Gearbox: Half-Life 2 Would Review as Badly as Duke Nukem Forever
Gearbox makes dumb comparisons on Duke Nukem review scores
When we - well, when I - reviewed the long-awaited Duke Nukem Forever from Gearbox we said it was "Worth the resale if you're gifted it" and gave it 25%. Apparently that was mistaken.
In a recent interview Gearbox co-founder Brian Martel told Eurogamer that in terms of reviews, "There were things towards the high and things towards the low, but the middle just didn't get any traction. It's pretty obvious that people were using it in some ways to kind of use it as a soapbox or whatever."
As a person forced to waste hours of my life on this game, I can assure Mr Martel (in fact I'd be happy to debate him) that there was no other agenda than "Why would you make people pay for this".
Mr Martel then took things to far out of context as to become laughable with, "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had."
No. Obviously not. Obviously not because it in order to get where we are in gaming, something like Half-Life would already have existed, and your 'new' IP would be a tired old IP... like Duke Nukem.
He goes on, "I think we all have a nostalgia and love for that particular brand. Obviously Gearbox got its start working on Opposing Force so we love Half-Life. But is the current gamer, would they have the same love for that? It'd be interesting. I think the same kind of thing happened with Duke."
That simply makes no sense at all.
Source: Eurogamer
In a recent interview Gearbox co-founder Brian Martel told Eurogamer that in terms of reviews, "There were things towards the high and things towards the low, but the middle just didn't get any traction. It's pretty obvious that people were using it in some ways to kind of use it as a soapbox or whatever."
As a person forced to waste hours of my life on this game, I can assure Mr Martel (in fact I'd be happy to debate him) that there was no other agenda than "Why would you make people pay for this".
Mr Martel then took things to far out of context as to become laughable with, "Would Half-Life today be reviewed as highly as it is, you know, even today? As a new IP coming out with the same sort of mechanics Half-Life had."
No. Obviously not. Obviously not because it in order to get where we are in gaming, something like Half-Life would already have existed, and your 'new' IP would be a tired old IP... like Duke Nukem.
He goes on, "I think we all have a nostalgia and love for that particular brand. Obviously Gearbox got its start working on Opposing Force so we love Half-Life. But is the current gamer, would they have the same love for that? It'd be interesting. I think the same kind of thing happened with Duke."
That simply makes no sense at all.
Source: Eurogamer
Companies:
Gearbox
Read More Like This
Comments
Omac_brother 4 Nov 2011 13:30
1/3
Duke wasnt that bad. Made a lovely coaster.
Daz 4 Nov 2011 16:30
2/3
to me, it's not Duke that's bad, I still like his sense of humour, but the game is... well 12 years old, from the 2 weapon limit (that no one ever liked in the first place) to (almost)EVERY door needing a button mashing session to open, by the the 3rd door I was like "My god just bring back the key cards already"
Walkin' Dude 5 Nov 2011 05:19
3/3
I started really playing in 2009 with half-life 2. I loved it. I went back and played half-life. I found it more enjoyable then the sequels.