Jerykk wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 18:03:

I'm going to refrain from composing a huge list of clearly obvious gameplay mechanic flaws (not opinion there) that easily degrade the fun and enjoyment of the title, where it could have been MUCH better, no doubt in my mind. The reviews alone with these changes would be much higher, I promise you.

Oh, it's pretty easy to list changes that would give the game better reviews. Just make the game like CoD.

As for the clearly obvious gameplay mechanic flaws, I'm interested in what you have to say. If you believe that platforming and puzzle-solving are flaws, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

I'm going to refrain from composing a huge list of clearly obvious gameplay mechanic flaws (not opinion there) that easily degrade the fun and enjoyment of the title, where it could have been MUCH better, no doubt in my mind. The reviews alone with these changes would be much higher, I promise you.

Sepharo wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:17:
Sounds like people wanted Serious Sam gameplay but they got HL gameplay without the narrative and polish.

I figured you'd bring that up, but if you had to drop your main gun to pick up the gravity gun or rocket launcher for that ONE part then it would suck.

EVERYWHERE in duke, there are just RANDOM ammo boxes that refill all current guns ammo. That's as asinine as Deus Ex 2's unified ammo for all guns.

Your also not including the boring static emplacement guns that DNF is jam packed full of.

AngryBrit's Youtube Video should easily demonstrate a game that does ALOT of what Half-Life 2 does, but SO HORRIBLY. So Terribly, that I never thought I as a longtime duke fan, would want to turn it off because it's playing so bad.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:09:

Half Life may have those features but it doesn't make the guns only have a max ammo of 4-5 then make the player constantly goto ammo boxes that are strewn about. The game's levels basically dictate what weapons you have to use, thus killing more than half of the replay value as a title.

I think you need to go back and play HL2 again. When fighting the flying ships, you have to use the rocket launcher and you have to constantly resupply using ammo boxes strewn about. There are many levels that forced you to use specific weapons, whether it be the gravity gun, the rocket launcher, the antlion spore pod or the crossbow.

So does that mean you're going to fork over the $50 to buy a legitimate copy? Or do you still prefer to just steal things and enjoy them for free?

I can. He stole it. He practically brags about stealing games on this boards.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 00:08:
I'm defending the game because I enjoyed it. Let's take a look at your other criticisms...

Teddy wrote on Jun 12, 2011, 21:50:
While I can't speak for how Jerykk got the game himself

Half Life may have those features but it doesn't make the guns only have a max ammo of 4-5 then make the player constantly goto ammo boxes that are strewn about. The game's levels basically dictate what weapons you have to use, thus killing more than half of the replay value as a title.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 00:08:

I critizied it for many other reasons, none of which you list.

Seems like at this point you are defending the POS game just to defend it.

I'm defending the game because I enjoyed it. Let's take a look at your other criticisms...

12 hours of gameplay for SP at the hardest setting,

12 hours for a shooter is above average these days.

couple glitches,

Yes, the game has some bugs. Every game has bugs.

dick/tit jokes get old, the 6th grade humor isn't that good

Pretty subjective. Judging by your irrational hatred of Bulletstorm, I think it's safe to say that you don't enjoy juvenile humor. That doesn't mean other people don't.

the demo is EXACTLY what he game is like, which in this case isn't good,

Already addressed this in a previous post. The demo is not really a good representation of the full game. The full game has a lot of platforming and puzzle-solving and the demo does not. Much of the combat in the full game takes place indoors, whereas most of the combat in the demo takes place outdoors. The desert/mine level shown in the demo is also one of the weaker levels in the full game.

graphics are pretty bad, blur is really bad,

Agreed. The depth of field effect is pretty terrible and the outdoor scenes don't look very good as a result. The indoor scenes look decent, though.

load times are atrocious,

Console issue. Load times are okay on PC.

quicksave points are placed badly,

Partially agreed. Some of the checkpoints could have been placed better but I didn't find them very problematic in general.

lots of dead space in the game that could have had bad guys to shoot at,

I assume you're referring to the platforming and puzzle-solving parts of the game. I enjoy both platforming and puzzle-solving so I didn't consider these "dead space." If you're specifically referring to the lengthy intro sequence at the start of the game, fair enough. It does take a while before you get to the action. Then again, the same could be said for the HL games.

I critizied it for many other reasons, none of which you list.

Seems like at this point you are defending the POS game just to defend it.

12 hours of gameplay for SP at the hardest setting,

couple glitches,

dick/tit jokes get old, the 6th grade humor isn't that good

the demo is EXACTLY what he game is like, which in this case isn't good,

graphics are pretty bad, blur is really bad,

load times are atrocious,

quicksave points are placed badly,

lots of dead space in the game that could have had bad guys to shoot at,

Jerykk wrote on Jun 13, 2011, 18:28:

Hmmm...ME2 is still 49.99 on Steam. It didn't exactly drop way down for any significant length of time.

I'm seeing it as $20 on Steam. Amazon is selling it for $15. A quick check on Froogle shows that the average price is $20. Hell, even the official EA store is selling it for $20.

But you do NOT have a marketing guy sitting around in the room saying "you know, if you tighten up the graphics on level 3 this will sell more units, so go do that." You do on some shovelware. You do not have that in most AAA titles. There is no dedicated marketing guy sitting in the meeting with creative control.

Marketing plays a huge role in the green light process for any given project. If marketing doesn't think a game will sell, the chances of that game getting greenlit are extremely low.

Anyway, back on topic. As I mentioned before, most of the complaints people have about DNF can also be applied to the HL games as well.

- Long, atmosphere-building intro where player is forced to do relatively mundane tasks before they get any weapons or see any combat? Check.
- Linear and highly scripted level design? Check.
- Lengthy platforming and puzzle-solving segments? Check.
- Drawn out vehicle segment where you constantly have to exit your vehicle in order to unblock your path? Check.

HL's influence on DNF is extremely obvious. What's strange is that people who loved the HL games are criticizing DNF for the things that made HL memorable.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 13, 2011, 18:57:

Somehow that mechanic in Hl2 with the dropships just didn't suck.

Rose-tinted glasses. Though, to be fair, the ships in HL2 were better scripted and had more interesting movements than the ones in DNF.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 13, 2011, 18:57:

Somehow that mechanic in Hl2 with the dropships just didn't suck.

Rose-tinted glasses. Though, to be fair, the ships in HL2 were better scripted and had more interesting movements than the ones in DNF.

Somehow that mechanic in Hl2 with the dropships just didn't suck.

Beamer wrote on Jun 13, 2011, 14:11:

I'm pretty sure, carrying more than 2 weapons helped in HL's case.

Carrying two weapons can make sense:
1) If the weapons are decently balanced
2) If the weapons are everywhere
3) If the character is going to be limited and not some god
4) If the game features load-outs you pick prior to a mission
5) If realism plays in at all
6) If the game is on a console, where no one has yet figured out a good way to use multiple weapons

Duke hits one of these, #6. It fails at every single other one. I'm perfectly ok with only two weapons in Halo, as I know that I can find any other weapon I want laying around at any given time since weapons are literally everywhere on the ground - I never felt like I was making a tradeoff and typically felt like I was making a strategic decision. I'm perfectly ok with only two weapons in Gears of War because your weapons fall into two categories: machine gun and special; you pick the machine gun you like best and the special you like best and you go. I'm ok with it in Call of Duty because I'm using a setup I created specific for the level and, again, it feels strategic to me. These all reminded me a bit of Rainbow Six.

I was not ok with it in Far Cry, in which I despised having to choose between sniper and rockets and ended up never using the damn special category because I never trusted that I'd have ammo when I needed it.
And I'd resent it in Duke because so many of the weapons just aren't useful enough to ever pick up. Why would I drop a machine gun or shotgun for the freeze ray, other than a contrived part of a level made just for it?

Hmmm...ME2 is still 49.99 on Steam. It didn't exactly drop way down for any significant length of time.

But you do NOT have a marketing guy sitting around in the room saying "you know, if you tighten up the graphics on level 3 this will sell more units, so go do that." You do on some shovelware. You do not have that in most AAA titles. There is no dedicated marketing guy sitting in the meeting with creative control.