Gamespot gives Serious Sam 2 a 6.9!!!

Drakon · Oct 11, 2005, 09:53 PM

While I agree with some of what Greg (the reviewer) said, I still think a 6.9 is a bit low for it. I mean it's not that bad I think... *shrugs*

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/se...m2/review.html

pr0digal jenius · Oct 11, 2005, 10:24 PM

It's serious Sam, it's not a masterpiece, it's tongue and cheek humor gone postal

Drakon · Oct 11, 2005, 10:41 PM

Personally I think he was being a bit too critical about it. Not sure if he was expecting the next revolutionary FPS

No_Style · Oct 11, 2005, 11:00 PM

I thought it was a tad on the low side. I would have given it 7.5/10. 0.6 higher

I expect it to be more fun. The original was better with the level designs and just about overall better except for visually.

GeneralClaymore · Oct 12, 2005, 12:08 AM

i dont care what they give it, i still gonna get it cuz i liked the demo reguardless of what gamestop think.

daedal · Oct 12, 2005, 04:25 AM

To be honest, I would probably have rated it similar. The demo was uninspired and outdated compared to today's "modern FPS". It's basically a no-brainer run and gun with graphics that aren't really that good. Granted, it IS fun for a while but gets old pretty fast and doesn't offer enough flexibility on the long run except for it's coop gameplay. My two cents. Agree or disagree.

Necrosis · Oct 12, 2005, 07:46 AM

No I don't think it's quite as good as the first one. We've seen a few games come down that pipe that were similar, for example Pain Killer. I'll probably pick it up, but it'll be my filler game when I need a breather.

BiGBrOwNPimpsta · Oct 12, 2005, 09:15 AM

he's an idiot, he rated chaos theory like 8.5 and metal gear solid 8.9. these were clearly some of the best games released for the xbox and ps2 respectively.

**Vikingod** · Oct 12, 2005, 09:57 AM

Personally, thats what I would have given it as well. Maybe i've come to expect too much, but the game is plain boring. I know it achieved what it set out to, but still, what it achieved was boring.

BulletTheory · Oct 12, 2005, 10:07 AM

I think 6.9 is good enough, cuz the is not really "nice" The gfx looks old. Yeah its a lil bit fun for like, 5min... then its pretty boring. so, under 7 is okay for me loll

topbob · Oct 12, 2005, 11:31 AM

If you like a game enough, you shouldn't care what every one else thinks of it any way

Drakon · Oct 12, 2005, 11:38 AM

I agree, though I was just curious about what others thought about the score gamespot gave...

ViRuS2k · Oct 12, 2005, 01:01 PM

the score was spot on.

serious sam 1 was far better than serious sam 2, part 2 was just plain boring, after 4 minutes i wanted to rip if from my hdd and never see it again.

***Zardon*** · Oct 12, 2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViRuS2k

serious sam 1 was far better than serious sam 2, part 2 was just plain boring, after 4 minutes i wanted to rip if from my hdd and never see it again.

Why exactly do you feel 1 was better? I mean I played the demo and its virtually the same game as before just updated graphics.

ViRuS2k · Oct 12, 2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

Why exactly do you feel 1 was better? I mean I played the demo and its virtually the same game as before just updated graphics.

for one the game run like crap on my X800 Pro thats no excuse though
2nd the maps where just crap, the maps and layout where far better in part 1, also the aiming system in part 2 was bad compaired to the aiming system in part one.

i didnt like the 1st level at all in serious sam 2.
it was just plain boring.

i know most people like it for its mindless shooting and outragious enemys but i found it boring and inconsistent between part 1 to part 2 they tryed to make the game better but all they did was flaw a old formula that worked so well.