Author Topic: Whiny little friends that can't accept a loss.  (Read 3687 times)

Why do game reviewers judge Duke Nukem Forever as bad for being linear with no story.

CoD is linear with a poor story and it gets 9-10 scores.
COD has a story. Borrosilov Vuduvsthu is using science to try and take over the world. You have to stop him!

COD has a story. Borrosilov Vuduvsthu is using science to try and take over the world. You have to stop him!

That sounds so complicated!


You can't change it much without staying true to the type of game.
This is an astronomically stupid statement.
Let's take a look at another popular FPS series, like Battlefield. Ignoring the spinoffs Vietnam, 2142, and Bad Company.

The franchise started out in 2002 with Battlefield 1942, a team-based MP only shooter set during World War II. The main objective on each map was to capture command posts and drain the enemy's respawn tickets until they ran out. Most, if not all maps had several vehicle spawns, from jeeps and tanks to battleships and divebombers. Players could also pick from several different classes each time they respawned, to deal with changing situations.

In 2005, DICE released Battlefield 2, the "sequel" to 1942 (or as close as a sequel gets for a multiplayer only shooter), and is widely considered the best in the series. Core gameplay was mostly similar: Capture command posts, drain the enemy tickets. But this time, it was set in the modern era, and with the time period changed, many other gameplay elements were too. Most notably, the introduction of the commander position, who got a birds-eye view of the whole map and was able to direct the team using information they might not know, as well as provide support in the form of vehicle drops, artillery strikes, UAVs, and supply crates. In addition to the commander, the Squad mechanic was introduced. Each squad leader would receive orders directly from the commander to attack or defend certain locations. Other commands such as mining an area or repairing a strategic asset existed too but attack/defend/move were the most commonly used. The classes also got changed up a little by allowing players to unlock new primary weapons, like an automatic shotgun for the anti-tank class (who normally gets an SMG), or a MP7 for the engineer (who normally gets a shotgun).

Now, in 2011, Battlefield 3 is on the horizon. Again, core gameplay seems to be the same as always, with the assimilation of the "Rush" mode from Bad Company. It has simplified the amount of classed from seven down to four. However, these four classes are capable of more flexibility than the seven in Battlefield 2 (engineer and anti-tank were combined, so were assault and medic). The commander position seems to have been removed, but the squad mechanic still remains. Vehicles are still there (as always) only now the maps are destructible, which could mean that vehicles could be used for more than simply killing the enemy. Unlocks appear to be there too, but with much more variety than just selecting your primary weapon. Several other new minor mechanics are introduced, such as limited health regeneration and the ability to mount your LMG on a surface for more accurate fire.


So yeah. It is possible to innovate and try new things while still staying true to the core gameplay aspects. Releasing the same game every loving year is not innovation.


unless they patch in a way to carry more than 2 weapons,

Impossible for consoles, about every single button has been used for something. Just adapt to it because I can.

cut the regen health

While I agree with this but it actually makes fun of games that have regenerative health. That's why they have it in the first place. Duke is so bad ass his ego heals himself. They poke fun at why regenerative health makes no sense.

remove highlighting objects

Take off in game help in options.

Every topic you make, an assload of them, mind you, has to deal with one of three things.
A. Ponies
B. Duke Nukem: Forever
C. Bioshock

It gets old. Fast.

Every topic you make, an assload of them, mind you, has to deal with one of three things.
A. Ponies
B. Duke Nukem: Forever
C. Bioshock

It gets old. Fast.

A. I only maybe one?
B. I only one official one, asking people to play against me in Duke Nukem.
C. I only made two complaining about there is no feet and the other being too easy.

What are you talking about, I see no assload.

Maybe I'm just confused by all the stupid spam topics.

Maybe I'm just confused by all the stupid spam topics.

I don't make as much as the average forum member.



Every topic you make, an assload of them, mind you, has to deal with one of three things.
A. Ponies
B. Duke Nukem: Forever
C. Bioshock

It gets old. Fast.
Actually, that's pretty true.


I just realized those were all made on the 17th except one lol.

Impossible for consoles, about every single button has been used for something. Just adapt to it because I can.

While I agree with this but it actually makes fun of games that have regenerative health. That's why they have it in the first place. Duke is so bad ass his ego heals himself. They poke fun at why regenerative health makes no sense.

Take off in game help in options.
timesplitters 2 handled multiple weapons fine on the ps2 controller. there was also a console version of serious sam with multi weapons. hell, i'd even take a thing where you only had 2 active weapons at a time, but could pick up all the other weapons and just go to a pause menu where you could swap out the 2 active weapons with other ones in your inventory.

the original way to restore health was by doing badass things. i'd take that in a heartbeat over generic regen health.

did not know that.