Talk:Serious Sam (video game)

Untitled
I'm moving the Sequel category to its own page, Serious Sam II, as more and more media and information is being released for the game each week and it will be released within a few months.

--Rodzilla 18:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Divide and improve
This article should be about SS:FE or SS:SE. Separating them shoul improve it's quallity, don't you think?
 * In my opinion: The article is not yet ready for division between the two encounters. Much of the content is shared between the two, therefore there isn't much to separate. What the article needs before division is more information: afterall, it could use some detailed Plot or Story, well-descripted Weapons, and expanded and better formatted Enemies section. After these are achieved, I will certainly opt for this division between the two encounters. As a longtime online Serious Sam gamer, I will now try to slowly contribute to the development of these sections, but of course, any help would be appreciated as it would speed up the process. In conclusion, I'm saying "Don't divide and improve yet but add and divide first." Best regards, 70.25.168.90 20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Serious Sam gold edition
no mention was made of Serious Sam gold edition, i dont know much about it other then it was a double pack includeing both serious sam first and second encounter, the box included some merchandise extras (a sam sticker or something...) but im not shure if it included any software extras.

--Joe dude 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Enemy section
Should there be an enemy section? I mean, there is a separate article about them.T-borg 10:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given there is already and existing article about SS enemies, I think the contents of the enemies section from this article should be merged into Serious Sam Enemy biographies and then safely removed from here. Berserker79 16:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should have an enemies section at all, not even in another article; most of the content is fit more for a strategy guide, not an encyclopedia. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking I'd agree with you, but Wikipedia already has articles such as List of enemies in Doom and others as well, so I don't think it would hurt to keep and expand this Serious Sam Enemy biographies. Obviously we should keep out the "strategy" details from the article (e.g. enemy hit points, enemy weakness, usual weapon and all that sort of stuff) and concentrate on a pure, brief description of the creatures. If I have some time I'll try to work on it myself and see if it works: in case it doesn't we can always remove it... :) Berserker79 08:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, will you be merging or anything else in any case?85.130.10.115 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we can keep the strategy guide elements out, then I have no problem with keeping this information; in fact, I've just finished merging the enemy info into the biographies article. Most of the enemy info that was here was already present in the biographies article, so there wasn't much to do with the merge. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Gallery
Hey, how about posting a Screenshots gallery in the article? That doesn't relate to strategy guides, does it? It'll just be a more accurate showing of how the game looks like. After all "A picture's worth a thousand words.", isn't it?

T-borg 16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

New version as of February 21st 2006
All right, maybe I've been too bold in my editing :), anyway I decided to put up a new version of the Serious Sam article. I reworked the original structure quite extensively: shortened the intro and moved most of its contents to later sections; created a Games section with games description and sub-sections for each of the games (including brief plot descriptions for FE and SE); added an Engine section where I've merged and extended the contents of the Serious Engine stub; added back the SE infobox.

Worked on the Trivia section as well: most of its contents were not fit for a Trivia section, so I remove dthem and integrated those contents into other sections.

So, see if you like it, suggestions/corrections/hints/constructive criticism are welcome as well as any edit you feel necessary. If you don't like it we can discuss whether or no to revert to a previous version. Berserker79 13:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not bad, Berserker79, not bad at all. Just needs some spelling checks. I'll take care of it.

T-borg 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that I very much appreciate your work, Berserker. I like this version much more than the previous.  Thank you.  And also thanks to T-borg for maintaining this article. --70.25.168.90 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive feedback and for hunting down spelling errors and typos. Glad the new version looks good. I thought it was time for some clean-up, but couldn't find a good looking way to split the article into a FE and a SE articles, there's simply not much info to create separate articles IMO. Berserker79 10:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey who got rid of what i wrote?
And why?

Dumoren 01:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that was me. Honestly I don't think adding a list of Sam's "one liners" adds any particular info to this article, besides the addition doesn't look particularly suitable for an "encyclopedic" style article. However we may add a couple as examples, maybe reword the intro sentence to something like: [...] the tone is lightened through humor, often in the form of one-liners by Sam, like "Who-hoo lets go bowling!" or "Double the gun, double the pleasure". Berserker79 12:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

i understand what you mean, i guess you also have to write in an encyclopedian way. Bu you gotta admit, some of those one linears were funny. "What are you waiting for, a one liner?"

Dumoren 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No doubt, Sam's one-liners are definitely funny! It will probably require to fully rewrite a part of the Humor section, but I think we can accomodate a few one-liners as examples: we just need to find out which are the funniest and would act as the most suitable examples. :) Berserker79 10:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, all of Sam's one liners are at Wikiquote, if you want people to find them, just add a link like this Serious Sam.T-borg 14:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's better than rewording the paragaph. I didn't think about WikiQuote, thanks for the suggestion! :) Berserker79 15:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good points, I guess wikiquote should have the most, but6 a few as examples are good enough. I came up with some that are prety funny:

"My flaming fists of fury will destroy you fiend! Ha ha ha...ow God, who writes this stuff!? "Hey! Didn't I kick your ass two rooms back !?" "Finally, some sci-fi mumbo-jumbo! "WOO-HOO lets go bowling! (definetly) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGHHHHHHHH yourself. uo oh "Oh, God. Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers!" "Not you again, who's your daddy"!

Netrisca in the second game of serous sam(on xbox) has a few funny things: "Sam listen to the digital womans voice in your head, go to the side temples". "As a old Japanese Hikue(sp) once said: He has a minigun, fears not".

what do you think?

Dumoren 23:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't like having these jokes spoilt in text. I think they belong in the game, where they are told in the proper situation. --70.25.168.90 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious Sam III
What about the third game in the series, has anyone herd anything about it?T-borg 14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The only information I have on SS3 is from this thread in the Serious Zone forums, originally from an interview with Croteam done by a Croatian PC gaming magazine. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It has not been officially announced, so unfortunately we can't write about it. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --70.25.168.90 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah, good point. Should of read the rules more carefully. Hope it does come out, or at least be announced this year. T-borg 17:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just remembered that the end video said "To be continued", so that must mean that a sequel is being planned, right? And yes, I know that it might not come out, and that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it's still intriguing ,right?T-borg 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the game did finish, with a "to be continued" line. Let hope that they can make the 3rd game, as good, fun and satisfying as the first game (Xbox), and hopefully fix the problems of the second. Not boud-mouthing the sequel, but as Greg Kasavin said in his gamespot review of Serious Sam 2: "Not as satisfying as the original." http://au.gamespot.com/xbox/action/serioussam2/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review Dumoren (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Weapons Section
Why not take it back? Star Wars Republic Commando also has a weapons section, and I don't see why Serious Sam shouldn't have one as well. If you do chose to take it back, you can always find my version of it a "couple" of edits back. Just copy-paste. IF you do accept, that is. ;)T-borg 12:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, it will have to be refined a bit, but it should do the trick, if accepted.T-borg 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or not. T-borg 12:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against a "weapons section", almost any FPS article seems to have one or a parent "List of weapons in XYZ game" article. I think we should avoid having such section talk about the usefulness of each weapon, pros, cons, etc... (because it would make the article sound like a "game guide") and better stick to simple descriptions. If you'd like, go ahead and restore the removed section, we can always work on it to make it suit our needs. Berserker79 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, better write a whole new Weapons section, my last attempt wasn't particularly Wikipedia material. I think we should take a vote on it, what do you say? T-borg 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the history page it looks like the previous "Weapons" section was removed because considered "game guide" stuff. It is probably a good idea to fully rewrite it, maybe you could try writing one on your sandbox and then ask a vote here, so that users may check it out, give suggestions and decide whether or not to include it in the article. Berserker79 07:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try. T-borg 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good for now, thow I still can't get it the way it should be. what do you think for now?

Weapons
Weapons marked with an asterisk can be found only in Serious Sam: The Second Encounter.
 * Military Knife
 * The Military Knife is a melee weapon. It's one of the two weapons each player starts a game off with. It can't be thrown at enemies, thow it does surprising ammounts of damage.
 * Shofield .45/TMAR(Techno-Magic Ammo Replenisher)
 * The Shofield pistol is equipped with a " Techno-Magic Ammo Replenisher", meaning that it is the only firearm in the game that doesn't need ammo, although it does need to be reloaded. It also can be used in pairs.
 * 'Bonecracker' P-LAH Chainsaw*
 * The 'Bonecracker' is the second melee weapon in the game. It uses a fuel-replenisher unit, similar to the TMAR of the Shofield, that produses fuel for the chainsaw for 10,000 years(as pointed out in the game). It's consep seems to be reminiscent of Dooms Chainsaw weapon.
 * 12 Gauge Pump Action Shotgun
 * The single-barreled shotgun is one of the basic weapons in the game, being faster and less damaging than the Double barreled shotgun it preseeds.
 * Double Barrel Coach Gun
 * The double-barreled shotgun is basicaly the more powerful version of the Gauge Pump Action shotgun. It is one of the slowest firing weapons in the game, as it has a manual reload system. Note that both shotguns as in real life are ineffective at long range, as they scatter the pellets in the shel.
 * M1-A2 Thompson Submachine Gun
 * A modified Thompson submachine gun, made compatible with the XM214-A's 5.56 mm bullets.
 * XM214-A Minigun
 * Arguably the most powerful weapon, that uses bullets, the minigun is one of the signature weapons in the game, along with the Serious Bomb, 'The Bonecracker', the Double Shotgun, and the SBC Cannon.
 * XPML21 Rocket Launcher
 * A standart rocket launcher, that uses 150 mm Inferno missiles as ammo.
 * MKIII Grenade Launcher
 * An infantry weapon with adjustable launching speed, that uses 40mm High Explosive rounds. It's grenades bounce from walls and explode on impact with live target.
 * XOP Flamethrower*
 * An experimental weapon which uses HV Napalm to damage it's targets.
 * RAPTOR 16 mm Sniper*
 * The sniper rifle is the most accurate long range weapon in the game. 16 mm Kevlar piercing bullets serve as ammo for this weapon.
 * XL2 Lasergun
 * The most futuristic weapon in the game, it uses X7 Power Sells for ammo. It damages opponents through it's four barrels, firing green laser charges.
 * SBC Cannon
 * The second most powerful weapon in the game, the SBC Cannon uses devastating rounds of HP urranium-filled cannonballs. It was ment to be used against the bosses.
 * Serious Bomb*
 * The Serious Bomb is the most powerful weapon in the whole game. It annihilates everything living (except the player, who is protected by a "Life-Preserving-Quantium-Field(TM)") within a radius of 700ft. It's size is considerable thow, a player is never able to carry more than 3 at a time, also this is the rarest weapon in the game.

PS: I'm thinking some pics of the weapons might be a good touch, don't you think? 'Cause I happen to have some of them.T-borg 11:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. It's a good start and I've expanded your version here, with some reformatting, text additions/editing and internal linking. Pictures would be a nice addition, but I fear they would enlarge the article to an excessive extent, requiring us to move the section to a dedicated article (just like for the enemies section). If you decide to upload the pics, remember to add the tag and a Fair Use rationale to each pic, to avoid the images be deleted by some "untagged image hunting bot". Berserker79 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you say "major impruvement"? The section looks great! Just did a few minor fixes to it. I say we update the main article ASAP. But a virus got to the pics of the weapons, and they're ruinned now.T-borg 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A pity about those pictures... :( Since you like the version on my sandbox as well, I'm going to insert it in the main article, next to "Enemies". BTW, thanks for the additional corrections and feel free to expand if you come across something missing in the descriptions. Berserker79 15:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and let's hope that some day Serious Sam will become a Featured Article. But, I guess, that will all depend on the contributors.T-borg 15:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

i think we should add Serious sam, the character himself
as the main image, who agrees?

Dumoren 07:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the article is about the game series, I believe it should be better to keep the box arts in the infoboxes and add a Serious Sam character pic somewhere else in the article if need arises. Also, we could consider writing something like Serious Sam (character) with all info dealing with the character (picture included). If we don't have enough material to write a stand alone article a new section dedicated to the character could be added here as an alternative. Berserker79 08:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment
The article should at least be nominated as Start class, if not even B-class, don't you think?T-borg 23:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this article is rather good, but I'd vote for a "Start" assessment; the F.E.A.R. (video game) article is much more developed and has only received a "B class" rating... BTW, we should look for sources to reference this Serious Sam article. Berserker79 07:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's another thing. Which parts of the article need sources? I didn't see any templates anywhere. T-borg 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no templates, but someone tagged the article with  . I think we should find sources for the tech details about the game engine, release dates of the various games and possibly something conferming some of the details in the "Games" paragraph. Berserker79 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Gamespot and IGN reliable enough?T-borg 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, Gamespot, IGN, Gamespy, etc... are considered reliable. BTW, I took the liberty to reformat the "Serious Engine" ref you added using one of the Wikipedia citation templates; if you don't like the use of these templates, just revert. Berserker79 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. We should be able to finish these tasks in no time at this pace.T-borg 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Awards
On Croteam's website, a number of awards the games earned are mentioned. Could someone check if there are any of them, notable enough to be mentioned in the article? Thanks. --May the Edit be with you, always. T- borg (drop me a line)  22:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added some of the major ones (Gamespot, IGN) to the section for The First Encounter. I know there were some for The Second Encounter also but I'm not sure exactly what, and it's time for a Christmas movie anyway, so yea...maybe later. --Rodzilla 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Added more
I've added more here and there. Parts that I think are relevant, to the description/outlines of the games. Gameplay differences, Climax developing SS:NE and just on the whole made a few differences, hope nobody minds. (Especially Rodzilla...lord of Seriously!) Also, would it be wise to add a link, or more info about Nitro Family having similar gameplay? In fact, I'm considering making a page on that to link to here. Also added a section on SS:XBOX as the gameplay mechanics make it a very different experience to play. --Fr3k3r 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ugh Zan III
What happened to the article on Ugh Zan III? The link on him now redirect back to Serous Sam. Was the article deleted, merged or what? And if so, where is all the info that was in the article? THe article had info like player opinions, quotes, game magazines opinions, etc.

Proposition
Shouldn't the article be named Serious Sam series? It does cover all of the games, afterall. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 16:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an independent article on Serious Sam II. So I believe the name of this article should be Serious Sam: First and Second Encounter though it partly contains information on Serious Sam II. Or, at least the pages on First Encounter and Second Encounter should redirect here, if there are any. Sohanz (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Ugh Zan
As the old Ugh Zan page went, I would like this added to the article. Ugh Zan means Evil Death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.148.197 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

what does mental look like?
hey does anyone know what mental looks like all ive seen is his hand in the next encounter if he hasnt made an appearance yet than they will have to make a serious sam 3 wont they afterall serious sam 2 ended with a "to be countinued"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola38501 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seperate Engine Article
Most other games have a separate article for their engine such as cryengine (Far Cry), cryengine 2(Crysis), cryengine 3 (Upcoming Console Games), quake engine (Quake), id tech 2 (Quake 2), source engine (Half Life 2), build engine (Half Life 2), Doom Engine (Doom), idtech 3 (Quake 3), idtech 4 (DOOM 3), and many many more.

Since the Serious Engine, and newer version such as Serious Engine 2, and Serious Engine 3 are being used for software that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Serious Sam Series I think that it is inappropriate to have this article merged with the game Serious Sam, and I think the previous engine articles set a precedent for this opinion. According to Croteam the Serious Engine 2 is being used for at least 10 games, 3 that have been released.24.65.95.239 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
The Serious Sam Forever section bases its information on dead links to pages of a site whose main page displays an Apache startup notice. I'd like some input before removing it. —Admiral Norton (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like a joke. The graphics in the trailer are taken from previous games. The name is probably a reference to "Duke Nukem forever", which never came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.143.191 (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else thinks this is fake: Duke_Nukem_Forever But the prophetsofsam website now seems to be up.--202.83.40.125 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The site is up with an interview for casualgameinformer.com. Looks like a mod for Serious Sam 2. Quote from the interview: "Serious Sam Forever is a total conversion for Serious Sam 2, meaning you will have to own Serious Sam 2 to be able to play Serious Sam Forever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.157.228 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel like this is little more than a fan mod. --Hullubulloo (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of information
Serious Sam III (Serious Engine 3): "So far, there is no information as to what consoles the game will appear on or if it will appear exclusively on the PC."

and then

Serious Sam HD: (Stated as being on Xbox and PC) "The game will be an original Serious Sam remake done in Serious Engine 3."

Serious Sam vs. Serious Sam HD
Are there any changes in Serious Sam HD except for the HD part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarities with Duke Nukem not notable?
Both the humor and the looks are quite along the lines of what you get from Duke Nukem 3D, is this not notable at all? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, also someone put "Serious Sam Forever" in the series browser at the bottom. What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.2.107 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Lack of mentioning Serious Sam 2
I'm confused. I've only just noticed that this series page fails to mention Serious Sam 2, but mentions the upcoming sequel coming after both episodes of HD. I know that SS2 has it's own page, but why has this series page ignored it, but mentions the spin offs by Climax and the Forever mod?

SS2 should at least have a listed description and link to the main article page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.196.153 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Undercode
The 3 instrumental songs featured in SS:SE are instrumental of Undercode... but what are the names of the 3 original undercode songs? 203.59.42.26 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Typos
It says it's PlayStation 2... but it's not listed in the info box?

Requested move 6 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Anyone who feels this article should be split can follow the guidance at WP:SPLIT, or just boldly do it if they believe it to be uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 22:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Serious Sam (video game) → Serious Sam: The Second Encounter – There is already another page dedicated to Serious Sam: The First Encounter, as this page is mostly about The Second Encounter, changing the title of this page back to Serious Sam: The Second Encounter would not confuse the readers. Typhoon966 (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose/Split instead. While I agree with the rationale that TSE should have a separate article like TFE already does, I think that it would be easier to just split the content relevant to TSE and move that to the separate article, then redirecting this page to the series' article. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean, copy and paste all the content relevant to TSE back over to the page titled Serious Sam: The Second Encounter? I thought of doing that, but I thought I'd request a move first before doing so. Typhoon966 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. TSE is just half (or less) of this article, so splitting is the better option here. If anything mentioned here is missing from TFE's article, that content should also be transferred there. See also WP:PROPERSPLIT for notes on how to correctly attribute splits. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Split per the discussion points above. It makes no sense to have both Serious Sam and Serious Sam (video game) both serving as franchise pages. It even seems to be causing confusion based on  three posts up. (But,, you might just want to wait for this RM to be officially closed.) -2pou (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.