Well that's not at all vague and unclear. :\

*Facepalms at life, the goes to sweeping out debris & poster husks from thread*

Funny, but still GTFO *points thusaways*

Wait, a minute...
You do realize that THE most popular and THE highest selling games that were released between 2000-2010 had a weapon limit, right?
You do realize this, yes?
I mean, it's not just me who thinks the world hasn't suddenly turned crazy over night.
This has been going on in games for years. In fact, that is what defines a modern FPS, is regenerative health and limited weapon selection. Is it stupid? Hell yes it is, but apparently everyone in the world still sees games like Halo and Call Of Duty as some of the best there was in terms of FPS. I think it's crap, I mean, not to say the games weren't fun, but there certainly is a bit of extra strategy in place knowing you can only carry two weapons. I mean, even Left 4 Dead 2 only allows you to carry two weapons at a time. And what about Portal, where you can only hold one weapon at a time? What about Team Fortress 2, where you have 3 slots which you fill in with non-weapons and ultimately roll out with only one weapon?!

I think maybe, bitching that Duke Nukem Forever had a weapon limit, is silly.

How can you expect them to not use a weapon limit, when it's been proven, time and again, that not only do gamers want that, but they expect that.

Here is the problem, people bought it expecting Duke 3D with a new generation look. I don't blame them because I almost did the same being a big duke 3D fan. However the 'resurrection' by Gearbox showed that the game was very different from the old Duke.

People tell themselves 'this demo is a bad representation of the game (referring to what people played at Pax) and the full game will be better'. Game comes out and unsurprisingly it is a copy and paste of Halo design philosophies just like the demo showed. People are pissed, feel betrayed and slam the game hard.

The people wouldn't have consumed the product if it didn't have the Duke name to it and all the hype around it. If it was some unknown game it would be called average and forgotten about in a month becoming something of a sleeper hit.

I get buying if you're a fan, but still:

+People knew how long development took and how dated the graphics were supposed to be, along with many of the design elements in the current version via trailers/leaks/etc.

+Why buy something before reviews and gameplay videos like usual, just because it's Duke? Shouldn't we be cautious no matter what we buy?

Also I don't care how much someone hypes something....in the end most of the hype is their fault. It's YOUR own job to control the hyping you put into things in most cases, not the product makers. All I can say is that people should know better & have learned from past hyping of things to not make such mistakes again......and as I said people could've waited and watched gameplay videos. It's not for the most part DNF's or GBX's fault if people didn't use any common sense.

This thought has crossed my mind. The gameplay itself is fun, and it definitely has a sense of humor for those that get it, but I have a strange feeling that a lot of the criticism is being driven by the media and the sense that if you like it there's something wrong with you.

I also have to take note that there isn't yet a map editor available for the game. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, heads need to roll for that, given the apparently lackluster maps for multiplayer, it's completely inexcusable that there isn't a map editor available.

Mods for better or for worse extend a game to a largely unlimited extent. So many games in the past have been just that much longer in the stores because of the ability to mod it out. The original Duke 3D springs to mind, as do star craft and Fallout 3. I think FO3 is probably the best example as it's somewhat analogous to DNF getting some of the same criticism.

I don't think people cared about graphics provided they were decent (which they are). I know some reviewers slammed it but those sites are probably the ones catored to consoles who chase the next big shiny game to be released.

You said it yourself, people bought it because its Duke. Another example of a game like this I can think of is Diablo 3. I love Diablo 2 but I'm not buying it at release because of the direction it is going (I know this from watching gameplay). However I have friends who are more casual in that they don't follow gameplay and will buy it when the ads appear on TV because they had fun with Diablo 2. Apply the same logic to Duke Nukem Forever.

Hype is never someones fault, it is the fault of the journalists and publishers. Events like E3 and the Spike Video Game Awards (lol) have become nothing more platforms to hype a game. Most of the budget for a game is put into marketing (Left 4 Dead had something like a 40 million marketing campaign when I doubt the game cost half that to make). Those same people I mentioned earlier don't even hype a game but they see the hype campaign and buy the game solely because of that campaign.

The only way to get around hype is to learn through experience to ignore the 'pr speak' (watch the Skyrim video from E3 and just listen to what the guy says and how much it matters to the overall game and how much sounds like complete bullshit). That skill isn't really gained until you become jaded from getting burned by a game that looked cool but turned out to be a complete pile of shit (see Hellgate London).

Hype is always partially the buyer's fault. People have this thing called self-control you know. ;)

I agree that it is also partially the journalist's fault as well though, and also publishers to a certain extent.....but it is never not at least somewhat the buyer's fault. Common sense should rule the day, and if a publisher or product maker is dishonest or not it's up to the people to decide that and examine the product beforehand somehow to make a sound buying decision.


P.S. Hellgate London rocks. :P

:)
Yeah, especially the ones against the horrid rape scene and mysoginy in DNF(1. The scene is part of the story and nowhere near promoting rape, 2. It won't make people go and rape people just like in 99% of cases GTA doesn't make people go out and beat hookers while shooting cops. and 3. Duke has always been about being bigoted...this is part of the humour....and if they can't see this then the game isn't for them and they have no place letting their own bias rule their "reviews".).

And yeah I agree the move to cut the map editor and console was a dick move...and altogether useless as eventually modding tools will be leaked or created anyways imo.

For a game like this, mod tools could completely save it. I've been having a blast, but most of the things which people have been critical about could be remedied with liberal use of modding.

One of the things I hate most about consoles is the lack of mod tools that are readily available.

Yeah bump up the graphics a notch or ten, maybe polish the rough edges....but let me choose if I wanna mod that way or change gameplay and not include both in one mod as I want usually the first few times the "true" game experience as the devs made it without too many major changes.

Well changes I could tolerate would be like a combo ego/health system......ego acting like shields and health being non rechargable but replenished through kits/food/etc. And make the ego shield recharge slower as well to balance things out.

Also add in at least a quicksave.

Yes, I realize this. But just because they had it, it doesn't mean they succeeded BECAUSE of it.
This is what I call "Cargo Cult" game design.

Among others I might not remember, Bioshock and Resistance (staying in the realm of pure FPS, but there are even more examples in third person shooters) all sold fine without it, so there are no excuses.

And what defines modern shooters is integrated storytelling and "cinematographic" set pieces. Unlike health/weapon systems, all the single player games we both mentioned have this.

The developers constantly spoonfeed you whatever weapon they think you might need, so the strategy angle doesn't work in DNF.

Never played L4D, but Portal is not a shooter and Team Fortress had weapon limits before Halo and CoD were even conceived (it makes sense there since it keeps classes distinct).
There absolutely no reason for it in DNF.

As I said, other shooters are designed around that limit. Duke Nukem is not (and shouldn't be since its arsenal was part of what made DN3D appealing to begin with).
All the weapon limit accomplishes is breaking flow by having you constantly pixel hunt, stare at the ground and pickup the same few weapons over and over.

Also, a Duke Nukem sequel is being planned right now, so there's no better time to complain and point out what's wrong with this game.

As I've shown, we do have examples of successful mainstream FPSs which don't conform to these cliches, so don't blame gamers for this.
How many copies has Bioshock sold? I have yet to hear anyone clamoring for a weapon/plasmid limit.

I am not sure, redoing the levels, changing the enemies placement/numbers, improving general game flow, changing Duke movement speed and re-balancing the game to fit it,etc...

It's not what I call "liberal use of modding" it's what I call that redoing the game from scratch using the available models and texture, not sure a lot of modder would be up for the task.
And what about Need for Speed where you carry no weapon at all... Portal is a puzzle game you can't compare it to a shooter.

The weapon limit is not "THE" issue, it's just one of the issues.

Here we go, I think the best way to summarize the link would be "suck it cow"

But, I won't go there, here it is, the one and only Duke Demo has come to steam for anybody that wants it. It's a bit bizarre that it's taken this long, but there you go.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/68987/duke-nukem-forever-demo-out