Methinks you might have missed the point. Nobody is saying that serious shooters can't be entertaining, but there is a very distinct difference in how a game like Bulletstorm defines "fun."run_forrest_run said:What exactly do you mean by "fun". Were all those serious shooters like Modern Warfare 2 not fun. You gave them high scores so you must have thought so. A game can be fun and serious. Just take a look at the first Half-Life or Bioshock. They were fun and they had more to them than a shouty man with sideburns kicking people.
Serious shooters get their entertainment value from being realistic, tactical affairs (though I'll admit that most of the Call of Duty players I've encountered throw tactics out the window).
Non-serious shooters (Bullestorm and Serious Sam, for example) get their entertainment value from pure, cathartic mass-murder. The story is usually ridiculous, it doesn't bother with the potential moral implications of your actions and it doesn't often present itself as "intelligent." That's not to say that the gameplay can't be extremely smart, as Unreal Tournament would gladly prove otherwise.
We have seen an onslaught of "serious" shooters over the last 5-6 years, and while they can be perfectly great games (I love you Half-Life 2), the glory of the "wacky" shooter has fallen by the wayside. This year is definitely heralding their return (Bulletstorm, Duke Nukem and Serious Sam 3? Holy shit), and I couldn't be happier. These games remind us that a game doesn't have to have a complex story and tactical gameplay to be entertaining: sometimes all you need is to kill everything that moves.
...this post turned out a lot longer than I expected.