Let’s be completely honest here; Duke Nukem Forever is not what we waited for back in 1996. In fact, it is not great at all. Having said that, it is also definitely not crap as well. In this post Xentax compares the final scores from 100 reviews that we can find online. Not that feable metacritic or shallow worldscore bias like we see so often eh? Setting aside nostalgia and looking at the game objectively, it’s a fair game. There’s enough fun to be had, giggles here and there, and some good shooting scenes. Overall we would agree that the game deserves somewhere between 65% and 70% as a score, as it matches up with that range of other fair shooters of late. Some reviewers do not appear to know what objectiveness is though. No, they take this opportunity to attract hits on their petty sites.
80°
360°
180°
140°
Ad 
130°
40°
30°
30°
20°
40°
DNF is pretty bad but still it does have some pros to it... as it is not as good as iit is not as cinematic as the modern games... but I do admit It actually keeps my attention span of playing the game 30+ minutes per each gaming session.
I remember going through ODST and after playing 10-15 minutes playing each session I had to put the controller down or I was hoping for the next check point. I was playing the game game just for the sake of finishing it.
@Rageanitus, I'm sure the game has it's positives, most games do. And the review sites are just getting worse for the most part. Who was it that gave this game a 0/10? Seriously? A 0, was the game not included?
Deducting points just because they can has become some what of the norm at some sites, not all, who review games. I swear some just wait a few weeks just to put out the lowest score review to be the worst review on Meta or GameRankings.
So ODST sucked because YOU say so? I know several people who enjoyed it. I didn't, but I know others did.
But seriously, get over it Duke fanboys; DNF sucks. The humor is flat (the supposed epicenter of Duke; his non-existent parody and worse than ever one-liners), the gameplay is boring, the level design is atrocious, it's not polished, and the MP is tacked on worse than a brick being held to a wall with sticky-tack.
I rented DNF, and that's what i'd recommend to anyone who wants to play this game but isnt too compelled to now, since its got horrid reviews. I wouldnt buy this game over what else is out there on the market, but for nostlagia sake I found it was appealing to rent and hear that voice again.
LMAO @ fan kids still mad trying to bash ODST two years later. The game was for Halo FANS and we loved it.
If campaign and firefight would've had matchmaking like Reach does we'd all still be playing it
Evil
LOL
Go play Halo 1 and 2. Seriously, I don't believe that you've played them if you really believe that.
....indeed, "reviewers" who gave this POS a good scores are clearly crap reviewers.
Reviewers are dumb nowadays, give anybody 10 and then in a year they say does it deserve a 10?
And they aren't very serious about reviews, they get all hyped then give a 10 to a game and never mentioned it again.
example is bulletstorm, gamesradar gave it a 10.and now we hear nothing about the game, its fun but not a 10. they fooled themself by the hype.
Just for the record, I disagree with some of the scores these editors have been giving the game too, but to try and bring "objectivity" into the definition of a review is ridiculous. It's a critique, and therefore it is subject to editor bias just as any other opinion is going to be. Again though, if you are fundamentally against reading the opinions of others (as opposed to simply respectfully disagreeing with them) then I have very good news for you....you don't have to read it.
Not just someone's opinion.
The author of this article is more of a joke than any of the reviews he has 'analyzed' himself.
This is like asking people what their favourite ice cream is. Since I like strawberry ice cream best, it is therefore the only acceptable answer. If you do not like strawberry ice cream, you're opinion will never be taken into account again.
N4G is becoming the shithole of gaming journalism (quite the feat) because articles like this keep getting approved.
So are you telling me you wouldn't have any problems if all the major review sites reviewed Uncharted 2, giving it a 3/10 and saying things like, 'I hate third person shooters, they all suck so this game sucks too' and 'This game starts on a train and features a character with a moustache so it's no good'??
Of course everyone's viewpoint on everything is subjective ultimately but a reviewer really should try to get over their subjective biases to some extent in order to better inform people who may not share those biases whether or not the game is likely to be a worthwhile purchase.
If i read such a review for UC3, i'd question the sense in giving that editor the review to start with - especially if it was from a 'major' site.
If that was the authors honest opinion about it, then there's nothing wrong with the validity of the review itself.
I'm talking about the article writer, that he shouldn't bash other people for their opinions.
Anyway, I think that reviews are subjective. You can point out the technical stuff but in the end it comes down to you, whether you like the game or not(opinions)
Related video
My only real complaint so far (I'm at the middle of the game) is the lack of lesbian sex/jokes (I know there's some but I expected way more especially with Gearbox involved).
I hated uncharted 2. Would have given it a 6/10. It got 10/10. I Loved MAG. Would have given it a 10/10. It got 7/10. Point being it's an opinion. This article is garbage.
I get the feeling i'm gonna lose bubbles for this post...
Its all a matter of taste, I for one love great stories in games. Look at bayonetta, I liked the combat style and gameplay, but the VO, story and music annoyed me to the point of a literal migraine and I put down the game about half way through and never thought twice of playing it again.
Sure games like peggle and SSHD have a lot of replay value, but thats because they were designed for it, and for pick up and play. I don't want my games to all be pure gameplay with no story of design.
Some games I want for story, some combat, some replayability and the rare one with a good combination of some or all. If all games followed the same formula then gaming would get boring fast. Personally I love Uncharted 2, I beat it through twice for the platinum and played the online for a few months, there's your replay value right there.
I do agree with GOW III though, loved it first time through, but my second run was not nearly as fun as my second play-through on UC2, it one of those play it once for the amazing experience games, still didn't stop me from getting the plat though :)
The review site that gave this game a 0 out of 10. That is just ludicrous, disrespectful, and down right wrong to do to the developer and readers.
If someone is that biased towards a series that they can not do an adequate, semi objective review, someone else on the site should do the review.
Low score reviews are fine, peoples opinions differ, but some low score reviews are unwarranted, and it is easy to tell.
Ouch, that's a fail for Meta. An F could be anything between a 0 and 60, slightly different depending on what your used to.
I've played 5/10 games that I loved, and 10/10 games that I couldn't bare to finish.
no memorable moments for me, it was just an average experience at best.
Fool.
No.
I said, "THE GAME SUCKS"
That's a fact statement.
Not an expression of opinion.
If I had said, "I think this game is terrible and makes me want to shake babies" then you could say it was my opinion.
I never said any of the following, "I think-My opinion is-This is what I think-I say."
I didn't place myself in it at all. Thus meaning I typed it all as fact.
You know why I typed it all as fact? I'll tell you. Because, DNF sucks ass.
Deal with it, fool.
That isn't how it works.
I don't like the game, but it isn't "a fact" that it isn't great.
The game took an absurd amount of time to come out and then it did and it plays like a game from 1995. I'm all for the nostalgic feeling but the game just isn't fun at all.
And how do you know the low reviews are just trying to get hits? Because they didn't share your opinion? Are you really taking low reviews of this game so personally that you have to write this drivel and call them all liars? Maybe they just have higher standards. Maybe they saw through the toilet humor and strippers to the game itself. Maybe [insert another perfectly valid reason here].
The game got mixed reviews. It happens. Get over it.
Duke must really suck if people are trying to prove that it's "fair." Mediocrity is not something to strive for on the world I'm from.
Too many rude and immature people on here.
I was hoping(not expecting) that DNF would be good. But mediocrity isn't worth $60. It's worth a bargain bin price for the novelty of it.
Discrediting others does not make you more credible, nor do bar graphs. The problem with this "unbiased" article is that its pseudo-science is reliant completely on the subjective opinion that Duke Nukem is an" average" game.
ironic much?
he seems to be under the misconception that his opinion = fact.
everybody who agrees with him is right and everybody else is wrong?
and should we trust anything from a site that hosts a guide and tools for hacking xbox games?
fuck you mrmouse.
Your "ironic much" comment works pretty well here when you consider articles getting put on N4G publicizing all the exploits of hackers, giving them the fame they want, as well linking to sites on the latest hacks or work arounds for software updates for systems.
Also, you can't say that some sites don't put up certain ratings just to get hits (low balling games or giving high scores just because of hype). Vanquish getting a 50 from Destructiod, inFamous a 60 from Edge, Portal 2 a 70, LBP a 75, etc (from metacritic).
Or all the reviewers that gave GTA 4 10s across the board because of hype. While its a great game that I loved to play, it is not a 10/10 game. Or FO: New Vegas. Loved that as well, but so many bugs. Hell, I couldn't play it for a while because of a bug where the game would freeze whenever I went near Mr. Vegas' casino. I could go anywhere else in the game, but if I went near the entrance to that section of the strip, the game would freeze the system and I'd have to turn it off an on.
Overall, your quote of him is pretty true. Some reviewers give games a pass and ignore the little faults, while ripping others to shreds. And some reviewers just give inflated or crap scores to get hits for their sites.
Personally I'm having a blast with the game.
Plus methodolgy for console and pc games rating is not uniform.Consoles games get a free pass on graphics side as they are almost at the limit.On the pc 95% games get penalties for graphics as the limit is virtually infinite.DNF is a mess,no doubt but is it a broken or does it deserve F grade?Hell no.Some reviewers mindlessly give away 10s and 0s which makes them look idiotic when a real good game arrives.I wonder what'll happen to GTA5 if it turns out better than GTA4.Then how will you place it above in the meta score to justify its superiority?
I've never even heard of Xentax. Probably some retarded /v/ kids who just can't let go of the "ALWAYS BET ON DUKE" meme.
The game isn't that good, you waited over 10 years for nothing. How does that make you feel?
A review score is built up from opinion, not fact, and so to say that the game deserves around 80% is absolute crap. In fact, that's the writer's opinion.
There is no standard score that a review should feature, because different scores come from people of different backgrounds. A reader will pick a background that suits them and read a review that suits them too.
For example, a 30 year old man who loved the Duke Nukem games isn't going to give a toss about a review written by an 18 year old guy who has never played a game in the series.
I mean, at least I hope that it is satire . . .
If we exclude "crap" reviewers from average score, we will get higher average score and all "good" reviews will have to be also marked as "crap".
Fact: Article is written by a retard.
However they listed a bunch and its pretty much every known name site there is that gave it a bad review. Like the game or not, EVERY named site gave the game a bad review. If that doesn't trigger something I don't know what will.
I all i have to say is its basically Duke Nukem in 3d with no improvements, and major set backs. The game is funny when it wants to be funny, the entire opening was pretty funny. Then the story of the girls getting stolen gets kicked in and it keeps recycling the same jokes over and over, dont even really get to see women anywhere or strippers that turn into aliens...And why are ALL the enemies pretty much pigs? That was only for cops in 3D, they had a crap ton of different aliens in Duke 3D...
Ill stop complaining there...Thanks Gearbox for hardly trying at all to bring Duke Back. Kinda sad Bulletstorm not only stole your Duke Nukem ego, but showed you how to correctly use the Unreal Engine. (If you want to see how much quality is in the visuals and gameplay, watch the monster truck jump into a giant thing of water....most amazing water effects ever! /s)
If everyone scored games exactly the same there'd be no point in reviews at all.
Just look around the N4G comments and you'll see that some people despise DNF and some people love it - everyone's going to have a different opinion.
While I have no opinion on Duke Nukem as I haven't played it, it annoys me that people complain about review scores. I often write reviews for my site and *a lot* of work goes in to them, so it's very annoying to see people instantly complain that I've rated the game too high/low having only seen the score.