I’m surprised to say it, but I’m enjoying Painkiller.
The reason I say I’m surprised is that I usually hate repetitive shooters. I liked the Serious Sam games, but there were areas where they stuck you in one spot for 15 minutes while they spawned in hundreds of enemies. I hate that – I want to feel like I’m making progress. And Painkiller definitely has that artificiality where the next area won’t magically open up until you find that one last enemy in that section and kill him. You never forget that the developers are lurking nearby, pulling all the strings.
And yet … I’m digging it anyway, because it gets the core gameplay right. The simple act of shooting someone with a shotgun is fun, even after doing it 1000 times. The sound is satisfying. The physics are cool. Unlike so many shooters, you don’t feel disconnected from the action. And little touches like going into rage mode after collecting 66 souls, or the tarot system, add just enough to keep it interesting. I’ll be curious to see how long it holds my interest.
What I’d really like to check out, however, is multiplayer. We’ve been told over and over that their goal was to be a sprirtual successor to QuakeWorld – has anyone tried the deathmatch yet?
Which is what 98% of everything that gets released is.[/quote]
Sure, but most the good games make you forget that by adding something different into the mix.[/quote]Painkiller is a tribute to the era of Doom-style games. It’s “pure” FPS, sorta like Serious Sam.
In other words, it never intended to be very different. It still kicks ass, though. You’d be a idiot to pass it up.
Could you back that quip up with something? It’s true that most games can be boiled down to a besic premise or device that has been done before. [/quote]
My statement was saying basically for you to back it up. You made a basic general statement. Good games have something “diffrent” to well make them good from the MOTS crowd. You can’t get more vague than that in trying to dismiss a game. In other words since you couldn’t say anything specific about Painkiller(since you havn’t played the full game), you just go yea MOTS on to the next…
So can most movies or books. Doesn’t make it bad automatically.
Exactly, which is the reason people were saying not to just dismiss the game out of hand. I would think being in the business you wouldn’t be the type to just dismiss a game from a 10-15 minute demo.
I regularly dismiss most games in 10-15 minutes. I’m just not that rich. I have to have a hook (or several email threats from Bauman), or I’ll find an excuse to not purchase/play it.
Er, if a demo left someone suitably unimpressed with the game, why on earth would they still consider getting the full game? If the demo fails to capture the best part of the game, it’s not the player’s fault. I’d say more demos have dissuaded me from buying a game than convinced me to. If 10-15 minutes isn’t enough time to make me want more (in an action game, especially), the demo has failed. In my opinion.
The Painkiller demo was fun and all, but the lack of co-op killed my interest. I had a blast playing Serious Sam in co-op but when I tried it solo, it just didn’t do it for me. Admittedly, there’s no rule that says “all straightforward shooters must include co-op!!” but Serious Sam spoiled me in that regard. Playing the Painkiller demo made me feel the same way. It was enjoyable, but not something I’m compelled to pick up.
The comments in this thread have interested me. No one has really said how, but if someone could explain why the demo levels are not necessarily representative of the full game, I’d like to hear.
Jakub, all five of Painkiller’s bosses have a sort of puzzle solution. Perhaps what you don’t realize about the “rampaging hulk monster” is that he’s a vampire (it’s in the manual). Maybe if there was some way to let the sun shine…
Let me know if you want more explicit help.
As for the full game vs. the demo, each of Painkiller’s levels has a fairly distinct style, visually and sometimes in terms of gameplay. I’m not sure what levels are in the demo, but a big part of the Painkiller’s charm is discovering these differences. Also, I’m guessing the tarot cards aren’t in the demo? They change up the game in some really interesting ways.
As for the lack of co-op, that’s a trifling complaint considering how skillfully the single-player game is put together. In fact, among the current crop of great FPSs, I’d say Painkiller is clearly the best in terms of single player gameplay.
You really think painkiller’s gameplay is overall superior to far cry? Or are you talking about the visceral feel of shooting and killing mobiles in specific?
You really think painkiller’s gameplay is overall superior to far cry?
Well, there’s a bit of an apples and oranges thing going on, but I’d certainly say yes*. You could say Far Cry is more ambitious, with the open ended approach to combats, the vehicles, the outdoor environments with all the foliage, and the soldier AI. But I think Painkiller’s design is much tighter and ultimately much more gratifying.
-Tom
*I should note I’ve only played through about a third of Far Cry. I’ve played through Painkiller, however, almost twice.
Actually, now that you mention it, I think you’re right. He’s not one of the five ‘puzzle bosses’, is he? In fact, looking at the picture in the manual, I’m not sure if he actually is a vampire.
