Duke Nukem Forever: I still want some

Dcswirlonly_bigger
Sunday, August 14, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Eduardo Moutinho

Sometimes I also wonder if modern releases have forgotten that they are still games. After all, we don't play them because we want realism. We play them because we want fun.

The biggest criticism I’ve seen about Duke Nukem Forever is that it doesn’t play like a modern shooter. While the genre has evolved over the years, the Duke Nukem series has made me wonder whether current mechanics have really gotten any better.

It's easy to argue that Duke Nukem as a character is sorely outdated, but his latest title, however, hasn’t aged badly at all.

Prior to getting my copy of DNF, I decided to play through its predecessor, Duke Nukem 3D. You know what? That classic is still really fun and playable -- more so than many modern shooters.

 

What I enjoyed so much about replaying Duke 3D was that it focused on entertainment, and it didn't take itself too seriously in the process. I could collect 12 unique weapons that were effective in different situations, and I could employ multiple strategies to accomplish objectives. Plus, the game let me discover paths, puzzles, and secrets on my own.

The experience made me realize that I don’t need a two-weapon limit, cover system, or grenade button to have fun. I just need engaging mechanics with good level design. Duke 3D still has these after all this time.

The only modern shooters that gave me a similar level of enjoyment were Gears of War, Halo: Combat Evolved, and Bulletstorm. All the features that Gears and Halo popularized worked so well because they were originally designed to make those titles more enjoyable. Bulletstorm was also really fun to play because of its fresh ideas.

Even though Duke Nukem Forever employs a two-weapon limit, grenade button, and regenerating health, the core design is clearly not a slave to today’s conventions. Despite somewhat-dated graphics, I still think the gameplay holds up rather well.

(Takes deep breath) I’m actually enjoying DNF’s campaign more than the ones in Call of Duty: Black Ops and Killzone 3.

For starters, I really like how everything begins. After the short tutorial, you walk around and interact with various parts of Nukem’s home just before all the action starts. This lets you see a vertical slice of his everyday life before the alien stomping begins.

This sequence helped make the game's world more than a collection of levels. If other bullet-based titles with more fleshed-out characters did this, I’d feel a lot more grounded in them.

The enemies and action sequences feel more like a pre-Halo FPS, and I’m fine with that. Running and strafing around enemies can still be just as fun as hiding behind cover. 

I’m not even offended by the game’s vulgar presentation. Many of the jokes are of the sort that you laugh at instead of with. A few of the lines still got a chuckle from me, probably because I actually understood the references.

The puzzles and exploration portions even out Forever's pacing. I’m playing the game with hints turned off and figuring out what to do on my own. Doing this gives me more freedom to roam around than in most 2011 shooters.

Despite the game’s shortcomings, Duke Nukem Forever reminds me of what first-person shooters were supposed to be. If nothing else, it presents a variety and playability lost in most of today’s releases. 

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (5)
Comic061111
August 14, 2011

Honestly I felt DNF played like a modern shooter- a watered down Halo to be exact.   I found I had to run behind cover rather than strafe around enemies because there was no dodging them, and wait for my regenerating health to kick back up before jumping out, wearing down the enemies a bit, and repeating.

But perhaps I had just come fresh from playing Serious Sam HD which does feel like a modern take on the type of shooter Duke3D was.  That is- improved graphics, but the same gameplay I was looking for.  (I'm aware they are remakes)  I'm looking forward to Serious Sam 3 to deliver what I thought DNF was going to.

Default_picture
August 14, 2011

Is it bad that I see the same qualities in DNF? It's not the worst game I've ever played, it has its problems, but overall it was pretty fun and was worth a few laughs. If you can ignore the decade+ gap between titles you can put Duke 3D and DNF side by side and play them through and still enjoy them.

100media_imag0065
August 14, 2011

I enjoyed DNF. I think the problem with the game was that reviewers had already made up their mind about the game before it even shipped. I know that they hate it when people say that, and they will defend their decisions to the death, but after playing the game it was quite clear that they all jumped on the hate train and then wrote reviews to justify that hate, instead of reviewing the game itself.

Almost every complaint I have read about the game was about how it felt dated. Dated to me, is going back and trying to play Goldeneye. Dated to me means that the gameplay mechanics actively make it hard to enjoy. Duke Nukem Forever successfully managed to blend what made Duke 3D so great, with modern gameplay mechanics that most gamers expect from a modern shooter. Duke Forever took these ideas and melded them together rather seamlessly.

I found myself immensely enjoying the first person platforming. It reminded me of what I loved about early 90's shooters. It reminded me of what we have lost with modern shooters. Some things make sense in modern shooters. Having a dedicated grenade button being one of them. But the two weapon limit and regenerating health hurt modern shooters in my opinion, not help them. And that is the only real complaint I have about the game.

Other than that, it was great fun. The shooting felt great. The graphics, while a bit dated, hold up well. The bare bones story and smart ass remarks is exactly what I wanted out of a Duke game. Everything felt polished and put together well. Yet, to my utter non-surprise, reviewers tore the game apart like it had walked into their loving room and shit on their HD TV's. Like I said, I honestly believe that reviewers in general had a lapse in their journalistic integrity.

I think that they thought that giving the game a positive review would have hurt their ego's. They couldn't possibly give a game with a rape joke a good review. They couldn't possibly give a game that took 13 years to make a good review. How would people look at them if they had been the only reviewer to give the game a good score? They will tell you until they are blue in the face that a reviewer is trained to not think about that kind of stuff...I don't believe them.

Duke Nukem Forever was a solid, albeit flawed sequel to one of the best games ever made. In the future, it deserves to be looked back upon as one of the greatest achievements in gaming. Not because it was an amazing game that can stand up high next to greats like Half Life 2, but because the game managed to go throught development hell for 13 years, and still managed to be a solid rollercoaster ride that the video game industry hasn't seen since the Duke 3D.

It is too bad then that the game will be looked back upon as a waste of time, and a failure. The only crime it committed was trying to show today's gamers what was so great about the 90's.

Default_picture
August 14, 2011

Wow, well said man.

Comic061111
August 14, 2011

People really wanted to like DNF.  It was legendary!  What better end than for it to be a great game?

But it really wasn't that polished, or good, even if you compare it with games that came out years ago.  It was about as appropriate a sequel to Duke Nukem 3D as Deus Ex: Invisible War was, in my mind.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.