i have not got up to there yet in DNF, but Duke has actually done it before in the N64 Game Duke Nukem: Zero Hour (which i thought was pretty good game Too) while chasing after a bomb and then Fights a giant Scorpion

http://www.5min.com/Video/Duke-Nukem-Zero-Hour-N64-walkthrough---Probing-the-depths-99665714

The main problem with the weapon limit is that it was shoehorned in game that was never designed around it.

Most modern shooters feature a large number of redundant, pseudo-realistic guns which do mostly the same thing with slightly different stats, so not only you can't carry them all, but most of the time, you don't even want to (who needs 4 machine guns and 3 sniper rifles at once?).

On the contrary Duke Nukem 3d featured only a dozen, very well distinct guns, with specific strengths and weaknesses (for example the Rocket Launcher was too dangerous for close encounters, the Chaingun required constant line of sight, the Shrinker could one-shot enemies but was unreliable, etc...).

DNF features the same arsenal with minor additions.

So when you're forced to pick between only 2 of them, you always feel handicapped in some way.

Redner PR team fired for throwing a tantrum over poor reviews

"2K Games does not endorse or condone the comments made by @TheRednerGroup and confirm they no longer represent our products," says a tweet from the firm, and later another, "We maintain a mutually respectful relationships with the press and will continue to do so. We don't condone @TheRednerGroup's actions at all", which seems to cement its postion.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/numb-thumbs-blog/2079569/duke-nukem-sacks-firm

So I played it for a few hours now. I don't think I have anything to add that hasn't been said before, but here are my opinions:
1) The two weapon limit is a major, major drawback. The RPG can only carry 5 rockets? The two weapon limit would be fine if you had unlimited ammo, but the current system means that I've occasionally had to switch to a weapon that I don't want or like because I'm not sure as to how far the next restocking point is.

2) The AI is somewhat poor, but that in itself doesn't ruin the game for me.

3) The puzzles are great, but there are simply too many of them. They break the flow of the game. I simply cannot play the game for longer than about 2 hours at a time because I just get bored of the puzzles.

4) Level design is probably the weakest part of the game. It's annoying to have to go up to stuff to see whether you can interact with it or not. Points of progression aren't obvious, often leading to this very problem.

Apart from that, it's not a bad game as such and definitely doesn't warrant all of the flak that it is receiving. I'd give it a 7/10.

I see the "you just don't like Old School Shooter Games" routine has become the mantra of the DNF fanboys. That some of us who loved the orignial DUke Nukem 3d and love old school shooters think this is a failed attempt to recapture the glory seems to go beyond them.
As pointed out, the consolization of the game is what ruined it in many people;s opinion.
And the war on the critics is getting silly. When the fanboys accuse the critics of being unable to look at something objectively, it's like the funniest thing ever.

looks like gamespot has now added a video review to go along with there written review. Suggest you guys check it out and see what you agree with and what you dont.

Zero hour was good game. Played that when my brother had that on N64. There was a other Duke on playstation.. Thirdperson. It was also quite good.
Manhattan project is great game also. Platform-shooter. What can I say. Fun.
DNF. Havent played. Well, I just read a bit reviews.. Horrible scores. But maybe someday, if demo doesn't totally suck.

Hypocrisy much? It's a valid criticism to make. A lot of the haters have been blasting the game since before it was even released as a demo. Most of the complaints I've seen about the game reflect a pretty much complete lack of understanding of both the history of the FPS genre and the history of Duke Nukem specifically.

Unlike the haters, the fans of the game have been comparatively objective about the fact that it's not perfect and that there's work that should have been done. It's mostly the trolls who seem incapable of reconciling the fact that the game isn't complete crap and is in fact actually enjoyable to play to at least a portion of the userbase.

I haven't seen anybody defend the fact that the Xbox version is garbage or that there are patches needed. Nor have I seen anybody claim that the game shouldn't have come out several years ago.

But, OTOH, I have seen all manner of ridiculous bashing going on, much of which doesn't even resemble the actual game, by people who by their own admission have never played it. And "reviews" which slip so far into editorializing that only a moron couldn't see that.

So, yes. I think that you're being hypocritical to say the least.

It's really hard for those of us that have liked the game to imagine how anybody who isn't a troll could possibly buy into a lot of the hyperbole about the game. It's not the greatest game ever, but it's hardly the piece of crap that a lot of the posters around here would like you to believe.
Honestly, it's fun, just do yourself a favor and buy the PC version rather than the console versions.

The scores themselves are quite a bit lower than what the gameplay would justify. You should read them for yourself, but a lot of the scoring is for things which have no reasonable connection to the game or are horribly subjective. The humor aspect for instance, is just as present as it was in DN3D, but for some people it doesn't work. I personally thought the jokes were just as funny as the older games, but that's my view, not going to ding anybody for having a contrary opinion. But, OTOH, going into multiple paragraphs about how the terrible humor is kind of cheap.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of game where there are few people who think it's OK, most people seem to love it or hate it. But, given the echo chambers from the various forum trolls, I'd wager that it's significantly more popular than this or other forum posts would suggest.

My bet is that the game is on Gog withing 10 years, owing mostly to the fact that it's not old enough to qualify for being here. After all they have Riven here and that was a pretty significant mistake.

It's only a part, but it's the biggest part, everybody have once thought about flying cars, and that for decades now, but yet the real innovation will only be when somebody finally manage to makes ones that works.

Ok now I see the one you mean now, I have to agree that it was an nice puzzle, at least it was one of the few Duke-ish puzzle, even tough it's just a very basic "crane" puzzle where you move a "crane"-like thingy to grab/move/push something.

I wouldn't call it an "innovation" but at least a nice twist on a well known formula.

Well they already had 90% of those mechanics after DN3D, the issue with DNF was not the time it took them to code an interact-able pinball or a throw-able piece of human waste, or even the remote control car section, no it was just the total lack of any real project management and a clear vision of what they wanted to do. If they had both I am pretty sure we would be playing the third or fourth DNF sequel by now.

I would only expect higher scores if the game was no higher than $10 new.

Nobody in their right mind would argue that this wasn't a huge problem, and probably huge enough to outweigh all the other ones they had.

I do see plenty of good things in the game, I just think that it's been outweighed in large part by things like level design and a failure to integrate those things early enough to make them fit well together.

A lot of the criticism about the game I get, it just gets old having folks scare off potentially happy players with criticisms which are in many cases unfair. I personally appreciated your mini-review because it came across as being both honest and relatively fair. Obvious, I'm not you, so I'm going to differ a bit on it, but it was at least helpful.

PS. You might want to fix your quotes. ;-)
Cost has nothing to do with whether a game is fun. A game will be just as fun if you pay $1k for it as if you pay nothing for it. The cost shouldn't come into it at all until you're considering whether or not to buy a copy.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that that's the case. Personally, I've wasted more time on Warzone 2100 than pretty much any other game I've had in recent years, and I got that for free. And likewise, there's a few commercial games I've got which I've barely played at all.

Sometimes small problems can be overlooked because "well, you're only losing $10-15".

Ah, I do agree with that, I just don't think that it's appropriate in the review itself. That's more what I think when I see a review that's not as good as it might be. If it's a game that's only $10-15 I'm more willing to take a risk, then if it's a $60 or more game.

It just seems to me to be bad practice to judge a game based upon that in general. Slipping it into the conclusion wouldn't be wrong, but I think measuring based upon the cost is sort of bad form. Especially given that it's not how much the game retails for that impacts the experience so much as the time and money that goes in. If they're spending $50m to make a game, then it's reasonable to hold that to a higher standard than one that is made for $1m.

Not sure how that would apply to DNF as it doesn't seem appropriate to include the cost of work which was ultimately thrown out, at least not without prorating it.

Scientific advances have enables us to objectively label DNF as a terrible game. The link is a few pages back, I can't be bothered to find it.

You can't argue with science.