If you read the reasons why people think it's a bad game, you'd see it's not a question of bugs or of the demo being old. You don't redo the mechanics of a game in their entirety before the release.

Really? I'm disagreeing with him because the demo sucked or did you miss that part of the post. Don't try so hard and remember to take frequent breaks. Your magnificant witticism uses far too much brain capacity and may lead to serious ill health.

We're only looking out for you, being a valued member of these forums and all.

Demo's for games are usually average for newer games, I find that older games had better demos.

Exactly, it's an official demo of a game supposed to be released in less than two week, not some stolen alpha of a game supposed to be released in a year... it's not like they will/have changed/improve everything for the final version.

Well, this is the same demo they showed the press over a year ago, so there is some hope that maybe some rough edges are ironed out. The health mechanic and weapons and stuff are certainly final though, no question.

I know but apparently it's already a tweaked version of this demo, with some added section, and based on it it would requires more than some edge smoothing, also if the demo is not representative of the final product what release it at all ?

Personally don't really buy the excuse of "it cost too much to create a new demo from scratch" it's FPS, I can understand that for a open world game or a RPG it might be hard/complicated to "extract" a portion of the game and make a demo with it, but here it's just a silly linear FPS, you don't have any stats/choices/whatever to carry over, you don't have to add invisible wall to add to prevent peoples from exploring the world, they could take any single portion of a level and copy and paste it into the demo.

That's a rational statement for sure, but we have seen terrible demos in the past for good games. So you never know.

Not that I think this demo was terrible, just... average? More like "fine" as rockpapershotgun put it.

I think I can probably guess the content without having seen it. Same old story, Bansama?

Pretty average demo. I really didn't like the crap weapons, they all felt like toy guns with the rocket launcher being especially bad (it didn't seem to any splash damage, more like a explosive sniper rifle). It didn't really seem like a Duke Nukem game, just a copy-cat Call of Duty FPS with Duke Nukem slapped on it.

I agree. Valve's first ever game was Half-Life, but they took the time to make a great demo in Half-Life Uplink. Gearbox also hyped up the FAC demo a lot and to dump a year old PAX demo on FAC members in the end was pretty lame .

I know, but still...I would rather it not come out at all and serve as a vaporware joke than come out an average shooter. I thought the first full length trailer for DNF years ago looked way cooler than Gearbox's creation. And to have a whole trailer devoted to throwing poo? Come on now...

Try Fallout, slower than The WItcher on a single core with bugs to add flavor.:)
For the matter, so was XCOM: UFO Defense. Unstable and buggy as hell.
Both of those demos kept me away from those games for some time.

I did not bother to read the 10 pages of this thread, so I can say i'm not biased. I'll just say what I felt after playing the demo (thanks Delixe for helping me! ^_^)

The demo was meh. Duke not being able to jump higher than 30cm is a joke, i do hope they'll improved that on the final game. The main problem is that I felt almost no emotion playing that game!! I should have, it's Duke and I'm a fan of Duke !! Especially the fight against the boss was an anti-climax....

It's not a bad game, but that demo convinced me I won't be a "day one" buyer. I'll first see reviews here and there and impressions from players.

My favorite line was "stop bleeding, pussy."