Serious Sam 2 reviewed (Gamespot)

Gamespot reviews Serious Sam 2, and slaps it across the face with a 6.9 :(

Guess the game wasn’t really that much better than the demo.

Wow, a -0.1 on the 7-9 scale. It must have been universe-imploding bad to garner that score.

7-9 scale is IGN, not gamespot.

Ah, I guess that makes sense. I don’t read any review sites; I find it’s much more reliable to see what the people on this forum are saying about a game.

I’m posting my review later after I have a chance to test the online play, but I’m in the home stretch in the single-player game, and the tedium is setting in. It’s really no different from the first two games with maybe 5-10% of vehicles mixed in. It was fun for the first few hours, but as the pace is slowing down, I’m losing interest. I’m hoping there will be a few true OMG! moments at the end.

On the plus side, it’s absolutely gorgeous, especially in widescreen, and co-op play is awesome. The cutscenes are also completely off-the-wall goofy – some are funny, some are dumb, but they’re all so out-of-left-field that I find myself looking forward to each one. It’s just a shame that they’re done in that console-friendly resolution that looks crappy on PCs.

I thought lowering the PC MSRP to $30 was a really good idea on the part of 2KGames. It would be really, really hard for me to give this a strong rec at $50.

Really, that’s not even the point. It’s such a disappointment how it got rated as compared to the first 2 games of Serious Sam, not the absolute review score. Given that the first 2 games got scores of 8.9+, and one was awarded GOTY on Gamespot, I’d say it’s a disappointment that the sequel is rated “average”.

Actually, isn’t that raising the price to $30? The original was $20, straight out the gate (unless I’m remembering incorrectly).

Andrew, you’re right, the original games were both $20. But 2KGames had originally said Serious Sam II would be full price, because it’s a bigger game. In August, they announced that they’d changed the MSRP and lowered it to $30.

I remember laughing to myself when I first heard that Serious Sam 2 would be 30 bucks more then the original for the same gameplay. Do you think it would have gotten a higher score if they set it as the same price as SS1 ?

They should have taken the original engine, tweaked it a bit added the cool vehicles they have (come on… combine harvester, fly-mo and a spikey hamster ball? who cannot want to use those?) and used the same gameplay. Long corridors, huge courtyards and large rolling plains/hills packed with monsters was what its all about. The demo was nothing like that, and awful.

Well, if the game’s as close to the originals as people say, I can see the somewhat low review scores. It’s been a lot of years since the first Serioius Sam and I think a lot of people were expecting them to have advanced the gameplay in that time. For me, if it’s at least as fun as the original in co-op, I’ll absolutely buy it. I never expcected for Croteam to improve on anything but the graphics, really, and I don’t think it would still be Serious Sam if they did.

Isn’t the complaint that it’s not enough like the originals?

The complaint from the demo was. I haven’t read any reviews for the full game yet.

7-9 scale is IGN, not gamespot.

You’ve got to be kidding. Gamespot – and pretty much anyone who claims to use a 1-10 scale – is indeed the 7-9 scale. Go ahead, go check. I’ll wait here.

See?

-Tom

All too true.

Well, I’ve written a lot for GameSpot the past four or five years, and I use the entire scale. The past few months, I’ve given everything from a 2.6 to an 8.7 or something like that, including 4-5 games in the 5-6 range. Saying the scores are all 7-9 is just flat-out wrong.

Take a look at the page of their latest reviews:

7 of the 15 games on there fall outside the 7-9 range ( ranging from 3.1 to 6.9 and a 9.2 thrown in there).

Of course I’ll still never know what the difference is between a game that rates an 8.9 vs a 9.1. Anything beyond a 4 or 5 star rating scale is just journalistic masturbation.

These days I find myself interviewing a lot of candidates for DBA positions. I needed a way to quickly rate them for our HR. It seemed very natural, very organic, to use this scale:

5+: golden god, only spoken to 2 of these in my life
5: lead DBA, very strong, senior
5-: senior dba
4+: weak senior dba
4: strong junior dba
4-: junior dba
3+: weak junior dba:
3 and below: too weak for us

I didn’t sit down and think about it, I just needed a way to rate candidates. And I found myself using a set of ratings weighted between 3 and 5. Fucked up, no? Should be a scale between 1-3, or 1-5 using all the numbers. But it feels right.

Maybe that’s why most games score between 7 and 9, with rare exceptions… because it feels right.

Saying “saying the scores are all 7-9 is just flat-out wrong” flat-out misses the point.

But, yeah, Bet on Soldier got a 3.1 and Brett Todd claims to have personally given gaves a lower than 7 rating, so there goes my theory!

Well, yeah, I guess that’s one way to put it. :)

-Tom

Speaking of Bet on Soldier, its a game that is indeed quite rough but not THAT bad. I’ve found Jeff Gerstmans reviews tend to reveal that he either a.) rarely finishes a game completely for a review or b.) just doesn’t pay attention to details in his run for a deadline.