StingingVelvet: 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game is not worth playing or not worth buying because it plays like something from 2005 instead of 2011, or that it is "outdated."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.

Kabuto: 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.

sethsez: First, it's being called "modern" because it plays like something from 2006, rather than the 1996 game some people pretended it was (that defense has mostly fallen by the wayside).

Second, it's being torn apart for the two weapon limit because the game is clearly not designed around it. As recently as 2008 we saw footage of the game without the two weapon limit, and it's not a stretch to say the level design probably didn't undergo any huge changes between that time and when the single player was "finished" by Gearbox. In Halo it works because the whole game revolves around it, here it just feels shoehorned in. It's especially a shame because the weapons are the best part of the game by far, and yet you're so limited by the current setup you barely get to play with most of them.

GameRager: 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.
GameRager: 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.

GameRager: It's like comparing DVDs to 8-track.

sethsez: Second, it's being torn apart for the two weapon limit because the game is clearly not designed around it. As recently as 2008 we saw footage of the game without the two weapon limit, and it's not a stretch to say the level design probably didn't undergo any huge changes between that time and when the single player was "finished" by Gearbox. In Halo it works because the whole game revolves around it, here it just feels shoehorned in. It's especially a shame because the weapons are the best part of the game by far, and yet you're so limited by the current setup you barely get to play with most of them.

sethsez: DVDs are better tech than 8-track, full stop. Are you saying Duke is just inherently bad? Your analogies are insulting the game more than defending it (not that I disagree with them).

Denezan: This is reply to your first paragraph. I think that if gearbox had said they were going to wait 2 more years to bring the game out, noone would have cared. The game itself has taken 12 to 14 years to be released as is, and was labeled as vapoware. So what difference would it have made if they said they were going to bring it out later than they had first said, ya know just to make the game actually decent? People would have just laughed it off again.

StingingVelvet: I don't really notice anything glaring about the weapon limit that is not in other games. All the weapons are found in abundance and the proper weapons for every encounter are nearby in those encounters. Halo was certainly no better in my experience.

Denezan: This is reply to your first paragraph. I think that if gearbox had said they were going to wait 2 more years to bring the game out, noone would have cared. The game itself has taken 12 to 14 years to be released as is, and was labeled as vapoware. So what difference would it have made if they said they were going to bring it out later than they had first said, ya know just to make the game actually decent? People would have just laughed it off again.

GameRager: It's like if 8-track was held up and not released until today and reviewers compared dvd to it as if 8-track should be good because of when it came out, regardless of the other factors like it being held up so long.

sethsez: To be honest, that probably wouldn't have worked. The game is too bogged down with design and tech issues for it to make sense to try and polish it up any more. It'd be cheaper to just start from scratch, which is what Randy Pitchford intended on doing from the beginning... he wanted the Duke IP, and finished up DNF was part of the stipulations for getting it.

Denezan: This is reply to your first paragraph. I think that if gearbox had said they were going to wait 2 more years to bring the game out, noone would have cared. The game itself has taken 12 to 14 years to be released as is, and was labeled as vapoware. So what difference would it have made if they said they were going to bring it out later than they had first said, ya know just to make the game actually decent? People would have just laughed it off again.

sethsez: If 8-track were released today it'd be a bad technology that wouldn't get adopted, and that people would rightfully laugh at. Again, not sure that your analogy is helping you here.

GameRager: You don't think they could've made it over again with new graphics/gimmicks in 2 years?

sethsez: If they started from scratch? Sure they could! In fact, that's exactly what they're doing. Like I said, finishing DNF was part of what they had to do to get the rights to Duke from 3D Realms, so they pushed it out the door. This is a contractual obligation release.

GameRager: Thing is the comparison.....on how it was compared not remembering it being a special case and all and not a recent game with recently implemented yet outdated tech/gamplay mechanics.

GameRager: So what do you think a sequel would be like? Maybe a total redo of this game ala a reboot of sorts? Or starting where this one leaves off?