Squilookle said:
You know, I'd love to see a rant from someone who played both DNF and the new Serious Sam, pitting the two together in direct comparison to show why they succeeded/failed, and what aspects worked/didn't work etc.
I played both of these games and I can write you why I liked SS3 and didn't liked DNF that much, but it won't be necessary a rant.
What Serious Sam 3 did well was that it delivered a game with old school gameplay formula,which was up to modern quality standards. That it had the right balance between old and new. It was what you could call ''a good sequel''.
* Its story wasn't a bad rehash as in Super Mario games,but it didn't either presented a completely new story that ignored and undid the story of the series's past games. While nothing that worth an oscar,it was a story good enough to what the game needed.
* Its gameplay featured some new features,but these new features ADDED to the original gameplay, instead of replacing the game's old features,so what players who played premier liked in the old games,found it in Serious Sam 3,and at the same times found some new things.
* It was a game that managed to reproduce the same good feelings older games of the franchise did, without feeling that much samey that it becomes a negative factor,as in some over-rehashed Nintendo games.
In conclusion Serious Sam 3 was a game that featured everything the fans loved in the older games of the series and expected,and even more than that.
The problem with Duke Nukem Forever is that it had an identity crisis. It was so different than Duke Nukem 3D that it couldn't please this game's fans,and at the same time it was so unfamiliar to players who never played and liked the original that it couldn't get them interested enough in playing it.
I've recognized what seems to be a pattern. When a game of a specific franchise comes out that is very different than the older games of that franchise,the franchise's fans will get disappointed by it because it doesn't provide the same kind of experience they were expecting, and when players who never have been fans of the series see the fans of the series say that a game is disappointing,they automatically assume that it's a very bad game so they won't even try it,even if it could be enjoyable to someone who never played the old games of the series.
Take a look at the Elder Scrolls series.
With each new installment on that franchise,a huge amount of players who played a prior installment will say that the new one isn't as good as the old one and is disappointing because it is much simplified. But at the same time the newer game of that series can be enjoyable to people who never played a game of the series before and blow their minds.
The point is,that when a franchise changes too much from installment to installment,there will always be people who wished that the series kept their favorite features of the previous installment,and will get disappointed or even hate on that new game,even if that new game could be enjoyable to some people. But that is not always the case.
Duke Nukem Forever changed way much from Duke Nukem 3D, which as expected made fans of Duke Nukem 3D to dislike it and hate it,but at the same time it didn't featured something special enough to make someone that DNF is his first game of the series to play, to like it enough.
Its this awkward moment when a game series that feature unique features and gameplay originality decides to drop to the ocean every original feature the series had and made them special,to become a homogenized copy of another game/s,namely Halo.
Those who would like to play DNF,would want so in order to experience a new experience,something different,something original. If gamers wanted to play something that plays like Halo,they would play Halo,the real thing who brought us health regeneration and weapon carriage limitation.They won't get interested in playing a Halo clone when they got the real and original thing in their hands. That was what the developers of DNF didn't understand.
Ripping off Halo's features doesn't mean that your game will sell as well as Halo did.
It wasn't health regeneration in particular that made Halo a successful game,health regeneration isn't a panacea. What did Halo a great game was that it offered something NEW and FRESH that we hadn't seen before. Halo's success factor was that it unveiled to us a completely new way to play games and that was what made it great,not the very specific new things that it introduced. The irony is that Duke Nukem 3D was also a great success in its time because it had the same factor: It brought new things to the genre we hadn't seen before.
One would say that the success factor is innovation. And yes,innovation can elevate an experience to new heights,and thus offer more sales,but for DNF to be well received and successful it didn't even had to be inventive. All it needed was to just KEEP ITS ORIGINALITY.
Because ironically what made DN3D special back then could even be considered refreshing in this time and age,because many of the things this game did are so long forgotten by the modern industry that could blow new gamers's minds.
You wanna know how DN3D felt back then ? Imagine a game with the interactivity and destructible scenery of Red Faction and Bad Company,the mind-boggling effect of Portal,and the replay value of a 3D Mario game where you have to collect 120 stars..
DNF is way less interactive than DN3D,its puzzles where boring and felt like they got in the way,and it had no replay value.
Another thing has to do about the tone and appeal of DNF,and how it is presented. Different than DN3D.
If Duke Nukem 3D was a movie,it would be like Alien with a couple of funny moments. A dark survival thriller with terrifying beasts that just happened to feature a few jokes in it.
If Duke Nukem Forever was a movie though,it would be an Austin Powers movie. A satirical comedy that features evil guys that are more comedic than horrifying.
Now Serious Sam might be the only hero and franchise we can compare to DNF because they both started as old-school gameplay shooters,but the difference is that while the essence of Serious Sam games IS to make fun and jokes on the industry,Duke Nukem's core was that it was a serious game on its main thing that JUST happened to feature a few jokes.
Now I'll agree with you that Duke Nukem as a hero was made up from cliches of 80's action movies,and as such the references in Duke Nukem 3D where relevant,as most people who would get to play it would be familiar with these 80's movies.And a thing that makes DNF out of place is that many of today's gamers won't be familiar with these 80's movies. The logical evolution would be that Duke Nukem Forever showcased some elements of more recent movies that the players would be familiar with,like perhaps Harry Potter,or Avatar,or something. That is the aspect of Duke Nukem as a character that could be conceived as irrelevant. But the interesting thing is that even if someone never had seen the movies that the game refer to,like me for example,would still be able to find Duke cool for what it was in Duke Nukem 3D. I hadn't seen the 'Evil Dead' movie,or 'They Live' when I played this game,but I still found the remarks taken from this movie smart and cool. Duke Nukem Forever features references that can only be considered cool or funny,or having anything special,by people who have experienced what Duke is referring to. If you never played Half Life,you would never find the lines "A crowbar could come in handy" or "I hate Valve puzzles" having anything cool or special.
In conclusion,the reason why Serious Sam 3 is better than Duke Nukem Forever other than just being funnier to play,is because Serious Sam 3 was a PROPER sequel,one that kept its originality and the things that made the series special,one that featured all the features those who played past games of the series were expecting to find,a game that felt like it was a continuation of the past games of the franchises.Duke Nukem Forever unfortunately didn't did that. It sacrificed its originality to become a Halo clone,things that made the series special were absent and the fanbase didn't found what it was expecting in it,and the game felt like a game of another series with Duke and his humor shoehorned in it.
If you are unfamiliar with the Duke Nukem and Serious Sam series,I can give you examples of other series that had the same huge fault DNF has,and SS3 doesn't.
The Sonic the Hedgehog series. Since they became 3D in order to copy and imitate the trend Super Mario 64 brought,they lost what made them special. The 3D installments of the series just doesn't offer the same feel and gameplay fun the old 2D Sonic games offered. Because not everything fits everyone.
On the other hand,look how Mario games keep featuring what has always made the series special. Well Mario might be a bad example because it goes WAY over that way than it is recommended, because obviously staying so true to originality that you somehow have to explain Princess Peach's 19th kidnapping is difficult... But even though,Mario fans like new Mario games.
A developer has to find the right balance between changing things for newer things and keeping things for originality. If a game is too different than an older installment,it will feel nothing like its past installment and could as well be named with a completely different title that doesn't relate at all to the past games. But if a game keeps re-using the same concepts and ideas way too much,it will start to feel like a remake or a rehash of the older installment. Duke Nukem Forever regarding that aspect,lost the balance. It replaced many things that fans wanted and expected to see in that game with new shit nobody was expecting to find in this game,making it feel like a game of a different series that somehow Duke got in to it. Serious Sam 3 on the other hand has the right balance about what should be changed and what not. It still features the features that made players love the series,and it still feels like an original Serious Sam game. At the same time it has a new chapter on story,some new guns,some new enemies,some new gameplay modes,new soundtrack and new graphics,which make it feel like a true Serious Sam game,but at the same time it doesn't feel that much of a rehash as some Mario and Zelda games. Serious Sam 3 plays how you would expect a game that came perhaps 2 years after Serious Sam: The second encounter would play,but with modern graphics and quality standards.
Duke Nukem Forever doesn't play as you would expect a direct sequel to DN3D would play,and it barely fits modern graphics and quality standards. The beneficial major factor here between these 2 games is that SS3 kept the originality of the series and offered to fans what they expected and loved but with modern quality standards,while DNF didn't kept the originality of the series and thus didn't offered the fans what they expected and loved,and it arguably had modern quality standards.
P.S. Sorry for this WALL OF TEXT,but having played both games I decided to be serious about this and analyze what and why.
