There comes a time in the development cycle of a video game where people give up hope. The anticipation of imminent release is replaced by the bitter pill of disappointment. The one game that embodies all that built up expectancy and subsequent despondency would be Duke Nukem Forever.
First announced back in 1997 as a sequel to the massively successful Duke Nukem 3D, Forever has had the most torrid development of any video game in history. The length of time involved tells it's own story.
And so, after 14 years in a development cycle marred by lawsuits and studio collapses, we find ourselves with a final retail release of Duke Nukem Forever. From this day forth, June 10th 2011 shall be a day that will live in infamy. A day when the impossible became reality. When all the waiting and hoping would come to fruition and gamers all over the world could play the game that time forgot. We would marvel in it's magnificence and worship Duke as the Messiah of the industry.
Or not.
You see, while the point of no return came and went, the sheer amount of time the game has been in development taints the vision somewhat. Once re-announced by Gearbox Software the game could never live up to the expectation cast upon it. What troubles me is a lot of people will see the 14 years and think they will have all been spent making the game in it's current form. People will believe the team will have worked constantly on the same exact game for all that time, ignoring the lawsuits and leavers and expect a mammoth shooter with the best graphics, Oscar-worthy story and a multiplayer mode that makes Call of Duty look like a BBC Micro game.
The reason it troubles me is because Forever is a good game. The controls are a bit clunky and the game looks like it's from a few years ago, but that's because it is.
What the game represents is a throwback to an intermediate time between when shooters were four hundred locked doors between a nameless man and the end of the level and now, when shooters are a linear, story-driven, shooting gallery set-piece-athon.
Forever is bang in the middle. It's a linear, story-driven spectacle interspersed with platforming, puzzle solving and minigames. What the game avoided, by the grace of almighty God, is a lack of variety. Without trying to spoil too much, in the first 3 hours the game features standard run-n-gun, puzzles, driving, being shrunk, solving more puzzles while shrunk, driving an RC car while shrunk, on rails sections, turret gameplay and pool. That is more to do than most shooters feature in an entire franchise.
Hey, it worked once
So, what about the actual game part of the game? Well as you might expect, a complex story is not on the cards. The basic premise is "aliens bad, Duke good, babes better". Aliens invade Earth after Duke made them look stupid the first time round and start stealing all of Earth's hottest babes. This will not stand. Duke snaps into action, against the will of the President, to defeat the alien scum and reclaim the babes. Perfect, simple setting.
What I will say about the game that is better than any recent shooter release, is the lack of utterly useless handholding (so long as you turn hints off). Most games these days seem to regard you as little more than a toddler, gently guiding you through sections that require no more brainpower than that of a lobotomised horse. Forever can be tricky, but you usually know what to do and where to go through indirect direction... you heard me.
Graphics quality is always a contentious issue in games. Is visual style more important than pure realism, or do graphics even matter at all? The only thing that need be said is if Forever came out three or four years ago, the graphics would still only be considered good, not great. This is in no way to the detriment of the game. End of story.
These days, a game has to have multiplayer. If a game wants to have a successful multiplayer, you give up and realise nobody plays anything but Call of Duty and Halo. Some games try and leach some of the success from those two franchises by copying them almost exactly, especially CoD. Thankfully Forever doesn't really try and be anything amazing. It features the multiplayer fad du jour of earning XP and leveling but only to unlock items in your online pad, which is a nice change. Everything is played on an even playing field and has a discernibly old school feel to it.
When it comes to making a decision about this game, ignore the 14 years. Take it for what it is; a callback to games of old. Before big budgets and pomposity took hold. When games had less heads and more boots up asses.
First announced back in 1997 as a sequel to the massively successful Duke Nukem 3D, Forever has had the most torrid development of any video game in history. The length of time involved tells it's own story.
And so, after 14 years in a development cycle marred by lawsuits and studio collapses, we find ourselves with a final retail release of Duke Nukem Forever. From this day forth, June 10th 2011 shall be a day that will live in infamy. A day when the impossible became reality. When all the waiting and hoping would come to fruition and gamers all over the world could play the game that time forgot. We would marvel in it's magnificence and worship Duke as the Messiah of the industry.
Or not.
You see, while the point of no return came and went, the sheer amount of time the game has been in development taints the vision somewhat. Once re-announced by Gearbox Software the game could never live up to the expectation cast upon it. What troubles me is a lot of people will see the 14 years and think they will have all been spent making the game in it's current form. People will believe the team will have worked constantly on the same exact game for all that time, ignoring the lawsuits and leavers and expect a mammoth shooter with the best graphics, Oscar-worthy story and a multiplayer mode that makes Call of Duty look like a BBC Micro game.
The reason it troubles me is because Forever is a good game. The controls are a bit clunky and the game looks like it's from a few years ago, but that's because it is.
What the game represents is a throwback to an intermediate time between when shooters were four hundred locked doors between a nameless man and the end of the level and now, when shooters are a linear, story-driven, shooting gallery set-piece-athon.
Forever is bang in the middle. It's a linear, story-driven spectacle interspersed with platforming, puzzle solving and minigames. What the game avoided, by the grace of almighty God, is a lack of variety. Without trying to spoil too much, in the first 3 hours the game features standard run-n-gun, puzzles, driving, being shrunk, solving more puzzles while shrunk, driving an RC car while shrunk, on rails sections, turret gameplay and pool. That is more to do than most shooters feature in an entire franchise.
Hey, it worked onceSo, what about the actual game part of the game? Well as you might expect, a complex story is not on the cards. The basic premise is "aliens bad, Duke good, babes better". Aliens invade Earth after Duke made them look stupid the first time round and start stealing all of Earth's hottest babes. This will not stand. Duke snaps into action, against the will of the President, to defeat the alien scum and reclaim the babes. Perfect, simple setting.
What I will say about the game that is better than any recent shooter release, is the lack of utterly useless handholding (so long as you turn hints off). Most games these days seem to regard you as little more than a toddler, gently guiding you through sections that require no more brainpower than that of a lobotomised horse. Forever can be tricky, but you usually know what to do and where to go through indirect direction... you heard me.
Graphics quality is always a contentious issue in games. Is visual style more important than pure realism, or do graphics even matter at all? The only thing that need be said is if Forever came out three or four years ago, the graphics would still only be considered good, not great. This is in no way to the detriment of the game. End of story.
These days, a game has to have multiplayer. If a game wants to have a successful multiplayer, you give up and realise nobody plays anything but Call of Duty and Halo. Some games try and leach some of the success from those two franchises by copying them almost exactly, especially CoD. Thankfully Forever doesn't really try and be anything amazing. It features the multiplayer fad du jour of earning XP and leveling but only to unlock items in your online pad, which is a nice change. Everything is played on an even playing field and has a discernibly old school feel to it.
When it comes to making a decision about this game, ignore the 14 years. Take it for what it is; a callback to games of old. Before big budgets and pomposity took hold. When games had less heads and more boots up asses.
No comments:
Post a Comment