New: 1465 - Serious Sam Advance (U)

BlazeHedgehog · Apr 25, 2004

You guys also might be too hard on this game -- it's a budget game. The GBA game and the new GC/PS2 game are priced at only $20.

Darkforce · Apr 25, 2004

Yeah but the thing is a lot of old and better FPS games for the GBA can be found lying in bargin bins across the country, and can be picked up just as cheap...not that I'd bet many here people would actually buy GBA games any longer anyway.

Also when it's retailing at the same price as the far superior PS2 and GC versions, why bother?

Personally I want to pick up the GC version...it'll keep me occupied FPS wise until Timesplitters 3 comes along. It's just I have no idea if the European versions will be budget priced or not...a couple of retailers are listing them full price at £40 and a couple of sources say they'll only retail for £20 or so. Meh in all honesty I'd rather pick up Puyo Pop Fever but it's a nightmare trying to find a copy.

RanCorX2 · Apr 25, 2004

i thought it was quite good, hard to aim like guys said, but still a decent-ish fps for the gba, it wudda sucked more if it had been 2d or scrolling, splinter cell is pants on the gba so is everything or nothing and the medal of honor games, they were ruined.

Dragonlord · Apr 25, 2004

the problem here is that a true 3d FPS (like the ones on a pc) live from detailness. with this i don't mean a heck load of graphics (they tend to ruin all, see DeusEx2 or UT2k4) but you need to 'see' the stuff on the screen so you can get an impression of the world you are placed in. sure the old doom had not more but the old PC mode h13 gave you 320@200 with 256 colors which was still bigger than the gba screen.
spoken by a 1024@800 spoiled PC FPS gamer

Vizenzo · Apr 25, 2004

Serious sam is a bad game.. and for gba is the most unplayabable

Gounta · Apr 25, 2004

Serious Sam is a good game... Simply not on GBA !

BlazeHedgehog · Apr 25, 2004

I still think you're all being way too harsh on the game. This is nowhere near the worst game... the only problem with it is control. =/

Everyone in these forums is just so subject to jumping on the bandwagon, if one person says a game is bad the whole forum agrees just so they don't have to think about their desicion.

There are many GBA games that are really, infinitely worse than this game. If we're going for FPS games -- how about Flashback? I bet you guys forgot about that one, didn't you?

Or, maybe we forgot about Mortal Kombat Advance? The Earthworm Jim ports? Eh?

For a game sold at $20, Serious Sam Advance provides the player with some above-average level design (levels do, indeed, feel like they fit in the Serious Sam series), passable graphics (they still manage to throw at least 10 or 15 enemies at you at the same time)...

So what if it's password save? Boo-hoo. It's the end of the world, now, that you'll have to remember the password is "bobbins". Again: This is a $20 budget title. They probably didn't have enough money left over after making the game to fund a battery save.

Another person is quick to point out "better" GBA FPS games are in bargain bins -- yes, OLDER GBA FPS games that people have probably already played -- maybe even beaten. Sam is brand new, and already budget priced.

Then why not buy the PS2 or GC game? Why not buy them BOTH if they're this cheap? Or, hell, maybe they don't OWN a PS2 or a GC. I've got a cousin who has a GBASP and an Xbox. Serious Sam on the Xbox is just a direct port of the PC game(s).

Seriously, some of you need to get off your high-horse.

Garp · Apr 25, 2004

QUOTE(BlazeHedgehog @ Apr 25 2004 said:
I still think you're all being way too harsh on the game. This is nowhere near the worst game... the only problem with it is control. =/

This just blows the rest of your argument away. If the controls aren't there, the game isn't worth it. Gameplay is 90% of a game, while graphics are only 10%. This from a person who played Ultima 1 when it was first released. I've seen bad graphics. The problem is when it seems like they could have done better and didn't...
It doesn't matter how many enemies they throw at you if you can't hit them with anything! It doesn't matter how cheap the game is if you're constantly frustrated by it. That's just plain and simple. For me, personally, I have yet to play a good FPS on the GBA and probably never will...but then I didn't buy my GBA to play FPS games in the first place.
This game could have been a LOT better and simply isn't...plain and simple. Accuse me of riding the bandwagon all you want to, but I've tried this game. I've played it. And I've come up short with it. Simple as that.

Dragonlord · Apr 25, 2004

first of all, controls are all. this game lacks control like hell. garp isn't right that this game is frustrating. see my review, i stated how to go about it: strafing. it's the only way you hit things and hey! i played the first map (with all 6 locations + end boss) @ once and only had to use a save state once (and also there only because somebody disturbed me in the wrong moment).
but in the end it's a set matter. i played this game and other FPS and it definitly is not a blast, especially because of the controls which forces you to use some silly movement (haha... strafing... haha...)

BlazeHedgehog · Apr 26, 2004

That's the thing, though. The control is THERE, it's just a little sensetive. It's not an issue of BAD control, Sam responds to your button presses just fine -- it's an issue of oversensetive control. The issue might be TOO MUCH control.

The game is passable, especially for $20, it just takes a little getting used to.

cerberus · Apr 26, 2004

The whole point of a FPS is the feeling of emersion in the generated world.

This feeling will never be attainable on the GBA. Why don't they just give up, and put their coding efforts into what the GBA does best. Which is pretty much anything but FPS!

Gounta · Apr 26, 2004

FPS on GBA shouldn't exist. MOH : Infiltrator is THE example of a real intelligent adaptation of a GBA's game from a FPS. Why don't they did the same thing with Serious Sam ?

cerberus · Apr 26, 2004

QUOTE(Gounta @ Apr 26 2004 said:
FPS on GBA shouldn't exist.Â MOH : Infiltrator is THE example of a real intelligent adaptation of a GBA's game from a FPS. Why don't they did the same thing with Serious Sam ?

QUOTE

I agree Gounta. Why can't developers see a turkey when there is one!

BlazeHedgehog · Apr 26, 2004

That's the thing though. Doom exists, and Doom is still a classic after all these years (partially because the FPS hasn't really evolved much past Doom save for one or two gameplay enhancements, like drivable vehicles).

And yet, it's not detailed, it doesn't immerse you in the world -- it's just plain ol' fun. What's the harm in that? Graphics do not a game make.

They are a large factor, but when it comes down to it, graphics don't matter -- wether it looks like Doom, Duke, Half-Life or Far Cry, the gameplay always remains the same: Shoot the badguys before they shoot you. You could strip Far Cry of all it's fancy visual effects -- make it look like Duke 3D -- and the game would still be a blast to play, not because of GRAPHICS, but because of GAMEPLAY.

Serious Sam's gameplay consists of luring the player into well-set traps and throwing entire armies of enemies at him - 20, 30, sometimes even more than that, all at the same time. Then, once you do that for abit, the game chucks a "really, way bigger than the screen" boss at you that's at least 100 times the size of Sam himself. While I haven't gotten very far in the GBA game (about to level 4 or 5 in the first world), the game seems to hold as strong to the Serious Sam gameplay standard as possible: The game presents an "arena" for you to run around in, in which they spawn about 15 or so enemies at a time for you to dispose of in key patterns.

Dragonlord · Apr 26, 2004

QUOTE(BlazeHedgehog @ Apr 26 2004 said:
You could strip Far Cry of all it's fancy visual effects -- make it look like Duke 3D -- and the game would still be a blast to play, not because of GRAPHICS, but because of GAMEPLAY.

i've to contradict here. even if you leave the graphics on FarCry it still sux BECAUSE of the gameplay i've never seen a game with such bad AI than this one. and the most pathetic thing is that they boasted with their AI... .

Mac2492 · Apr 26, 2004

QUOTE(BlazeHedgehog @ Apr 26 2004 said:
That's the thing though. Doom exists, and Doom is still a classic after all these years (partially because the FPS hasn't really evolved much past Doom save for one or two gameplay enhancements, like drivable vehicles).

And yet, it's not detailed, it doesn't immerse you in the world -- it's just plain ol' fun. What's the harm in that? Graphics do not a game make.

They are a large factor, but when it comes down to it, graphics don't matter -- wether it looks like Doom, Duke, Half-Life or Far Cry, the gameplay always remains the same: Shoot the badguys before they shoot you. You could strip Far Cry of all it's fancy visual effects -- make it look like Duke 3D -- and the game would still be a blast to play, not because of GRAPHICS, but because of GAMEPLAY.

Serious Sam's gameplay consists of luring the player into well-set traps and throwing entire armies of enemies at him - 20, 30, sometimes even more than that, all at the same time. Then, once you do that for abit, the game chucks a "really, way bigger than the screen" boss at you that's at least 100 times the size of Sam himself. While I haven't gotten very far in the GBA game (about to level 4 or 5 in the first world), the game seems to hold as strong to the Serious Sam gameplay standard as possible: The game presents an "arena" for you to run around in, in which they spawn about 15 or so enemies at a time for you to dispose of in key patterns.

Dude, most people are complainging aboutthe gameplay

EDIT: and control.....

BlazeHedgehog · Apr 27, 2004

QUOTE said:
i've to contradict here. even if you leave the graphics on FarCry it still sux BECAUSE of the gameplay i've never seen a game with such bad AI than this one. and the most pathetic thing is that they boasted with their AI...

You've got to be absolutely kidding me. You are the first person I've seen since the game was released nearly last month to say anything bad about the AI, and from my own personal experience, I agree with the majority -- FarCry has some of the most human AI (Note: I said human AI) I've ever witnessed. If you want to play a computer with impossible eyesight and faster-than-reality reflexes, go play Unreal Tournament with Godlike bots -- if you wanna play humans who act like humans, play FarCry.

Dragonlord · Apr 27, 2004

QUOTE(BlazeHedgehog @ Apr 27 2004 said:
QUOTE said:

i've to contradict here. even if you leave the graphics on FarCry it still sux BECAUSE of the gameplay i've never seen a game with such bad AI than this one. and the most pathetic thing is that they boasted with their AI...

Click to expand...

You've got to be absolutely kidding me. You are the first person I've seen since the game was released nearly last month to say anything bad about the AI, and from my own personal experience, I agree with the majority -- FarCry has some of the most human AI (Note: I said human AI) I've ever witnessed. If you want to play a computer with impossible eyesight and faster-than-reality reflexes, go play Unreal Tournament with Godlike bots -- if you wanna play humans who act like humans, play FarCry.

i'm sorry but this gaem really plainly suked.
- story is boring and crap
- AI is st00pid. 10 st00pid smacktards run over open field to catch me running all one by one through my LOF without using any cover nearby, and this in the hardest mode possible. you call it human like? how human is it if 5 meters away from you down a slope i fuk over your pal and you go on looking around like nothing happened. i agree that you don't need this over-alertness dxiw has but this is ridiculous. i don want UT godbots (i had once a time i only played like this to get a real challenge but i haven't played a long time and can't keep up with the mode anymore), just a real brain challange, not trigger challenge.
- Graphics are the only good thing but yes, graphics IS NOTHING without gameplay, which sux.
- personal stuff: i hate DVD big games.

skarthebloodchild · Apr 27, 2004

i just hate this game...(another crappy fps)
even the pc version is awful....
i totally recommend you to avoid even playing it..

wabo · Apr 28, 2004

QUOTE(skarthebloodchild @ Apr 27 2004 said:
even the pc version is awful....

That comment just killed your whole opinion.
Some people liked the PC game. i do.

Havent tried the gba one yet.
And to people who test this game in VBA, VBA doesnt do justice to games.
They always play and look much better on hardware.

With that said, this game might suck ass anyway, but i can't say

New: 1465 - Serious Sam Advance (U)

Well-Known Member

DERP!

Active Member

Linux-Dragon of quick wit and sharp tongue

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's Wandering Gnome

Linux-Dragon of quick wit and sharp tongue

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Linux-Dragon of quick wit and sharp tongue

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Linux-Dragon of quick wit and sharp tongue

Keep It Old School

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum