Yes, but these are the same scientists which would have you believe that we "evolved" from monkeys many thousands of years ago.

This is of course preposterous, the world is only about 7,000 years old, and the fossilized "dinosaurs" paleontologists have been digging up were placed there to test the faith of the true believers, heathen.

If someone legitimately finds the game boring from beginning to end and barely chuckled at the humor, what are they supposed to say? Your experience with the game doesn't invalidate theirs any more than theirs doesn't invalidate yours.

I swear, this whole "haters" concept is annoying in general because it just becomes a way to completely dismiss anything someone who doesn't agree with you. I could reply that you "drank the kool-aid" and then I guess we'd be at an impasse? Or maybe it's better to just stop assuming the other side is arguing in bad faith and actually talk about the damn game rather than the people who disagree about the game.

Then, perhaps they should learn to read and how to articulate their point of view.

They got labeled as haters primarily because they were trolling or doing a piss poor job of reading the comments that were posted. Some folks, like you, have been more articulate and I can at least relate, even if I don't agree.

Which is the problem, if one doesn't like the game fine, but it's been pretty lopsided in terms of the folks that liked the game tending to be more articulate than those that haven't liked the game. Not to mention the tendency I've seen to deliberately misread comments.

As for somebody that barely chuckled, that's fine saying that you didn't think it was funny, if you only barely chuckled, but some of the things I've seen written implied that not only was it not funny to them, but that anybody that laughed had to be pretty dim. Which is not cool, and those are the sorts of comments that bug me the most.

Given that I've felt the exact opposite, I'm inclined to say this is confirmation bias more than anything else. Most of the people defending the game have been saying "it's fun" without saying what makes it fun, or "Duke is back" which seems to imply they're more excited about the return of the brand than anything else. The complainers have at least given reason for their opinions... so many reasons, in fact, that they get labeled as nitpickers!

But again, maybe I'm just inserting my own reasons into negative replies and seeing them as better reasoned. Maybe you're doing the same.

As for the game's humor...well, I view it the same way I view Disaster Movie. I don't think less of anybody as a person if they laugh at it, but I'm not likely to take their recommendations on comedy in the future. And yes, I really do find the humor on the level of Disaster Movie, nothing but a stream of faux-offensiveness mixed in with blatant references that the game frequently gets wrong or misses the point of. My favorite example of the game missing the point of its own reference is when Duke says "remember when I said I'd kill you last? I lied." This is a line taken from Commando, but the only reason it works in Commando is because John Matrix said he'd kill that guy last, and is now in fact killing him earlier than that. It's a callback to an earlier line, which Duke of course doesn't have, so either you get the reference (and the joke is that... it's a reference), or it's just nonsense. This is bad, lazy writing, where the humor comes almost exclusively from just recognizing something.

So, again. You're free to like it, but if you tell me later on that you found a movie hilarious, I'm probably going to look for a second opinion, because clearly your humor doesn't match up with mine. :)

Agreed Hedwards.

Some people play civilization and some find bloodrayne good.
..first bloodrayne was IMO good. =)
We all play games we like.
It doesn't mean that someone needs to be right which is better.
But people are people. Our own opinions is mostly always the right one.
There's still no reason to hate a game so much that it takes most of the day to write about how it sucks and people who play that particular game are lesser beings. Or the other way around.
Opinions are good and bug findings.. especially in witcher 2 forum when they still make patches.

And duke always was a cliche. It was his thing.

Yeah, but 3D Realms had the brilliant idea of trying to build a story around him with NPCs and such. If you're going to make me stand around while plot happens, my expectations for the quality of the writing are going to increase. And if the character doesn't hold up to that, then why the hell do it? If Duke is still going to be nothing more than a quip machine, then keep the plot to a minimum and let me blow shit up, don't make me listen to pages of dialog or wander through long action-free areas to build "atmosphere."

Nobody complains about Serious Sam being dumb as a brick because the plot never gets in the way.

All I know is I've played the game for 7 hours and had a blast the entire time. The weapon limit is annoying and some of the jokes do indeed fall flat, but none of that condemns the game to horrible territory at all if you ask me.

It's fun to play. It's like Half-Life 2 only not done quite as well, but with tons of personality.

I play adventures and rpg:s for story and mostly others for fun. Serious sam 1 was pretty good. I didn't care much the second one.
Crysis 1 was great (although I would have left the aliens away and stayed with koreans). I play crysis 2 now. It's good too but well.. In first the levels.. well there was no levels. it was more open.

It is good, even with the problems. People just feel the need to whine in a few of the cases because of the 14 year wait and because it's not DN3Dish enough.

Not whine, point out flaws. I've read tons of comments. The "you don't get it" seems to be a popular choice especially over on steam.

Well I do get. Duke tries to be a modern game in almost every way except most of the concepts it used were done better years ago. The only old-school part would be the humor, the interactivity in the bathroom and the guns brought over from DN3D. Don't get mad when it's treated as a modern game by reviewers and slammed because it wants to be a modern shooter.

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it but don't dismiss the reviewers as idiots. Randy Pitchford said it is a AAA title that doesnt fizzle out and is no budget title. The bottom line is that it's 2011 and no reviewer should have to review it like it's a 2005 game which even then wouldn't score that much higher probably.

There is a ton of combat in this game. It has less non-combat sections than Half-Life does. I don't get that complaint at all.

The story is ok, and if you can't go a few minutes without shooting something without getting bored then maybe it's not the game that sucks but it's just not a game for you?

It's acceptable in Half-Life because Half-Life uses those segments to attempt to tell a story and build legitimate atmosphere. In Duke it's just a waste of time.

The other difference is that Half-Life 2 came out in 2004 and all those non-combat segments were new and exciting at the time, so it was easier to be forgiving of them. These days I find HL2 to be a slog to get through as well, because "HOLY SHIT PLOT IN A FPS" isn't particularly interesting anymore.

If DNF did something interesting with its down time I wouldn't be complaining, but for the most part it's all infinitely worse than the actual combat and ads nothing to the game, so why have it? Storytelling sequences don't make much sense in a game that's not trying to tell a story.

Of course, the real reason it's here is because a lot of the stages are unfinished and Gearbox just found ways to slap them together (Titty City wasn't originally a dream sequence, for example, but the connecting stages were never completed so it just got stuck in there). Which, from a development process, I can understand. But it just kills the pacing for me, to the point where I really regret paying full price for what is clearly not a finished game.