I PM'd SnakeLinkSonic but I'll ask here anyways... need an invite for Berran Littlehouse
Edit: invite received!
Sometimes it's not really about the word itself, it's just about reaching into your bag of swear words and slamming out whatever you happen to find. For what it's worth, I've always considered you an equal-opportunity kind of asshole, and of course the community still loves you!
Do the servers have to be live to play it at all? Kinda like what happened with Assassins Creed not too long ago? Because if so, I'm out. I refuse to own a game that requires another machine to validate me playing a single player game while I'm playing it.
Thank you. People are against EA and Ubisoft online DRM, but not this. For me, I'm against anything that requires me to have any sort of online DRM in order to play and I pity gamers that are OK with this.
Good, pity me, I'll be playing games and enjoying myself. Enjoy your boycott, or moral outrage, or whatever it is you have.
Jeff says that the systems introduced in SR can forever improve open city games... but I don't really think it can. Jumping into cars extremely fast, traveling around the city in a VTOL jet, calling in air strikes early on in the game, upgrading weapons with unlimited ammo and no reloading, invincibility - none of those things can be applied to more open city games. These don't solve anything in the genre, they just solve things for SR. Imagine Niko launching himself into a car through the windshield at 100 mph? Imagine Vito from Mafia 2 doing that? Kind of silly, which helps SR greatly, but that's about it.
I found the gameplay in SR3 to be mostly boring (though with some notable exceptions). The game starts off strong gameplay wise and dialogue wise (albeit with some questionable story choices), then forces you to play one of every side mission. I fucking hated the side missions. At first there are thin bits of dialogue and plot attached to them that make them a bit more bearable, but those are all just "Hey, we need to expand our influence in the city with money, property, or followers". After that? There isn't much unique dialogue or story elements to them, and they are incredibly boring. Blowing up cars in the city with a tank? Pretty sure I've done that in another game. Flinging myself in front of cars for money? Not fun. Escort missions in a helicopter? Oh God what game am I playing. If the game is supposedly crazy, why am I doing such mundane things? Where is the unique, witty banter that I can find in the story? You know, the banter and creativity that supposedly makes this game the champion that it is? It's almost completely absent in these missions. So no, I don't want to do them.
Then there's the main story after the side missions. It felt like the pacing of the story was on speed, but other than that I enjoyed it, and loved the dialogue. That means that mission setups are interesting, and their conclusions can be interesting, but the gameplay in between is mostly the same old thing. You shoot people in the head with bullets, and try to hide behind cover. There are many interesting moments in the game that break away from this of course, like the end of the deckers.die mission, and I absolutely loved the wrestling and chainsawing, but moments like those don't last that long when compared to the rest of the game. As I said, most of the time gameplay meant popping people in the head and taking cover. Airstrikes, VTOL jets were fun but not necessary and not all too crazy (we've done airstrikes before in games, haven't we?). Other things Jeff mentioned, like the 8-bit tank, mega buster, playing as a toilet - those are just skins and models, and I really never understood why playing as a toilet was so praised so wildly. Anyways I completely agree with Ryan here - the game is too short, and the more exciting moments are even shorter. As in, linear modern military first person shooter short.
I am a huge fan of open world/city games. I've spent tonnes of time on GTA IV on the 360, and more recently on my PC (with mods like first person view, ingame simple trainers, etc.) Maybe that's why I didn't find SR3 to be fun. Who knows.
As for Skyrim - arguments against it I found to be somewhat valid. I didn't like how they kept saying that no quest lived up to the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion. While I think that's true, it shouldn't really be a knock against Skyrim, but high praise of Oblivion. There are few questlines in any game, SR3 included, that I have found to be as fun as that one. Anyways, the general point Jeff was making was that the "highs" in SR3 are very high, whereas the highs in Skyrim don't reach the same heights, which I agree with. Still, I've gotten over 150 hours of bliss with Skyrim, and with Saints Row I've gotten maybe 7 hours of bliss, and about 25 additional hours of completing side missions and other things which I really did not care for; the lows were pretty low in SR3. (But I kept playing because of the GB crew's high praise of the game). Vinny and Jeff's defense of SR3 was mainly just saying things that existed in the game, and calling it "fucking crazy", which had little substance to it... because I don't think the game was that off-the-wall crazy.
I'm also shocked that people are citing Brad's defense of Skyrim as outright "lying". Bullshit. How can you argue against someone who says their experience was not enjoyable? You say that you wander around Skyrim and find nothing fun, what in the holy hell can I say to disabuse you of that notion? "You're wrong"? No, I can't. All I can say is that my experience has not been the same. If we were to flip the argument to Saints Row, I would not feel right having my argument against the game rest on "I didn't like it". I absolutely believe that Jeff found SR3 to be his favourite game of the year, and I can't deny him that - I can only tell him why I thought it wasn't as fun. Jeff says he walks in to a cave in Skyrim, finds some shitty story and a shitty boss and then leaves, gaining nothing in the process. That is impossible to argue against because objectively speaking dungeons do have enemies, they do have bosses, and they do have stories. Calling them "shitty" is not constructive, there is nothing concrete there that can be disputed because there's nothing concrete to begin with! Another supposed "lie" was when Jeff said at the end of every dungeon there was a boss with Ice magic to drain him of Stamina, and if you're a magic user there's a lightning boss. Brad says that has not been his experience, and apparently people say he's lying. I can say that Jeff's scenario hasn't been my experience either, and I'm not lying. That's not to say most of the bosses weren't similar, because most unnamed bosses in random caves were similar, but that's how games work. If you want to be argumentative about it, SR3 had basically two unnamed enemies: Regular people and Oleg clones.
I agree with Brad's main defense of Skyrim, in that they finally did it right. Nobody does single player Open World like Bethesda, and almost everything has finally clicked. What the fuck does that even mean though, that it "clicked"? It means compare the difference between Oblivion and Skyrim. SR3 raised the bar for the SR series, but I can't say it raised the bar all that high for other open city games. I don't want GTA V to have the new features of SR3. Skyrim has set an insanely higher bar for open world games. I absolutely want all open world games in the future to be as good as Skyrim, or at least take many lessons from it.
very cool, maybe eventually we can get all the books and see you their links to one another. This is still pretty great
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment