• 141 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Deathstriker (322 posts) -

I finally got around to playing (and beating) Saints Row 3 this month and as someone who usually agrees with the guys (especially Jeff most of the time) I do think the show kinda overrates this game. This is obviously subjective, but it's pretty much the same game it has always been... it simply has changed and refined the craziness from the second game, but a lot of that is just in cutscenes. 90% of the missions are still drive from point A to B and kill everyone once you get there. Sure there are zombies, Burt Reynolds, Tron, wrestling, and other stuff, but for most of the game that doesn't affect the mission design or gameplay. I haven't played a wrestling game since the N64 days, but I hope that this being the "second best wrestling game of 2011" is a joke, since all you do is hit Killbane with a fake leg or whatever then go into a quicktime event a few times. The last Decker mission was interesting, but I encountered the glitch where he disappears and doesn't come back so I had to clear the cache from my 360 to finish it. This seems to be a popular glitch that a lot of people don't know how to fix. Anyway, I've somewhat enjoyed every Saints Row, including this one... my only problem is the idea that it's vastly different from the past ones when it's really the same game with a shiny new coat of paint. Them ranking a game that I think is around a 8.5/10 as the second best game of 2011 is pretty funny, but of course that's very subjective.

#2 Edited by Zacagawea (1600 posts) -

Nope, but I also haven't played any other Saints Row game before. Playing through all of it with a friend also probably made it way more fun too. Though that caused the game to be super fucking glitchy all the fucking time.

Also, welcome to the forums duder.

#3 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -
@Deathstriker: They use a 5 star scale not a 10 point one
#4 Posted by ShadowConqueror (3066 posts) -

Their hype is the only reason I have any desire to play it.

#5 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

yeah, but he's using his personal rating, not theirs. he rates it at 8.5 awhile they say its the 2nd best game of the year. he never mentioned their review score.

#6 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -
#7 Posted by newhaap (425 posts) -

I always thought the Saints Row games looked stupid and I'm not really into that GTA style of open world games, so I'm glad the guys talked it up a lot, otherwise I wouldn't have even given this game a second glance.

#8 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Oh yes. Hearing Jeff talk about SR3 is infinitely more fun than actually playing it.

#9 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

I bought it to play with a friend after playing 2 with him and The Third blew me away at how good it was and how goddamn funny it consistently is.

#10 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

No I don't because I have friends that hate GTA and open world games that are loving SR3. Its not always about content but execution and that's where the game shines it knows how to be funny and engaging but doing it smartly in ways that are fun for the player and not just out of sheer lunacy. Its madness with craft behind it.

#11 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Maybe the reason I hate saints row 3 so much is because I LOVE good open world action games. Playing SR3 just made me want to reinstall the god awful 20 frames per second PC ports of GTA4 and EFLC to get that nasty taste out of my mouth.

#12 Edited by Yummylee (22066 posts) -

Absolutely. The Third's a great game, but the way they gushing their juices over it still leaves me confused. To me it was mostly just another really great Saints Row game; it controlled better and the story missions were drastically improved upon and the voice acting and script was as great as ever, but there was a huge amount of content cut in the process, the story itself was weak, the city is a bloody bore to mess around in and is so damn lifeless and monotonous in comparison to Stilwater, Johnny Gat was barely in it, and the one SR game where I would of wanted to play through some story missions again, is the one where they remove the mission replayer/cutscene viewer.

For me it was 50/50 overall; a great Saints Row game, but it lost so much of what I enjoyed in SR2 for me to feel completely satisfied with the game as a whole.

Online
#13 Edited by Evilsbane (4649 posts) -

It is really good, not as good as they talk about it but it is a damn fun game but I think the review represented it well it wasn't overdone there but their personal opinions of it is very high and that is totally fine. It has so many good points that I totally understand their stance on it, the character creator alone was one of my top moments of 2011 it is Stellar.

#14 Posted by Animasta (14713 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

Maybe the reason I hate saints row 3 so much is because I LOVE good open world action games. Playing SR3 just made me want to reinstall the god awful 20 frames per second PC ports of GTA4 and EFLC to get that nasty taste out of my mouth.

funnily, that's the exact opposite of my view; GTAIV almost made me not want to play any more open world crime games again, but SR:TT showed me that they're still pretty dope

#15 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@Animasta said:

@MrKlorox said:

Maybe the reason I hate saints row 3 so much is because I LOVE good open world action games. Playing SR3 just made me want to reinstall the god awful 20 frames per second PC ports of GTA4 and EFLC to get that nasty taste out of my mouth.

funnily, that's the exact opposite of my view; GTAIV almost made me not want to play any more open world crime games again, but SR:TT showed me that they're still pretty dope

This. GTAIV was mediocre at best. SR3 is what GTA used to be... fun.

#16 Posted by Subjugation (4725 posts) -

Nope. They represented it accurately for me.

#17 Posted by LackLuster (732 posts) -

Nah they did ruin alot of it for me from talking about it so much but whatever

#18 Posted by Doctorchimp (4078 posts) -

GTA IV > Just Cause 2 > Saint's Row the third.

Deal with my opinion on a game I never played.

#19 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@Animasta said:

@MrKlorox said:

Maybe the reason I hate saints row 3 so much is because I LOVE good open world action games. Playing SR3 just made me want to reinstall the god awful 20 frames per second PC ports of GTA4 and EFLC to get that nasty taste out of my mouth.

funnily, that's the exact opposite of my view; GTAIV almost made me not want to play any more open world crime games again, but SR:TT showed me that they're still pretty dope

That was my first reaction to GTA4. And I held that opinion for a couple years until I got around to playing a few other open world games from this generation (mercenaries 2, just cause 2, red faction guerrilla, mafia 2, etc) and realized that Rockstar were the only ones who seemed to have a clue what they were doing when it came down to the actual content. I never knew how much I preferred something until I tried what else was out there.
 
I like to role play my open world games, and that seems fundamentally impossible in SR3 with so much insanity and non sequitors and impossible things. That's probably my main issue with SR3 and why I prefer Rockstar open worlders. Another large part is the driving controls and physics, which Mafia2 was the only other game to get part way right with its alternate driving option.
 
@Demoskinos said:

This. GTAIV was mediocre at best. SR3 is what GTA used to be... fun.
You've never played it on PC with a trainer have you. Perhaps that's another reason why SR3 is bland: I've already had flying bikes and infinite ammo and explosive pistols and all that shit.
#20 Posted by Landon (4152 posts) -

I honestly don't see why they love it so much. It's a terrible game with a few great cutscenes and a few great missions. The shooting is bad, the open world is bland, 90% of the missions are forgettable. Everything is expensive as hell and even after buying all the buildings in the game it still takes way too long to accumulation enough money to buy any meaningful upgrade, meaning you'll only be unlocking infinite ammo and no reload far after you've finished the game and all the side missions leaving you with nothing to do with all of this new power. Pile all of this on top of brain dead AI who take way too many bullets too shoot because there isn't enough money to upgrade any of your stupid guns.

I feel that Saints Row: The Third and Just Cause 2 are two half of the same game. Just Cause 2 had really fun shooting, tons of crazy destruction, and a lot of fun cars and planes to fly. Not to mention the game looked great (even on consoles it looked super sharp) and the world was fun to explore. But JC2 had absolutely terrible missions. It was simply more fun to dick around in the world than actually play the story.

Saints Row, on the other hand, had the fun missions (at least a few of them) and some great vehicles to drive (mostly just the planes). If they combined Just Cause 2 and Saints Row 3, I think that could be a truly great open world game.

#21 Posted by me3639 (1794 posts) -

No, its simply a game that came out at the right time. Squeezed in the middle of all those AAA titles that were much more dark and serious SR3 scratched a different itch no other game was providing.

Online
#22 Posted by Animasta (14713 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

@Animasta said:

@MrKlorox said:

Maybe the reason I hate saints row 3 so much is because I LOVE good open world action games. Playing SR3 just made me want to reinstall the god awful 20 frames per second PC ports of GTA4 and EFLC to get that nasty taste out of my mouth.

funnily, that's the exact opposite of my view; GTAIV almost made me not want to play any more open world crime games again, but SR:TT showed me that they're still pretty dope

That was my first reaction to GTA4. And I held that opinion for a couple years until I got around to playing a few other open world games from this generation (mercenaries 2, just cause 2, red faction guerrilla, mafia 2, etc) and realized that Rockstar were the only ones who seemed to have a clue what they were doing when it came down to the actual content. I never knew how much I preferred something until I tried what else was out there.

I like to role play my open world games, and that seems fundamentally impossible in SR3 with so much insanity and non sequitors and impossible things. That's probably my main issue with SR3 and why I prefer Rockstar open worlders. Another large part is the driving controls and physics, which Mafia2 was the only other game to get part way right with its alternate driving option.

@Demoskinos said:

This. GTAIV was mediocre at best. SR3 is what GTA used to be... fun.
You've never played it on PC with a trainer have you. Perhaps that's another reason why SR3 is bland: I've already had flying bikes and infinite ammo and explosive pistols and all that shit.

If you need a trainer to make it fun than maybe it's not that fun, also your role playing comment confuses me, if you could give an example that would be super. I'm not saying GTAIV is not good, not even saying that it's not great to some people, but I find it dreadfully boring and it controls like ass and it's so goddamn slow

#23 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

I think that it has a lot to do with how much the game stands out. Both I and the bombcast crew play just a whole shit-ton of games that are competing for the same bloody marketspace. SR3 has colour, surprises, gameplay setpieces, a unique character and style...things that are lacking in most other major game releases. SR3 is one of those games that reminds you "oh hey yeah, video games are awesome!" after keeping up with new releases has felt like work for 6 months.

The only time that I ever felt overhyped was during the boring stuff early on. Basically from DeckersDie onwards I was having an experience just as magical as the one that the crew reported.

#24 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

@Animasta said:

@MrKlorox said:

Maybe the reason I hate saints row 3 so much is because I LOVE good open world action games. Playing SR3 just made me want to reinstall the god awful 20 frames per second PC ports of GTA4 and EFLC to get that nasty taste out of my mouth.

funnily, that's the exact opposite of my view; GTAIV almost made me not want to play any more open world crime games again, but SR:TT showed me that they're still pretty dope

That was my first reaction to GTA4. And I held that opinion for a couple years until I got around to playing a few other open world games from this generation (mercenaries 2, just cause 2, red faction guerrilla, mafia 2, etc) and realized that Rockstar were the only ones who seemed to have a clue what they were doing when it came down to the actual content. I never knew how much I preferred something until I tried what else was out there.

I like to role play my open world games, and that seems fundamentally impossible in SR3 with so much insanity and non sequitors and impossible things. That's probably my main issue with SR3 and why I prefer Rockstar open worlders. Another large part is the driving controls and physics, which Mafia2 was the only other game to get part way right with its alternate driving option.

@Demoskinos said:

This. GTAIV was mediocre at best. SR3 is what GTA used to be... fun.
You've never played it on PC with a trainer have you. Perhaps that's another reason why SR3 is bland: I've already had flying bikes and infinite ammo and explosive pistols and all that shit.

No and why should I have to? The base game should be fun enough to warrant play by itself. Mods are just an extension of that fun. If you need mods to have fun with a game then its a shit game.

#25 Posted by ahgunsillyo (456 posts) -

Slightly. I felt that they made it seem like it was a lot easier to get the more interesting and potentially game-breaking upgrades (VTOL drop, various forms of invincibility, no reloading) than it actually is, and I didn't think that the wrestling sequence was nearly as awesome as they did, but I still had a bunch of really stupid fun with the game.

#26 Posted by Zealousadonis (133 posts) -

I agreed with them. I went into the game expecting insanity and I got what I wanted. I thought it controlled really well especially compared to the second one, and I had a blast.

#27 Edited by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -
@Animasta: I never said I needed a trainer to make it fun. I said I used a trainer to do fun shit that SR3 "adopted" into their game. 
 
And by role-playing I mean not doing missions until it's the proper time of day, eating once or twice daily, not shooting random peds or jacking cars just to get somewhere, going to bed if I've done too many things in one 24 hour period, obeying traffic lights, cycling through which friends to hang out with, etc. I play how I would expect Niko Bellic or whoever to act if it was real life. There's way too much of a disconnect with the world when you try to play SR3 like that, with how zany and ridiculous everything is. I even played through San Andreas like that a couple times, and while there's some ridiculousness (the Truth missions) it's relatively grounded in the real world.
 
Yeah the slowness makes the controls seem extra fucked up, but it also makes it fit into my preferred playstyle all the better. The cars aren't slow, unless you compare them to other videogame cars. Hell, I still can't think of any other game that treats physics based objects like they have actual mass the way RAGE games do. The main story does drag on too long, but the episodes leave you (me) wanting more in that regard.
 
@Demoskinos said:

@MrKlorox said:

@Demoskinos said:

This. GTAIV was mediocre at best. SR3 is what GTA used to be... fun.
You've never played it on PC with a trainer have you. Perhaps that's another reason why SR3 is bland: I've already had flying bikes and infinite ammo and explosive pistols and all that shit.

No and why should I have to? The base game should be fun enough to warrant play by itself. Mods are just an extension of that fun. If you need mods to have fun with a game then its a shit game.

Reading is fundamental. I never said trainers were necessary to have fun. I said a fuckton of the shit folks say is fun about SR3 is possible in GTA, using tainers. And your statement is true, hence SR3 is a SHIT. GAME. because I kept waiting for it to get fun through out the whole thing. I guess I need trainers to finally enjoy it. I'm sure this stuff is new to you, and congratulations for finally getting to do it. But it's old fucking hat by now for me.
#28 Posted by Ubersmake (754 posts) -

I actually ended up considering, then buying the game (during the infamous holiday Steam sale), because of the talk it got on the Bombcast. I'm not disappointed with my purchase.

I think another review, whose source I can't remember, summed it up best for me: Saints Row 3 realizes that you're going to be a dick when you play the game, and totally runs with it. And having played a lot of games that took themselves (too?) seriously this year, having one that allowed me to let loose my inner jerkface was refreshing.

#29 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4896 posts) -

Nope. It's (pretty much) as good as they say it is.

#30 Edited by Marz (5658 posts) -

actually it kind of did, giantbomb dudes seemed to dig it alot so i thought it was a good investment.... but i played the game up till you got the pimp with the Autotune and just wasn't having fun anymore... it probably gets better but the humor wasn't hitting me and the shooting is meh. I'll probably pick it up again till i'm done playing other games but i really wasn't blown away by it.

#31 Posted by mazik765 (2315 posts) -

They didn't hype it enough.

#32 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -

Yeah Im really unsure about getting this game now.... 

#33 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

@Deathstriker said:

I finally got around to playing (and beating) Saints Row 3 this month and as someone who usually agrees with the guys (especially Jeff most of the time) I do think the show kinda overrates this game. This is obviously subjective, but it's pretty much the same game it has always been... it simply has changed and refined the craziness from the second game, but a lot of that is just in cutscenes. 90% of the missions are still drive from point A to B and kill everyone once you get there. Sure there are zombies, Burt Reynolds, Tron, wrestling, and other stuff, but for most of the game that doesn't affect the mission design or gameplay. I haven't played a wrestling game since the N64 days, but I hope that this being the "second best wrestling game of 2011" is a joke, since all you do is hit Killbane with a fake leg or whatever then go into a quicktime event a few times. The last Decker mission was interesting, but I encountered the glitch where he disappears and doesn't come back so I had to clear the cache from my 360 to finish it. This seems to be a popular glitch that a lot of people don't know how to fix. Anyway, I've somewhat enjoyed every Saints Row, including this one... my only problem is the idea that it's vastly different from the past ones when it's really the same game with a shiny new coat of paint. Them ranking a game that I think is around a 8.5/10 as the second best game of 2011 is pretty funny, but of course that's very subjective.

Remember that Jeff played it before anyone knew anything about the game, without any expectations. He was in for a big surprise. What should have tipped you off was Brad's reaction that it was a pretty mediocre game since he was the only one who played it after being told a bunch.

#34 Posted by Deathstriker (322 posts) -

@nintendoeats said:

I think that it has a lot to do with how much the game stands out. Both I and the bombcast crew play just a whole shit-ton of games that are competing for the same bloody marketspace. SR3 has colour, surprises, gameplay setpieces, a unique character and style...things that are lacking in most other major game releases. SR3 is one of those games that reminds you "oh hey yeah, video games are awesome!" after keeping up with new releases has felt like work for 6 months.

The only time that I ever felt overhyped was during the boring stuff early on. Basically from DeckersDie onwards I was having an experience just as magical as the one that the crew reported.

I still don't see what's all that unique about SR3 other than the craziness, which is mainly cosmetic. Asura's Wraith is clearly a different type of game, but its craziness seems to do a better job of affecting its gameplay, story, and other fundamental aspects. SR3 is "dumb fun", which is nice to have next to the serious and epic games like Skyrim and MW3, but having it as the number two game of the year beating Gears 3, Portal 2, Batman, etc is hardly justified to me. There's a difference between someone's "favorite" games and what they think the "best" games were. Also, I didn't think the game was THAT funny, I laughed maybe two or three times... I would easily say that Portal 2 is funnier. Zimo wasn't funny at all and he randomly disappears, Burt Reynolds was hardly in the game, and the voice I chose was okay but I'd rather hear other characters like Nathan Drake talk. I am curious if the people loving this one played the other two and how they felt about those, because it's not a HUGE difference at all.

#35 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@MrKlorox said:

@Animasta: I never said I needed a trainer to make it fun. I said I used a trainer to do fun shit that SR3 "adopted" into their game.

And by role-playing I mean not doing missions until it's the proper time of day, eating once or twice daily, not shooting random peds or jacking cars just to get somewhere, going to bed if I've done too many things in one 24 hour period, obeying traffic lights, cycling through which friends to hang out with, etc. I play how I would expect Niko Bellic or whoever to act if it was real life. There's way too much of a disconnect with the world when you try to play SR3 like that, with how zany and ridiculous everything is. I even played through San Andreas like that a couple times, and while there's some ridiculousness (the Truth missions) it's relatively grounded in the real world.

Yeah the slowness makes the controls seem extra fucked up, but it also makes it fit into my preferred playstyle all the better. The cars aren't slow, unless you compare them to other videogame cars. Hell, I still can't think of any other game that treats physics based objects like they have actual mass the way RAGE games do. The main story does drag on too long, but the episodes leave you (me) wanting more in that regard.

@Demoskinos said:

@MrKlorox said:

@Demoskinos said:

This. GTAIV was mediocre at best. SR3 is what GTA used to be... fun.
You've never played it on PC with a trainer have you. Perhaps that's another reason why SR3 is bland: I've already had flying bikes and infinite ammo and explosive pistols and all that shit.

No and why should I have to? The base game should be fun enough to warrant play by itself. Mods are just an extension of that fun. If you need mods to have fun with a game then its a shit game.

Reading is fundamental. I never said trainers were necessary to have fun. I said a fuckton of the shit folks say is fun about SR3 is possible in GTA, using tainers. And your statement is true, hence SR3 is a SHIT. GAME. because I kept waiting for it to get fun through out the whole thing. I guess I need trainers to finally enjoy it. I'm sure this stuff is new to you, and congratulations for finally getting to do it. But it's old fucking hat by now for me.

As I said in a previous post. Its not about content its about execution. SR3 made me laugh quite possibly more than any game I've ever played and its not because it has all this crazy stuff in it. Its because it uses all that lunacy to craft an experience that is a directed experience with purpose. I played Saints Row 2 which for all intents was pretty crazy in its own right but didn't have the authorship that focused the craziness into something that was genuinely entertaining.

#36 Posted by wemibelec90 (1747 posts) -

They didn't overhype it for me; they hyped it too much. Hearing about so many of the funny moments from the game kinda ruined a bit of it. Still had a good time with it though.

#37 Posted by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -

I definitely loved the cut scenes and the great combination of humor, tone, music, personality and straight up over the top ridiculousness. Yes Saints Row 2 was pretty ridiculous, but Saints Row The Third is just executed better. That and I felt being able to play a well made PC version day and date with the console versions (SR2 for PC was a shitty port that came out later than the console versions) also made a huge difference for me. Now the games definitely looks and plays well on consoles, but the frame rate is definitely not tremendous. There is definitely a significant difference between playing the game at 30 FPS vs. a constant 60 FPS. A big difference.

#38 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@spazmaster666 said:

I definitely loved the cut scenes and the great combination of humor, tone, music, personality and straight up over the top ridiculousness. Yes Saints Row 2 was pretty ridiculous, but Saints Row The Third is just executed better. That and I felt being able to play a well made PC version day and date with the console versions (SR2 for PC was a shitty port that came out later than the console versions) also made a huge difference for me. Now the games definitely looks and plays well on consoles, but the frame rate is definitely not tremendous. There is definitely a significant difference between playing the game at 30 FPS vs. a constant 60 FPS. A big difference.

Oh god yes. Man I got the PC version on the steam sale after already playing the 360 version to completion and man soooooo much better. DX11 goodness at 60fps.

#39 Posted by Neeshka (118 posts) -

GTA San Andreas > GTA4+episodes from liberty city > GTA 3 > GTA Vice City > Saints Row 3

imo

But SR3 is a lot of fun for a while

#40 Edited by spazmaster666 (1972 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Oh god yes. Man I got the PC version on the steam sale after already playing the 360 version to completion and man soooooo much better. DX11 goodness at 60fps.

You know, I've heard a lot of people say that 30 FPS is fine for most games, but those people probably haven't played a lot of games at 60 FPS. I think that Saints Row the Third has again proven that a smooth frame rate can go a long way in a making a game more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been. I played a little bit of GTA IV recently on the PC and man being able to run that game at 60 FPS is like night and day compared to the crappy frame rate in the console versions.

#41 Posted by GTCknight (702 posts) -

@Deathstriker: One word, nope.

Also just keep in mind that not every game appeals to everyone.

#42 Posted by Teran (877 posts) -

@Deathstriker: I don't think they over hyped it. They didn't mislead anyone with false information, it's just a matter of how in line your opinion is with theirs.

#43 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -

No it didnt its a fucking great game. You know what was a overhyped peace of shit just cause 2 fuck that game.

#44 Posted by Demoskinos (15019 posts) -

@spazmaster666 said:

@Demoskinos said:

Oh god yes. Man I got the PC version on the steam sale after already playing the 360 version to completion and man soooooo much better. DX11 goodness at 60fps.

You know, I've heard a lot of people say that 30 FPS is fine for most games, but those people probably haven't played a lot of games at 60 FPS. I think that Saints Row the Third has again proven that a smooth frame rate can go a long way in a making a game more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been. I played a little bit of GTA IV recently on the PC and man being able to run that game at 60 FPS is like night and day compared to the crappy frame rate in the console versions.

Oh for sure. The number one thing I wanna see out of console games next gen is everything running at 60fps. My eyes have gotten to the point where I'm constantly scrutinizing frame rate in games. Its hard to go back after you've seen the promised land.

#45 Posted by Deathstriker (322 posts) -

@Teran said:

@Deathstriker: I don't think they over hyped it. They didn't mislead anyone with false information, it's just a matter of how in line your opinion is with theirs.

There doesn't have to be false information for something to be overhyped or overrated. Yeah, it does have to do with how our opinions match, which is why I said it's "subjective" in the original post. However, everything on every gaming forum and website are opinion based/subjective other than news, so I don't see your point.

#46 Posted by SirPsychoSexy (1330 posts) -

After listening to them brag about it for weeks, I went and bought it. I immediately regret it, that game was shit, the gameplay was so fucking boring I can't believe I actually managed to finish it. Oh well, won't make that mistake again.

#47 Edited by Mahonay (829 posts) -

They just made me want to play the game more. As someone who just likes ridiculous dumb shit, the game lived up to every bit of hype Giant Bomb had built up during the Bombcast.

Even if I knew a few parts that were coming ahead of time that didn't stop me from having a huge grin on my face through most of that game. That was just a special game that doesn't come around very often anymore. The game play was kind of whatever, but it's the madness built around it that did it for me.

It would have been my personal game of the year if it weren't for Skyrim.

#48 Posted by phantomzxro (1578 posts) -

Not really, i got hype for the game with the ads alone and i enjoy the game alot. I just don't think i loved the game as much as them. because i feel Saint row 3 has some growing pains the game play was great but story-wise and character wise i feel saint row 3 was a step down. Also a lot of the side missions were cut or turned into main missions of the game. So i hope for saint row 4 they can bring back the great story and characters moments rather then everyone being very one note.

#49 Edited by CptBedlam (4453 posts) -

I'm instantly cautious when Jeff really likes a game. Often I find myself completely at odds with his taste in games.

To me their hype, mainly fueled by Jeff, comes down to him liking crazy stuff, shooting stuff and watching stuff explode. I didn't play this game and I have absolutely no desire to change that but everything I've seen and heard about sounds pretty boring to me (including the fact, that at some point you are invincible or something).

Trackmania is pretty fun to watch, though. But I also find it weird how he spends his time playing games he apparently does not enjoy a lot. He looked bored playing shooters like COD on TNTs, I'm pretty sure he doesn't enjoy Star Trek or SWTOR but yet he plays those games. Maybe it's time for him to try out new genres in order to find new enjoyment in playing games.

#50 Posted by MrCaptain (365 posts) -

I played it before I heard the bombcast, but when I heard it I agreed to everything. Except that its not GOTY.

I cant really understand the talk about it just being a refined SR2, I played that game and I got bored of it after the main missions. In SR3 I got 100% completion because nothing in that game ever got boring (except the challenges, those where kind a hassle). Now Im completing the game again in co-op with a friend for Giant bomb. This game is awesome.