Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Simple-do you think game reviewers should use the long development time as part of their review criteria for Duke Nukem Forever?

I am absolutely against it. It has no bearing
IMO on the final quality of the game.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

The problem is that some websites would use that as criteria and therefore I don't think DNF would get a fair chance when it comes to reviews. I have to be honest, I don't think DNF would score really high with some reviewers. Doesn't matter how amazing the game is. The expectations from a lot of people are set really high because of the long development time.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

The fact that 3DR restarted the game completely several times means they shouldn't.

But, they will.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

That's a good point. It's not the same DNF from 1998 or 2001.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Dont care what the reviewers say, im just gonna be happy to play another duke game after all this time, whether its good or not.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

It is inevitable that reviewers will take the long delay into consideration if they review the game... however that should not be taken into consideration considering it doesn't effect the game itself.

You should review the game based on the games merits and not by how it was made or by whom.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

They will mention it more than likely, but honestly, I don't expect the reviews to be less than 9, unless the game is bad.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

this game's delay is too famous for them not to.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

It shouldn't, but it will, even though it's not intentional.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Yep I agree with AlexGK and the others who said that it shouldn't but that it will be used. You should judge a game on its merits, for example Diablo III should not be judged any harder than other games in that genre just because it has been 9 years in the making so far.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Hell people mentioned it about Starcraft 2 in nearly all the reviews, and that hasn't been advertised as in the making for over 12 years.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

It can never live up to it's legendary status, blah, blah, blah.

Half of what we've seen is already the recipe for the best game on the shelf, so what's the diffference?

I really love those leaping and climbing pig animations, and the renders of all the baddies in general.

Should be a helluva ride, I'm sure it'll get good reviews if it has enough content. If the reviewers blow through this game in an afternoon, we're in trouble.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Why would WE be in trouble? We didn't make it, just waited over a decade for it, it's not our fault if the game turns out to be nothing but hype (it won't btw :p)

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

I'd like to see this franchise reborn.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

A Duke Nukem Renaissance or Dukeaissance.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Reviewers are full of shit. And I'll tell you why. They are arrogant, pretentious, and they love to compare apples to oranges.

Not to mention the movie reviewers spoke so highly about Avatar just because it was fancy and flashy. To bad it had a shit plot, shitty acting, and shitty characters. That's about as bad as saying Crysis is the best game ever.

Personally I think they will definitely bring up the development time, with out a doubt. They will probably be very critical on the game, and talk down to anything about it that isn't top notch.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Bingo.

This post is funny. Because it's so bad.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

I ******* love those titles! :D

If I see a review that marks the game down
in review scores because of the delays, what
little respect I had for gaming "journalism" will be out the window.

It's absolutely inevitable the delays will be
mentioned in the reviews, I agree.

What I don't want to read is someone's
rant about being "owed" the game 12+
years ago and then saying the game is
"dated" and "cliched".

I think the game will score very highly
but there will definately be some troll
reviews.

I'm really looking forward to what Shacknews, PC Gamer and Game Informer
say in their reviews.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

and the german Gamestar and PCGames.
the comments about DNF news on gamestar.de are mostly in the hundreds.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Of course they should. With such a long development cycle and it ends up being merely average at best, one would have to wonder if the guys at 3DR were just jerking off or whatever.

Though, if it ends up being a fantastic game one may also say the long development time has been worth it. Either way it'll get mentioned.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

No.

Development time should have no affect on the final score/judgments of a review. Reviews are supposed to be based on the quality of the title itself... story, presentation, gameplay, characters, sound design... all that.

Using the development cycle as a positive/negative in a review would seem petty and childish. Instantly removing any validity the review had of being a serious judgment of the quality of said product.

There are games that have incredibly short development cycles, and yet those are not listed as pluses or minuses. And, the 1997 to 2004 development cycle of HL2 was not used in reviews for it. So, to me.. it should not be mentioned in any review as it is not relevant. A game could be in development for months... and be awesome or horrible, be in for years... and be awesome or horrible.

But, honestly, far to many "professional" reviewers would make way to many bad jokes and stupid puns over the games troubled development cycle.. and to me, would completely kill any value I would place in said review.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Wait, why do we care what reviewers say??? It's DUKE!!! I don't care if the entire game is Duke looking for the fabled unicorn, finding said unicorn and riding off into the rainbow, IT'S DUKE! FIVE STARS!!! :D

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

I find this rather dumb, development time for any product is important. If it takes too long people will be skeptical or if it was released to quickly people will be skeptical. Look at L4D2, developed in under a year and was under scrutiny from the start. Now it barely manages to get 10k people a day which is rather small and puny for a relatively new game. Now look at prey, had a small burst of popularity and now no one talks about it anymore.

The question everyone will be asking is "Was the game worth the 15+ years of waiting?". Most people will say no while some would say yes.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Dumb?
Well thanks for that. But you missed my point... games with short development cycles can be great, or can suck... and the same can be said for games with lengthy development cycles.

In my eyes... it's not the length of the development that matters. It's the quality of the final product. And while the development cycle leads to the quality of the product, the length of the development should not be used as a way to judge the quality of the product.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

This sums it up.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

It will be used, and for good reason.

According to 3DRealms, the length of development doesn't matter, and the financial burden doesn't matter either. In their mission statements they claim that game quality is the only thing that matters.

That's pretty big talk once a game takes several years to complete and shrugs off the notion that an on-time production schedule has relevance (by the way, you aren't making friends with your publisher either when you say you have no schedule)

It's big talk, and if a review brings up the fact that it took them so many years with the excuse that they were making a perfect game - and it's not perfect - I say "fair game".

On the other hand, it's just another review. Information on the costs to make the game, and the features, still don't always help me make a decision with my wallet. Most reviewers have no idea if I'll enjoy playing it.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

I find this rather ignorant.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Did I miss something?

Doesn't it have to be released before it can be reviewed?

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Not on this board.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

There's already several reviews done by members of this board posted throughout here and time.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

They're talking about when its released. Not now. Don't be a spoil-sport. Duke fans don't have much to cling to anymore.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

It is called a hypothetical question.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

That's a tough concept for some around here to understand.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Whats a concept? :D

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

The final product is all that matters. But then again, if it's mediocre or below it's gonna be hard not to say "13+ years and that's that!?". Even if not completely seriously.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Guys Elite II Frontier was developed for so long (like 5 years) and is is still a great game. XCOM aka UFO was developed in 9 months and is awesome to this day. Development time is not important.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Now add 10 years to Elite 2 frontier development time and we will be in the same boat as DNF.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

"Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?"

No. It only matters if the game is good, not the development time.

Besides, even if the game is 'Meh,' we'll still have the level-build feature to make mods and new graphics to do it. :cool:

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

Half-Life 2's development cycle was longer then that, from 1997 to 2004... seven years. Still, not as much as DNF's... but still.

Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF?
 

I knew there would be one. :doh: