Thread: Duke Nukem Forever panned by The Escapist

Originally Posted by Adretheon

And look at the sales. Nintendo first party games sell more consoles than any other first party for any other consoles. More sales means more purchases, which means more people buying them. People wouldn't keep buying the games if they sucked. Look at reviews, look at sales, they are all up. People get comfortable with the same games, and they buy them. Quake, Unreal, Duke, and Doom are all practically the same game, yet they all sell well. Look at CoD, Blizzard games, EA games. All practically the same within their own genre but they sell like hotcakes. It's not just Console Gamers.

Quake and Unreal are absolutely nothing alike, not even their single-player versions (Q1, Q2, Q4, and the original Unreal; Unreal 2 doesn't count and none of the UTs or Q3A had a true single player campaign.) Okay, fine, you shoot guns at aliens, undead, robots, and other crap, but that's where the similarities end. Quake has a lot more in common with Doom (which makes sense, they're the same developer) than it does with Unreal. And even then, Quake (especially Q2 and Q4) are quite a bit different from Doom and Doom 3 (I don't consider Doom 1 and Doom 2 to be really the same as Doom 3.)

CoD is very same-y, but guess what? It's been co-developed for consoles for quite some time now.

Warcraft 3 was NOTHING like Warcraft 2, and while Starcraft 2 has numerous similarities to Starcraft (especially from the surface; it's a VERY different beast under the hood), that's because there's a multimillion dollar industry based around the game in Korea, and a pretty strong following everywhere else. It'll be like what they'll end up doing with Counter-Strike 2, if that ever happens: they can't change too much or the legions of hardcore fans will refuse to play it and stick with the old version. Most that can happen is a facelift and maybe some smallish changes, and that's it.

Hell, there are a lot of top-end professional Brood War players that refuse to touch Starcraft 2 because of the mechanical changes made to it. You'd probably have the same thing with Counter-Strike (especially since there are already diehards that insist Source is the spawn of demons.) Expect it with DotA 2, as well.

At the same time, you can use this as an argument for keeping MW and its ilk the same game after game, except: all of the previous examples are still innovating and "improving" (the hardcore fans will never truly agree on whether something is a universal improvement or not) the game, even if it only looks like very small changes from the surface. What has MW done that's new and interesting since it's been around? The XP and "perks" system's been around since the first MW, and adding/removing perks and tweaking the XP gain system isn't innovation or trying something new - it's serving the same blob of mystery meat and calling it meatloaf instead of salisbury steak.

There were several significant changes between Q2 and Q3A. Many changes between UT99 and UT2k3/2k4 (and then UT3 basically reverted those changes along with murdering the franchise.) The changes between War2 and War3 made them practically completely different games, sharing only the game universe. There are huge, huge changes between Brood War and SC2, and even more changes under the hood.

So why does it seem like console shooters are so resistant to noticeable, significant change?

DNF has no noticeable changes from Halo. The only thing that's different is the Duke humor, which has zero impact on gameplay - it's like running Halo with a Duke mod.

Yeah, the old PC shooters were similar in several ways. Space marine gets stuck on a planet or other dimension somewhere, finds a shotgun, and kills his way to the exit, saving the world along the way. But gameplay wasn't the same. Unreal was very, very different from Quake 2. Quake was very different from Doom (holy shit, you can JUMP!) Once you open it up to multiplayer, the differences are even more pronounced - there's no way in hell you're mixing Q3A up with UT99.

Show me where the core gameplay isn't like Halo. I don't give a fuck about their minigames and side attractions - you don't buy a game for those, and you don't play a game for those unless it's a game like Mario Party or it's just a really shitty game. Beer like powerup? Really? That's how low your standards are?

You get a medpack in the form of a bottle of beer and cite it as a reason a game is different and interesting?

Shit, maybe you'd be happy if they just rereleased Halo 1 every six months with new skins.

Originally Posted by Adretheon

I'm pointing out the fact that "core gameplay" isn't the only thing to look at. "Core gameplay" for every fps ever made, is Halo-like. There's not much you can change from the basic fps elements. Unless the game is in 3rd person(which then wouldn't be an fps).

What "core gameplay" in DNf is like halo other than the two thing you mentioned(two weapons, rechargeable health)? That's it, and if that's really your argument then most every game has the same core elements.

Not really. Are you going to tell me Modern Warfare plays like Serious Sam? That Painkiller plays like Half-Life? Hey, they're all first-person shooters, clearly they all play alike!

You don't understand what core gameplay means, apparently. DNF is paced like Halo single-player is paced - as I've said before, I felt like I was playing Halo, not like I was playing Duke3D or even more contemporary fast-paced shooters like Serious Sam and Painkiller.