Blood Trails. What the fuck.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Unless it's a movie shooter, it's not going to do well in reviews. It's not COD, and that's what everyone is going to compare it to, unfortunately.

Thanks to your impressions and the few at TZ, though, I know I'll enjoy it and that's all I really care about.

[Daxdiv]

I'm going to wait for Duke to go on sale before I pick it up. One of my friends told me that this game plays more like Halo than what Duke Nukem is supposed to play like. By that, he means this

DNF does have a lot more in common with Halo. You walk a designated path that's scripted into the story, you shoot and take cover, shoot and take cover and drive your vehicle when needed. No room for exploration, forced to a linear path, no chance for using any form of strategic tactics against your enemies aside from making sure you don't get hit while your "shield" is down and so on.

Keep in mind, this comes from someone that hates movie shooters like Halo and CoD. Provided, I will give this game a chance, since I did give Alone in the Dark a chance.

[Foggle]

Only had to take cover 2 or 3 times aside from boss fights in DNF. Then again, I've played run 'n gun shooters all my life and am very proficient at flailing the mouse wildly while I smash the keyboard.

There isn't much exploration, aside from looking for Ego Boosters. If you're good at looking around and finding them, the game becomes more run 'n gun and less stop 'n pop due to your longer health bar. Also, the vehicle levels had a lot more in common with Half-Life 2 than Halo, IMO.

But yes, it is more Halo than it is Duke 3D. I don't have a problem with that, because the first Halo was a great game, and didn't require cover humping if you were good enough.

Definitely wait for a sale if you're unsure, though. I don't regret paying full price for the Balls of Steel Edition, but I'm easily entertained by video games (which is a good thing, really).

EDIT: Also, since when are the Halo games movie shooters? They actually require user input and skill to win... just like Duke Nukem Forever. I don't even like the majority of the series and I'll admit that.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Keep in mind, this comes from someone that hates movie shooters like Halo and CoD. Provided, I will give this game a chance, since I did give Alone in the Dark a chance.

Halo isn't a movie shooter like CoD, though. I'm not sure how much your friend has played of Halo (and before you assume anything, trust me when I say that I'm far from a huge fan of the Halo series), but he's wrong about there being no room for strategy and tactics. Unless he never played the game above Easy or Normal mode, the Halo games support pretty clever AI and on Heroic and Legendary strategy and tactics are a definite necessity. The game is very linear but that doesn't mean that its heavily scripted, as you are free to handle situations in the best ways that you see fit, and the entire gameplay mechanics of the game are based off of varied tactics and such rather than just running and shooting and then taking cover from time to time (unless of course you play on Easy). So, yeah, I can understand if your friend hates Halo along with CoD, but I have to completely disagree with him/her about it being a movie shooter. If anything, having room for strategy and tactics despite the linear level design is what would make DN play more like Halo, IMO.

[gunswordfist]

Yeah, Halo is definitely not a movie shooter. Come on

[Foggle]

Gearbox just released a patch for DNF (PC version) that:
Decreases load times
Increases weapon limit to 4 guns
Fixes the blood splatter bug
Improves dedicated servers
Adds anti-cheat for online play

I actually liked the game, so I'm quite pleased by this.

[Spark Of Spirit]

If they could get rid of regenerating health and put out health kits and armor, then I would be beyond pleased. IMO, it's the modern elements that are holding this game back from what I played.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Good God, y'all.