From the game’s inception, the legendary George Broussard and his team of immensely talented and passionate designers, artists and programmers at 3DRealms devoted themselves to bringing Duke Nukem Forever to market. When all appeared lost, a small team of dedicated developers, known as Triptych Studios, saved Duke Nukem Forever from what seemed like vaporware death and resurrected the King. Their heroic efforts alongside Gearbox Software, Piranha Games and many other contributors finalized the legacy by bringing the full-featured triple-A title to retail.
Apologizing to no one, Duke Nukem Forever is the high-octane video game equivalent of a Hollywood summer blockbuster. Starring the legendary lady killer and alien slayer, Duke Nukem Forever introduces gamers to a blastastic time filled with head-popping, bone-rattling action, brazenly crude humor, impossibly statuesque women dying for affection, and catchy one-liners that will have you laughing out loud.
Jerykk wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:49:You really can't pick a sub-genre (or worse, sub-sub-genre in modern day military shooters) that is, in it's very nature restricted to realistic locales for conflict and then complain in any justifiable manner that there's not enough variety in that sub-genre.
The problem is that the modern military sub-genre is dominating the shooter genre as a whole. Even when games are made that have different settings (whether it be WW2 or sci-fi), the actual gameplay mechanics and level design generally remain unchanged. Killzone, for example, is basically CoD with space Nazis. We occasionally get a shooter that introduces new gameplay mechanics or design approaches, like Bioshock or Bulletstorm, but these are sadly few and far between.
I guess my biggest issue with modern shooters is that the gameplay is almost always the same. Cover-based, hitscan weapons, pseudorealistic damage models (i.e. headshots). I'd love to see more shooters with run 'n gun gameplay and a variety of genuinely unique weapons that require completely different skillsets to master. More interesting traversal mechanics would be nice too. TF2 is really the only game that fills that role right now, though Prey 2 has potential.
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:26:
A general complaint, but this describes it best:
http://static.arstechnica.com/Gaming/leveldesignclassic.jpg
You really can't pick a sub-genre (or worse, sub-sub-genre in modern day military shooters) that is, in it's very nature restricted to realistic locales for conflict and then complain in any justifiable manner that there's not enough variety in that sub-genre.
Evolution has never meant "better". People liked to attribute that term to it, they like to believe it means that things have changed in a way that THEY wanted them to. Evolution simply means different, the same base with some alteration. Cover mechanics are an evolution of the genre. So is regenerating health. So is the 'cinematic' nature of the games lately.
As for the final statement, I'll agree that military shooters have more in common than most genres (which isn't surprising since it's really a sub-genre in itself), I have to disagree with your final bit.
The enemies are generally the same, in that they're always soldiers, occasionally from different countries or made up collectives. The weapons are only the same if you are looking at modern day military shooters only. Taking into account, WW2, Vietnam, and Modern day, then you can't rightfully say the weapons and vehicles are the same, nor the settings. From desert terrain, to middle east villages/cities, to jungles in vietnam, to first world cities in games like Homefront or Rainbow Six Vegas 1/2.
Kajetan wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 13:42:
Just make Duke Nukem (!) game, goddammit, and not just a Duke Nukem mod for Halo or Call of Duty. I've got me plenty of this kind of shooter. Give us some classic, oldschool gameplay.
Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 23:14:I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.
It depends on what you consider evolution. Games have "evolved" into accessible and cinematic experiences rather than deep or challenging ones. While this is certainly good for business, it's not so good for hardcore gamers.
In recent years, the shooter genre has completely stagnated. Everybody is copying CoD. It's like the stagnation that was seen in the early 90's when everybody was copying Doom, except at least the Doom clones were slightly different from one another. Military shooters are the second least creative genre out there (second only to sports games). They all have the same enemies, weapons, vehicles, settings, etc.
I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.
Lorcin wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:24:
The FPS genre hasn't advanced since hl1/2 it's developed into a state of hyper-stagnation. Every new mainstream title is easier, more samey and more generic than the last.
StingingVelvet wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:10:
I don't mind the recharging health as much as I thought I would, I guess because the idea of an ego shield is amusing and finding ego-boosting things in the environment is fun. Checkpoints I have gotten used to for linear games and it doesn't really bother me anymore to be honest. It does make it more of a game than quicksaving, as there are consequences to failing at a battle.
QTEs and weapon limits I agree with though... massively irritating, and the second one has NO place in a game like this.
Ratty wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 20:29:
I chose Thief because of the cool rhombus-shaped box and cover art. It was a good decision as I still love Thief to death and have gotten more joy out of it than any other game. But when I finally got around to Half Life I realized I should have just bought them both.
Lorcin wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:24:Ha! I just have to comment that the same thing happened to me. Except it was Thief and Half Life and I chose Thief because of the cool rhombus-shaped box and cover art. It was a good decision as I still love Thief to death and have gotten more joy out of it than any other game. But when I finally got around to Half Life I realized I should have just bought them both.
Oh actually I just placed it. The same time Half Life 1 came out over here Sin came out the same week. I bought Sin because......the box art, I have no idea why I went for it - except half life wasn't actually very well advertised and the internet will still only just getting to full saturation.
Agent.X7 wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:53:
They would be blasted for ignoring all of the advancements in the genre