The enemies range from a giant walking fish skeleton to headless unity asset holding acme bombs and Sam's "jokes" are like comedy holocaust. Plus outside of the canon all the guns are generic crap from Doom and other boomer shooters.
and all enemies in Painkiller just walk at you slowly and have a melee attack. SOME enemies have a ranged attack like the scythe guys, but they immediately die after throwing it.
Sam at least forces you to do something in response to the enemy hoardes. With Painkiller you can comfortably stand still and occasionally sidestep damn near every fight.
I can agree with this. Painkiller has bunny hopping and more unique weapons with alternate fire modes, but it doesn't feel as good to mow down a horde of enemies as it does in SS. The weapons lack impact.
I don't know about better mechanics, the soul collection system, tarot cards and gold found from enemies are all just kinda there and don't really engage with anything.
Bunny hopping makes for better movement and the weapons are more nuanced but the enemies are so shit that it doesn't matter. And then in Serious Sam the movement is just gliding around at an angle and the weapons are so basic and feel like nothing but the enemies are so good and work so well with it that it ends up being fun anyway.
and that's why Painkiller suffers more. It has a lot of shit in it but the game doesn't demand the player to engage with any of it due to the enemies being completely limp-dicked. Sam has less mechanics but it takes what it has and runs with it.
Ammo balance is pretty good in the first game too, it's just they go full retard in the later episodes.
Serious Sam no question. Painkiller is not even a boomer shooter its horde shooter rather. And its a shame because other aspects are great, like graphics, artstyle, music and ambience. I played Painkiller a lot when I was a kid but its so boring for me nowadays I couldnt pass even first boss
The original serious Sam games were like a budgetware version of Duke Nukem. In ways. But it also borrowed elements from Doom and has a wave-shooter element. They were sold at $29.99 or less back in the day and targeted as a B-tier game. I always liked them. Sadly never got into Painkiller. But i will go with Serious Sam.
>SS is better simply because it was the first
KISS Psycho Circus was probably the first "lock you in a room with a boatload of enemies until everything is dead, then proceed" FPS but a good chunk of it was still standard Doom-esque level design.
Both are one hit wonders, but out of the two? Painkiller, easily.
I think Serious Sam is much better. For starters it's a lot more challenging and varied in terms of encounter and level design.
The enemies range from a giant walking fish skeleton to headless unity asset holding acme bombs and Sam's "jokes" are like comedy holocaust. Plus outside of the canon all the guns are generic crap from Doom and other boomer shooters.
and all enemies in Painkiller just walk at you slowly and have a melee attack. SOME enemies have a ranged attack like the scythe guys, but they immediately die after throwing it.
Sam at least forces you to do something in response to the enemy hoardes. With Painkiller you can comfortably stand still and occasionally sidestep damn near every fight.
Serious Sam is by no means a one hit wonder. 2, 3 and 4 may be divisive for various reasons and questionable design decisions but they are all solid
Painkiller has better mechanics but worse gameplay, Serious Sam is the opposite.
I can agree with this. Painkiller has bunny hopping and more unique weapons with alternate fire modes, but it doesn't feel as good to mow down a horde of enemies as it does in SS. The weapons lack impact.
I don't know about better mechanics, the soul collection system, tarot cards and gold found from enemies are all just kinda there and don't really engage with anything.
Bunny hopping makes for better movement and the weapons are more nuanced but the enemies are so shit that it doesn't matter. And then in Serious Sam the movement is just gliding around at an angle and the weapons are so basic and feel like nothing but the enemies are so good and work so well with it that it ends up being fun anyway.
and that's why Painkiller suffers more. It has a lot of shit in it but the game doesn't demand the player to engage with any of it due to the enemies being completely limp-dicked. Sam has less mechanics but it takes what it has and runs with it.
Ammo balance is pretty good in the first game too, it's just they go full retard in the later episodes.
Serious Sam all the way
PainkilleR is edgy cringe. Serious Sam is historical and interesting
Serious Sam no question. Painkiller is not even a boomer shooter its horde shooter rather. And its a shame because other aspects are great, like graphics, artstyle, music and ambience. I played Painkiller a lot when I was a kid but its so boring for me nowadays I couldnt pass even first boss
they both suck
neither i was too busy playing real games
>Which side are you on?
The original serious Sam games were like a budgetware version of Duke Nukem. In ways. But it also borrowed elements from Doom and has a wave-shooter element. They were sold at $29.99 or less back in the day and targeted as a B-tier game. I always liked them. Sadly never got into Painkiller. But i will go with Serious Sam.
SS is better simply because it was the first. Also SS has a kind of classiness about itself.
Speaking of PK, now it's rarely remembered, but Painkiler was just one among quite a few SS-clones. It's just that PK was the best among those.
>SS is better simply because it was the first
KISS Psycho Circus was probably the first "lock you in a room with a boatload of enemies until everything is dead, then proceed" FPS but a good chunk of it was still standard Doom-esque level design.
Serious Sam is the closest thing to a 3D shmup so I’m going with Sam