I've finished Duke Nukem Forever. There are a lot of things wrong with it, which I'll get to next week in my review. One thing I want to talk about today, though, has as much to do with the game as it has the game's publishers.

You may have read this elsewhere already, or seen it yourself, but in case you haven't, I'll spell it out now: Duke Nukem Forever is an offensive video game. And not in a good way.

Upon completing the game, I was shocked that I had found myself repeatedly, well, a little shocked. I'm a big fan of "extreme" humour, and can find even the darkest subject matter hilarious if it's spun the right way. And yet here I was, not just failing to laugh at Duke's supposed jokes, but wondering aloud how grown men had seen fit to put them in an expensive piece of consumer media, somehow thinking it was a good idea.

The game jokes about things like rape. And abortion. It thinks tampons are funny. And it does so without any hint of parody, or satire, or political or social statement, the only things that can, if not excuse such distasteful subject matter, then at least provide reasonable grounds for a gag.

People laugh at South Park because, while it can be vile, it knows what needs to underpin the gags to make them work. People can laugh at racial jokes, normally a taboo, from the likes of Richard Pryor or Dave Chapelle for the same reason. Heck, you can even make good Nazi jokes if you're smart enough.

Duke Nukem Forever isn't smart enough. It's not even close.

The first half of the game, from alien rape by penis monsters to awkward blowjobs to robotic stripteases, is blatantly misogynistic. And not in a lovable Ron burgundy, Whale's Vagina kind of way. Nor is it ever remotely approaching something sensual or titillating. It's instead misogynistic in the worst sense of the word: like a drunk uncle, a leering stranger, a repeat sex offender.

What's maybe worse still is that, despite the protestations of blinkered fans and teary-eyed nostalgics, the bigot on display in this game is not the Duke Nukem people claim (or wish) him to be. Not the Duke we remember, and not the one he has ever been. If you need to check this, the original Duke Nukem 3D is now available for $6 from the Apogee store; play it and you'll see the action hero pastiche on display in the 1996 game bears little resemblance to the monotone pervert on show for half the 2011 release.

All this made me question why this game has been released the way it has. I will never question the fact it has been released: every game, no matter how shitty, no matter how questionable someone finds its subject matter, has a right to be released. You want to call video games art, that's how it goes.

But I do question why a major developer, Gearbox Software, and one of the world's biggest publishers, Take-Two (through its 2K label), lent their names to the project. It seems slightly irresponsible, given the game's unsavoury content.

Both parties will have seen the offensive material in the game, and surely somebody, at some point along the way, thought, "Hey, it's 2011, some of this stuff isn't cool." The game may have been developed elsewhere, mostly at 3D Realms, but both parties still signed off on the thing.

In doing so, whether explicitly or not, they are endorsing this kind of content. They're willing to actively promote and make a ton of money off a character whose ridiculous quips and bigoted behaviour (which you can see some of in the NSFW videos in this post) would be hurried out the office of every TV network or film studio executive in the developed world.

And that sends a disappointing message. The video game industry, and video game fans, have long been calling for the medium to be treated with a little more respect, that its creative output can be as professional as that produced on the television or silver screen. Take-Two of all companies should be aware of this, what with their constant defence of the excesses of the Grand Theft Auto series, which it also publishes (and which, unlike this game, with its caricatures and satire and quality writing is defensible).

For two companies as powerful and influential as Gearbox and Take-Two to completely ignore that in the name of a quick buck is thus very disappointing. To be expected, perhaps, but still disappointing. Especially for a game that wasn't worth it in the first place.

We understand that many new video games ship with glitches. We (sometimes) forgive them. We also understand that some glitches are features or Easter eggs. We celebrate that, just as we celebrate this glitch from Duke Nukem Forever.

Duke Nukem Forever - Plane Glitch [YouTube]

A third-party public relations firm tweeted last night that they would be "reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn't" based on the bad reviews pouring in about Duke Nukem Forever.

"Too many went too far with their reviews... we r reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn't based on today's venom." Jim Redner, of The Redner Group, tweeted out.

Redner later backtracked in an email sent out to an undisclosed group of publications. In that longer email (see below) Redner asked for forgiveness and called the initial email an error in judgement.

2K games told Kotaku that they don't endorse the comments made by Redner and confirmed that "The Redner Group no longer represents our products."

"We have always maintained a mutually-respectful working relationship with the press and do not condone his actions in any way," a spokesman said.

While it's unusual for a public relations company, publisher or developer to so publicly call out game critics for reviews, what isn't that unusual is the push back and internal black listing.

Kotaku made quite a splash years ago when we made public Sony's decision, delivered in an email, to blacklist us from all of their events, their games, their interviews in retaliation for publishing a reported-out rumor about the PS3 Home that turned out to be accurate. But the only thing unusual about that particular blackballing was that it was official and on the record.

We've since heard, and suspect we've been subjected to, plenty of unofficial, easily denied blackballings. It's an ugly, the ugliest part of this business. And while news reporting can sometimes spur it (I once had a executive of a company spend ten minutes shouting in my face and calling me names at a public venue because he was upset we reported on news, not rumors, but news that put his company in a bad light) it is game reviews that seem most contentious.

That's because with many companies, reviews can be directly connected to things like retailer orders and customer purchases. Sometimes they're used to determine whether a game should get a sequel or a developer or PR firm a bonus. So enough bad reviews can lead to money out of someone's pocket and that's when things get contentious.

No matter how passionate a team of developers are, no matter how mindful of their art form, their creation, at some point any big game is going to also have a person who sees the production of that game and its success as a matter purely of business, of counting beans and making money.

Should a game that does well get raked over the coals of sloppy criticism and rushed reviews? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that games should get a pass when a reviewer has played through the entirety of the title and found it lacking. That's the whole point of reviews, they are an expression of critical opinion.

Our job, as game critics, is not to help promote a game or make sure that it sells well. Our job, as critics, is to offer up opinion based on full knowledge of the entire game. That's pretty straight forward. If a critic plays an entire game and hates it, he or she should say so. If he or she loves it, write that. End of story.

I haven't had a chance to play beyond the initial levels of Duke Nukem Forever. But when I did play those levels I wrote up a preview saying that I suspect Duke will be entirely fan service, nothing meant to expand the game's reach or satisfy those new to the experience.

We'll be running our review next week (our policy is to wait a week after a game hits to review it). I'm not writing it, but my discussions with the reviewer lead me to believe that our reviewer won't make Redner happy either. But he's not our audience for this review, so we're OK with that.

Here's the full apology email:

Hello,

I would like a quick moment of your time to humbly ask for your forgiveness. I made a major error in judgment. I acted out of pure emotion without any thought to what I was saying. It is with a sad heart that I come to you now asking that you forgive me. I posted a Tweet this evening saying that I was reviewing The Redner Group's policy for future reviews of video games based on today's Duke Nukem Forever scores. I must state for the record I was acting on my behalf. 2K and all other clients had nothing to do with my comment. I want to be very clear that this came through me and was in no way affiliated with any of my clients especially my former client 2K.

Though I didn't name names, I did say that I thought some reviews had gone too far in tone. Meaning, that the tone of some of the reviews was poor. I respect the scores, it had to deal with the tone. I was unable to properly convey that in 140 characters. But that it beside the point. We are all entitled to our opinions regardless of score, tone or meaning. My response was a juvenile act on my part. I know better and my emotion got the best of me. I have worked very hard on this project. I want it to succeed. I just got upset and acted out.

I believe we are all allowed to voice our opinions and that opinions by their very nature are correct. Many of you quickly pointed out my error in judgment. For that I thank you and apologize.

I truly respect what you do. You have helped me achieve a little bit of success in this industry. I depend upon you. Your coverage is of the utmost importance to me. You have helped me secure coverage for all of the projects that I have touched. I have tried to treat you all with respect, dignity and honesty. Tonight I threw that all away, and I am extremely sorry.

The video game industry is an industry that I love. I have tried to dedicate myself to this industry. Tonight I failed the industry.

With much respect, I hope that when we meet again you will be able greet me with a smile and without malice. I will gladly do the same.

I am truly sorry for what I did. I know better than that. If I have caused you any issues, now or in the past, I apologize.

Best of luck,

Jim Redner

Unsurprisingly, Gearbox forum posters are talking about Duke Nukem Forever, and while they can't seem to decide what was offensive and what was just par for the course, almost everyone agrees: the final boss pissed them off. SPOILERS AHEAD: [Gearbox]

Say what you will about Gearbox's Duke Nuke Forever, but it sounds like their community party was, as the kids used to say, "Off the hook."

Here we see Randy Pitchford, Gearbox co-founder and CEO, beatboxing up on stage to celebrate the imminent release of a game most thought would never see the light of day.

[A very special thanks to Twitter user SpeedracerUNT who tracked this video down for me]

While my review is forthcoming, it's no spoiler that Duke Nukem Forever isn't a Game of the Year contender. Question is, though, what game are we judging?

Because the one we are playing clearly isn't finished. Leaving us to wonder, what game might we have been left with were 3D Realms able to actually complete their initial vision?

Maybe something like this. This concept art by Feng Zhu, completed for developers 3D Realms around the time of 2003-2004, shows a world far more detailed and easy on the eye than the "finished" product's bland levels, along with some cool designs for human soldiers and alien opponents that you never see in the game.

Some stuff did manage to make it into the final game, however, including Zhu's take on the "Impregnator", one of the finished game's more questionable inclusions. Note that one of the pieces of art in the gallery above shows the beast at work, and as such, isn't very suitable for work.

Duke Nukem Forever Concept Art [FZD]

Who is Duke Nukem, and why—after all of these years—are we still talking about him? One of our readers has described him as a "character that people actually love or hate. Or feel something about. As opposed to military personnel (1) and (1a)." In a sea of "blandness," according to the reader, the Duke is something to be excited about—outdated graphics and overlong loading screens be damned.

When Stephen Totilo posted his impressions of Duke Nukem Forever on Sunday afternoon, the response was dizzying. It consisted of nearly a thousand comments, forming a labyrinth of impressions almost as daunting and erratic as Forever's decade-plus development period. One recurring argument stood out amongst all the rest: the Duke's fans love him not in spite of, but because of his being an anachronism of epic proportions.

Reader evilmajikman chimed in to remind us that Duke Nukem Forever was never supposed to be playing in the same ballpark as Call of Duty or Halo.

Honestly I find all the criticisms on this pretty stupid. Like people hating on it for not being the most advanced shooter, well no shit its not the most advanced shooter. It was never supposed to be.

I am sick and tired of shooters being nailed as bad games for being too different than Call of Duty or any generic war first person shooters. Take Aliens vs Predators for example. It was exactly what it was supposed to be. Aliens fighting Preds.

Another commenter, Ian Paul Freeeley, was content with a Duke title that simply did what it was going to do, even if in doing so it failed to turn the gaming world on its head.

Not every game needs to be made into some highly critically praised blockbuster. Besides, a lot of that shit gets too much credit for its own good anyhow. I'll take this over Call of Duty any day of the week. Pitchford's crew did a noble thing by finishing this, and it's an ode to old school gamers around the world.

Perhaps Duke Nukem Forever is a victim of a lousy port-job to the Xbox 360; commenter richjdonato isn't alone in suggesting that the game is far better when played on the PC.

Sure this game was never going to be GotY material but the complaints I hear of long load times, bad graphics, bad AI. All I can say is play it on the PC. None of those problems exist. My games take a total of 5 - 8 seconds max to load. After dying I have maybe a 4 second screen. Consoles is why your DNF experience is bad. As for the bad AI, well I havn't noticed anything bad and it seems like the stock standard enemy AI that has been used for every single FPS since Half-Life boosted the enemies to attack, run away and throw grenades.

Some readers, like Arctic Tabasco, have argued that by peeling away some of the sub-par workmanship and graphical shoddiness, Forever is, at core, a perfectly competent game.

Without a shadow of a doubt, there is a full, enjoyable game here, that will take a good while to finish as well. And at no point did I feel they padded the thing out with unnecessary levels. The weapons are the good ol' friends you had way back in Duke 3D with a couple alien weapon additions, the aliens are the same motherfuckers as back then (though some have learned some new tricks), there's lots of different things to "fuck around" with (pinball machines, porn mags, answering machines, vending machines etc etc.), and the babes are pure exploitation material. This game is pretty much what I expected it to be - Duke Nukem 3D gameplay with modern graphics.

A reader called Muel made an especially eloquent argument in defense of some of Forever's gameplay mechanics.

This is when the game starts to remember it's meant to be a fun shooter as well as just being Duke. The enemy patterns aren't as predictable, with more space to move around. The weapons have real bite and punch to them, in particular the excellent shotgun and the Assault Commander laser (with its odd gatling gun spin-up time, but relatively low rate of fire). There's a real fluidity to the combat as you duck and weave to take down the enemy groups. Some enemies engage from the front, others teleport around you, forcing you to run and gun; there are different options and you aren't just in a shooting gallery any more. It's far better than the first part of the game and, despite the ropey graphics, manages to be exciting to play.

It even—occasionally—feels emergent in a Killzone or Halo sort of way.

And what about the violence and the chauvinism, the exploding women and microwaved rats? Are these lines that—in the gaming climate of 2011—ought not to be crossed? A reader going by 0LunarEclipse0 had some rather big thoughts on this particular quandary.

No there are no lines. Duke pushes lines always has always will. Just because you can't handle shock humor does not make it not funny. Everything can be funny. I've laughed at some of the most racist and disgusting jokes. Maybe that makes me a horrible person. But that is fine. I am tired of people's delicate sensibilities. Rape, Murder, Drugs. We see it all in games, movie and books. Sometimes these mediums make jokes out of them. This is nothing new. You sit there and cry and I laugh. Sorry shock humor is funny. Just because something pushes you to far doesn't mean it pushes everyone to far. NOTHING is off limits. Not rape, murder, religion or politics. Nothing should ever be off limits. If we sacrifice freedom we sacrafice life.

The very fact that this offends you is more truth that it should be defended. Because you want it silenced. Censored. Well freedom means free. Regardless of how much something offends you, we can say and do what we want. Because your feelings don't matter.

I don't support rape and this joke goes a little to far even for me. But I beleive in freedom. So nothing ever should be off limits.

Okay, so maybe you don't agree that how a person feels about Duke Nukem Forever is a good barometer of that same person's attitude toward the idea of "freedom." But being a fan isn't necessarily about being logical or objective. Of all of the sentiments I stumbled across in the still-expanding thread, the words of a reader going by Nivenus—in which they likened a fanboy to a person defending the honor of a family member—were the most insightful.

A fine analogy might be between a family member and a friendly acquaintance. You enjoy the company of the latter, but you've got nothing invested there and you're far more willing to stand up for and defend the former than you are the latter. The same thing is true for a fan and their favored series/genre - they'll stick up for it when someone who is only casually fond wouldn't.

The difference between a good game and a great game is that a great game is enjoyable by fans and non-fans alike. The mistake you're making is assuming that anyone who isn't a fan is an anti-fan, someone who dislikes the game off the bat. But that's not true. There's a middle ground and it's the middle ground that great art wins over.

Fans of Duke Nukem Forever may not be arguing that the title constitutes high art—but that isn't stopping them from enjoying it.

"We just needed some fun," wrote commentor Obi_Al_Kenobi. This game need[s] to be reviewed not against 90's standards, but [as] a standalone product [come back] from the 90's to complete the circle that now is closed."

Some time on Saturday, as I was playing Duke Nukem Forever on my Xbox 360, I realized that in all the conversations I've had with people from Gearbox Software—the company that heroically salvaged this game from its decade-plus sink toward oblivion—no one ever said this game would be wonderful.

They reveled in accomplishing the impossible task of bringing a presumably dead game back to life. They rejoiced in gaining control of the Duke character, of giving Duke what he deserves—namely freeing the character from the drag of gaming's longest-running gag, the interminable development cycle of Duke Nukem Forever.

Not once did the Gearbox people promise me the game would great. Outrageous? Sure. A great game? Or even a good game? Nope.

They were content to confirm that the game was... a game. A real game that real people would be able to play in 2011. That was stunning enough information. Judging from the first few levels I've played of DNF, it also seems to be as far as honest hype could take them.

I was going to write about how unpleasant my time with Duke Nukem Forever has been so far—how primitive its technology appears to be, how clunky it animates, how crude it looks, how uninteresting its level design is, how forever-long its load times are—but I decided to simply show you with the video atop this story. (Note: If you're a fan of the Duke character, you *might* like this game more than I did.)

The people who accomplished the task of bringing Duke Nukem Forever to life should be proud of doing what so many had failed to do for so long. But pending a dramatic improvement in the game's latter levels, which will embarrass this initial impression into being the inverse of some unimaginably glowing Kotaku review, what we've got here is no magnificent resurrection. It's more of reanimated corpse, a shambling, shivering thing of the past, thought dead but now brought back.

Apologies to any Dead Rising or Resident Evil games coming out later in 2011, but for its initial exhibition of something old and seemingly dead brought stumbling into the present—decayed parts still on its skeleton—Duke Nukem Forever is my early nominee for Zombie Game of the Year.

Duke Nukem Forever is out now in Europe and Australia. It will be released in North America on June 14.

Conceived in 1997, born in 2011. Duke Nukem Forever is no longer vaporware. It comes out in Europe today; it'll be out in North America next week. For real.