The Duke gets a rare award on Metacritic.com as a 0/10 review score is posted there.
C'mon, it's bad but not 0/10 bad. How can they allow such nonsense?
That's really not fair of 1Up. I've played DNF and it's far from a 0/10 game.
1UP can only look past a bunch of flaws in a game and give it a great score when that game is Gears of War
here's that 1UP Gears review. http://i16.photobucket.com/...
DrFUD, LOL. I don't even
Apparently the goal is to generate hits as much as possible w/ review scores now. It might be a 7/10 or a 5/10 but i'll give a 0/10 so i can be special... Retarded special, maybe. Ugh, I've played plenty worse games than DNF. 0/10 should be reserved for broken unplayable games.. What are the standards of reviewers these days?
Well, as anyone with a working mouse, I clicked the article, the link, and the review link. First of all, 1UP's score isn't a 0/100. It is an 'F' Metacritic often gives scores 'based' on what a review says. It's the reason Uncharted 1 fell short of a 90/100....because they decided that a B- was equivalent to a 67. Yeah. (They've since added some more unknown sites that gave it lower scores, and it is now an 88/100....no signs of bias from metacritic here..../s) Second of all, it's not like Duke Nukem doesn't deserve a low score. The metascore is BELOW 50. In a generation when reviewers almost never deviate from a 6-10 review scale, this is REALLY low. You can be like so many on this site and say "LALALALA I can't hear you! I'm going to go spend $60 and find out for myself" or be in denial and claim "This proves that DNF is successful! COD players can't handle it!" But the reality is that most of the 'humor' falls flat, the level design is awful and outdated, and the gameplay isn't anything special by any measures.
@SilentNegotiator Finally, someone who actually READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING.
^Wow! An A+ after all those problems?!
If you played the original in 96 this game has a special place in your heart. I'm enjoying it LOTS, but if you are new to TRUE gaming you have NO idea why this game is awesome. Yes it ain't no 10/10 but due to all the funny remarks and awesome sense of humor I give it a nice 8/10. Still I had to play this on pc to remind me of how it used to feel. Definitely worth a rent if you played Duke 3D.
Haha oh i think its actually pretty hilarious. Its not a 0 but its just funny.
1Up are a bunch of retards. A zero out of ten means that the game is virtually unplayable. Hell, half the games that are virtually unplayable now adays still score in the 7s and 8s. Edit: Also the link won't load for me...
"That's really not fair of 1Up. I've played DNF and it's far from a 0/10 game" "1Up are a bunch of retards. A zero out of ten means that the game is virtually unplayable" "it might be a 7/10 or a 5/10 but i'll give a 0/10 so i can be special...Retarded special, maybe" "i see the game has issues but its not a 0/10" "Big surprise. the entire gaming journalists are unprofessional. Especially the high profile ones because they think they can get away with it" - The die hard Duke fans obviously didn't read the review, but instead started ranting here. It's an 'F', not a 0 given by 1up. And what's with the pathetically liberal use of the word "Retard" from you guys? Are you really THAT angry over a review that exposes Duke Nukem for it being stuck in the past, flat humor (the staple of Duke Nukem), ruining the best parts of the last installment, boring physics puzzles, ugly graphics, etc? "The 0/10 is a prime example of why the 2K PR was spot on IMO" - No. The metacritic conversion doesn't show that "the 2K PR was spot on". The average score is still 50-, and this review still gives an 'F' (like most of them).
I think everyone here should know that 1up goes with a letter system to review games. They did not give this game a 0/10. An F can be any low score.
lol i just think that score is funny dude
I posted this like over a year ago right here on N4G ~ It's all right here on their "About" Page ~ http://www.metacritic.com/a... <Quote> Q: So, how do you compute METASCORES anyway? A: To put it simply, a METASCORE is a weighted average of reviews from national critics and publications for a given movie, book, TV show, videogame, or album <End Quote> Along with confirmation that they do not...scratch that WILL NOT release how they weigh each site ~ <Quote> Q: Can you tell me how each of the different critics are weighted in your formula? A: Absolutely not. <End Quote> The real questionable area is where they choose/decide what a verbal review without a numerical score gets! So if you read a review and it sounds like a 90+ they can give it an 80 because that is their decision on what to score it as! That is without a doubt some of the stupidest BS I have ever read... Also their numerical score calculations of 4 star & A+ thru F are wrong because an "F" does not equal a Zero. An F on an educational level (where these letter grade denominations actually come from) usually equals anything between a 55 AND 0 so to unequivocally say an F = 0 is by definition false. Especially when you look at how a B-, C+ & C translate to 67, 58 & 50 respectively...how the "F" (to make a pun) is something that is a 67 a B-?!?! That makes absolutely NO SENSE! It is inherently flawed and on top of that they fudge the numbers to whatever THEY choose which CANNOT be confirmed by ANY means! Lastly they have a consistent provable record of putting multiplatform PS3 & 360 combined review scores that are low ONLY on the PS3 side and the high ones ONLY on the 360 side when the review is CLEARLY a combined review for both versions! The information is clearly in the open and right there for anyone to see/verify for themselves but it's a dirty little secret that somehow doesn't get media attention...makes you wonder huh?
@Oner: "Lastly they have a consistent provable record of putting multiplatform PS3 & 360 combined review scores that are low ONLY on the PS3 side and the high ones ONLY on the 360 side when the review is CLEARLY a combined review for both versions!" Absolutely ridiculous! Prove it. If the game is reviewed on the PS3, they put the score only under the PS3 version. If the game is reviewed on the 360, they put the score only under the 360 version. If the game is reviewed on both platforms, they put the score under both versions. Enough with this "everyone's biased against the PS3" nonsense. It's pathetic! A lot of multiplatform games actually have a 1 or 2 point higher Metascore for the PS3 simply because the PS3 versions of multiplatform games almost always get less reviews than the 360 versions.
Maybe it's an "F" out of A-Z?
I take it 1UP is in serious need of hits lately...
@nix omg thats hilarious...that guy should be fired immediately
@ YodaCracker ~ Sure...NO PROBLEM Jim Sterling (of all people) did a review for FF13 and gave it a 4. But on Metacritic it is ONLY put on the PS3 side PS3 FF13 Meta ~ http://www.metacritic.com/g... <-- Sterling's Destructoid review is here 360 FF13 Meta ~ http://www.metacritic.com/g... <-- Sterling's Destructoid review is NOT here And before you go "b,bu,buh,but teh are some on teh 360 side and not on the PS3 side"...you would be correct BUT the difference is that MORE of the lower scores are on the PS3 side of which belong on BOTH sides. Metacritic SPECIFICALLY chooses which review goes where to "even the score" (so to say), because there are 83 reviews for the PS3 version while only 54 for the 360 side in an attempt to raise the score for the 360 version. PLUS how is it that FF13 was CONFIRMED to be better on the PS3 and WORSE on the 360 but yet it has almost the same Metacritic score!?!? BULL$#@! plain and simple no matter how you try to spin it. Why/How is this? (those of us who might ask of which have better common sense) Simple...It's PROBABLY because Viacom is the parent company of Metacritic (also MTV, CNET, Gamespot & other media outletts) and guess who has a 5 year deal with Viacom? MICROSOFT Source Proof ~ http://blog.seattlepi.nwsou... So there you go. PROVEN. Now STFU as you've been proven WRONG (again) and put in your place (as usual). What I really find funny is how you fail to mention ANYTHING else of what I talked about...because it is also TRUTHFUL (of which you cannot deny), so you try to brush it off to the side and not talk about it at all. Talk about TRULY pathetic! LMFAO
Yes,this is like a chain reaction and it is getting really hilarious!!
Well. . . I work as a teacher and in my work a grade like an F means something between 0 - 59. I dont know how Metacritic came to a conclusion that its a 0 but these guys have no idea when to asign a score that its not based on the 0- 10 scale. Just my opinion.
ooooo now that is harsh. :/
Yeah I'm not sur ethat I ever saw a game get a 0 score before.
There is something weird going on with the reviews for this game if a website has the balls to give it a 0/10.
Not even quantum theory or rouge warrior got a zero, and those were far far worse.
Dont you mean 0/100 not 0/10 thats what metacritic base they review scores out of. Well at least it looks like Duke Nukem is making video game history again, this time for all the bad reasons.
wouldn't 0/100 mean it doesn't have a score?
The 0/10 is a prime example of why the 2K PR was spot on IMO.
Exactly. This was the difference between "venomous" and "negative."
Yeah, this is an absolute misuse of one's review power here. There's no way you can give any game a score of 0 out of 100. That would require that no game exists that could be played at all. I could totally understand if they gave it a 1/100 at the least, being the worst game ever reviewed, but even then I find it extremely hard to believe that DNF is worse than Superman 64.
1up didn't give it a 0/10. they gave the game a F, or a 1/5. metacritic changed that into a 0/100. Just like they gave Brink a D (2/5) but meta has it listed at 25.
Everyone is giving it bad scores so this score was trying to stand out rather than being an actual review.
LOL This game is the biggest flop that LOL everyone will play once.
your the biggest flop to be brought upon earth.
i see the game has issues but its not a 0/10 cons bad frame rates online has lag issues too much driving too much platforming in the end under water missions bad too little shooting it just doesn't look good graphics wise Short levels separated by long loading screens Fails to be shocking, sexy, or funny pros: game has fun shooting and weapons story is about 15-20hrs long one liners are still good It's fun to shrink enemies and stomp on them a lot of things in cons can be patched if gearbox is really up to it and prove they are not gonna give up on this game. I will buy it down the road if there is a patch and even if there isn't one i will still buy it new to support gearbox even if i buy it for $10 i think this game without the patches is 5/10 to 6/10 I will keep my copy just because its just gaming history lol Also those movie games like beowulf that were actually broken got like 4-5 out of 10 so DNF deserve atleast that much in my opinion
I'm all for supporting good devs and all, but every now and then, even the best need to be smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and told, NO, NO!!
Is everyone defending DNF (surely the worst game to come out in a long time) the people that wasted there money on it, and are now trying to make themselves feel like they didn't waste it... Buying a game right now, do yourself a favor pick up L.A noire or Infamous 2, both are fantastic. InFamous 2 for sure.
They didn't waste it - anybody who bought Homefront or Brink? They wasted their money.
its very bad and i dropped the game after the chip fight, but a 0/10 isnt logic, 3 graphics 3 story 2 gameplay 2 presentation 5 for duke so the game might get a 2.5 lol but not 0
its technically impossible for a game to have 0
0???? YIKES it bad but daaum not that bad.
Well if we all refer to the grading scale that we had in elementary school (though some of your responses would indicate your scholastic careers didn't last long enough for you to reach that level of education) an F is below a 60% (at least that's what it was at my school). This "F" can be anything from a 59% to a 0% and after reading the review I'm pretty sure it didn't fall into the 0 category.
They were simply trying to 1up Destructoid. See what I did there?
100+ Postive reviews on the Metacritic's PC User Score will tell you what kind of gamer likes DNF!!!
It seems DNF is selling pretty well. LOL... People are buying it to see if it's that bad. As for the game, I haven't played it yet, but no playable game deserves a 0. A game with a 0, isn't a game, it's unplayable, doesn't even start.
Just looking for hits. Move along nothing to see here...
The problem isn't 1UP - it's the translation of the score 1UP gave to Metacritic score. 1UP gave the game an F, but Metacritic takes an "F" and makes it a 0. I'm not defending 1UP here, but you guys are ridic if you don't even understand why something happened. Metacritic needs to change their scoring algorithms when sites use letter system... F =/= 0.
game really sucks. well deserved score imo
it's a mediocore game but it doesn't suck. this game is a 7/10 at minimum. the only bad thing about this game is the load times, the linear leveles, and the slight frame rate dip. Other than those negative points, it's still a duke game. it has Duke's non PC humor, secrets in the form of ego boosts(pinball, magazines, etc.), and all the alien ass kicking you can handle. Duke nukem forever isn't a peice of art like other games set out to be but that's not the point of the game.
how can a mediocre game be 7/10 at minimum ?
7/10 is a great game.
mediocre is more like 4-6 ....
A mediocre game a 7/10?!?!? How would you rate an excellent game??? No wander when a good game doesn't score a 9/10 all hell breaks loose! TBH they should've left it on the shelves instead of putting THIS game out! I rented it, played it for maybe an hour, and I've had enough!
@Mmmkay: 7/10 is a mediocre game. The why is explained here: http://www.crit-hit.net/und...
okay, mediocore was the wrong word(it was a late night). it was above average but it could have been better.
A pure zero :D
i think any game deserves at least a point for being a game that you can actually play in this case,i think this game deserves the zero
No game deserves a zero. X-Play (when they were good) had a rule about give 0's. They said they would NEVER give a 0 because they know actual people dedicated actual TIME to work on it. Same with DNF. No matter how much you like it, or hate it, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, they all took time and poured alot of there energy into this title. For shame.
Okay, so here's the deal: 1. DNF was developed for nearly a decade amidst delay after delay before 3D Realms folded. 2. Gearbox (who I only remember for their Half Life expansions and that Borderlands game - hope to GOD I got the name of that right) picks it up, doesn't take anymore than about a year (if that) to "polish" it. 3. The "polish" comes out, and we seen arcane mechanics that should NEVER be in a Duke game (the weapon limitations, for one). Gearbox said that it was an intended feature (why?). So, after a decade of waiting for something, we get...THAT?! I'm sorry, but what the hell was 3D Realms DOING all that time (blaming them because Gearbox didn't exactly do a whole lot more with it, though I blame Gearbox for the mechanics). So...if there's one game that deserves the 0, it's this one from what I've heard and seen alone.
The game wasn't being developed for all those years, it was sitting.
There's a difference.
They didn't "pour a lot of energy" into this Duke Nukem. Im not saying it completely sucks or anything, but the quality shows the outcome. Its Duke Nukem. They had the option of either 1 going all out, making a badass game that still got bashed by major media outlets, but kept the fans happy. 2 Pushing out a quick product with Dukes name on it, make a quick buck, and possibly work on a real Duke Nukem for the future. They even went as far to delay it to help keep the joke going. Its nothing but a money grab. Point of this story? If a game deserves a 0, it deserves a zero. The only time you should feel bad is if its an indie game or it truly does suck and the devs were being serious about trying hard. You can tell by how they represent it and push it themselves.
I just want to say...MY GOD, SOMEONE got pissed off about my comment, did they? 21 disagrees? Seriously, what did I say in that that deserved that?
@darkpower People obviously disagree with your comment about DNF deserving a 0.
I have not finished this game but I do not agree with any of the reviews so far. It seems that is en vogue to hate Duke Nukem right now. I feel bad for the developers.
I gotta agree with you... I'm playing on PS3 and I'm at the hoover dam level and I haven't run across any parts of the game that i haven't liked... I agree the the graphics are dated, but wheres the "graphics don't matter" argument that is used for games like CoD:BO... I guess a FPS where you have to use ur brain to get from point "A" to "B" is a bit much for people... And for the 90% of people on this site who haven't played the full game but still feel like they have an oppinion (the demo doesn't count cause it shows nothing of the full game), go rent the game before posting ur comments... There are puzzles to solve in this game... They aren't on the level of say Portal 1 or 2 (speaking of there are a few Portal/ Valve references that are clever in the game), but DNF's target demo isn't exactly mensa members...
This is why Metacritic just doesn't work and when sites hand out poor scores like that it undermines the honest games journalists out there. Duke Nukem Forever is by no means a classic and will probably be consigned to the bargain bins pretty quickly but it's s slice of gaming history that harks back to a simpler time for FPS gaming. It's cheesy, it's not that good looking, the levels don't exactly inspire but it's playable and will entertain you. Maybe not as much as the blockbusters like modern warfare but it's worth more than a 0/10.
the duke doesnt deserve that, his vulgar humor and decent boss fights merit atleast a 4-6