FPS

What are the must play FPS games on PC?

Nothing you don't know unless you've been living under a rock.

Start off by playing the classics, I'm talking about games like Blood, Shadow Warrior, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. After that, move on to the later ones, like Quake, Half-Life, Serious Sam, etc.
This is more general advice rather than suggesting games.

don't bother with heretic, shadow warrior, serious sam. Not particularly good games. Honestly OP you probably know them already. There hasn't really bee anything new since 2007.

Go back in time and play Tribes 1.

There's really none.

Heretic was fuckin' great for multiplayer, though. But for SP I'd skip it.

>>>/out/

Tribes 2.

you're the first person to call them shit in this thread. They aren't worth anyones time, I think.

Have you never played them?

who with a PC hasn't played them? Do you have trouble reading?

Fucking faggot newfag. Get thr fuck out and lurk moar.

the correct spelling is the

Why did you say "I think", then? That implies you've never played the games, you should have just said something like "They aren't worth anyone's time, in my opinion.**

You have to be a tumblr faggot who came here for the overwatch thread. Fuck outta here.

why do you care so much how I said it? This has nothing to do with the thread.


never played it, satan. I don't really play first person games any more because they aren't really any good. Maybe you can tell me about it since you seem to know so much.

You calling serious sam and shadow warrior shit is definitly relevant to the thread.

Get the fuck out you newfag cunt

Disagree with Shadow Warrior, It's actually pretty great imo.

Heretic is fucking shit

all me

y

unreal tournament 3
rainbow six 3
swat 4
quake 3
sof 2
postal 2
battlefield 1942, 2142, 2

It plays just like Doom but with different enemies and weapons, how exactly is it bad? Hexen is most certainly a giant turd, but Heretic was basically just more doom. I found the Minotaur enemies in it pretty good too, they had some variety of attacks and were usually placed in areas where you couldn't just circlestrafe them.

Because Powerslave does its concept way smoother

Powerslave EX OP, its an unofficial remake of the PLaystation version of Powerslave. Its pretty awesome and fully playable to the end but remember this is only beta version 1.2. The author of the project got Shoah'd by a C&D but its a really good game.


magnet:?xt=urn:btih:9425820b54dbb78c8b10505f0e7e1a6d7f497792&dn=Powerslave%20EX%20v1.0.2

Old, racist Shadow Warrior was an excellent game and a classic, definitely worth playing.

the star wars dark forces series

Nigger he took it down himself and is working on a full paid release

...

after playing nushadow warrior and nudoom i was kinda itching for another decent single player campaign, i've already played FEAR a gorillion times

S.T.A.L.K.E.R

Whoops, looks like your finger slipped and you accidentally typed a 3 where there's not supposed to be a number at all.

The weapons, level design and enemy design are all trash

You faggots are cuckchan-tier.

see

Embarrassing

Yes, cuckchan-tier

the game is 10 years old and still has generals on this board, calm your nuts.

Kill yourself.

Megaman 8 bit deathmatch with the justified classes mod.

It's a doom overhaul that turns doom into megaman, it has a full campaign that covers the first 9 games(mostly death matches against ai teams) with boss battles sprinkled around at appropriate times.

The JC mod makes it further unique by letting you play as the robot masters, more or less faithfully recreating their abilities to a T. Just by copying moves from a 2d platformer it's created an fps with gameplay around which entire modern shooters would have based their sole gimmicks on and now there are dozens of them. It's probably the most fresh and fun FPS experience I've had in a long while, also JC just got an update so it's slightly less dead that usual in the multiplayer.

Also being a doom mod at heart means it's pretty much free.

Avoid the YD classes mod, it's similar but inferior taking a lot of weird ass liberties with new abilities. Also has some of the most disgustingly pozzed autistic normalfaggots I've ever seen.

thank god, stalker is shit

meme game

serious sam is objectively shit.

pretty much an open world call of duty 4 pripyat level

SoF is better than its sequel.

sounds cool as fuck, never heard before, thanks user

I don't what it is about this game, but I can just kick back and enjoy shooting at the huge enemy variety in the gigantic levels in it.
Ironically the titular painkiller is the weapon I use the least in it.

Definitely worth a try.

I just got around to playing CoD4. It's pretty good. Specifically the Chernobyl level is pretty fantastic to play through. I normally prefer my shooters a bit more open, but CoD4 isn't half bad. I haven't played any of the later games and as I'm aware 4 was the last CoD with the original lead developers so I'm guessing the series took a dive afterward.

Also FEAR. FEAR is probably my favorite FPS.

Go back to 4chan.

I've been here since the first exodus. Quit trying so hard to fit in.

I can't speak for the sequel as I haven't played it, but pic related is a lot of fun and still relatively active.

don't worry. you are true pcondiment. you are yellow hot dog sauce.

mw2 was the last cod with the original developers, following that the studio was fucked hard by activision or something.

Gray Matter, the devs that made United Offensive in 2004 which I think is the best in the series, later became part of Treyarch in 2005ish, so if you want to get technical some of the devs who worked on the original are still making CoD games.

As the other user said, though, MW2 was the last one made by Infinity Ward before Zampella & co. went off to make the Titanfall games.

I'll have to try MW2 then, thanks for correcting me. I wasn't even aware they went on to make Titanfall, maybe I'll have to check that out as well.

titan fall 1 and 2 are apparently pretty decent, but a common gripe I see discussing the shortcomings of the game involves the reliance on hitscan. You can have all the cool movement options in the world, but at the end of the day you can be the equivalent to a point and click it kinda ruins the point of even having those tricks. Games with a focus on movement need weapons which play with and against movement, weapons that propel, repel, bounce, boost and bump things around.

I'm not sure about Titanfall 1, but 2 is pretty good (the campaign in particular was quite a pleasant surprise in terms of the effort put into it). It does suffer somewhat from the same issue that Black Ops 3 and Advanced Warfare do, in that all the tricks you can do have their effectiveness lessened by most (not all) weapons being hitscan, but TF2 is still worth the price of admission all the same, if you ask me.

That is a shame about the hitscan. Still sounds worth a look though and I've heard a lot of good things about Tf2.

Post 2006

If multiplayer games count, I recommend Urban Terror, although it's probably not as populated as it used to be.

fuck off back to halfchan. no one fucking says "lurk moar" anymore but "m-muh chan culture" halfchan users and children trying to look like the "old guard"

I think everyone's just happy to have an FPS that focuses on movement again. Embed related might give you an idea of how 2 feels in terms of movement, it's a short 20 second speedrun of the tutorial. It has stuff like bunnyhopping in addition to wallrunning and double jumping, and from playing it myself it does feel good when you manage to maintain your momentum for a long while.


Don't forget about the first Darkness too.

lurk moar

Prey had a lot of cool shit going for it, but I just can't bring myself to play any games where there's no real punishment for dying. You just play a little archery mini-game and then revive on the spot where you died–it's even worse than BioShock's vita chambers, which you can at least turn off. That's why I played the Prey demo, and thought it was cool, but never bothered getting the full game.

I was thought Holla Forums had good taste.

Any chance you could make a torrent or upload a mega of everything needed to play the game in a folder?

That's terror.

Excellent taste. But to be fair the most notable thing about Renegade was the multiplayer mode. Damn shame the last time I tried RenegadeX no one was playing it.

People don't play Deus Ex for it's FPS mechanics, that's why.

Back before retard friendly checkpoints became a thing you used to just be able to save anywhere, which depending on how diligent you where could make the game even more easy.
Honestly, it sounds like you don't want FPS but for everything to be some Dark Souls clone, which sounds awful.

Stalker is already posted before but bears repeating, because it's 3 games and the most fun I've had with a shooter game in 10 years or so.
Spec Ops the Line is notable because it has a great story with some fun twiiiists, gameplay wise kind of mediocre though.

gr8 b8

Descent is fucking pure FULL 3D gameplay with varied enemies which can make intelligent use of the level layout, and will absolutely test your ability to dodge from all directions

Checkpoints are older than save-anywhere. But yes, save scumming is always an option in save-anywhere games, but I'm not generally the kind of person who does that. And neither is as bad as reviving on the very spot you died–there's not even the potential for punishment.

I love FPS games. Nothing about reviving-on-the-spot is intrinsic to the FPS genre, though.
Not at all. One of the reasons I can't get into Souls games is the way they handle death–I'd rather just be punished with lost progress, not have a permanent loss of resources (via curses, lost souls, etc.).

Calling you out on wanting some kind of retarded stock system for shooters is considered bait these days?

Learn to read IDs, newfag.

Max Payne. They invented bullet time.

The sequel is prettier for sure but fails on every other aspect. I do like Hans though, and fun with friends.

Most decent shooters these days will set you back for dying, currently playing the recent Doom game and it will throw you back to the start of the usually pretty lengthy combat sequences even if you die on the last wave.
Last time I played an old as fuck shooter, saving before what seem to be big battle sequences is pretty mandatory so you'd end up with the exact same result.
Reviving on the spot is bullshit even for shitty CoD games, although I find it hard to imagine what enjoyment you get out of the game forcing you to replay old segments, especially with how story sequence heavy shooters are these days.


It both starts with an "e", go fuck yourself.


Technically not FPS, but the first two where pretty great.

So we agreed all along, then.

If a game doesn't do anything upon player death except go "lol it's ok, just keep going :::DDDD," it's barely even a game anymore, since failure is effectively impossible.

Its not really a shooter and its a console port, but Earth Defense Force 4.1 is so fucking good. It plays great with a mouse and keyboard, and though the visuals may be primitive there are loads of bugs on screen at any given time, and shooting a rocket into a group of bugs and watching parts and bug blood go everywhere is super satisfying.


Did Shadow Warrior get better towards the end? I genuinely hated the stupid bulletsponge bosses and though melee combat is fun the guns feel pathetic unless you upgrade the shit out of them.

TPS GET OUT

Yet even CoD games don't have you revive on the spot, been years since I've played Prey but I'm pretty sure it wasn't as hyperbolic as that.

And if you die and the game actually revives you on the spot, a healthy man will still feel failure for dying, the only purpose that the game throwing you back could even have is to have you train on some sequences before where you died.
Which shouldn't be necessary if you've played FPS for years anyway as pretty much everything these days is much easier then what shooters used to be.

Prey is very, very cool. It's just that not having a real death mechanic sort of kills my interest in games, most of the time. The only games where I don't mind are games that are built around failure in a completely different way than most games, like Braid for example.

It does.
This isn't about manliness or health, it's about mechanics. If progress is lost, it's lost regardless of how you feel about it.

blood sucks

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Read back on Prey's death mechanic, it just forces you into a combat sequence with some spirits and some amount you need to kill.
Which doesn't sound much different then what replaying previous segments of the game would be.
In fact it might get even more annoying as you'll be replaying the same death fight every time you die.

You claim mechanics but how is progress being lost mechanically necessary?
Do you not feel failure if you die in a game?
Do you really need the game to slap you on the ass for failing to get you to play better?

boring weaponry except the flare gun, shitty closed-in levels (with the exception of a couple actually pretty good ones), hitscan enemies that are specifically placed to be difficult or impossible to hit/see unless you already know they're there resulting in unavoidable damage, a retarded storyline not that story in an FPS is particularly important. i will say that it perfectly nails the cheesy grindhouse horror movie atmosphere, i just had zero fun at any point while playing it

That just determines how much health and spirit (or whatever it's called) you have when you come back. You always come back.
It is. Have you played Prey?

You have to traverse the same area and face the same challenges again. The point isn't to be annoying when the player dies.
Not unless I died in a really stupid and easily avoidable way. By your logic, just flashing "FUCK YOU" on the screen when you die, but not doing anything else, would be a real, mechanical punishment, since it would make you "feel bad."
I like playing video games. I do not want to play interactive art sets where reaching 0 health means the game gives you a wink and a nod and then lets you keep right on going.

It's more of an RPG.

Hard Reset,Singularity, Prey,Republic Commando,Stalker,Black,Clive Barker's Jericho.
Those come to mind if you like fancy graphics. If not there are enough classica mentioned

Yeah so if you fail the sequence you get back with a shitty amount of health so probably gonna die quickly, it punishes you in making your next run worse and having you waste some time on and old sequence.
It's not like you really die in Half Life or whatever the fuck, you just reload and have to put in a bit of effort clearing something you already have before.
Effectively they're the same thing, just with different mechanics.
And yes, I played Prey, when it was released, 10 years ago, don't mind me if I can't remember the details of some mediocre shooter from a decade ago.

Yet being annoying is what having to replay old sequences is to a lot of people, you know you're already capable of defeating it, if anything it's a lot easier as you already know what's going to happen.

Yes it would be, what advantage does having you waste time on top of feeling bad serve? You just need to have it rubbed in?

The core of good videogames is that they have you exert some real effort, push you to your limits, how harshly they punish you for failure doesn't really calculate into what makes a good game.

And then come right back with more health. It's basically the same as having infinite health. Imagine playing Half-Life 2, but when you reach zero health, nothing happens. That's how Prey treats death. It doesn't make me mad, but it does kill my interest in the game.
Wrong, see above. You can't fail the spirit-shooting minigame. You can't fail at all. In fact, it's sometimes better to deliberately kill yourself in order to use the mini-game to stock up on health.
Even so, that's not their purpose. Their purpose is to give you a chunk of gameplay that you have to complete without dying. Delineating that chunk with checkpoints forces the player to succeed for a given length of time/space in order to progress further.
I rest my case.
If it is literally impossible for the game to force me to restart from a previous part upon my failure, it isn't pushing anything anywhere. Yes, you can still get good at the game, but you don't have to. A child playing with a gamepad's left thumbstick and right trigger could beat Prey, since the lack of real death means you can never lose progress.
You are either autistic, retarded, or deliberately missing the point.

no you faggot. if a game doesn't have a fail state it's not a game

If there's no fun in throwing a stick of dynamite at a pack of zombies or sweeping rooms with your tommygun, then I don't know what isn't boring. Unless you're just going by an 'every weapon needs to be completely unique and outlandish or else it's stock dreck' standard
I'm not sure what's shitty about it as Blood works best in small to medium environments, with each level taking on an unique setting
while this is true, damage mitigation plays a large role in this, which basically comes down to figuring out how to get away with as little damage is possible, coming down to corner peeking, using the hitstun on your tommygun, circlestrafing in larger environments, and using your dynamite for enemies around corners
At some point you'll learn how to deal with enemies in general while taking as little damage as possible, but I agree that Blood is a bloody hitscanfest


nigga try to understand

Without punishment, there's no reason to get good. With no reason to get good, there's no reason to learn and understand the game's mechanics. With no reason to learn the game's mechanics, you might as well not be playing a game at all.

If I can finish your game on the intended difficulty by doing nothing but rolling my face on my keyboard, then any effort you put in the gameplay is effectively meaningless because nothing is encouraging me learn the mechanics. Without death or a progress block, there would be no way for the game to tell me I suck at it. There could be a measure of how good you are at the game other than death, but that requires something along the lines of a scoring or ranking system. Any challenge at that point would be self-imposed, but playing a game for self-imposed challenges is meaningless because ANY game can be played with self-imposed challenges.

Difficulty, death and challenges exist to reinforce whether you have a grip on the game mechanics, sort of like how school tests test whether you know enough about a subject and whether you can apply it efficiently, much like how skill is one part memorization and one part reflexes, depending on the genre. If you're telling me I can complete the game without having to bother with anything in it, with no options or modes for those who WANT to get good, then your game is effectively no different from a walking simulator

Prey would have been one if it didn't have any puzzles.

Didn't we just establish that to have to get more health you need to kill more ghosts in the death minigame, pretty much exactly like killing enemies while replaying old sections?

Sounds like save scumming to me fam.

Is it? Checkpoint systems work the same way as your "chunks" do, it's all just a matter of how many checkpoints there are in a given level, which varies wildly between games.
And when you have manual save function, it's all just an arbitrary clusterfuck of what the "right" length of a chunk is. Not to say I don't prefer manual saving, but claiming it automatically leads to better or fairer gameplay is nonsense.

And the fact that a monkey with a gamepad could complete the game in a couple years triggers you how exactly?
Does it delegitimize the effort you put in? Do you feel like playing it like you normally would an FPS won't give you any enjoyment because there might be someone doing it worse then you?

You where the one to shit on the game purely because of it's death mechanics, there's a lot wrong with it but you have to be literally autistic if it's death mechanic is what makes you hate it.


A state of no progress and a failstate are basically the same thing, even if you arbitrarily decided one validates your ego.

...

You always come back with half-health, killing ghosts just gets you more.
Kind of, but they're both shit, and for similar reasons.
Yeah, I was trying to describe how checkpoints work, in terms of what they do to player performance. Checkpoint save systems demand that a player have the skills necessary to pass a certain, developer-designated area of the level–if you can't, you have to try again until you can.
True. That's why I think checkpoints are the best way to do linear games. Save-anywhere should only be used in non-linear games where the pace of the experience is dictated by the player more than by the designer. Even then, it's an imperfect solution, but I don't know of a better one.
"Delegitimize" doesn't mean anything. But the lack of proper death does mean that the game doesn't demand that the player learn anything, or develop any skill at the game.

Pic related.
I don't hate Prey. If you actually had any reading comprehension, you might remember that I said (multiple times) that it was pretty neat, and had a lot going for it. I just had no desire to play the full game after I saw how death works in the demo.

So pausing is a fail state. I'm learning so much from you today.

If I can finish your game on the intended difficulty by doing nothing but rolling my face on my keyboard, then any effort you put in the gameplay is effectively meaningless because nothing is encouraging me learn the mechanics.
If you actually played the game you'd know there's more then enough incentive to get good at the game, you don't want to get constantly murdered. The shooting sequences actually get pretty challenging if you're not playing on retard difficulty, if you're gonna constantly die it's going to take forever, and feel like a bitch for constantly dying.
Yet for death to be meaningful it doesn't need to take away progress, just force you to do something to interrupt gameplay and tell you you failed, which going to the shadow realm to kill some ghosts does pretty well.
Take the new Doom for instance, it saves on every major item you pick up but will still respawn enemies back to the last major checkpoint location.
You end up with the same sort of system where you die, put in some minor effort to clear some shit you already have before and then get on with the game.

If you think Prey has no difficulty options and is played the same as a walking simulator, you might want to actually try playing it.

I like the game but it's not a "must-play" in the slightest. SoC's gameplay is buggy and the gunplay is questionable in the vanilla version, not to mention it crashes a lot. CoP has better guns and gameplay, but it has nowhere near the atmosphere that SoC had and the maps were honestly pretty mediocre in comparison (not enough labs, and why did each overworld area have to look so square on the world map? Granted, mods make both these games really good, but the games should be judged for how they play vanilla, with mods only being a bonus. They're honestly pretty niche.

I think the difference of opinions here probably stems from a single thing: you're fine with implicit and explicit fail states, while I'm only fine with explicit fail states. I don't know how (or if) those perspectives can be reconciled, though.

Oh come on, with patches vanilla SoC isn't that buggy and plays pretty good once you get out of the initial hobo phase.

But here's the problem, I'm going to get murdered in one way or another, but where is the line between 'constantly being murdered like a scrub' and 'tough but fair'? Everyone agrees that a game over is a game over, but with a continuous life gimmick the line between skill and no skill is blurred. Am I only good if I never die? Am I only good if I die only three times? Am I only good if I die six times? If I'm constantly dying I must be doing SOMETHING wrong, but I can never guess what because I get a free respawn every time I die and don't even get a chance to retry the section I supposedly failed. The game doesn't tell me, so I have no standards to compare it to. Much like how you don't know whether your score actually means something unless the game ranks your score or looking at the leaderboard.

shit thread

It's all free. Download Doomseeker and join a mm8bdm server to download all the wads and pk3s for you.
Cutman is the best btw

Again, do you really need the game to validate for you that you where capable of beating it? If you wheren't the games going to soon enough murder you in similar circumstances, making it clear enough you need to adapt or play ghost whack a mole forever.
This assumes the devs know how to properly space the checkpoints, which I've found lacking in many games. Manual saves are usually a good option unless your game is going to be polished as fuck.


You don't hate it but refuse to play it and spend your entire post complaining about the death mechanic.
If you play it like you would any other shooter you'll have fun, it has some level of adaptive AI that was pretty good for it's time, especially in the later levels where the game ramps up the amount of enemies it throws at you.
Yes, if you manage to keep your game paused in perpetuum it's basically the same thing as a failstate.


That's one way to put it, what I'm trying to get across is that if you would have just tried playing the full game like you would any other, you would have probably enjoyed yourself for the 4 or so hours it lasts.
Didn't and wouldn't spend money on it though.


Once a level sounds reasonable.
In fact, reading back on the mechanics, it seems the AI is programmed to pity you and effectively decrease the difficulty if you fail enough.
An invisible noob modifier, perhaps the most insulting punishment of all.
This shouldn't affect you if you're somewhat experienced at shooter game, but might make the game playable for people who arn't (probably not a lot of kids considering how gory the storyline was).

I've been playing some doom mods recently, here are my thoughts:

DoomRLA and DoomRPG together are pretty nuts. There's a million guns, various monsters with special DoomRPG auras and stats, and random events for some levels including super mega-bosses and such. Individually the mods are OK, but together it becomes pretty great.
Trailblazer is a more traditional mod that has a suite of badass weapons and a mechanic that sees you move faster at lower health, so you can clutch your way to victory. There's a minor upgrade system for weapons which is cool.
Legendoom makes some monsters have a second health bar as 'legendary' monsters, and they drop weapon variants. Felt kind of limited but pretty cool if you're looking for something more traditional
Demonsteele is a pretty radical mod that turns it into a spectacle fighter type thing. Good fun

Ancient Aliens (pic related) is awesome.
Back to Saturn X episodes 1 and 2 are both great
Going Down is brutal and has probably the most interesting and weird maps I've seen. It's by that guy who makes weird animations where cows transform into weird cow monsters, Cyriak.
Hellbound is pretty traditional doom style campaign but with some really interesting levels

man, this one is great. Is the game playable from beginning to end?

You can see and even kill enemies before they are able to see you. Have you actually played it beyond repeatedly dying by hugging the first shotgun cultist you see?

CS 1.6
CS:S It adds so many quality of life improvements over 1.6, bunny hopping felt more rewarding. Its seven hundred ninety eight million times better then csgo, completely vanilla so sue me.
Team Fortress Classic
Fortress Forever
Neotokyo

No Rise of the Triad? It's got its place in FPS history despite the faults.


On reflection it's not a great game in singleplayer, but I still enjoyed it a lot in its day. Never even played the multiplayer.

I bet all the faggots ITT that say Serious Sam is bad played it on normal or easy difficulty and got bored after a while. No fucking shit it's boring that way. Play that shit on serious difficulty for the real experience(tm). You've got loads of weapons and monsters at the same time, huge maps and great graphics. Some other great FPS games:
Half Life
Opposing Force
Blue Shift
Half Life 2
Quake
Quake 2 (debatable)
Quake 3
Doom
Doom 2
Duke Nukem 3D
Shadow Warrior
Blood
Blood 2
Unreal
Unreal Tournmanet
^^ 2003, 2004, 2007….
Painkiller

and last game which I like a lot, but the FPS element on its own is not that great, POSTAL 2

Powerslave is fucking shit in all ports except the Saturn version, it also does not do it's concept at fucking all. Heretic is Doom with fantasy weapons and a DND-like setting, Powerslave is about egyptian gods getting cucked by chaos powers and commando badassery with LMGs, machetes, revolvers and grenades. The only good thing about Powerslave is PowerslaveEX on zdoom and the level design.

Singularity was neat.

fixed
for serious sam Hard is enough, Serious is just exhausting unless you Co-op it

...

serious sam is pretty boring on any difficulty, the game play just isn't interesting or fun to learn about.

To you maybe. There's a certain amount of depth ad variety to the gameplay if you actually spend time learning how it works.

how much time would you say is enough? Completing the game little changed. If the game isn't at least engaging on a completion basis, there is something wrong with how it conveys its design and mechanics, as despite the full game being experienced, the mandatory areas do not do an adequate job of teaching and engaging the player in any sort of mechanical depth or intricacy. Some games give you a taste of what is possible on regular progress and encourage you to play through them several times to enjoy them more and more like in devil may cry, or have methods devised by players such as Quake's physics which have become an essential element to the games public image which helps them become truly engaging. Why does Serious Sam struggle with this? The appeal of fighting waves of simple enemies with simple and even unsatisfying weapons leaves a lot to desire. The entire game being based around backpedaling and target prioritization with using the right weapon is far from appealing because these qualities are obvious on such a basic level

So, do you need to play all the games in the series for there to be a point where it's actually worth it? To me I have many better games to play which don't waste my time like this, and I'll continue and advise others to do so and avoid dissatisfying, brainless shooters like serious sam which comes across as something artificially propped up despite its mediocrity.

This enjoyment you seem you seem to get from completion isn't really making sense. You seem to have this fundamental issue with your assessment on how the game should "act" rather assuming it's in a different area than a lot of shooters, in that not many games, especially during it's time have had so many fucking enemies at once coming at you in such a wide area. The game isn't a hallway shooter. It's an outside shooter with a giant map for going wild in with an arsenal of weapons. The depth comes from using specific weapons (pending on enemy and circumstances, I could post pages about what enemies are weak to what and the better technique on how to kill them) in order to keep on top of the waves of enemies, and in effect maintain to crowd control before you're over-ran and have to take care of the issue by flanking and strafing while keeping an eye on where you're going. During all of this you're supposed to keep track of just how much HP an enemy has from hundreds of yards away so you don't waste ammo on them. To try and compare it to Quake or DMC would be pointless. And I find new ways to get better at it each time I replay it. Either through creatively finding new ways to use a weapon in a certain circumstance or by finding a new secret/upgrade.

And you lost me there. SS is Brainless if you're playing on easy difficulty maybe but certainly not so on harder difficulties. Ammo management becomes a much larger focus the harder you get and mistakes become a lot more costly. Truly you have to git gud to beat the game on Serious difficulty or above. You can keep telling others to not play it I guess but your criticism for the game sounds like it's based on your ego more than anything if you think "fun" and "brainless shooter" can't go together. I wouldn't call SS brainless though. It just knows what it does best and doesn't deter much from it.

You aint the only one, for some reason im the same too.
I never finished Duke3d when i was a kid in the 90s but i've replayed SW dozens of times.

I remember playing with fellow anons a few months ago. We played for fucking hours.
Sniper Joe is still the best fucking class to play.
Although it did crash the server a lot

You'll have to go more in depth if you wish for this discussion to go anywhere else but sweeping generalizations.

It'd be dishonest not to take in account the effects enemy composition has on the encounter design, the synergy between enemy types and the situations where backpedaling ISN'T the numero uno strategy for defense. You say 'simple enemies' as if you expect them to have ultra-intelligent AI capable of doing… I don't know what. You say 'simple weapons' as if you expect all of them to have alternate firing modes, but the truth is all the enemies and weapons serve their purpose more than enough. Doom has no expansive AI, but it doesn't need one in the first place.

If you believe there is little depth to be had in Serious Sam, do you think you can easily beat all the games on Serious difficulty? If Serious Sam is so simple, than anyone can beat it effortlessly, right?

Yes, and all shmups are obviously all about shooting all enemies and not getting hit, fightans are just about mashing combos, rhythm games are glorified QTEs, and racing games are just about knowing how to hold the pedal and how to drift properly. As if all games need to flaunt their mechanical depth at a surface level (or to be known for their depth, considering how you randomly quoted DMC) before they can be taken seriously.

having played just about every shooter on the highest difficulty outside of odd exceptions where it breaks the game so you have to exploit spawn positions (like shogo.) I get the implication that I suck at first person games (I don't) but this isn't really a valid issue - In the case of serious sam (the HD version which I played at release) I played it on serious difficulty, and completed it on that same difficulty.

Getting good means know which weapons to prioritize on which enemies to prioritize on when you're fighting in hordes. You said so yourself, and frankly serious sam doesn't do anything interesting with that. My ego never came into question until you brought up the age old "git gud xD", my entire point was about the design being uninteresting and I'm surprised you didn't see that.

You did also fail to answer the question, how long does it take?


I wouldn't play all the games, one was enough for me to know the games aren't worth my time and to figure out why that is the case. Not everyone can beat them, what makes you think that? There is a level of difficulty involved that is at best grating rather than satisfying to persevere through.

Judging from the last line you appear to have lost the plot entirely. Just gonna save myself the time and filter the id.

Again, deeper, go DEEPER. How exactly does it do nothing interesting? Do all levels play out exactly the same? What separates Serious Sam from other similar shooters like Painkiller? You keep saying there is no depth by merely explaining the nature of the gameplay itself, rather than explaining why it doesn't work or why it's fundamentally boring.

Yeah, for you.
Again, go deeper.
To any outsider this criticism is subjective at best and hard to be taken seriously unless they have already formed their own opinions by playing the games.

Around The Great Pyramid.

Knowledge is only one part of skill. The other is execution. You can know all the winning strategies, but that doesn't mean you can always execute them at a 100% efficiency. Even if I memorized a Serious Sam guide beforehand, I still wouldn't be completely safe from death.

If you still die time to time, then that means there's room to improve and get better.

Getting gud isn't all about knowing which weapons to use, I explained that in my prior post. If you found that it didn't do it interesting then I don't know what to say. Conflict on what it takes to get satisfaction?

I did and I don't find it uninteresting. If you have a problem with it you can but what I mentioned with the gameplay above is all I really wanted from the game. And there's no game that does anything quite like it, I'm sure there's some that are close but otherwise Serious Sam scratches an itch I have for the one man army genre of First Person Shooters. I mention Git Gud because in a poorly designed game the phrase isn't appropriate. And In Serious Sam you have to actually git gud. I never even mentioned weather you were good at the game or not though.
In other words why am I not answering your rhetorical question? You've apparently already made up your mind, I'm not going to change it. If you read what I posted about depth in any detail and if you can fully grasp it and utilize it with ease on the hardest difficulty with no deaths then I would say you've met with level of satisfaction that most long time players try to achieve. If you're trying to ask how long it takes to actually ENJOY that depth then it's up to your and your references I guess. But if you want a simple answer to such a subjective question then I would say in your cynicle case, never.
I'de like to see your video of beating the game on Mental Difficulty though. I'm sure it'd be a hoot.

Also
Filter me as well I guess, I'm done with you. You can take that shit back to your tumblr hugbox where it belongs.

can confirm - recently played the source port for Heretic and Hexen. Was bored by both within 20 minutes. Never played them as a kid, so no nostalgia goggles