Mass murder is funny isn't it?
Now that that's out of the way let's talk about a unique franchise called Serious Sam.
Serious Sam which has had a lasting legacy, not on the gaming industry but on the fans.
Serious Sam which, despite being relatively archaic in culture and design, has survived to this day. Serious Sam which is a franchise I've now ran out of grandiose statements to makeMass murder is funny isn't it?
Now that that's out of the way let's talk about a unique franchise called Serious Sam.
Serious Sam which has had a lasting legacy, not on the gaming industry but on the fans.
Serious Sam which, despite being relatively archaic in culture and design, has survived to this day. Serious Sam which is a franchise I've now ran out of grandiose statements to make about.
Serious Sam.
And I play this game and I wonder why. Why has this strange cult classic had the staying power that better games failed at? I'm not saying this to reproach the game or fans. I genuinely believe it's an interesting case study. Let's discuss why:
I played this game a lot when I was younger and had fewer games to play, and it was great. I played it again just now and I did not enjoy myself nearly as much.
Narratively, it's good. It isn't intended to be a philosophical space opera. It doesn't take itself seriously at all. So narratively, all we're asking for here is slight context for the gameplay. It does just that and adds a few punchlines in for good measure. Nothing hysterical, but a few good lines that truly reflect the early 2000s absurdist comedy culture in the games industry. In so many ways this game parodies its predecessors, DOOM and Duke Nukem. But it doesn't stay long. Some scrawling text at the beginning and cheap one-liner at the end. We're losing a war against an alien empire and Sam travels back in time to stop it. I have no idea what our goal is in travelling back in time. But hey, Sammy is an improv kinda guy.
Art-wise, the game once again reflects the time and inspirations. I love ancient Egyptian aesthetics in games, but not much is really done here with it. It's basic geometry tailored to create a functional battle arena rather than look interesting or accurate. It works and it's not ugly. The resolution and menus don't scale well to modern systems, but that's why they released the HD versions.
What's important here is gameplay. It's the early 2000s approach of gameplay first. As it should be... EA. Regardless, this is where it loses me and will likely lose many others. This game can be hard. Irksome even. The core loop relies on run-and-gun mindless action, which usually means the devs hoped the simple mechanics and waves of viscera will carry the entire game. Personally, it doesn't.
Gaming pet peeves of mine include stun-locking, bullet-hell level of dangers in non-bullet-hell games, and difficulty which simply increases enemy count, health and damage. This game presents all of these to varying degrees.
Stun-locking only happens with a couple of enemies, and only in high enough numbers so I can give it a pass since that's inherent in their gameplay design. The other 2 are as well. There aren't as many stars in the sky as there is crap on the screen at some points. And that's all the difficulty settings really do. I understand that kind of dumb fun works for people and I don't begrudge them. I just can't relate.
That fact is made worse by the pacing in this game. Levels begin a reasonable length, but eventually increase to marathon levels. That's tiring enough, but all the enemies barring boss-types are introduced in the first 3-4. So nothing new is introduced to the gameplay loop for 70% of the game. Instead, they rely cheaply on the same few encounters. I thought I was playing Groundhog Day the game when I fought my 50th arena of 500 bulls or kleers and nothing else, despite mastering the tactic for that fight 10 levels ago. It's the speech-stutter of level design. You just can't quite spit it out and keep repeating the same 2 syllables over and over again. If this were a child, I'd have given up on him in infancy.
After all that, most bosses, including the final, are a bigger disappointment than I am. That is Seriously saying Sam-thing too. The hardest fights are just before the final boss or about 3 levels ago. Like I say, game pacing is just whack here.
Obviously the large enemy number and complexity is integrated into the game design. I don't want to give the impression I thought the devs were dumb. They're most certainly not. The variety in weapons of mass destruction is where things even out. So it is a thought out and crafted experience in the end. In fact, the minigun, laser gun and cannon are just the "I don't feel like doing this right now" guns. I also love that cannon balls have a small bounce if you fire while jumping. I don't know why.
So how did this underdog franchise win? Well, it most definitely shines more in co-op. Otherwise I don't entirely know, but I'm honestly happy it did. It may not be for me, but I can respect others enjoying this interesting piece of culture.
There internet. You have my approval to like this. You're welcome. Don't say I never do anything for you.… Expand
Serious Sam: The First EncounterYour Score0 out of 10User Score
