I have been playing for two hours now, and I actually like it so far. I don't mind the retro early-00's console game feel all that much; it's fine, it's fun, it's probably not going to be my choice for game of the year, but I'm entertained and look forward to get back to it. It's not nearly as bad as some will have it, at least not as far as I've played. Of course, to each their own - me, I have no problem admitting I'm having fun! Simple, juvenile, completely politically incorrect fun! :D

It really is Duke for the most part, for better and for worse. I like it.

I was able to test the game for some hours... after a more extended gameplay section the first thing I could say is that, despite was what being said, the demo is actually a pretty accurate representation of the final game, there is no real difference either gameplay wise or graphical wise. Actually the second part of the demo is a later chapter of the full game. (and the first part the prologue)

I haven't changed my on the game mind, it's average at best.

Graphics:

Well, mixed bag ranging from ok/average" to "bad". I never expected DNF to be a graphical marvel or anything, it's not like DN3D was either, but here it's often very low quality. Not only that but it's also no consistent, some texture looks "ok" while other look like they were taken from the 1998 trailer. The model themselves are usually low resolution too with things supposed to be circular looking like an octagon, they try to hide it with some "effects" like the "depth of field blur" but it doesn't always work that much (as seen in the demo) often immobile enemies shift between blurry and sharp for no valid reason.

Gameplay :

Gameplay wise, the first think noticeable is how slow paced the game is, at least in the X first hours (10th chapter), you spend more time walking around than actually shooting stuff, in itself it's not really a problem I don't mind slower shooter, it's just that here it often drags too much. I play Duke to shoot stuff not to walk endless corridors.

Which brings me to the second issue that I have : most of the levels design are pretty bland (once again for the levels I have seen), they are very (VERY) linear with very little authorized backtracking (door/passages, whatever closing behind you), no (most of the time) or extremely limited alternate path, and they are not very "imaginative" (for the lack of a better word), there are some good one but for now they are the minority, most of the others could have belongs to any unknown shooter you find for 10 bucks on Gamersgate-

There are some "puzzles", mostly pre Half-life 2 physics puzzle and button pushing, nothing mind blowing but at least they tries, and some of them are fun, so for me it's one of the pluses. And yes there is some level of interactivity, which is nice and is definitely another of the game pluses, but while there is a lot in the first level it's much more limited in the next ones, there is also some "destructibility" and even if it's rather random and limited it's another of the game pluses.

For the shooting part themselves, it's very similar to the demo, and that's for me the biggest disappointment of the game, limited number of enemies running toward you, often in straight line (the path finding is sucky resulting often in enemies being unable to reach you when you are behind an obstacle or trying to attack you through walls).

And while they can "rush" towards you or even teleport, they don't move very fast or stop to let you enough time to aim them (probably to help those playing with a controller), so the difficulty here is limited to what weapons you are using, if you have the Railgun and enough ammo the game is extremely easy, if you have the shotgun or the normal gun then it's a litle harder.

But speaking of difficulty it's not that hard, heck the more the game progress the easier it actually becomes, I am an average shooter player and at the highest difficulty I don't die that often while I usually get slaughtered with DN3D at anything higher than the normal difficulty.

The games also love using "arena", enter an area, the entry and the exists are blocked/locked whatever, then you have to defeat waves and waves of enemies until the game decide you had enough, play a little jingle informing you that you kill all enemies, and then open the exit.

But it's definitely not Serious Sam like arena no, here you have three/four enemies that appear, you dispatch them, three/four new ones appear, etc... also those area leave you tons of cover to regenerate your health and added to the enemies calamitous path finding, you are usually pretty safe to regenerate your health whenever you want. The only thing you have to be careful with is not to run out of ammo.

The Bosses are another huge disappointment area, until now they don't require any strategy.

They can only be hurt by explosive or turrets (it's not me saying that it's the game), so the only thing to do is to fetch a RPG (always lying around next to an unlimited supply crate), hide behind cover, shoot all your RPG's ammunition at the boss, hide to regenerate, fetch supplies, and repeat until the finishing QTE. This is valid for "real" boss and for "mini-boss" like the demo's air strike bomber, they are also very easy, basic patterns, lots of covers, unlimited ammo,etc ....

So for me :

+ Level Interactivity & Destrubility
+ Some puzzle or platforming section are fun
+ Some jokes are funny
+ One or two level

- Graphics. Would have been ok for an Indy game but not for a AAA title.
- Boring shooting section (If you want action packed shooting go play DN3D... or Serious Sam... heck even Bulletstorm)
- Boring boss battles
- Short and mostly bland levels
- General Lack of rhythm
- Weird difficulty curve (some earlier level are a lot "harder" than the later one)


One last thing, I am all for respecting personal opinion, that's fine, if some peoples consider that that DNF is the best game ever, that's fine why not, but there is one thing I have trouble understanding is (warning rant ahead) :

How can anybody call that an "old school" shooter ?

Seriously, DNF is NOT an old school shooter, the only thing "old school" in DNF is the graphics (and maybe the AI), all the rest is pure concentrated modern console shooter material, we have :

- Linear coridor-ish levels
- Interactive "mission related" objects highlighted in orange
- Arenas with wave of enemies
- No save, only checkpoints
- Lots of scripted sequences
- Limited number of enemies on screen at any time.
- Slow pace
- Regenerative health
- Limited number of weapons
- QTE
etc...

I really fail to see anything that could have a old schoolish vibe in DNF, if DNF is considered old school then Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company should too.

EDIT:

Just finished the game, just when the levels started becoming more interesting the game end :(

The difficulty doesn't change for the remaining of the game, it's still very easy and the last boss fight is a joke, not any harder or requiring a different strategy, just longer. They are other things that disappoint too me but mentioning them would require entering into spoilers territory...

Would you advise playing on hard first go?

Yes. I'm not too far in the game, but thus far it's been very easy on hard.

From the sound of things, it's exactly the game I want to play; a Frankenstein monster of stitched-together remnants from previous iterations, with classic, poor Gearbox vehicle sections thrown in the middle to pad things out.

This may sound batshit-insane, but I want the game to be a complete mess when I play. Everything I read about it makes it sound just like the insane labor of love that created Deadly Premonition; raw, messy, yet undeniably lovable. It also seems to send its message loud and clear; when making ANYTHING, don't pull a George Broussard and constantly trash anything that isn't absolutely up-to-date. When a new engine comes out and you're almost done making your game in the old one, don't scrap the fucking thing.

Of course, I won't be paying $50-$60 for Deadly Premonition quality. I'll either buy it for $36 at Green Man Gaming or wait for the inevitable Steam sale.

Deadly Premonition had a clear goal in mind, which is what let it overcome all its issues to be a genuinely entertaining and charming game.

This is just... bad. Not charming, not "there's a nugget of something here," not "I can see what they were going for," just bad. It has no creative spark, no interesting concepts. Deadly Premonition had an interesting mystery and an INCREDIBLY compelling character in Agent York, this just has mediocre 2006-era corridor FPS combat with a whole lot of turret sections, physics puzzles, and "interactive" cutscenes. It's not batshit insane, it's just a boring compilation of gaming trends from 2004-2007 peppered with "funny" references from that same era.

If Duke weren't in it, it'd be getting the same amount of attention as Project Snowblind or BlackSite: Area 51, because that's exactly what it is: a mostly-monochromatic FPS trying to copy formulas while cutting corners and hoping it works out. Much like Too Human or Chinese Democracy, the story behind it is a lot more interesting than the final product.

It's better than Blacksite... as insane as that is. Blacksite was rough as hell. Poor Harvey Smith.

Agreed. It is not a great game, but I am having fun. It is more oldschool than games like CoD or Crysis 2 or MoH in that here you actually have to stop shooting sometimes and have to stop to observe surroundings and use a brain a tiny little bit.
Interactivity is higher than most shooters too.

Still, for a Duke game, I would expect less linear levels and even more interactivity...baby steps (taking 14 years..), baby steps.

2 more days..........everyone I know has either finished it or has seen gameplay videos. Gotta resist the temptation.

Definitely, "Hard" is not hard at all, at least not with a keyboard and mouse. The only times you have some troubles in fights is when you run out of ammo.

I looks like an unfinished experiment, like all sort of assorted unfinished levels in which tried they tried all sort of different gameplay mechanics to see what worked and what didn't, but that in the end they didn't really had any clue how the final game would look like.

I wouldn't be surprise if when Gearbox took over every levels were independent, probably without enemies, it really looks like they took the content of 3D realms hard drives copy and past it and tried to stick all the stuff together to make a full game out of it. That would explain the lot of things, especially the weird difficulty curve, or some boss fight that feel incomplete (i.e. some parts of the boss arena that looks like they would be required to defeat the boss but that in the end are totally useless)

I agree with a review quote I read on metacritics, it feels like the game is "rushed", unfinished which is funny (or sad) considering the title history. I think that with some extra months, improved textures, improved rhythm and action, and maybe some trimming in levels, the game could have been much better, of course not a "revolution" worthy of 14+ years of development, but at least a pretty good game.

A nice compromise between regular disc version and the balls of steel edition packaging at the regular disc price. Steelbook packaging exclusive to Futureshop stores in canada.

Nice.

While the gameplay hopefully isn't outdated the graphics is clearly outdated already. It would have been better if they had scrapped the unfinished game and started from scratch in CryEngine 3, remaking what was worth keeping from the previous iterations.

That's exactly what got them so far behind in the first place. Stop placing so much emphasis on graphics. Eye Candy is 10% of a good game.

Take a look at the jackass in this "review". He openly admits to pirating the game, and basically parrots everything he read in the Joystiq review. Look at some of his other reviews. He practically raves over Crysis 2 and Brink, while jeering Medal of Honor and Modern Warfare 2. This is another example of someone who does whatever is printed in a magazine or "reputable/flashy because it draws lots of money from ad revenue and premium subscription fees" video game website, simply because it may have been around for a long time and that makes everything they say The Word of God.

Was everyone really expecting DNF to look exactly like DN3D, but with just a few more polygonal models and sprites a la "DN3D Polymer"? Did everyone really expect the game to be restrained to "FPS' circa. 1997"? Everyone threw a hissy fit about Doom 3 (and by "everyone" I mean <12 years old) because "it was too linear" or some shit like that. News Flash! Doom is linear! You collected keys to open doors to get to the end-of-level button/switch/lever! And God help Human Head had the original 1995 "Prey" been released as it was, instead of the final, 2006 incarnation. People would have been all over it with "It's just not the same!".

But you know what really claws up my ass? All the little bedstains complaining about how Sonic the Hedgehog lost his "cool factor", or whatever the phrase is now, but I haven't heard word one about how Mario isn't a fun as he was in the late 80's/early 90's. Just what's so great about that fat bastard that no one rags on him once in a while?

The point being, things change. DNF may be unpolished a bit, but consider that it changed hands several times over many years. "It caters to the Halo crowd". Well, why not? It's not like everyone who's been waiting for this game has been restricting themselves to 15-year-old FPS' all this time. And besides, it's Duke. He's as essential to Western society as Star Wars or The Transformers, both of which got three more movies ten to fifteen years since their last (The Phantom Menace after ROTJ, and Michael Bay's Transformers after the animated Transformers movie). Hell, even Family Guy became wildly successful after being cancelled twice (speaking of, I wonder if there will be a second The Simpsons movie. Or game).

It's not like DNF is going to be the end of the series. Gearbox is going to learn from this, learn what people want nowadays, and make a better game next time.