I agree though they are so different in other respects I wouldn't go so far as to say, "If you loved Doom I promise you'll love Painkiller."

Serious Sam is another monster entirely, pardon the pun. It's really it's own genre of over the top FPS.

As someone who loved Doom and Duke Nukem 3d, I highly recommend the Serious Sam games and first Painkiller. I discovered Serious Sam as a recommendation from a friend while Duke Nukem Forever was in the beginning stages of development hell and had a great time with it. Painkiller I played more recently and liked it also.

No, just no!

i only played Painkiller out of those two and it is missing a crucial factor of the old-school shooter: those game were not just about shooting stuff, they were adventures as well. Doom and its clones had a reputation of being "dumb games where you just shoot stuff", but keep in mind that they were only "dumb" compared to PC-standards. If you compare Doom to a role-playing game or a strategy game it really is very simplistic, and the entire story is just contained in the manual, there is no story during the campaign.

However, when you look at the games themselves they were actually very intelligent. The levels were very maze-like, you had a lot of secrets and enemies were placed in a very intelligent way. calling Doom a "dumb game where you just shoot stuff" is actually a great disservice to the genius of the developers and designers. There is a lot of depth in the game, but the depth lies in twitch reflexes and clever use of resources.

Painkiller is really just a "dumb game where you just shoot stuff", it is pretty much just a shooting gallery. For instance, enemies are no longer placed cleverly, they wait until you enter a "bubble", then they keep spawning in waves until you cleared all the waves. The levels are no mazes, they are just corridors with bubbles. the levels are not connected in any thematic way. if a shooting gallery is all you want then painkiller is great, but it is nothing like Doom.

Doom was a role-playing experience, at least as much as a shooter can be. You really felt like you were taking back an overrun region, one part at a time. Enemies would wait in ambush for you or they would be roaming the levels. You were not just given the right amount of ammo, you had to look out for hidden caches and preserve you powerful ammo. When you got hit you had to live with the consequences, you didn't magically heal after killing the last enemy on the screen. Since there were no bubble you could blast in guns blazing or be stealthy and try to take out enemies from behind the corner. There is just so many ways you can play Doom.

Drat! Now this makes me feel really old :( But I'll be damned if I don't still enjoy me a run through hell XD
Indeed, they do. Your primary goal is to beat the level, and they are designed around maximizing the enjoyment and challenge in this process. No story to speak of, and only enough realism that it doesn't get in the way of the fun :-)

I'm actually glad this thread was bumped, I could talk about this shit all day.

Not really. Both Painkiller and Serious Sam are too linear and rely too much on "You're not going anywhere till you clear the whole room pal!" At times, what with all the respawning that happens, you no longer feel like you are wandering dangerous places filled with dangerous monsters, but rather open areas which then turn into arenas. Especially in the case of Serious Sam, I feel like I'm playing a survival mode with waves.

Now, if you want twitchy action with lots of monsters, then both Painkiller and Serious Sam are fine games. But saying that these games are the spiritual successors to Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, etc., I just say no.