Comments on: Stymied/Threatened Press Hurts Us All I bought Duke Nukem Forever - partly because I wanted to see if it really was *that* bad given the low scores from outlets such as EDGE or Eurogamer. It is bad. It's not 0/10 bad, it's not even 3/10 bad - but it is bad. It's certainly not a Duke Nukem game. Coming at the game as one of those guys who as a kid loved Duke 3D, this isn't even a followup. I just wanted a game where I ran around and shot aliens in the face. This isn't it. DNF showcases where the 13/14 years went by spending so much time not shooting stuff. I didn't mind the crass humour (I knew what I was getting into by buying a Duke title!) but the horrendously outdated gameplay, fluctuating standards in graphics (some parts look awful while some sections look amazing!), the frankly awful post processing etc. I'd summise that anyone giving this game a score above 60% hasn't played anything since Duke 3D. (60% imho is darned generous!) I bought Duke Nukem Forever – partly because I wanted to see if it really was *that* bad given the low scores from outlets such as EDGE or Eurogamer.

It is bad. It’s not 0/10 bad, it’s not even 3/10 bad – but it is bad. It’s certainly not a Duke Nukem game. Coming at the game as one of those guys who as a kid loved Duke 3D, this isn’t even a followup. I just wanted a game where I ran around and shot aliens in the face. This isn’t it.

DNF showcases where the 13/14 years went by spending so much time not shooting stuff. I didn’t mind the crass humour (I knew what I was getting into by buying a Duke title!) but the horrendously outdated gameplay, fluctuating standards in graphics (some parts look awful while some sections look amazing!), the frankly awful post processing etc.

I’d summise that anyone giving this game a score above 60% hasn’t played anything since Duke 3D. (60% imho is darned generous!)

]]>
By: snake5/2011/06/20/stymiedthreatened-press-hurts-us-all/#comment-6106 snake5 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:05:22 +0000 First I want to say thank you to those who've responded thus far, it means that you read my post and that means something to me. Secondly, being my first post here at #AltDev–I wanted something that caught people's attention, yet wasn't too over-the-top. I'm not in the industry, I don't know the first thing about coding or art, or any other of the myriad disciplines that go into making games. I'm working on learning programming, but it's a long road. That being said, there are things I bring to the table and there are things that I don't. Help me help you. Point out where my deficiencies are and bolster my stronger points. I promise I will return in kind with coherent, honest feedback from the perspective of a hardcore gamer. Kevin - I know the examples you are referring to. If devs are going to give scoops like the COD Elite and spend a lot of money for advertisement on a title like Kane & Lynch, then they need to be willing to accept the verdict of the reviewing populace. George - I assumed that my reasoning was within the context of the text, I apologize for not making myself clear. Reviewers need to be able to write reviews without fear of repercussions from devs, publishers, or PR firms. If the waters become muddied, everyone comes away with a bad taste in their mouths, and revenue could be adversely affected. And at the end of the day, that's really what it's all about, right? Also, you state that the article is immature and reactionary, but then it's that I'm treating it calm? I don't mean to be argumentative, but which is it? Snake - I've played Duke 3D. Aside from some innovative technical features, it was a tired game back then. I stand by my assertion that the game should only be clamored for by fans of sophomoric humor or straight-up misogynists. As far as the Muslim comment, I have to agree with Kevin, it's got no place in this discussion, nor is it even relevant. Thanks for the link to the video. I watched the first 10 minutes of it before I had to take my son to soccer practice, and it seems to me that while the guy is intelligent, he's obviously a Duke apologist and not a neutral party. And for the record, I abhor the COD series. And most FPSes in general for that matter. I think they're cashing in on what is hot without making much in the way of innovation or progress (some like Resistance at least have an interesting premise), and the general gaming public is either too ignorant or too wrapped up in a spiral of silence to say anything. Martin - Thank you for the kind words. I'm aware that the PR firm in question has been fired so I think it's safe to say that Gearbox agrees with most of the assertions I've made. Still, I will read the article you linked to, I'm interested in hearing what they had to say for themselves. Okay, here's the deal. Seeing as this was my first post, I didn't want to rock the boat. But because I either wasn't clear enough or misconstrued things because I was pulling punches, there needs to be some clarification. 1- I think that it is a tremendous thing that the game was able to finally see the light of day, considering all it has been through over the last decade-plus of development. 2- That said, I don't think the game should have been made, period. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ready to hand in my "man-card" anytime soon, but the fact of the matter is nearly half of all gamers today are female. Duke's antics didn't have a place in gaming back in 1996, and surely not in 2011. Say what you will, but I will never feel otherwise. Those who have wives, sisters, and especially daughters should feel the same way. We're constantly trying to trumpet games as art so that they receive the same status as films, music and books, yet DNF doesn't feel like it in any way, shape, or form. Just as there's a difference between nude model drawings and XXX hardcore films, there is when it comes to video games. 3- I know that reviews aren't written in a bubble. Everyone brings their own biases and experience to the table when playing a game, and journalists are no exception. Do I feel that DNF might have been somewhat unfairly ganged upon? Possibly. But I do know this–No reviewer should ever have to fear for their job, or retaliatory treatment over a review. 4- Lastly, I'm a gamer. Sure, I want to work in the industry someday, but it's because of the passion I've held for these wonderful titles over the last 30+ years. I never want to see a title or a studio fail. I'm quite vocal about my opinions of some of the way business is conducted *ahem* Kotic *ahem*, but I want to see all succeed because competition is what brings out the best in everyone, and that's when we gamers win. I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but I hope it clears up some things. Again, regardless of your opinion of my work, thank you for reading it. It means a lot. First I want to say thank you to those who’ve responded thus far, it means that you read my post and that means something to me. Secondly, being my first post here at #AltDev–I wanted something that caught people’s attention, yet wasn’t too over-the-top. I’m not in the industry, I don’t know the first thing about coding or art, or any other of the myriad disciplines that go into making games. I’m working on learning programming, but it’s a long road. That being said, there are things I bring to the table and there are things that I don’t. Help me help you. Point out where my deficiencies are and bolster my stronger points. I promise I will return in kind with coherent, honest feedback from the perspective of a hardcore gamer.

Kevin – I know the examples you are referring to. If devs are going to give scoops like the COD Elite and spend a lot of money for advertisement on a title like Kane & Lynch, then they need to be willing to accept the verdict of the reviewing populace.

George – I assumed that my reasoning was within the context of the text, I apologize for not making myself clear. Reviewers need to be able to write reviews without fear of repercussions from devs, publishers, or PR firms. If the waters become muddied, everyone comes away with a bad taste in their mouths, and revenue could be adversely affected. And at the end of the day, that’s really what it’s all about, right? Also, you state that the article is immature and reactionary, but then it’s that I’m treating it calm? I don’t mean to be argumentative, but which is it?

Snake – I’ve played Duke 3D. Aside from some innovative technical features, it was a tired game back then. I stand by my assertion that the game should only be clamored for by fans of sophomoric humor or straight-up misogynists. As far as the Muslim comment, I have to agree with Kevin, it’s got no place in this discussion, nor is it even relevant. Thanks for the link to the video. I watched the first 10 minutes of it before I had to take my son to soccer practice, and it seems to me that while the guy is intelligent, he’s obviously a Duke apologist and not a neutral party. And for the record, I abhor the COD series. And most FPSes in general for that matter. I think they’re cashing in on what is hot without making much in the way of innovation or progress (some like Resistance at least have an interesting premise), and the general gaming public is either too ignorant or too wrapped up in a spiral of silence to say anything.

Martin – Thank you for the kind words. I’m aware that the PR firm in question has been fired so I think it’s safe to say that Gearbox agrees with most of the assertions I’ve made. Still, I will read the article you linked to, I’m interested in hearing what they had to say for themselves.

Okay, here’s the deal. Seeing as this was my first post, I didn’t want to rock the boat. But because I either wasn’t clear enough or misconstrued things because I was pulling punches, there needs to be some clarification.

1- I think that it is a tremendous thing that the game was able to finally see the light of day, considering all it has been through over the last decade-plus of development.

2- That said, I don’t think the game should have been made, period. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ready to hand in my “man-card” anytime soon, but the fact of the matter is nearly half of all gamers today are female. Duke’s antics didn’t have a place in gaming back in 1996, and surely not in 2011. Say what you will, but I will never feel otherwise. Those who have wives, sisters, and especially daughters should feel the same way. We’re constantly trying to trumpet games as art so that they receive the same status as films, music and books, yet DNF doesn’t feel like it in any way, shape, or form. Just as there’s a difference between nude model drawings and XXX hardcore films, there is when it comes to video games.

3- I know that reviews aren’t written in a bubble. Everyone brings their own biases and experience to the table when playing a game, and journalists are no exception. Do I feel that DNF might have been somewhat unfairly ganged upon? Possibly. But I do know this–No reviewer should ever have to fear for their job, or retaliatory treatment over a review.

4- Lastly, I’m a gamer. Sure, I want to work in the industry someday, but it’s because of the passion I’ve held for these wonderful titles over the last 30+ years. I never want to see a title or a studio fail. I’m quite vocal about my opinions of some of the way business is conducted *ahem* Kotic *ahem*, but I want to see all succeed because competition is what brings out the best in everyone, and that’s when we gamers win.

I’m sorry for the length of my reply, but I hope it clears up some things. Again, regardless of your opinion of my work, thank you for reading it. It means a lot.

]]>
By: Martin Doms/2011/06/20/stymiedthreatened-press-hurts-us-all/#comment-6063 Martin Doms Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:18:44 +0000 If you're interested, the author of the tweets wrote an article/3-page-excuse in Wired today. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/duke-nukem-twitter-brain-fart/ The guy, quite frankly, comes across as a complete jerk. He can't help but blame everyone else in his excessively long article. People like this guy are determined to ruin gaming media for the benefit of his clients, and it really pisses me off. Great article Derek, but I'm afraid you might be off in this quote: <i>"What I do know is that when reviewers are unable to give unabashed criticism or unbridled praise for a particular title based on their experiences, we all lose."</i> Honestly I'm not convinced we're not well past that point. Look at reviews like PC Gamers' absurd 94% (or their 80% for Duke, for that matter). Look at the Gamespot Kayne & Lynch debacle. It's clear that reviews, especially early reviews, are already badly biased. If you’re interested, the author of the tweets wrote an article/3-page-excuse in Wired today.
I don't see any reason to think so, would you care to explain? I don’t see any reason to think so, would you care to explain?

]]>
By: Kevin Gadd/2011/06/20/stymiedthreatened-press-hurts-us-all/#comment-6051 Kevin Gadd Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:36:10 +0000 Just because the majority has an opinion doesn't make it a good one. I'm not a fan of the original game, I haven't even played it. But this game is really good. The single player part is much better than any of the latest CoD games. So I would say that the critics are not the hurt ones here. They're idiots. They deserved the words they got from the game's PR rep. Just the inconsistency between review scores and the words used is enough to say so. And if you're truly concerned about the freedom of speech, I'd suggest working with Muslims. Gamers have been putting up with reviewers' crap for a long time, I don't think anyone's trying to stop them in any violent way. But using an opinion against another opinion has never hurt anyone, except pseudointellectuals. P.S. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th2z0xT-X5s" rel="nofollow">Here's a decent opinion about the game and the reviewers.</a> If you don't understand why I'd like to call them idiots, this is the place to find more answers. Just because the majority has an opinion doesn’t make it a good one. I’m not a fan of the original game, I haven’t even played it. But this game is really good. The single player part is much better than any of the latest CoD games. So I would say that the critics are not the hurt ones here. They’re idiots. They deserved the words they got from the game’s PR rep. Just the inconsistency between review scores and the words used is enough to say so.

And if you’re truly concerned about the freedom of speech, I’d suggest working with Muslims. Gamers have been putting up with reviewers’ crap for a long time, I don’t think anyone’s trying to stop them in any violent way. But using an opinion against another opinion has never hurt anyone, except pseudointellectuals.

P.S. Here’s a decent opinion about the game and the reviewers. If you don’t understand why I’d like to call them idiots, this is the place to find more answers.

]]> By: George/2011/06/20/stymiedthreatened-press-hurts-us-all/#comment-6031 George Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:07:52 +0000 The gaming press consistently allow themselves to be pushed around by industry PR departments, in part because they rely on free review copies and other perks. For a while this was probably healthy - I doubt it actually affected review scores in the early days - but at this point, it's pretty clear that these behaviors actually do influence review scores. I think the Jeff Gerstmann incident you mention was a clear example of this. It's probably not completely fair to blame the gaming press for this, though. The negative reactions to that recent incident with gaming press being embargoed while the WSJ was given a scoop (I think it was on the Activision 'call of duty elite' announcement?) demonstrate that the press isn't happy with the status quo either. There are also a number of game review outlets that buy their own review copies in order to eliminate any appearance of bias and in order to avoid having to deal with embargoes and review score floors when putting up reviews, and that's a good sign. Ultimately though I'm not sure this can be completely fixed. Game developers get pretty attached to their work (and for good reason), and likewise game reviewers take their job seriously and are justified in demanding the right to say what they really think in a review. Unless you're one of those people whose game ends up getting a 95+ on Metacritic, a reviewer's perspective is likely to offend you in one way or another, so maintaining a healthy relationship requires a huge amount of maturity and patience on both sides, despite the huge amount of pressure and risk involved for both parties. :/ The gaming press consistently allow themselves to be pushed around by industry PR departments, in part because they rely on free review copies and other perks. For a while this was probably healthy – I doubt it actually affected review scores in the early days – but at this point, it’s pretty clear that these behaviors actually do influence review scores. I think the Jeff Gerstmann incident you mention was a clear example of this.

It’s probably not completely fair to blame the gaming press for this, though. The negative reactions to that recent incident with gaming press being embargoed while the WSJ was given a scoop (I think it was on the Activision ‘call of duty elite’ announcement?) demonstrate that the press isn’t happy with the status quo either. There are also a number of game review outlets that buy their own review copies in order to eliminate any appearance of bias and in order to avoid having to deal with embargoes and review score floors when putting up reviews, and that’s a good sign.

Ultimately though I’m not sure this can be completely fixed. Game developers get pretty attached to their work (and for good reason), and likewise game reviewers take their job seriously and are justified in demanding the right to say what they really think in a review. Unless you’re one of those people whose game ends up getting a 95+ on Metacritic, a reviewer’s perspective is likely to offend you in one way or another, so maintaining a healthy relationship requires a huge amount of maturity and patience on both sides, despite the huge amount of pressure and risk involved for both parties. :/

]]>