Maybe you don't get it? Because it's not a game you'd like perhaps?

Also, the thing here to remember is that DNF is a special case, and it's been stalled for how many years.....it isn't exactly like it was made with up-to-date mechanics and graphics for 2010/2011 so it shouldn't be held against the heavy hitters of those years, imo.

I have no problem playing a slower-paced game, even a slow-paced action game, if the segments in between the action are compelling in their own right. I don't find any of the distractions or padding in DNF to be compelling, so it's just killing time for me.

And although I can understand difference of opinion and all that, I really have trouble describing the story as "ok". It's disjointed as hell and literally unfinished. Maybe if the game had been completed properly it would have worked better, but as it is this is a duct-tape job and is blatant about it.

Meh, to me it seems ok so far....."padding" included.

People "get it" just fine. It's a FPS from 2005-7 released today. It's not exactly a complex game, nor is it a particularly niche style. We're not talking about Gary Grigsby's Pacific War here, it's a modern FPS somewhere between Half-Life and Halo.

And I find today's endless holding of the W key while you shoot people to be pretty boring often times, so I guess we just have... dun Dun DUN... different taste! Half-Life 2 is still the best FPS ever made if you ask me, nothing since has topped it.

The Gametrailers review is up. Same complaints as most other reviewers. Xbox version really does look like shit.

But to hold it up to 2011 standards is a gross oversight, still. That'd be like comparing a 1980's car and a 2000's model. Not fair in the slightest.

And to some it's a good game. As others said it's best to enjoy what it has and not criticise to death what it lacks just for the sake of getting back at 3DR/Broussard for making people wait so long and also not giving them DN3D 2.

I said I won't like it (which doesn't mean I don't like shooters which I do, COD no so much but still like shooters). And I covered paragraph two in my post already. If you say it's a great AAA title but use modern (post 2000) conventions that were done better years ago you must face the consequences.

Thing is DNF implemented these conventions years ago....not just recently. You act as if GBX put most of them in last year. What would you rather have had? The entire game redone with new gameplay elements and redone levels in 2 more years? Or a game now with some flaws? You couldn't have both.

And btw some LIKE those gimmicks....even if they've been done before. Ever stop to think about that? I mean it's not like we're all think alike automatons that all think reusing gameplay elements is a bad thing or that it can't be enjoyable.

Also to some it just may be a good AAA title.
Yes while we see it as everyone having different taste & can silently accept some of the reasonable criticisms others continue to spew the old "you guys must just be blind fans"/"The game was just plain crap period, and no one in their right mind should like or enjoy it." crap.

But that's irrelevant. It's 2011 and the game is full price. Those concepts are outdated and inferior to the ones who did it first years ago. So now you go from a game that could have scored decent 5 years ago and then aged terribly to a game that's already very aged straight out of release and you expect the same scores?

Yes, as I said DNF is a special case and should be judged more on the year it should've come out(when it was mostly produced in) than the one it came out in. Anything else isn't being exactly fair. Also they had to charge top dollar to recoup the costs to make it. Plus they're greedy.

And btw they're only outdated due to DNF being halted so many times. Back when they were implemented they were probably unique or close to it. But you think it's fair they judge the gimmicks as being "outdated" as if the GBX crew implemented them into the game this year and not judge the game for how good/original they were when they were implemented? I think at least reviewers should take these facts into account to some degree.

Welcome to reality. None of this every kid gets a medal for trying crap.

I find it amusing that on a site called good old games I have to read that a game is not worth playing or not worth buying because it plays like something from 2005 instead of 2011, or that it is "outdated."

Honestly the fact that Duke Nukem Forever plays like something from 2005 instead of 2011 is a POSITIVE in my book. The game is BETTER because of that, not worse. It's actually the most "modern" aspects that I have a problem with, i.e. the two gun limit.

Also why is this game being bashed for a gun limit by modern reviewers who never mention that as a negative in Halo or other games? I mean I agree a gun limit is bad, but why do they suddenly realize that with this game in particular? It all amounts to it being open season on Duke, because the game was expected to be old and troubled.

The game was good though, and you keep missing the point. It's like comparing DVDs to 8-track. Not a fair comparison and any review that works that way isn't being honest to it's readers or fair to the source material. Price has nothing to do with comparing games on their good and bad merits gameplay wise, and shouldn't come into play when reviewing for the most part.
As if pro reviewers were ever fair.....reviewing it with kid gloves would actually present a fair review with how biased and crap most reviews are these days.
As I said it boils down to Duke fans being upset at it not being exactly DN3D 2, and with it taking so long, and all the modern stuff they don't like shoehorned in.

Good old games are still good. This is old not and good. This is older modern concepts done worse and stitched together to make a game. Half-Life 2 is a good old game. A story and gameplay that was done better and was formed from the ground up into a proper game. Not a game cobbled together from other shooters. See the difference.