Gearbox co-founder
Brian Martel talked with Eurogamer and the subject of
Duke Nukem Forever came up. He thinks the game was reviewed unfairly and that most people used it more "as a soapbox" rather than talking into account how the game really was.
He also questioned if a game like
Half-Life would get the praise it did today. He brought that up because Duke was made in the old-school fashion and take a game like that back then, bring it today, and see if the review scores would be the same.
For that I just have to say that at the time, Half-Life did some amazing things and it still holds up well today as I've played it plenty of times just to experience the story. Serious Sam is one franchise that brings the feeling of old school shooters, but did a good job at doing so.
Cyril really
disliked the game and
I thought it was well below par, but I definitely didn't blame Gearbox one bit. I'm glad they did their part in bringing the game out and do look forward to how they are going to take the Duke IP to the next level. But the fact is the game was boring and lacked the quality to make it a top notch title.
So do I think reviewers were being unfair to the game? Well, you'll always have those exceptions, but I think for the most part the collective got it right in saying the game just wasn't that good.
