Sorry but you can't really call something "innovative" just because it could have been innovative should have it been released 10 years ago. First like you said in your post we have no idea how many reboot the game had and what part of 199X or 200X DNF are in the 2011 version and what part were copied from other more recent FPS. (Given what I think of the level design I really hope for them they didn't spent the last ten year working on it :-) )

And second, more important, for innovation like for a lot of things timing is the essence, having an idea is nice, making something out of it is better, yes it would have had a lot of innovations if it was released in 2001... but it wasn't, since then we plenty of shooters featuring physic puzzle, driving sequences, scripted sequences, turrets sections, etc...

By the way I don't remember either a FPS featuring a minecart (I am pretty sure there are but I am unable to remember which, lots had "trains" sequences but not "minecart"), but basically it's a vehicle section. (and a 3 minutes section in a 9 hour game)

(By the way which puzzle "involving the truck" are you talking about ? I have no clue which one you are talking about)

If they ever do a sequel I am not sure it would be a good idea to continue using the same engine, IMHO given the chaotic development of DNF it would be much better if they do a clean start using either Borderland's modified UT3 engine or a newer engine with this time with a rigorous project management and clear objectives.

From experience; lack a project management and lots of last minutes changes often results on ultra-messy source code, usually nightmarish to maintains, or worse, improve.

He never said anything about using the same engine? And as I pointed out, they used the Unreal 2 engine. And seeing as, as you pointed out, the source code is probably a mess, it wouldn't make sense for them to continue using the same engine.

I thought that's what he implied, but maybe I misunderstood.

I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't be the first time. ;p

Well, I agree 110% about Witcher 2 and Red Dead.

Anyway, the bottom like is:

Your opinions,

my opinions,

and most importantly REVIEWERS opinions, are just that - opinions. Anyone who tells you this game or that game got this rating therefore is good/bad is so much of a tool Home Depot offered to buy stock in them.

The point of my post is people should start thinking for themselves and tell reviewers to take a flying leap.

You sir are 101% right and have awesome taste.

If I could i'd mark this post the winner.

---------------------------

To all: Things I would like to see improved in a possible sequel/prequel/etc:

+Save anywhere

+Ability to jump on stuff Duke should be able to given his jump height limit(like the Jacuzzi, the furniture in the studio green room, etc) but can't due to invisible walls.

+Decals that stay after you leave the area for longer than 5 seconds....like when flinging poop in the stadium locker room it will disappear if you leave the room.

That's true to a point. By that logic Apple deserves credit for all sorts of other things that they ripped it off from elsewhere. Or in the case of Time Machine where it was just a quarter step beyond what MS had already implemented in their test builds.

That's an awfully low bar for innovation, especially since implementation is only a part of the thing. We've known about the mine car sequences for about a decade now, I know that there are videos of that online from earlier demo videos.
The one for the third fuel rod. I've never seen anything like that. If you ignore why Duke can't break through the door, it's well justified, fun and not like the typical puzzles I've seen.

That sort of puzzle is something that I'd like to see more of in the future.


I was talking about mechanics. Now that they know how a lot of that stuff actually works it should be a lot easier to implement it in a timely fashion. Part of the problem was presumably that they were wanting originally to do a large game with many different pieces of interactive environment. Such games take a ton of time to code, create and test. And usually end up being buggy as hell, just look at FO3 and Oblivion.

Not sure how long this game is but I am 5 hours in and very much still enjoying myself. I would go as far as to say this is a great game in my opinion.

It is.....except the stuff I mentioned above. ;)

I got as far as the RC car and so far it seems awesome.

Seriously I dont understand those reviews, I own Duke Nukem Forever. True, its linear. True, it didnt age very well. True, you can have only 2 main weapons. But I am having fun while playing Duke...isnt that all that matters? (Also MP is great in my opinion)

You answered your own question. You said, true it hasn't aged well. It came out five days ago and passed off a AAA full priced title.

There have been a few ;).
Example 1
Example 2

You didn't answer his question/statement...you just mocked the pricetag and added little else.

It's all that matters for you, but other people aren't playing from your perspective, they're playing from theirs.

The game bores me. All other issues aside, ignoring the lack of humor or the misogyny or the terrible engine or the awful art design or the Halo weapon and health systems... ignoring all of those, the game just plain bores me. I'm not having fun when I'm playing it. And I know for a fact I'm not the only one.

And so that's why we complain about it. Not because we want to tear it down, but because we want to communicate why it's so boring to us. The two weapon system isn't inherently bad, but it does limit weapon choice. Regenerating health isn't inherently bad, but it does slow the action down frequently. Platforming and puzzles and interactive cutscenes aren't inherently bad, but here there's so many of them that they feel like padding more than anything, and frequently make the action stop for long periods of time.

If you find the game fun, more power to you. But people who don't like it aren't just ignoring the fun we're having so we can tear the game to shreds, we're legitimately not having fun. And believe me, I didn't spend $50 on this thing at launch just so I could insult it (I don't have enough money to just throw it away like that), I legitimately wanted to enjoy it. But I just don't.

So to answer your question, no, you having fun is not all that matters. It's all that matters for you personally, but likewise, for those of us who find it dull as dirt, that is all that matters.
I remember what they were like. They featured big, maze-like levels in which you mowed down dozens of enemies at a time while searching for keys and amassing an ever-increasing arsenal, with the entirety of the plot being summed up in a couple text screens.

They did not feature extensive platforming segments, weapon limitations, quick time events, regenerating health, linear level designs, interactive cutscenes, mini-games, long driving sequences, turret sections, instant melee attacks with the butt of your gun, limited sprint, NPC partners, or extensively scripted sequences.

Duke Nukem Forever has nothing whatsoever to do with old-school FPS and everything to do with post-Halo, post-Half-Life 2 design. Which is fine, there's nothing inherently wrong with modern FPS design, but the game's poor reception has nothing to do with a general distaste for old-school FPS because the game's design is straight 2006, not 1996.