Duke Nukem Forever exposes crap reviewers – 100 reviews compared

June 18th, 2011 by Mr.Mouse

duke-nukem-trailer-coming.jpgLet’s be completely honest here; Duke Nukem Forever is not what we waited for back in 1996. In fact, it is not great at all. Having said that, it is also definitely not crap as well. In this post I compare final scores from 100 reviews that we can find online. Not that feable metacritic or shallow worldscore bias like we see so often eh? Setting aside nostalgia and looking at the game objectively, it’s a fair game. There’s enough fun to be had, giggles here and there, and some good shooting scenes. Overall we would agree that the game deserves somewhere between 65% and 70% as a score, as it matches up with that range of other fair shooters of late. Some reviewers do not appear to know what objectiveness is though. No, they take this opportunity to attract hits on their petty sites. Having first over-hyped the game, now they have the chance to play the “cool reviewer” that slates it. So Rich Whitehouse stepped forward and explained that we now have the opportunity to expose the crap and dishonest reviewer once and for all. Sites like Destructoid and Eurogamer.net had shown to harbor very incompetent reviewers indeed. He came up with the following cut-off: Reviewers that either score the game 50% or lower, or score the game 85% or higher are utterly crap. So much crap, that they will not be taken seriously as game reviewers for the rest of their lives. Untrustworthy. Losers. Opportunistic bastards. To name but a few stronger terms to label them that we picked up along the way.

So what about the 100 reviews? Well, the methodology is simple. Using our friend Google, I simply went through all the sites that reviewed Duke Nukem Forever, setting preferred languages to English, Italian, Dutch, German, Spanish etc. I quickly amassed 100 reviews, obviously including the major sites (first hits eh). I also went to metacritic and worldscore and others to confirm I had all of the sites listed there as well.

Then it was a simple exercise to calculate the usual stuff, but also to look at some more interesting data.

Standard frequency chart:


You will see that the distribution of the review scores is clearly showing two populations of reviewers. I would say “The Bad” and “The Good”. Obviously, the population rating lower are in reality trying to get hits, and being dishonest.

Now, let’s simplify that chart, by defining ranges of 10%.


The two populations are still clearly showing. You could imagine two curves with normal-like distribution in there while squinting. One with an average between 30-60, and the other between 60-90%. Who is right and who is wrong? We all know that we are right, as the true value of DNF is around 65-70%. Thus, I’d say the 60-90% group of reviewers are The Good.

In real life, you would expect perhaps scores to be fairly skewed (read : near-normal, but a steep peak) distributed around a single score. Like excellent games would be hailed with 90% by most and by some with a little less than 90, and by some with a little higher than 90. On the other hand, you have games that aren’t for everyone, and they would probably show a normal distribution, gradually going up to a peak value of the “core”, and on one side declining in value and for some hard-core fans increasing a little on the up-side in terms of value.

The 100 review scores of Duke Nukem Forever, however, show two camps. In the middle they overlap, as is indicated by the median : 60% ,with a minimum of 20%, and a maximum of 88%. Statistics dictate I should not be giving averages with a non-normal population, so I won’t use the calculated mean of 58%.

Now, let’s look at the Whitehouse score. Just how many reviewers scored DNF 50% or lower, how many were fair, and how many scored insanely high (85+)?


That’s rougly 4 out of 10 reviewers that suck! We call those downvoters at CSDb! They just exist to vote a score down, because of personal reasons. Then, luckily, only 2% are morons and utter fanboys who score the game way too high.

Thus, we have now exposed the following reviewers who should be branded INCOMPETENT LIARS for the rest of their lives whenever we hear them say anything about games in general.  Their names are:


Yes. Those are the reviewers that we can no longer take seriously, I can cut those that scored 50% a little, but just a little slack, but those scoring below 50…no. No mercy. They truly suck.

So there you have it! We have established that the reviewers population is separated into two camps. The Foul and the Righteous. We have even named the first camp. Now it is up to others to decide next steps. Those who want to get the full 100 review scores are more than welcome to drop me a mail. I may be inclined to share.

EDIT: I updated it and added 17 more reviews. You can also find the actual data there.

  • Chris Pelha

    nice time sink trying to salvage a shit game lol.