Looking back on last year’s Giant Bomb Top 10 list, I couldn’t help but think about the similarities between Saints Row: The Third and Far Cry 3. Neither was a total unknown before release, but there didn’t seem to be a great deal of anticipation for either until reviews started to appear with stories of the ridiculous situations that players may find themselves in. Obviously both games have solid open-world gameplay, but what really make these two games stand out are the memorable bizarre moments, both scripted and emergent.
So, Giant Bomb, take your pick. Which is the better experience?
Is it jumping out of a chopper to Kanye’s “Power” or torching pot fields to Skrillex? Is it calling in Burt Reynolds to help mow down the zombie horde or is it releasing a flaming tiger to maul everyone in an enemy outpost? Is it fighting through a virtual world as a toilet or is it trying to kill a shark with a jet-ski before resorting to a rocket launcher instead?
It's Far Cry 3.
I don't hate Saints Row The Third, but I don't think it's much better than an OK game either. It starts on a really good note and keeps getting better... until after the whole jumping out of a helicopter thing and then the game starts a downward spiral of not-funny humor and average gunplay.
Far Cry 3 also hits a downward spiral but it's nowhere near as sharp and the gunplay remains fun throughout.
SR3 is miles better. Far cry 3 is a fun game, but it also has a ton of problems and strange/poor design decisions. The most direct failing it has, compared to SR3, is that its story is completely at odds with its gameplay, whereas in saint's row they support each other very well.
i got saints row the 3rd for christmas last year and was hooked till the very end, i'm not one to finish games, i usually get bored or frustrated then it goes in the backlog but saints row hooked me like no other has for as long time. this year its sleeping dogs that has done the same.
i love the gameplay, the fighting and story as well. the dlc looks to be fun as well
I haven't got to FC3 yet, but SR3 certainly is one of my favorite open-world/sandbox experiences of the past year or two, if only because of the sheer absurdity of what that game is. I agree with @Riboflavin, in that the gameplay and story of SR3 are nicely matched.
I think both are perfect 10s personally but I'll give the edge to Saint's Row because it's funny and I think humor is one of the hardest things to pull off in a video game - or at least that's what I'm led to believe by how few funny games there are out there.
SR3 is fun fun fun. FC3 is fun fun fun
This is the key to both of them afaik.
if only far cry 3 looked better on consoles, then i might have given it the edge. honestly, they're just as fun as eachother, in that sandbox way. i'm all about acquiring new items, weapons, and customization. sr3 scratches that itch a bit more, but the shooting in far cry is more pleasing. in any case, i doubt i'll be returning to either for a second playthrough after i try out all the guns and collect everything. if youre a "collector" like me and vinny, id go for far cry 3.
Far Cry 3 probably, but I've had a shitty technical experience with it so haven't played much of it.
I just really didn't like a lot of the pacing or gameplay in Saints Row. It was about 30 hours too long, the side missions (many of which were used to pad out the campaign) were awful with the exception of the killhouse one, which was just kinda boring.
Far Cry 3 starts out brilliantly, but for me, the whole game turned sour with the very weak storytelling, the lack of gameplay once the outposts are cleared, and it's utter shit characters like Dennis and Citra. I really have no drive to return to that game, although it had wonderful and brilliant gameplay scenarios.
I haven't played Far Cry 3 yet so my question is, is there more to it than what they have shown in all the videos the crew made of it? Is it more than a well made shooter on a well made jungle island?
I kind of just don't care about jungle environments anymore, i never really got into the original Far Cry or Crysis and if it's just a shooter then that's just not enough to capture my attention for a long time. Like how much is there in terms of side stuff common in other open world games?
SR3, no doubt about it. Far Cry 3 starts spectacularly, but runs out of steam pretty quickly and by the time you're halfway through the game, everything becomes a chore. The characters are bland, and the very few that are not are handled extremely poorly (I'm looking at you, Vaas). Climbing the towers and liberating the outposts is fun the first few times, but do it ten times and it becomes extremely repetitive.
I like Far Cry 3 quite a bit, but a lot of the enjoyment I get out of the game seems to be in spite of itself. As someone said earlier, often the best parts of FC3 are the parts that have the least to do with the overarching story. SR3 on the other hand, stays consistently good and has a great gameplay and story payoff at the end.
In my break down
awesome gunplay ( I loved the AK used it almost through the whole thing also the bow)
Stealth lite super fun
stunning visuals(even on the much shat upon XBOX version0
awesome bad guys(vaas and buck)
Story is meh
open world activities were ok for an open world game
Saint row 3
Gunplay and overall combat was ok(DILDO BAT and EXPLOSIVE BULLETS)
Excellent cast of Characters (Main was a female, Excellent cast of Characters (Main was a female, russian, B F'n R, Hulkster, Kinnsey)
Open world activities were ok
Story was kind of simple but the places they took the story were nuts
Near end mission awesome-ness(Running to where you need to go to the tune of "I need a hero")
I know this is probably not true but I felt that 90% of Far Cry's open world stuff boiled down to animal encounters, and 90% of Sr3 was just to get to mission points. My favorite open world game as far as making use of the open world is Red Dead Redemption with its dynamic(albeit limited) random encounters with people as you roamed the world.
To me the 2 games offer different experiences I came out of SR3 really enjoying the characters and situations that occured in the game, and I came out of farcry 3 feeling more like I was an empowered badass that Silently bow killed a guy, jumped off a cliff to get 2 more guys, snuck up behind another and stabbed him while chucking his knife at another.
Neither game I felt really lent itself to a 2nd playthrough of the story though.
so Verdict is
Farcry 3 for badassery and SR3 for the ride
Overall though I enjoyed sr3 overall
Nope but it never claimed to or teased promise with an incredible villain. Which is exactly what Far Cry 3 does. It has one of the most menacing villains ever and completely fucking SQUANDERS him in favor of a "white man saves poor primitive island tribe" bullshit story. Saints Row strove for a story that was funny and maintained it pretty well the entire way through. Far Cry 3 started off with a really cool psychological spin and then threw that shit away in favor of standard FPS garbage. It's a huge bummer. Saints Row The Third wasn't. The end.
Because saint's row 3 had such an amazing story eh guys.....
Browse BoardsJump to Top
Please Log In to post.