Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Serious Sam Remake Coming In Fall 65

Posted by Soulskill from the why-so-serious dept.
Majesco Entertainment has announced that Serious Sam: The First Encounter HD will be coming to Xbox Live this fall, and to the PC sometime later. It's a remake of the original game using the CroTech engine, and it will support up to four player co-op. Joystiq has some screenshots, including a comparison between the old graphics and the new look. "The textures are sharper and cleaner than before. The original's perfectly flat lawns are now replaced with individual blades of grass — and look at that foliage, rendered with some classy Crysis-styled soft focus. Notice the dynamic shadows over our pumpkin-wearing, chainsaw-wielding friend? Now, imagine this level of detail on hundreds of on-screen enemies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Serious Sam Remake Coming In Fall More

Serious Sam Remake Coming In Fall

Comments Filter:
  • As much as I like Serious Sam, I really hope fancy graphics aren't the only improvement in the remake. I like looking at pretty effects as much as the next guy, but the game content counts for much more.

    • Re:Graphics and content (Score:4, Insightful)

      by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @03:52AM (#28511083) Homepage

      I hope they only touched up the graphics, and didn't mess with the gameplay at all. SS:FE and SS:SE were just great games, I had a lot of fun, specially in co-op. For SS2 they made changes to the gameplay, to make it a bit more "modern", and that didn't work out at all. So I hope they left the gameplay as it was.

      • I agree, the gameplay is just fine, but I wouldn't mind some extra content (maybe more easter eggs, more levels, multiplayer mods?).

      • I just replayed SS:FE a few weeks ago. Still looks good to me, and the gameplay is great. It's the only FPS I've ever enjoyed in co-op mode. Turn blood to flowers, difficulty to maximum, have a few beers, and play on one of the big levels where everyone tries to kill you at once...

        I should probably try to pick up a copy of SS:SE. It works great for me in Crossover Games (I no longer have a Windows machine), but for some strange reason only works in Direct3D mode; the graphics in OpenGL mode seem to hav

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by KDR_11k ( 778916 )

          You mean Serious difficulty or Mental?

          • Whatever the highest one is. In co-op you get to respawn when you die and the game produces teleporters to take you to near wherever the action is, so it's not like there's any reason to make it easy. On a few levels we played, you spawn, hold down fire until you run out of ammunition for the big guns and then charge into some of the headless suicide bombers and respawn with some more. On others you actually benefit from a little bit of strategy. For example, the final level of SS:FE is much easier if y

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by KDR_11k ( 778916 )

              Serious is the highest regular difficulty, Mental is unlockable AFAIK and makes the enemies temporarily invisible.

    • And I hope that now that the Serious Engine 3 is done, that they get back to uhm... Oh yeah I remember, the Serious Sam II Linux port and get it out of beta, like Corteam promised on their website.*

      *I will use Google before asking for stupid citations

  • Seriously? (Score:2, Funny)

    by BigDXLT ( 1218924 )
    Let's try to be serious with the posts, okay folks?

    • Let's try to be serious with the posts, okay folks?

      Serious on Slashdot? Oh come on we've never been serious, hell most of us don't even RTFA. Are you new here? you are aren't you.

  • That's cool, SS2 was disappointing compared to SS1 and SS:SE due to much less enemies and stuff. I would sure like to replay SS1 and if it's with better graphics, that's even better. They should do remakes more often IMHO, e.g. the original Unreal, Tomb Raider II, etc...

    • It's not just that it had less enemies, the enemies it did have weren't used as well and the weapons just didn't feel as satisfying. Plus they took a character everyone had already formed a mental image of and turned her into "Netty". Following that line of mistakes SS1+SE was "serious" with some fun thrown in. SS2 was just campy in a way that didn't work.

      I like the new look for the classics though, and if they redid the multiplayer so it worked better this time around I'd easily be willing to rebuy them fo

  • Only 4 players? What a disappointment.

    • Yeah that's a dissapointment. It was kinda nice bringing your own small army against Metal's MUCH larger army. Especially the few sections where instead of sitting in an arena having enemies thrown at you the object is to just blast your way through an otherwise obscenely overpowering horde of enemies.

      I think I need to reinstall the originals now...

      • The final level before the end boss in SS:FE was great for this. Just a long road, where you have to get from one end to the other while obscene numbers of enemies charge you. With a few players in co-op mode on maximum difficulty you can hold off the herds of bulls for a little while if you're all firing the cannon, but eventually you need to start dodging.

  • Newer Games Should Take Lessons (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NBarnes ( 586109 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @04:12AM (#28511181)

    I wish more games would take the 'more is more' approach to enemies that Serious Sam did. I loved the HUGE SCREAMING HORDES of bad guys that would try to zerg you down. It was a nice change of pace from, say, Unreal's 'kill a bad guy, which triggers another bad guy, because the engine chokes and dies if two mobs are on the screen at the same time'. And I liked Unreal. More games should have more swarms.

    • It's also a case of AI, rather than just graphics. Each enemy AI needs a little CPU time. In SS, the enemy AI was simple. Most of it was 'run forwards while shooting' or 'run forwards then explode' with the occasional 'take three steps forward, shoot for 5 shots, repeat'. This made the enemies incredibly predictable. For example, the biomechanoids always took the same number of steps and fired the same number of shots, making it very easy to dodge behind something at the correct time. More modern game
    • Give "Left 4 Dead" a try. I don't think you'll complain about a lack of enemies there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NBarnes ( 586109 )

        I did, and L4D gets two big thumbs up from this gamer. Modern firearms, ragdolling, and huge swarms of zombies? Made. Of. Win.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ShakaUVM ( 157947 )

      I wish more games would take the 'more is more' approach to enemies that Serious Sam did. I loved the HUGE SCREAMING HORDES of bad guys that would try to zerg you down. It was a nice change of pace from, say, Unreal's 'kill a bad guy, which triggers another bad guy, because the engine chokes and dies if two mobs are on the screen at the same time'. And I liked Unreal. More games should have more swarms.

      Ditto. There was something very satisfying about fighting 800 monsters on screen at once.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )

      Earth Defense Force is a good example too. It also adds something that the bugs can crawl over buildings so you might get attacked from above.

  • Why do I have to imagine hundreds of enemies? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @04:14AM (#28511189) Homepage

    I'm a little concerned that the marketing has exceeded the technology here. The entire point of the SS games (as contrasted with SS2) was to swamp you with goons.

    So... where are they?

    The screenshots look purty, but if I were writing SS:FE:HD, then I'd start with a screen full of goons, and tailor the detail to keep the framerate up. Showing a couple of high detail models, wow, it's like they're demoing the exact opposite of SS.

    I have a feeling that somebody's going to be working a lot of overtime to deliver on that promise, and it's not going to be the marketing guy.

    • Re:Why do I have to imagine hundreds of enemies? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BenEnglishAtHome ( 449670 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @08:12AM (#28512541)

      The entire point of the SS games...was to swamp you with goons.

      I'm a terribly unskilled gamer and I can't handle being swamped with goons. Oddly, I loved Serious Sam. I just turned on all the cheats and treated it as a speed challenge. I tried to find and kill every goon while getting through every level as quickly as possible. Played like that, I thought it was a really fun game.

      I don't see how ratcheting up the graphical goodness could make it more fun for me. And if the number of enemies is reduced, the fun factor will definitely go down.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Rogerborg ( 306625 )

        And if the number of enemies is reduced, the fun factor will definitely go down.

        It did, in "Serious Sam 2". Nicer looking, still a fun game, and still relatively (compared to Quake-a-like titles) frenetic in parts, but not to the same degree as the Serious... sorry, series 1 games.

    • The entire point of the SS games (as contrasted with SS2) was to swamp you with goons.

      That's why I never got into SS. At the time my PC could run HL and Q2 without any problem, but SS bogged it down to no end. It couldn't handle all of those goons. I just couldn't enjoy the game. I ended up never getting into it.

      LK

  • Out of ideas? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29, 2009 @04:42AM (#28511315)

    Remake some old awesome game with NEW GRAPHICS! It will sell well! not...

    So now they want people to upgrade their graphics cards... not for some awesome gotta have it brand new title? no.. now they want you to upgrade for some OLD ass game!

    Remake? So they couldnt come up with any new content after the total mess that was the last serious sam game? well. ok. thats a given. since the original two awesome ones were made by people who no longer work for croteam.

    And only 4 player co-op? Um... the old game would handle way more people than that.

    Could it sound anymorel like a desperate attempt to cash in on something that WAS good?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )

      This seems to be mostly aimed at console gamers who only got a watered down version of Serious Sam last gen (hence the HD buzzword which means nothing on the PC), also it's downloadable and thus cheap.

      I don't think anybody called games like Street Fighter 2 HD lame cash-ins so why be negative about SSHD?

      • Street Fighter got better after 2? People were probably disappointed that it wasn't Third Strike that was pushed in HD to XBLA. It sounds as thought Serious Sam 2 was no good, probably because it was a console shooter anyway.

        Serious Sam was all about hordes of enemies. Hell, there was no pretense as to proper level structure, they simply ported in when you hit a trigger. If the game ups the graphics at the cost of the originals hordes of enemies, then too much is lost in translation. Personally I hated Seri

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by KDR_11k ( 778916 )

          And all we really need to know is that there is a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning.

          I also liked the Earth Defense Force games when it comes to mindless shooting, they were pretty much about a giant horde of alien insects coming at you and you trying everything to stop them from getting close to you, especially at higher difficulties where even one of the lowliest enemies could almost kill you with one point-blank volley.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by L4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 )
      Yeah, it could be called "Doom Movie."

    • Remakes of good games would sell perfectly fine.

      If somebody would remake Deus Ex and MechWarrior 2 with updated graphics and levels I would buy both games immediately.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hiryuu ( 125210 )

        Seconded on the MW2 series games. I really liked those, and was increasingly disappointed with the MW3 and MW4 sequels. They were pretty, but dumbed down to make things easy. I found myself wondering at some point if they were intending console versions, and then we got MechAssault. Ugh.

  • What made SS1 great? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @04:59AM (#28511375)

    And what made SS2 such a disappointment? Numbers of enemies. Simple as that. Screw graphics and pretty, I want to be swarmed by mindless, soulless, expendable goons to mow down. THAT is Serious Sam! Let the killing be in the 1000 BPMs (bodies-per-minute).

    And for god's sake, gimme more than 4 people to play with. 8 was already great. 16 would be awesome. 32 would be just too awesome to not flood the keyboard with ... erh ... coke. Me and my buddies take on the world. Ain't that what every blood-lusting boy dreamt of?

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Blimey85 ( 609949 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @06:50AM (#28512033)
    Serious Sam was never about being the prettiest. We loved the first two because of the game play. You ran, you killed, and you either kept killing at a brutal pace or you were overwhelmed by the insane number of enemies. That was it. No complex puzzles. No crazy strategy. Just run and gun and have a blast. Nobody cared that the lawn was flat because we knew if there was a lot of detail, the game would never have run at all. Way too many enemies on the screen to have serious levels of detail.

    Now, many years later, computers are faster, we have more memory and all that, but the point of the game hasn't changed. With SS2 they changed things and nobody liked it. For me the main problem was it locked up a lot. I didn't have that problem at all with the first two. I still have the first two and I'd much rather play them as is than prettier versions of the same thing.

    Why not instead take the original engine and make a Third Encounter? And then a Fourth Encounter? We LOVED the first two and two more games just like those, different maps and what have you, but same exact style of game play, would be awesome!

  • Yeah, I really want that one redone like this!

    Maybe throw in some more Rock-A-Billy while you're at it, and make the cuss pack a check mark in the menu. Other than that, leave it alone!

  • Like DOOM, Heretic, Hexen, etc. Those were fun especially multiplayers!

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday June 29, 2009 @12:05PM (#28515045)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Games companies and Hollywood haven't run out of idea's, there's plenty of original idea's yet to be tapped. The problem is these companies are unwilling to risk their capital on a new, and unproven, Intellectual Property. Thats why we see remakes and sequels. Back in the 80's and 90's game development was smaller, faster and required a lot less cash and time investment up front...if your wild new idea didn't fly it wasen't as much of a financial setback...games today are very expensive to produce, why t
  • They lost me at Serious Sam 2. I and my friends all picked it up soon after release to co-op through it, and the multiplayer was SERIOUSly unfinished. You couldn't even password protect a game, so any random person could jump into our group and start griefing us. I mean, it's one thing to have a few glitches here and there on odd hardware, but no private multi games? When I brought up this issue on their forums, their mods/admins were rude to the point of personal insults, and I was directed to apprecia

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close