View Full Version : Serious Sam 3, too old fashioned?

22-01-2012, 03:01 PM
So I was playing Sam 3 last week and honestly I wasn't impressed. The level design seemed very repetitive with some levels blatantly being the same 20 meters of Middle East street looped around 5 or 6 times then opening into a flat arena area. More importantly there was a lack of design in the conflicts all too often its just fighting x number of monsters A and B in a long corridor. Bosses that never really evolved beyond Giant Standard enemy with 10,000,000 hp. Given the capabilities of the engine I found this really disheartening to me it was like the developers were still so stuck in the 90s they couldn't even imagine anything more.

Where were the big Painkiller/Sam 1 style super bosses? Where were the Resistance\HL 1 style set pieces? Why do I never seem to see more than two dozen enemies instead of the seething swarms I know could be managed?

To me it just felt a step too far back.

22-01-2012, 03:44 PM
How far are you in the game? I've not played it myself yet but apparently the first handful of hours are smaller battles in linear corridors before the game finally opens up to your usual Serious Sam shenanigans.

22-01-2012, 04:02 PM
Once you get out of Cairo it gets serious again, don't worry.

I have no clue what the devs wanted to achieve with the first semi-linear hours though.

22-01-2012, 04:22 PM
They were taking the mick out of mw & bf.
But as much as serious Sam charmed me at first I don't care if they ever make/made another game in the series after the first.

22-01-2012, 04:52 PM
Don't worry, man. It's all better after the museum level. Its a slow start just to make a excruciatingly long parody of modern shooters

22-01-2012, 05:09 PM
Don't worry, man. It's all better after the museum level. Its a slow start just to make a excruciatingly long parody of modern shooters

Kinda ironic, considering how excruciatingly short those modern shooters' campaigns are.

22-01-2012, 06:32 PM
Yes, I can see why you might get that impression from the first few levels. But it quickly gets 'epic'.

Thing is, I've read a lot of people saying this on the internet, but the first two games do the exact same thing, build up slowly. It would be lame to just send as many baddies as they can at you from the start.

22-01-2012, 06:40 PM
The first bit far overstays its welcome. Slow start would be ok, taking the piss with modern military shooters is welcome. It's just too damn long. That and the stupid soldiers. You can pick any two of: hard to see, good aim, hitscan (i.e. un-dodgeable). All three together is no fun. I immediately stopped hating the soldiers once out of Cairo.

It's excellent later on though. Some of the bigger fights in the sets of ruins are great fun. If it's 'too old fashioned', I'd prefer more games were this curmudgeonly.

22-01-2012, 06:46 PM
You appear to have the same feeling I had when I first played trough the Second Encounter.

At first I was like: :-|
And then, bad stuff happened, and I lolled.

23-01-2012, 12:54 AM
Speaking of Serious Sam, I hear that the next Indie Royale is going to be 1+2 HD and the 3 indie games.

23-01-2012, 01:08 AM
I'm a little bit with the OP here. I got past the slow boring early bits and into the exciting hectic bits....but there was still just something missing, I think. At least partly because it's EXACTLY the same game as original Serious Sam, but just with more grey and annoying smoke and less joy. And more annoying grey hitscan enemies that are almost impossible to see. There's very little that's new, and the things that are new only serve to detract from, rather than add to, the gameplay experience. The Sam formula is still fun, but this new one just seems oddly soulless to me. And with the constant savegame corruption issues, I just felt like what's the point in persevering? Which is a shame, because I was really looking forward to this, but it really needed to bring SOMETHING more to the table than just a big helping of grey. I'd rather play the original, which is the exact same game, but far more actual fun. Or Bulletstorm, which could have used a few more retro touches, but was actually inventive and joyful in its dumb-shooter-action.

23-01-2012, 01:31 AM
My biggest problem with SS3 is 'battle fatigue' which is why I can only play it for an hour or so before I get tired of it. The constant stream of enemies does lead to some fun moments, but after a while it gets tiring. "Cool, I get to wade through a boatload of more enemies. Yay?"

I like a good action FPS where all you do is mow through everything, but not when I'm doing that every 5 steps. Also those first few levels were terrible but I didn't even recognise it was a parody. All I recognised was a boring stretch of enemies.

Juan Carlo
23-01-2012, 02:34 AM
I have similar thoughts about SS1: HD which I'm trying to slog through at the moment. It starts out fun and charming. But then gets repetitive and boring fast--like, for example, the part where the skeleton horse things all charge at you in a stream for like 5 minutes straight. That's not hard, that's just boring. I'd be an awesome game if it was about 1/3 of the length or if it had a bit more variety.