New Review Posted: Serious Sam: The Next Encounter

[Daniel Weissenberger]

Scott Jones faces the ravages of Serious Sam: The Next Encounter, and walks away unscathed, saying:

"Judging by the half-assed box cover art, budget price, and banal title ("Next Encounter?" That's honestly the best they could come up with?), Serious Sam: Next Encounter is clearly a game that no one, not even publisher Global Star Software, wanted. If that's true, then does that make this the review that no one wants to read? Furthermore, if a videogame with lousy box cover art and a budget price falls in a forest, and there are no gamers around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

To read the rest of this thrill-packed piece, it's right here: http://www.gamecritics.com/review/serioussamne/main.php

[strech]

Sounds largely like the last few Serious Sams for the most part.

Which brings to my mind something I've been wondering about - gamers in general complain about derivative or look-alike sequels. Take this thread for example, where the general opinion is "sequels are good if they evolve."

But as often as not, the derivate/look-alike sequels work enough that in themselves they're fun games, no worse than the original, and generally an entertaining way of spending your time. More or less what Scott decided on this game. Yet there's still the complaints.

What gives? Yes, there are genuinely bad sequels, but it's not the flat-out bad ones that people are complaining about, but the trend itself, which turns out games which are rarely downgraded for unoriginality. Moreso, maybe they shouldn't be - after all, the game is still as fun as it was, and for most games that's the most important part. Here's A seperate Thread that brings up the rating issue specifically.

So is it just "too much of a pretty good thing" with the look-alike sequels; is it just the ease of generalization vs being confronted with a specific game - "There are too many sequels, and they should make less, but keep this one. Oh, and that one and that one ..."? And what are your guys opinions on the above topics nowadays?

[EnduroGamer]

Originally Posted by strech

So is it just "too much of a pretty good thing" with the look-alike sequels; is it just the ease of generalization vs being confronted with a specific game - "There are too many sequels, and they should make less, but keep this one. Oh, and that one and that one ..."? And what are your guys opinions on the above topics nowadays?

For me, I don't mind lookalike sequels when they are relatively simple games by nature. For example, I'm always ready to buy a new installment in the Colin Mcrae Rally series even though the only thing that really changes are the courses. It's the same game over and over, but it's a simple game (in style, not necessarily an "easy" game) so it doesn't require much thought and work to enjoy it. The same with new installments of games like DDR or Serious Sam. These are all games whose base gameplay is extremely simple. It takes no puzzle solving, no tricky control schemes to master, it's just unadulterated arcade action.

Where sequels go bad, IMO, is when they are for games that are rather complex. For example, I don't care to play new versions of Devil May Cry or Hitman year in and year out because while the story and the control scheme might change, they seldom change enough. And these are games that unless they completely overhaul the game, can't help but feel similar to their predecessor and, to me, these are games that take a good amount of effort to beat--why would I want to do it again.

This brings me to the Metroid Prime sequel. I loved Metroid Prime. I thought it was one of the best games ever made. However, I've read or seen nothing that leads me to believe that the upcoming sequel isn't terribly similar. Metroid Prime takes too much effort (however enjoyable it was) to want to undergo a similar sequel to it just 2 years later. Color me kooky, but that's the way I feel.

[Nicato]

Originally Posted by EnduroGamer

Where sequels go bad, IMO, is when they are for games that are rather complex. For example, I don't care to play new versions of Devil May Cry or Hitman year in and year out because while the story and the control scheme might change, they seldom change enough. And these are games that unless they completely overhaul the game, can't help but feel similar to their predecessor and, to me, these are games that take a good amount of effort to beat--why would I want to do it again.

But as games continue to be perfected, one has to ask, what else could be added gameplay wise.

In cinema--the entire history of cinema--one has to think that the camera has, at some point or another--been at every possible angle. Therefore, a movie is not going to be praise or not praised based on what camera angles it features. (The last universal praise for such I remember was for The Matrix' bullet-time.)

I look at Metroid Prime. I see a game that, as far as gameplay goes, is fundamentally perfect, probably the only game that I would give that acclaim to. I think to myself: self, what could they possibly add to the gameplay mechanics that wasn't on some level cosmetic. (We are already seeing the beginnings of this with sports games.) However, it is another thing entirely if a game is flawed at its core.

I wouldn't mind playing the same slighty improved engine for games in an episodic format. Where it plays exactly the same way as it's predecessor, but continues to develop the characters and progress the story. I, however, don't think it'd be plausible if games cost $50 a pop.

I'm not the only person who has notice that the difference between predecessors are growing smaller. As we head into the next generation of gaming, it's only going to continue to do so. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. If the core of the gameplay is perfected, then what is there to complain about.

[camoor]

Originally Posted by Nicato

If the core of the gameplay is perfected, then what is there to complain about.

Lack of variety. Pacman is nearly perfect in terms of gameplay, Ms. Pacman moreso, but there are several new directions that this franchise is taking. I find it all very intriguing.

[Nicato]

Originally Posted by camoor

Lack of variety. Pacman is nearly perfect in terms of gameplay, Ms. Pacman moreso, but there are several new directions that this franchise is taking. I find it all very intriguing.

Well, there are some problems with that. Nearly each new-ish Pacman game I've seen this generation has gotten more complex in terms of gameplay. Of course, there was a game that kept the simplicity of Pacman yet still offered something new. Nintendo was criticized harshly for it.

The context of that comment (the one you quoted) is not for games in general. Instead, it is a big 'what if'. Obviously, each time the developer adds new gameplay features, they run the risk of alienating any potential new-comers. What if the gameplay itself was perfected? A casual gamer who played the original Metal Gear Solid (PS) coming straight into MGS3 may well freak out.