This may turn into a case where it's tough to separate the game from the hype, especially if a reviewer is plugged-in with the industry. That said, I have faith that reviewers will be able to do so, but I will also about guarantee that every single major review will waste a lot of space talking about that history and hype, which unfortunately sets up the reader with expectations outside of the game itself.

Kudos to any reviewer that can ignore the past and rate the game based on the bits and bytes.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is how I translate what you just said:

Duke Nukem forever is going to be a mediocre or maybe even bad game that's going to sell mostly based on hype and the dubious value of buying a game that's been in development longer then any other game (?)

I don't think any significant number of reviewers purposely review low.... in fact quite the opposite, to rate less then a 7 a game pretty much has to burn your house down and kick your pet dog.

If Duke is a worthwhile game, it will get good reviews from MOST reviewers. if it's not a good game, it will get 7's. What else do I (the prospective customer) care about other then how good it is? Why would I drop $50 just for the 'event' of buying a game the developer seems to flat out be saying is not really that great?

I don't have very high hopes for Duke at this point. I want to be wrong, and I want it to be amazing.... but I don't expect it to be.

Haters be hatin'......et al.

It's hard to see how this game could turn out to be any worse than Black Ops. And Black Ops was getting 9/10s like raindrops in a monsoon, so I wouldn't be too worried there Randy.

I think what he's saying, is pretty much Gearboxes involvement with DN:F anyways.. 'it doesn't matter what people think we're going to be the company to bring Duke Nukem out' their Acquisition of the IP and release of the game has been purely a Marketing Strategy, I mean the game was almost done when they got it.

I, for one, pretty much never had respect for Randy Pitchford. Especially after Borderlands.

You didn't like Borderlands? You be playing with me here or what? :\

I would have to agree with this sentiment, if you play Ultima 3 these days you'll find out what many of us already know, it's obtuse as all get out and the ending is shit.

Regardless it remains an important game, just due to its influence. DNF continues a franchise that has been the same way. And Blackjack?

1. I agree....mediocre it'll probably be, but mediocre or not i'm gonna play the shit outta that game....I just wish these days could fly by sooner.

2. Forget the hookers, and keep the blackjack.....Bender rules!

Borderlands tried to be a combo of FPS and ARPG and didn't really succeed at either. I'm not saying it was a bad game, it was okay but -- at least in my opinion -- it could have delivered a lot more (and yes I blame multiplatform design).

Honestly, you seem to be blaming anything that isn't the same formula we liked over a decade ago. Every experiment is not going to turn out, without it we'd have never had American McGee's Alice or Fallout, though.

This....people keep saying they want innovation in the gaming industry then when we actually DO get new games that bring back old franchises in a new way or bring new gameplay to the table they complain it isn't as good as it used to be. :\

Innovation is nice... but you still need to make a good game out of it.

In this world full of depressing news and happenings i'd rather be optimistic than skeptical. ;)

(I'll still remain somewhat rational as I do so though, to maintain balance.)

That's because when they bring back old franchises in new ways, the new ways are usually dumbed down for console kiddies.... sorry I mean "more accessible" and/or not actually anything new, but just whatever is mainstream right now (for example the rumored new syndicate game... which will be a multiplayer focused FPS... because obviously we don't have enough of those right?)