It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Serious Sam HD 4 Pack(16 posts)(16 posts)
(16 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 27, 2010
http://store.steampowered.com/app/41000/
Anyone want to go in on the 4 pack? It would come out to about $5.60 USD, which is quite a deal. Also, can anyone suggest a way to do this easily? Paypal?
Posted February 27, 2010
I'm in. Paypal would be the best way.
Posted February 27, 2010
Paypal is good if the money senders are paying the sent fee ($1.80 or something)... So game is $7.49 already and with that fee 4 pack is not needed.
Post edited February 27, 2010 by acare84
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
acare84: Paypal is good if the money senders are paying the sent fee ($1.80 or something)... So game is $7.49 already and with that fee 4 pack is not needed.

The difference will be a bit bigger for those who replace that $ with a €. Another possibility could be gifting a 5.99 GoG to whoever ends up paying.
Post edited February 27, 2010 by sheepdragon
Posted February 27, 2010
Anyone know, though, why the ratings are so horrid? Haven't been catching up with mainstream reviews for a long time
-edit-
Never mind, I just read the metacritic summary. Apparently, mainstream critics are just being themselves once again
Post edited February 27, 2010 by lowyhong
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
lowyhong: Anyone know, though, why the ratings are so horrid? Haven't been catching up with mainstream reviews for a long time
-edit-
Never mind, I just read the metacritic summary. Apparently, mainstream critics are just being themselves once again

Yeah, they were expecting something new when the game is just a rehash of the old one on a new engine; despite that the game is thoroughly enjoyable and lots of fun.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
lowyhong: Anyone know, though, why the ratings are so horrid? Haven't been catching up with mainstream reviews for a long time
-edit-
Never mind, I just read the metacritic summary. Apparently, mainstream critics are just being themselves once again
avatar
AndrewC: Yeah, they were expecting something new when the game is just a rehash of the old one on a new engine; despite that the game is thoroughly enjoyable and lots of fun.

To be fair, going by modern metrics, it probably would fail.
Weapon variety: Not all that much
Graphical Style: Pretty bland, all points considered
Gameplay: Insanely repetitive
Plot/Set Pieces: Pretty much non-existent
Don't get me wrong, I loved the game. But, think about it this way: If DOOM or Wolf3d came out today, they would be laughing stocks that would get 5s, at best.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
acare84: Paypal is good if the money senders are paying the sent fee ($1.80 or something)... So game is $7.49 already and with that fee 4 pack is not needed.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the charge varies depending on region. And IIRC, some regions (probably the US) get a "gift" option where there is no charge for either party. Although someone in the US will need to confirm that one.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Gundato:

Yes, but the only problem with that is that the game never set up to do anything new, nor the original nor this remake.
The original was just going back to the roots of FPS gaming: fast action, lots of monsters to kill and had a wicked good co-op multiplayer because of this. It never wanted to bring new mechanics and engage the player in an amazing story. It was just about mowing through hordes and hordes of baddies.
The remake was just the first game with better graphics; to say that you wanted more when the devs stated first-hand that nothing except the engine will change is stupid. That's the problem I have with articles that involve grading a game, it can never cover the experience a player has while gaming nor does it mold on what the game tries to be (in this case an old-style shooter).
Also, Painkiller was made with the same mechanic in mind and did very well. Heck, even Doom 3 did it.
It's the same as players screaming that StarCraft 2 is almost the same gameplay wise as the first one despite newer mechanics as squad play and capture points instead of resource mining; well, duh, it could use all of those but it wouldn't be StarCraft now would it?
In the end, if you want a relaxing session of mindlessly blowing up enemies you grab this or any other game in the same fashion.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Gundato:
avatar
AndrewC: Yes, but the only problem with that is that the game never set up to do anything new, nor the original nor this remake.
The original was just going back to the roots of FPS gaming: fast action, lots of monsters to kill and had a wicked good co-op multiplayer because of this. It never wanted to bring new mechanics and engage the player in an amazing story. It was just about mowing through hordes and hordes of baddies.
The remake was just the first game with better graphics; to say that you wanted more when the devs stated first-hand that nothing except the engine will change is stupid. That's the problem I have with articles that involve grading a game, it can never cover the experience a player has while gaming nor does it mold on what the game tries to be (in this case an old-style shooter).
Also, Painkiller was made with the same mechanic in mind and did very well. Heck, even Doom 3 did it.
It's the same as players screaming that StarCraft 2 is almost the same gameplay wise as the first one despite newer mechanics as squad play and capture points instead of resource mining; well, duh, it could use all of those but it wouldn't be StarCraft now would it?
In the end, if you want a relaxing session of mindlessly blowing up enemies you grab this or any other game in the same fashion.

Painkiller had more "flair" and shinier guns. Plus, it came out a few years before the Serious Sam remake :p
DOOM 3 was called 'DOOM", do the math
Starcraft 2 is called "Starcraft", do the math :p
Seriously though. Most budget games aren't made to be blockbusters, but they tend to get atrocious reviews (when they are actually reviewed). It doesn't matter what you are trying to make, what matters is what you actually make.
Starship Troopers (the movie) was meant to be a satirical look at war movies (in vein with the original short story). It ended up being an awesome sci-fi war movie with Dina Meyer going topless :p
I fully agree that this is a great game for some mindless fun. But that doesn't mean it is going to get great reviews.
Hell, I love UFO:ET. That thing got pretty crap reviews from most sites (if I recall correctly). Almost all 4x games do as well. Why? They aren't what most gamers are looking for, and in the end, that is what reviews are about.
Posted March 01, 2010
avatar
Gundato: Don't get me wrong, I loved the game. But, think about it this way: If DOOM or Wolf3d came out today, they would be laughing stocks that would get 5s, at best.

Wolfenstein 3D: definitely because of its terrible level design but Doom in a proper engine still feels very fun to play although rather basic. Ironically, I spent more time playing Doom on my Xbox 360 (Arcade release) than most other full retail games I bought for it.
If I had to call one game that is 10-15 years old and still amazing, it would be Duke Nukem 3D, though. Man, that game is ADDICTIVE. Its truly amazing how they managed to make such a great game at the time.
Posted March 01, 2010
Everyone gets too hung up on review scores and what other people think of games that they themselves enjoy. I understand it's always nice to share a common opinion on a game you find entertaining, but just because someone else doesn't like it as much as you, shouldn't take away from your own enjoyment of it.
As for the game design of oldschool games, there are some flaws in the level design and gameplay mechanics that could be easily rectified with some minor tweaks and updates without necessarily taking away from the simplistic spirit of classic games.
Posted March 01, 2010
avatar
lowyhong: Anyone know, though, why the ratings are so horrid? Haven't been catching up with mainstream reviews for a long time
avatar
Gundato: To be fair, going by modern metrics, it probably would fail.
Weapon variety: Not all that much
Graphical Style: Pretty bland, all points considered
Gameplay: Insanely repetitive
Plot/Set Pieces: Pretty much non-existent
Don't get me wrong, I loved the game. But, think about it this way: If DOOM or Wolf3d came out today, they would be laughing stocks that would get 5s, at best.

There was also the issue of bugs. One of the advantages of a remake is that it should work well and be optimised for a modern system. According to the reviews SSHD wasn't.
Posted March 02, 2010
avatar
Navagon: There was also the issue of bugs. One of the advantages of a remake is that it should work well and be optimised for a modern system. According to the reviews SSHD wasn't.

Which reviews? SSHD runs perfectly fine on my midrange laptop. The old game was fun enough, but I had a hard time being immersed in the experience because of the lack of more modern features like physics, lighting effects and shadows, and higher texture resolution and more detailed character models.
It's still fun to play if you feel like shutting your brain off and just shooting at things to relax. The "hundreds" of enemies on screen isn't as impressive as it was when it first came out compared to the likes of L4D, but the enemy variety still keeps things interesting. Would've been worth playing more if the level design and enemy spawn rate was tweaked with.
Posted March 02, 2010
avatar
fuNGoo: SSHD runs perfectly fine on my midrange laptop.

It has probably been patched since the reviews.
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Serious Sam HD 4 Pack(16 posts)(16 posts)
(16 posts)