Is this any good? It looks like a cheap mod for Duke3D: they just painted a new gun over Duke's hands, didn't ever bother to change the UI...

It's okay in moments, but mostly a mess in all honesty

Do you like to play the quicksave/quickload game to mitigate random instant deaths? If you do, you might enjoy the game.

If it is like the previous NAM it is a commercial total conversion of the Duke Nukem Engine Build. It was so lazy that it always could be run under eDuke32 directly, without any hassle or different port. I am not sure about this one, maybe they modified a couple of things.

The gameplay and graphics were outdated in the bad sense already in the launch time. It is said that the maps design were decent, intersting, mixed with debatable decisions like one hit deaths in a strongly and annoying scripted gameplay.

Because amazingly this game was published one year after Half Life. Or even Unreal.

This is not a modified Build revision Engine in the vein of Ion Fury, or the quality of Blood. This is a Total conversion without understanding what made Duke 3D Good.

I critizised Witchaven in the past but compared with these the former are masterpieces.

Anyway eventually I will tr NAM and WWII GI again to suffer a bit. Maybe the patina of time make things better or even worse.

Great game, that has the occasional glitch.

I have played the full game, years ago now, but I enjoyed it a lot. Great atmosphere, great feel. It can be a bit tough at times, and you can die suddenly, but if you save often it is not a real issue. It is a game from a specific era, and some at least expect too much from it. It is basically Duke 3D turned into a war game, minus the Duke humor, that it makes up for in other ways.

To be honest, I have never understood some of the criticisms ... I guess it is one of those games you either like or dislike.

Hmm. Buying the two games unbundled is actually cheaper. Not the first time this has happened.

Insta-bought!

Although I don't know why.

Back in the day, this game and NAM were just kinda thrown out there to die after true 3D games had already been released that far surpassed the technology.

However, at the time I was an FPS whore, buying up everything I could that was an FPS. The technology literally did not matter to me, nor apparently the quality. I loved them all. Witchaven, TekWar, even Operation Body Count. I bought them all, and still have them all.

The bad ones I did not ever finish, but I still enjoyed firing them up to see what kind of world the level designers created.

WWII GI and NAM kinda fell in the middle. They succeeded in creating their worlds, but man I had trouble playing them. I'm afraid I didn't really give them a proper chance back then, which may be why I own them here now.

But I'm not certain I will ever try. I've got so many other better games I'd like to try first. Still, these games are nice to own here, just in case I ever get the urge.

Games are funny like that. One day, just out of the blue, I get the urge to play something from deep in my memory banks. Good or bad, I don't care. If I get the urge, I want to play it.

To be perfectly honest I don't understand that thinking.

They weren't made that far out of their time. Just at that point in proceedings technology for such games was advancing rapidly, and it can take a good while to make a game. Games are barely released before the technology in them is superseded ... often it already has been, due to the years in development and the size of the development team etc.

I believe in playing a game with the mindset of the era it belongs to, even if the game got released a bit after that.

Quake for instance is still my favorite game, because I don't really compare it to newer games since, not when it amounts to atmosphere and enjoyment, which to me is what it is all about. No doubt there is a touch of nostalgia there for me, but it is also about things not needing to be super polished to enjoy them significantly.

Modern vinyl records can sort of be seen a similar way. The music on them can be very enjoyable despite the medium issues, and so long as you don't start comparing them to the digital version, which might detract from your enjoyment.

i Agree, but even by the standards of the time D Day was a crappy game.

In your subjective opinion.

In mine, I thought World War II GI was a great game, very enjoyable. The time frame didn't matter to me, other than the game belonged to a certain era, regardless of when it was actually released. In its way, it stacks up quite well with other build games like Duke 3D and Shadow Warrior. I'd played those and the likes of Quake (my favorite game) and Doom before playing WWII GI, and it did not suffer because of it. I went on to play Blood and Redneck Rampage and Doom 2 etc and they did not diminish my experience either. No doubt it is all about expectations ... and I try to not have too many, and just enjoy a game for what it is.

Too many games in my view, because they took too long to be made, due to technology changes, then get rushed and sent to market somewhat crippled or in some case never finished or released, all because they supposedly missed their window. I consider that absolute nonsense. A good game will always be good, regardless of whether it missed its technology window. It should always be about the game, and not about comparisons with other games from a given time period.

This is why GOG came into existence, that and DRM-Free. They saw value in supposedly old and dated games, and knew their could be a market for them, despite the prevailing mentality of the time.

No, sorry. With al the respect, the guy being extremelly subjective is you. If you call this game a "great game" which ones should be the adjectives for the really good Build games? A neo language in superlatives?

Come one mate, even the HUD is unchanged from he Duke 3D game :D and it was their second game with the engine.
Comparing the work in he sprites with other Build games is abysmal. The gameplay is annoying and debatable.ANd there is some consensus about this.

Nothing will change your mind, you really like the game. and it's fine. Because if you ask me I consider that even those games need to be available for purchase and preserved in its best shape, like a two headed dog :) I like a lot of bad games but I would never call them great games for the sake of my pure subjectveness.

But well. Each one on their own. I do not consider it ideal in a forum but well. whatever

Greetings

Playing with the mindset of the era...they're still floating just above bad. If anything, playing them in context of others of the time makes their weakness show more than it does when playing it as a 'oh a old fps'

-The less important thing nowadays is how dated it was. It was the first issue at the time to critizise the game at first sight, and I am aware that in that time things were changing pretty fast and some people demanded novelties and tech advances in videogames affecting the game critics, Due this some critics were unfair.

But this is not the case, the real problem is that it was lazy, mediocre overall,, cheap design and graphically pretty bad. As I said before probably the levels are decent and it was the best thing of the game but the gameplay ruined it.
It was my experience when playing the game in the very past. It was years later when I did read critics and well, they were not too far from my experience.

-The importance of the HUD is just an example to reveal how lazy and rushed the developers were to launch this serie Z game in the fastest time as possible. Nop, it was not Blood, Shadow Warrior or even Redneck Rampage either. All of them used the engine in a profesional way. Those are "great games"

If you felt that way you felt that way, but for me it wasn't that way. It never felt rushed or lazy or cheap or mediocre or graphically bad to me. It had a few hiccups that was all, and it was a bit tough to play, but I was able to get the hang of it and enjoyed it so much, atmosphere etc, that I completed the whole game.

As seems pretty clear to me, when you meet new people, some click and some don't. So it appears to be with games, going by the variation in reviews for many of them, with some hating and some loving the exact same game.

And that can be for all sorts of reasons, not least of which is expectations, hardware, comparisons with other games you've played, thoughts planted in your mind by others, and often your mood on any one day, how easy it is to relate, various inherent biases, ease of immersion, atmosphere, music, visuals, your age, etc, etc. Much can be down to personal preferences, that combined can dispose you to feel one way or another. It is for those very reasons, that I don't put much stock in the reviews of others, whether that be games, movies, books or music, etc. Oops, I nearly forgot the most important reason of all, skill level or playing ability, which is often tied in with perseverance, patience and tolerance.

Many games that I loved and thought were great, have had harsh criticisms that never made any sense to me. Games like Quake 2, Chasm: The Rift, Redneck Rampage, Shadow Warrior, SiN, etc. Hell even penultimate games like Quake and Doom and Duke 3D etc have had their detractors.