Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Serious Sam 4

JDR13

Arcane
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
3,930
Location
The Swamp
Weird story. It was kind of a stupid subtitle though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
I just didn't find anything interesting about the setting/story/characters, and the gunplay alone wasn't good enough to keep me playing.

BT dialogue could be amusing at times but it's not a very story focused game, no. The combat and level design is really great though, IMO. Rare to get that kind of competent and interesting (gameplay wise) linear campaign nowadays.
 

Vlajdermen

Arcane
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
2,039
Location
Catholic Serbia
I just didn't find anything interesting about the setting/story/characters, and the gunplay alone wasn't good enough to keep me playing.

BT dialogue could be amusing at times but it's not a very story focused game, no. The combat and level design is really great though, IMO. Rare to get that kind of competent and interesting (gameplay wise) linear campaign nowadays.
Yeah, it's two-weapon popamole done right, where you have simple core gameplay and let difficulty and variety do the rest. Notice how the sattelite dish level, the factory level, and the gunship all feel completely different without relying on toys like Advanced Warfare.

The only other game I've seen sort of do this is World at War. Anything else I should check out?
 

RapineDel

Augur
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
423
I just didn't find anything interesting about the setting/story/characters, and the gunplay alone wasn't good enough to keep me playing.

BT dialogue could be amusing at times but it's not a very story focused game, no. The combat and level design is really great though, IMO. Rare to get that kind of competent and interesting (gameplay wise) linear campaign nowadays.

It was OK but I think the level design was more based around gimmicks/platforming stuff rather then traditional quality level design we've had in the past.
 
Last edited:

JDR13

Arcane
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
3,930
Location
The Swamp
The combat and level design is really great though, IMO. Rare to get that kind of competent and interesting (gameplay wise) linear campaign nowadays.

It wasn't to me. I found it to be a very average AAA popamole shooter. I'm not a huge fan of mechs though.
 

udm

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,752
Make the Codex Great Again!


No matter what you think of the Serious Sam series' gameplay, it's hard to deny that its soundtrack is badass (and IMO better than nu-D00M).
 

Jezal_k23

Guest
I've never played Serious Sam - is there any tactical depth behind fighting a legion like that? While I acknowledge how impressive it is to see that many enemies onscreen, it looks like the only thing you can actually do is strafe and shoot wherever you want.
 

schru

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,131
I've never played Serious Sam - is there any tactical depth behind fighting a legion like that? While I acknowledge how impressive it is to see that many enemies onscreen, it looks like the only thing you can actually do is strafe and shoot wherever you want.
The earlier games didn't have so many enemies at a time and there was a definite structure to the waves, groups, and hordes of enemies that would attack you. You had to learn to use most of the arsenal and it was pretty enjoyable and challenging at times to keep up with the mounting challenge. The First Encounter starts a bit slow and easy, but it gets very fun as the levels open up and the encounters become harder. Serious Sam II was made with consoles in mind and it's very casual. Serious Sam 3 has multiple good levels, but they're mixed up with several that are rather weak.

I have to say that this short footage of the legion system does look rather underwhelming.
 

Silly Germans

Guest
I've never played Serious Sam - is there any tactical depth behind fighting a legion like that? While I acknowledge how impressive it is to see that many enemies onscreen, it looks like the only thing you can actually do is strafe and shoot wherever you want.
You had to dodge enemies and projectiles in the old titles. Bulls, skeletons and suicide screamers needed some attention and kept you on your toes. The suicide bombers actually screamed the whole time, so you could listen to the volume of the scream to judge when they were getting to close. I wouldn't call the game tactical but you had to look out for priority targets while shooting stuff at times.
 

Bad Sector

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
2,223
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Serious Sam II was made with consoles in mind and it's very casual

There is nothing casual about Serious Sam II, it has a lighter and more cartoony tone than the other games but you still fight in arenas with large hordes of enemies (in fact your killcount in SS2 is larger than in the other entries in the series).

Also i'm not sure where you got the idea that it was made with consoles in mind.
 

schru

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,131
Serious Sam II was made with consoles in mind and it's very casual

There is nothing casual about Serious Sam II, it has a lighter and more cartoony tone than the other games but you still fight in arenas with large hordes of enemies (in fact your killcount in SS2 is larger than in the other entries in the series).

Also i'm not sure where you got the idea that it was made with consoles in mind.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, but it does seem to be the case that many people don't like it as much, so I thought I should point out that it's different.

The gameplay felt considerably easier and simpler compared to the first two instalments and SS3. The hordes were indeed probably bigger towards the end, but I found that I didn't need to use various weapons as much as each kind was more effective, so long as getting overwhelmed by the sheer number wasn't a problem. Early on the shot-gun seemed pretty effective against anything, the vehicle sections were rather easy, the minigun had more ammunition, allowing the player to hold back hordes regardless of their kind for a long time, and the arenas mostly seemed to have a simpler structure—open, even fields with a clear line of sight, with a few specific areas like the level in the trees. I found the difficulty to pose some challenge only in the Kleer valley and in the final battle. Overall, it just seemed like the game was more about holding back the onslaught of large numbers of enemies with whatever weapon rather than having to engage in a more elaborate and chaotic back-and-forth with varied groups of enemies.

As for the consoles part, an Xbox version was developed alongside of the PC version and I doubt Croteam had the resources to make two very different versions that would be adjusted for the limitations and possibilities of the platforms. The levels seemed to be made up of smaller sections and I think there were more loading screens, too. What I mentioned about the hordes being more homogeneous and attacking in more even clusters would also be something more suitable for handling with console controls. I could be wrong about this, but flying enemies or enemies placed at different elevations were a rarer sight and were a bit more compartmentalized into their own sections.
 
Unwanted

Horvatii

Unwanted
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
563
^ both vids are fairly bad
legion system is all brown filter like its 2010 again blrugh

walker robot makes the mistake all terrible vehicle sequences in games make - its slow as fuck
this is serious sam, if you make a cute scale change like that, than make that level open as fuck
like the final arenas in ss1se, and make the robot jump and jet around like a maniac, completeley ignore the enemies below you, the typical trash you are shooting
and fight at SS pace several huge monsters
as it is its just a fucking turret section, shooting cockroaches at your feet
trash
fail
 

Bad Sector

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
2,223
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, but it does seem to be the case that many people don't like it as much, so I thought I should point out that it's different.

Oh yeah i agree with that (though not with the sentiment, just that people didn't like it as much).

The gameplay felt considerably easier and simpler compared to the first two instalments and SS3. The hordes were indeed probably bigger towards the end, but I found that I didn't need to use various weapons as much as each kind was more effective, so long as getting overwhelmed by the sheer number wasn't a problem. Early on the shot-gun seemed pretty effective against anything, the vehicle sections were rather easy, the minigun had more ammunition, allowing the player to hold back hordes regardless of their kind for a long time, and the arenas mostly seemed to have a simpler structure—open, even fields with a clear line of sight, with a few specific areas like the level in the trees. I found the difficulty to pose some challenge only in the Kleer valley and in the final battle. Overall, it just seemed like the game was more about holding back the onslaught of large numbers of enemies with whatever weapon rather than having to engage in a more elaborate and chaotic back-and-forth with varied groups of enemies.

Perhaps (i do not remember thinking it was any easier than the earlier games when i played it but that was ~15 years ago - the only thing i do remember is that i liked that the shotgun would now kill Kleers instantly since that was by far my biggest annoyance in the earlier games), but that doesn't make Serious Sam a casual game, it just makes it a bit easier than the other games. And TBH what you describe with "seemed like the game was more about holding back the onslaught of large numbers of enemies with whatever weapon rather than having to engage in a more elaborate and chaotic back-and-forth with varied groups of enemies" is basically what i find all Serious Sam games about :-P. Though TBH i was never a big fan of Serious Sam both because of how repetitive the combat gets and how i just dislike the arena-based gameplay (which is also why i didn't like Doom 2016 as much as other people did - to me it felt closer to Serious Sam than Doom).

Ironically even though fans most seem to consider SS2 the weakest entry in the series, for me it is my favorite because of all the variety it has in terms of environments, how it tries to spice up things with the vehicles (i had a lot of fun with the "UFO" with the spinning blades) and... well... i found most of humor funny, at the time at least :-P.

About the open fields, i think this was largely because they were showing off their engine and large open terrains with equally large draw distances were considered high tech at the time (also see Unreal Engine 2, Halo, Fable and everyone favorite, Oblivion). It also makes sense because their original demo - which is basically what put them on the map - was the Karnak Demo which is basically a big flat map with walls in it to form arenas.

As for the consoles part, an Xbox version was developed alongside of the PC version and I doubt Croteam had the resources to make two very different versions that would be adjusted for the limitations and possibilities of the platforms. The levels seemed to be made up of smaller sections and I think there were more loading screens, too. What I mentioned about the hordes being more homogeneous and attacking in more even clusters would also be something more suitable for handling with console controls. I could be wrong about this, but flying enemies or enemies placed at different elevations were a rarer sight and were a bit more compartmentalized into their own sections.

No there were a lot of flying enemies, a variety of heights and IIRC even some platforming. I remember the levels to be large enough but this was never much of a thing with Serious Sam games since after you clear an arena there is little reason to go back. There are also areas where *you* fly up and down.

Besides, i think you overrestimate the effect having to support a controller can have on an FPS game - outside of some form of aim assist/autoaim and a UI that is readable from distance and isn't too complicated to use (which isn't that hard - even Morrowind's UI worked on Xbox with a few modifications) you do not need much. And even aim assist isn't really a must, just a nice to have. E.g. i can play Quake 1 via Quakespasm (which supports controllers) just fine with a controller, it is less accurate than a mouse but you can still play just fine after you get used to it. And that is a game with a lot of vertical areas, flying/jumping enemies, etc.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom