It’s only appropriate, one supposes, that a game that had been so controversial for the years it was never released should remain controversial now that it has actually hit the shelves.
On June 14, the long, long, LONG awaited video game “Duke Nukem Forever” was released by publisher 2K Games. The title, first announced in 1997, had been delayed by its developers for over a decade. Its tumultuous history, documented by sources including this column, had made it one of the most infamous games in the history of the business.
In 2009, when 3D Realms, the company which had been developing “Duke” from the beginning, finally gave up and cancelled the project. Publisher 2K Games sued, eventually settled for the rights to the game, and hired developers Gearbox Software to finish it. The result is what is in stores right now.
The big question left unanswered by all of these events was simple: Would it be any good? The answer, sadly, is no. “Forever” is not a horrible game, really, but between its paper-thin story, lackluster controls, intolerable loading times and — it must be said — annoying lead character, it certainly doesn’t live up to 14 years of hype. It feels like what it is — a game about a decade out of date.
Most critics said the same, giving “Duke” middling reviews at best. And then, once more, “Duke Nukem Forever” found itself at the center of controversy spurred on by one of the least likely candidates: Press Relations.
The Redner Group is a third-party PR agency which boasted 2K Games as one of its biggest clients. The firm states on its website that they offer “strategic navigation through an ever-evolving media environment.” Well, one wonders how “strategic” the choice was to post this comment on the company’s Twitter account, aimed at the poor reviews “Duke” was receiving:
“Too many went too far with their reviews…we r (sic) reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn’t based on today’s venom.”
Not surprisingly, the comment was deleted from Twitter not long after it was posted. Also not surprisingly, it had already been captured in a screenshot by sources such as the magazine “Wired” and immediately became the talk of the industry. And least surprising of all, 2K Games denounced the Redner Group’s comments and officially dumped them as their PR firm.
Owner Jim Redner has since publicly apologized and claimed the tweet was in response to the tone of certain reviews, not to the fact that they gave “Duke” poor scores. The damage was long since done, of course. But no matter what was or was not meant, the events of this week do shine a light on a disquieting aspect of pop culture journalism.
There has long been an uneasy tension between many of the companies which produce content and many of those who report on and analyze it. It makes sense — the company’s job is to make money with their wares, and weak reviews and press may hinder the cause. But any press helps to bolster visibility. So companies keep critics and journalists in the loop, to a degree.
There have been several examples over the years of companies pulling press privileges over negative critiques. 20th Century Fox famously banned Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert from press screenings for a time. Recently, Kevin Smith took to complaining about negative reviews of his “Cop Out.” And now, Redner and “Duke Nukem” have brought the practice back into the light again.
The angry responses aimed at critics are horribly misplaced, however. Reviews are thoroughly subjective, of course. Every person will have their own response to a work of art. I’ve always felt that the critic has a few basic responsibilities — to give their reader a good understanding of a piece, so they will be better informed about its contents. To be entertaining, because if the critique isn’t interesting, what would inspire the audience to read it anyway?
And above all, a critic needs to be honest. Because opinions are so subjective, a critic is of no real use to their audience if they aren’t forthright with how a work made them feel. That’s what the creators and publishers of art often fail to understand. As has been observed in the past, if a critic never gave out a bad review, what would the good ones mean?
Companies can disagree with negative reviews all they want. But taking issue with honest criticism is a line that companies — and the public — should be wary of crossing. “Duke Nukem Forever” has been badly reviewed because, most agree, it is a bad game. The proper response is not to lash out at those who reviewed it, but to make the next “Duke” game one worthy of praise.