One Gamer's Opinion: Thank You for Duke Nukem Forever

I want to say thank you to 2k Games & Gearbox Software for releasing Duke Nukem Forever. Does Duke Nukem Forever have it's share of gameplay and design problems? Yes. Does it look outdated graphically? Yes. Is any of this 2k Games & Gearbox Software's fault? No.

What everyone out there seems to be forgetting is that 2k Games & Gearbox Software didn't "make" this game. Once 3d Realms went belly up and all the dust settled from the various lawsuits, 2k Games was left with rights to the franchise and the code to the game that 3d Realms had been working on for over a decade. Rather than see all these years of work go down the drain and start completely from scratch Gearbox Software fixed up the code as best as they could and released Duke Nukem Forever as is, in the form it was made by the people at 3d Realms. Why did they do this? Because the President of Gearbox Software, Randy Pitchford, once worked for 3d Realms, many years ago, on Duke Nukem 3d. Pitchford left the company before production on Duke Nukem Forever began.

In an interview by Pitchford, done during the games PAX announcement, he said that this is not their game, it is 3d Realm's game. He wanted to see "this" game released, that way fans of the series could finally play the illusive game they had been waiting for, for soo long, as it was intended to be. In addition, he also wanted all of the untold number of people that worked on this game for the past 14 years to finally see their hard work and dedication pay off. In the same interview, he also said that once this Duke game was released Gearbox would eventually begin working on their Duke game.

2K Games & Gearbox Software should be commended for saving this game from the dead and releasing the title as it was intended to be, knowing full well it wasn't going to be up to par. The game has been in development hell for 14 years, there was no way it would live up to anyone's expectations. Once Gearbox releases their version of Duke Nukem then I will judge, until then I'm just glad that I FINALLY got to play Duke Nukem Forever.

Sites threatened to be blacklisted for negative Duke reviews

Not having played Duke Nukem Forever yet, I can't give my thoughts on 2K Games and Gearbox's fourteen year long project, but a majority of reviews have shown that time hasn't been good to Duke. Many reviewers such as Gamespot, IGN and 1Up.com slammed the game for poorly paced levels, unnecessary platforming segments, and overall lack of fun. It's not only Duke that's under the gun, but also the reviewers themselves: 2K Games' PR Agency, The Redner Group, publicly threatened to blacklist any reviewer who ran a negative review on Duke Nukem Forever.

After a number of these reviews were published, the Redner Group, based out of Santa Monica, CA, retaliated against the critics and tweeted that they went “too far” with their venom-filled reviews. Furthermore, the agency stated on their Twitter account that they're considering which news outlets get review copies of games in the future and which don't. 2K Games didn't take Redner's reaction well, however, and cut relations with the PR agency. This prompted agency founder, Jim Redner, to submit a formal apology to a number of gaming publications

The press interacts with public relations agencies on a regular basis and this relationship can sometimes walk on shaky ground. According to gaming news outlets like Kotaku, this type of internal blacklisting with gaming companies does happen, but isn't usually made public. Kotaku got blacklisted by Sony from its event, games and interviews when it published a rumor about the unveiling of the PS3 Home back in March 2007. Game developers always want their products to do well and video game journalists want to report on the latest juicy tidbits of news and put forth quality game reviews. It's often a delicate balance that reviewers must take into account when critiquing a game.

Metacritic.com, a website that provides a general critic consensus, shows that Duke Nukem Forever currently has a “Metascore” of 49 on the Xbox 360, a 55 on PS3 and a 57 on the PC. Given the amount of time, money and effort that went into creating this highly anticipated title, the score comes as a pretty big letdown for many gamers.

Reviewing a game at the professional level takes more than popping in a game, playing it for a few hours and then giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down. The reviewing process of a video game can be a lot of work. About a week before a game's release, companies usually provide critics with a review copy of a game. The game then needs to played in its entirety, with the reviewer paying close attention to things like game flow, controls and fun. Ideally, the review needs to be composed and posted before the game hits store shelves, not often an easy task.

Many gamers want their video game they've been waiting for to be fun and intuitive, which is what developers intend to deliver. It doesn't always work out that way, and it's up to gaming journalists to help decide whether the game is worth the time and money. After all, no self-respecting gamer would want to spend their hard-earned money on a game they've been anxiously waiting for, only to take it home and discover it falls short? A game developer can be ultimately passionate about its game, but when threats start to fly, the potential damage can become worse than the final score given by the critic.