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

KaiserSoze · 08-24-2010, 09:34 PM

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.

thunderPIN · 08-24-2010, 09:40 PM

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.

Valdsator · 08-24-2010, 09:48 PM

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

But, they will.

thunderPIN · 08-24-2010, 09:52 PM

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

Acid · 08-24-2010, 10:06 PM

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.

Nacho · 08-24-2010, 10:29 PM

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.

DerricktheW · 08-24-2010, 10:36 PM

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.

vincentdante · 08-24-2010, 10:46 PM

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

alexgk · 08-24-2010, 11:00 PM

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

Kristian Joensen · 08-25-2010, 02:37 AM

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.

DerricktheW · 08-25-2010, 02:41 AM

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.

KO Gilligan · 08-25-2010, 06:51 AM

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.

ferran275 · 08-25-2010, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KO Gilligan

If the reviewers blow through this game in an afternoon, we're in trouble.

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

)

KO Gilligan · 08-25-2010, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferran275

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

)

I'd like to see this franchise reborn.

PredatorFL · 08-25-2010, 11:56 AM

A Duke Nukem Renaissance or Dukeaissance.

cof_3pc · 08-25-2010, 12:36 PM

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.

ZuljinRaynor · 08-25-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexgk

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

Bingo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cof_3pc

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.

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

KaiserSoze · 08-25-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PredatorFL

A Duke Nukem Renaissance or Dukeaissance.

I ******* love those titles!

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.

JobivanHiob · 08-25-2010, 05:15 PM

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

Sang · 08-25-2010, 05:16 PM

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.

Damien_Azreal · 08-25-2010, 05:33 PM

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.

ferran275 · 08-25-2010, 06:11 PM

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!!!

prophecy holder · 08-25-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

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 producte.

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.

Damien_Azreal · 08-25-2010, 07:23 PM

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.

pjVgt · 08-26-2010, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

Dumb?
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.

This sums it up.

KO Gilligan · 08-26-2010, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

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.

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.

cof_3pc · 08-26-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prophecy holder

I find this rather dumb.

I find this rather ignorant.

afh_98 · 08-26-2010, 10:22 AM

Did I miss something?

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

ZuljinRaynor · 08-26-2010, 11:11 AM

Not on this board.

ryche · 08-26-2010, 11:25 AM

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

Zeromaeus · 08-26-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afh_98

Did I miss something?

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

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.

Kristian Joensen · 08-26-2010, 11:50 AM

It is called a hypothetical question.

Damien_Azreal · 08-26-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristian Joensen

It is called a hypothetical question.

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

SpinX · 08-26-2010, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien_Azreal

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

Whats a concept?

Nihilanth · 08-26-2010, 02:15 PM

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.

pjVgt · 08-26-2010, 03:51 PM

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.

prophecy holder · 08-26-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjVgt

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.

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

Dark Rabbit · 08-26-2010, 06:56 PM

"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.

Damien_Azreal · 08-26-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjVgt

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.

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.

KaiserSoze · 08-26-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afh_98

Did I miss something?

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

I knew there would be one.

08-25-2010, 05:33 PM	#21
Damien_Azreal Super Moderator	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. __________________ Monolith Fanboy since 1997 Upcoming Anticipated Games: Doom, Shadow Warrior 2, Mafia III, DisHonored 2, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

08-25-2010, 07:23 PM	#24
Damien_Azreal Super Moderator	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. __________________ Monolith Fanboy since 1997 Upcoming Anticipated Games: Doom, Shadow Warrior 2, Mafia III, DisHonored 2, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

08-24-2010, 09:34 PM	#1
KaiserSoze	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. __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JjimMO2SdE

08-24-2010, 09:40 PM	#2
thunderPIN	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.

08-24-2010, 09:48 PM	#3
Valdsator	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.

08-24-2010, 09:52 PM	#4
thunderPIN	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.

08-24-2010, 10:06 PM	#5
Acid	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.

08-24-2010, 10:29 PM	#6
Nacho	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.

08-24-2010, 10:36 PM	#7
DerricktheW	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.

08-24-2010, 10:46 PM	#8
vincentdante	Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF? this game's delay is too famous for them not to. __________________ Xbox Gamertag/PSN ID: Vincentdante Tell me who you are from this forums if you add me to either.

08-24-2010, 11:00 PM	#9
alexgk	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. __________________ Playable demo this year! Confirmed!!

08-25-2010, 02:37 AM	#10
Kristian Joensen	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. __________________ The Philosophy Of Liberty, Chaos Theory Tachyons, Time Travel, and Divine Omniscience A Refutation of Moral Relativism(Transcript)

08-25-2010, 02:41 AM	#11
DerricktheW	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.

08-25-2010, 06:51 AM	#12
KO Gilligan	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.

08-25-2010, 11:56 AM	#15
PredatorFL	Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF? A Duke Nukem Renaissance or Dukeaissance.

08-25-2010, 12:36 PM	#16
cof_3pc	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. __________________ RAWR! I'm in the Duketard Guild, because I am a lvl 70 bad ass. "Eat shit and die!"

08-25-2010, 05:15 PM	#19
JobivanHiob	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. __________________ Stay up to date with http://dukewatch.blogspot.com for the UNEXPECTED and PREPARE YOURSELF for SHOCK and AWESOME on Penny Arcade EXPO from September 3-5! Onebullit: "If DNF comes out in 2010 i will buy 2 copies and send you one." pjVgt regading DNF at PAX:"I would seriously shit my pants and pre-order three copies - one will be sent to Jobi"

08-25-2010, 05:16 PM	#20
Sang	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. __________________ traB pu kcip

08-25-2010, 06:11 PM	#22
ferran275	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!!!

08-26-2010, 10:22 AM	#28
afh_98	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?

08-26-2010, 11:11 AM	#29
ZuljinRaynor	Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF? Not on this board. __________________ My vision is augmented.

08-26-2010, 11:25 AM	#30
ryche	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. __________________ {<- machines have no conscience ->} {<- “Shoot him!” They say, Who will be the killer? Who will be the winner? ->}

08-26-2010, 11:50 AM	#32
Kristian Joensen	Re: Should the delay be used as part of review criteria for DNF? It is called a hypothetical question. __________________ The Philosophy Of Liberty, Chaos Theory Tachyons, Time Travel, and Divine Omniscience A Refutation of Moral Relativism(Transcript)

08-26-2010, 02:15 PM	#35
Nihilanth	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. __________________ We were standing on the edge of discovery 2014: The Vanishing of Ethan Carter 2015: SOMA

08-26-2010, 03:51 PM	#36
pjVgt	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. __________________ "Imma want my dukemz to pley!!!" - chaosomega

08-26-2010, 06:56 PM	#38
Dark Rabbit	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.