I suspect what you really mean is that on a high pixel count full frame camera, such as the D3x, edge performance is a very real concern. As to whether or not that is true for most Nikon lenses, I will leave it to people with experience to provide an informative answer. Neither of us have the experience to comment.
C'mon now, Slough. You are either being very naive or very disingenuous. Ever since the first full frame DSLR became available, the Canon 1Ds, people have frequently claimed that their lenses needed upgrading. Lenses which seemed satisfactory at the edges and in the corners on their earlier cropped format cameras, the D30 or D60, often appeared disturbingly soft in the corners on the 1Ds with a mere 11mp.
Just as one of the advantages of the APS-C format is better edge and corner performance with lenses that have been designed for full frame 35mm, one of the disadvantages
of the full frame DSLR is the opposite, ie., relatively poor corner performance with the same lenses, and I do have the experience to comment even if you don't, because I've been using a full frame DSLR for the past 3 1/2 years (the 5D) and a number of cropped format DSLRs for the past 5 years.
Of course, not all lenses are equally bad in the corners and no lens is equally bad at all apertures or all focal lengths if it's a zoom. Stopping down often fixes the problem. The problem is certainly worse with wide angle lenses, which is why I went to the expense of getting the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. These are focal lengths I use a lot and the 14-24/2.8 seems to be one of the few Nikkor lenses that is definitely better than any Canon equivalent, with regards to edge and corner performance. In fact, I'm so impressed with this lens I went to the additional expense of getting a D700 body for it. Using the lens with an adapter on my 5D was too restrictive. No autofocussing; guesswork regarding choice of aperture; a need to remove the battery after shooting otherwise it would go flat within a few days; an inability to autobracket exposure in Aperture priority mode, and probably a few other disadvantages I didn't discover.
The reason I'm interested in this thread is because the question posed by the OP interests me. I don't like having to always carry two cameras with me when out shooting, and I would therefore like a Nikkor lens which is the equivalent of the very useful and good quality Canon 24-105/F4 IS. There doesn't appear to be one. The closest is the Nikkor AF-S 24-120/F3.5-5.6 VR.
This is another Nikkor lens for which the Photozone test results almost caused me to fall off my chair. Edge performance at 24mm and full aperture is really bad, even on the D200. Knowing this, one could avoid using 24mm at full aperture, but it seems one would have to avoid using full aperture at other focal lengths also, if one were fussy about edge performance. Even at 70mm, maximum aperture is F5.3, which is virtually F5.6, and edge performance seems greatly lacking. At 120mm and F5.6, edge performance seem better, but the lens in general seems a bit soft at this FL. However, performance at 35mm seems quite respectable.
It looks as though the D700 will be a one-lens camera for me until Nikon come out with some improved lenses of the type that interest me. The 24-70/2.8 is a fine lens, but I happen to very much appreciate image stabilisation with my lenses. The 14-24 doesn't have image stabilisation, but also doesn't need it as much as the longer focal lengths.