The Third is Nothing More Than a Minigame Collection?

#1 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Saint's Row: The Third is currently available on Instant Game Collection courtesy of PS+ in Europe. Been holding off playing it, to heighten my appetite for open world games in anticipation of GTA V. Looks like I shouldn't have bothered in this case. Saint's Row: The Third does nothing for me as a world simulation and open world game. In the first couple of hours, the flatness of the world and shallowness of the gameplay put me off so much, I said to myself: 'Delete it, and never play it again!'.

Well - I ended up playing the whole damn day away anyways. The feedback loop of activities (aka minigames), earning cash, and leveling up and customizing my dude & rides & guns & properties is addictive, and despite the shallowness of the gameplay and the flatness of the world and its inhabitants, surprisingly fun. It certainly helps that the juvenile humour gets enough chuckles per hour out of me to be of entertainment value, rather than being a further deterrent, which it easily could have been.

I finally get why some people like Saint's Row: The Third better than GTA IV. They just enjoy it differently, not as a world simulation and immersive open world experience - a kind of virtual life of crime simulator - but rather as a minigame collection and wicked barbie & ken doll & dreamhouse customizer. Still - in hindsight, I find it rather distasteful how Saint's Row: The Third got the official or inofficial GotY nod by so many. It's shallow and flat and juvenile. All the richness in content variety and colorful absurdness should never be able to make up for what it lacks in those most essential regards.

Oh well, feel free to lecture me why Saint's Row: The Third really is a masterpiece of videogame design. Beyond it being a fun collection of activities and utter absurd hilarity, it does absolutely nothing all too well. Gunplay, driving, flying, melee combat, movement - everything is shallow. The worldbuilding and the writing of story and characters - flat, with nothing else but over-the-top absurdity going for them, and that's not usually a quality I tend to put on a pedestal. I guess that's what makes revering Saint's Row so hip. Its qualities are contrarian to contemporary values of criticism.

What says you?

#2 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7048 posts) -

I don't give enough of a shit about video games today to debate you on this. It's just too grim of a day.

#3 Edited by believer258 (11629 posts) -

Yeah, that sums up pretty well what I didn't like about it, but today was probably a bad day to post this.

#4 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@believer258: @mariachimacabre:

Wasn't aware of Ryan passing until just now. I just jumped right on the forums to get my Saint's Row: The Third rant off my chest before squeezing in a workout before dinner. The Third really snuck up on me today. As did this. What a loss.

#5 Posted by kadash299 (276 posts) -

STOP SLANDERING RYAN DAVIS' GAME YOU SON OF A BITCH!

#6 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

The more I play the game, the more I believe that making the *open world connective tissue* of Saints Row optional would greatly benefit the experience for me. If I could quicktravel, respectively directly engage in activities from the map, rather than being forced to drive everywhere, I'd opt to play the game that way 90% of the time. For example - why should I have to drive to specific buildings to buy real estate? Where's the fun in that? Quit wasting my time. Let me do that from the map app on my in-game smartphone.

When I'm just cruising from A to B and not engaging in some violent insanity, the shallowness of all the core mechanics stands out way too much. I can see how this is well suited for the pick-up and play nature of a minigame collection - and how a certain type of player might prefer that - but where I've drawn countless hours of enjoyment of just driving cars through and in traffic in GTA games for example, Saint's Row cannot provide that for me. The mundane is represented so shallowly in Saints Row, it simply cannot entertain without the flash of absurdity and violence.

How Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto can be compared as equals eludes me, because Saints Row is certainly a poor excuse for an open world game and world simulation by any standard. The disparity of quality is so huge, I'd argue the two franchises don't play in the same league - GTA is proper world simulation, Saints Row is mere minigame collection. Saints Row succeeds as a minigame collection. It's lots of fun played that way. Other than that, not so much.

On a sidenote - the city feels so flat and ugly and faceless - did Detroit (apparently the ugliest and most rundown city in the States, according to popular media) stand model for Steelport? Damn the place is ugly.

#7 Posted by StarvingGamer (7991 posts) -
@seppli said:

How Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto can be compared as equals eludes me, because Saints Row is certainly a poor excuse for an open world game and world simulation by any standard. The disparity of quality is so huge, I'd argue the two franchises don't play in the same league - GTA is proper world simulation, Saints Row is mere minigame collection.

Who ever said SR is supposed to be a world simulation? They fall into the same category because they both focus on large, open worlds and a very free play structure, but otherwise are completely different games.

GTAIV is a halfway decent attempt at cinematic storytelling and verisimilitude that is unfortunately saddled by incredibly bland, and oftentimes shitty gameplay. Saints Row the Third is FUN.

#8 Posted by shivermetimbers (763 posts) -

Looks like GTA 5 is what you're looking for.

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (14561 posts) -

Saints Row 3 is a video game ass video game.

#10 Edited by Yummylee (21242 posts) -

Saints Row 2 is a significantly better open-world game than SRTT. But then SRTT clearly decided to place its focus elsewhere from that point on, prioritising itself with a higher degree of absurdity and set-pieces centred around licensed music.

#11 Posted by Daneian (1207 posts) -
@seppli said:

How Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto can be compared as equals eludes me, because Saints Row is certainly a poor excuse for an open world game and world simulation by any standard. The disparity of quality is so huge, I'd argue the two franchises don't play in the same league - GTA is proper world simulation, Saints Row is mere minigame collection.

Who ever said SR is supposed to be a world simulation? They fall into the same category because they both focus on large, open worlds and a very free play structure, but otherwise are completely different games.

GTAIV is a halfway decent attempt at cinematic storytelling and verisimilitude that is unfortunately saddled by incredibly bland, and oftentimes shitty gameplay. Saints Row the Third is FUN.

I agree with starvinggamer here. I vastly prefer Saints Row sandbox to GTA's. I would rather dive through a cars windshield than open the door, sidewalk surf on a pedestrian than punch them. Saints Row is quicker and more satisfying.

#12 Edited by kerse (2100 posts) -

Yeah I didn't have much fun playing it, liked some of the story craziness that happened, but the gameplay part was pretty boring most of the time for me. I go to Sleeping Dogs for my I just wanna drive around and fuck shit up game. We all have different tastes though.

#13 Posted by BaneFireLord (2909 posts) -

The minigame comparison is a bit harsh, but I definitely see where you're coming from. Saints Row The Third was good for some quick dumb fun, but I never saw it as anything more than just that: a bit of dumb fun, and the time spent travelling from mission to mission felt very empty, with all the side missions feeling bizarrely dull and uninspired despite their wacky trappings. I did immensely enjoy the main story line, though, so don't interpret this as some sort of indictment of the game.

As for all you guys doing the old GTA vs SR debate, comparing SRTT to GTAIV would be like comparing The Naked Gun to Chinatown...in theory they are basically in the same genre, but they are at such diametrically opposite ends of the genre that one's preference becomes far more of a question of taste than it does of quality.

That all being said, when it comes to my favorite open world action game this generation, Just Cause 2 shits all over both GTAIV and SRTT. If you're looking for a sandbox, Just Cause 2 gives you a the biggest and best motherfucking sandbox you could ever imagine.

#14 Posted by MildMolasses (3213 posts) -

Saints Row 3 is a video game ass video game.

Yep. I would point to this game and Darksiders as examples of all design decisions being entirely focused on being fun video games

#15 Edited by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

People like SR3 b/c its fun to play period. There not saying its some greatly designed game, they just like playing it b/c its fun to play and they are right, its fun to play. Is it shallow in terms of gameplay? I don't think its any more shallow than any other 3rd person open world game but I can listen to the argument. Is it shallow in terms of missions and things to do? Yes definitely. SR2 had so much more to do and much more customization(I think it was actually admitted by volition that they didn't have enough time to put fun missions into the game b/c they spent so much time building the new engine. So even they know the content was lacking). But its fun to play and that's all that really matters. A lot of people forget that games are supposed to be fun to play and SR3 is fun to play and that's why people liked. Hell, even you liked it some op.

#16 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@gogosox82 said:

I don't think its any more shallow than any other 3rd person open world game but I can listen to the argument.

Helicopters are a perfect example of shallow mechanics squandering the game's potential for the mundane to be awesome. It's an extremely shallow flight model to begin with, disregarding torque and inertia and whatever other forces would play into it, going for an always level altitude that's completely at the player's behest, no matter what. What makes matters worse, the rate at which choppers ascend and descend is so ludicrously low, it's akin to making choppers move on a 2D plane entirely. Volition has essentially killed the z-axis in the name of approachability in order to circumvent a 5-minute learning curve. In doing so, my potential enjoyment of flying helicopters has been crippled even beyond how shallow the flight model is to begin with. Such a shame.

This attitude to mechanical depth permeates throughout the product. I bet it's the result of focustesting. Letting meatheads play the game for an afternoon, and after adapting the game to such feedback, that's the shit we end up with. Sure - all of these mechanics are serviceable when everything comes together in activities and missions, but it could be so much better if at least some mechanical depth remained.

Ever noticed how the driving model for cars isn't really analog? Cars have two speeds. Slow and Full Speed. Braking? Always full breaks, stopping on a dime. No finesse whatsoever. Instead of proper driving physics, there's a dedicated *powerslide* button. What an abomination.

You are absolutely right however. I enjoy the fuck out of Saint's Row: The Third - but by every quantifiable quality in terms of core gameplay - it's a lesser game. Certainly in comparison to GTA IV, which outside of the rather clunky shooting mechanics, does a quantifiably better job at pretty much everything else - especially driving. It works with much higher fidelity simulations, offers a much higher degree of finesse and potential mastery.

It's a popular opinion amongst player's who didn't enjoy GTAIV driving model, that driving just is *shit* and *unfun*. Well - if one lacks the will to master the finesse of a much deeper driving model, then sure - it sucks. In many ways GTAIV had a more accurate driving model than even a semi-sim-racer like Forza has. That's what makes playing it so damn rewarding.

#17 Posted by mosespippy (4031 posts) -

Saints Row The Third is fun in it's ridiculousness. It's very 'in the moment' and because of that it is largely throwaway. It won't age well. GTA IV is very boring but is serious and well written. The cast of characters is what makes it stand out as a quality production. It'll still be boring to play many years from now, but it'll still be heralded as a classic that you can go back to. Sleeping Dogs is the best of them both. Fun to play, fun to explore, fun to listen to and watch, great characters and writing and gorgeous graphics. It's the best urban crime game of the generation if you ask me.

#18 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@mosespippy:

GTA IV isn't mechanically boring. I'd say quite the opposite. It's exciting and rewarding precisely because of the way all of it handles. Which is just further proof, it's a matter of taste and personal opinion.

Regardless of that fact however, I think the fidelity/granularity of gameplay mechanics is quantifiable, and withing certain limits, I'd argue higher fidelity simulations are qualitatively more valuable, even if an individual might enjoy the shallower mechanic better for its simplicity.

For example - I'd say GTA IV is the better driving game because of that. Of course you can say you have more fun driving cars in Saints Row, but that'd just be your opinion.

#19 Posted by believer258 (11629 posts) -

@seppli said:

The more I play the game, the more I believe that making the *open world connective tissue* of Saints Row optional would greatly benefit the experience for me. If I could quicktravel, respectively directly engage in activities from the map, rather than being forced to drive everywhere, I'd opt to play the game that way 90% of the time. For example - why should I have to drive to specific buildings to buy real estate? Where's the fun in that? Quit wasting my time. Let me do that from the map app on my in-game smartphone.

When I'm just cruising from A to B and not engaging in some violent insanity, the shallowness of all the core mechanics stands out way too much. I can see how this is well suited for the pick-up and play nature of a minigame collection - and how a certain type of player might prefer that - but where I've drawn countless hours of enjoyment of just driving cars through and in traffic in GTA games for example, Saint's Row cannot provide that for me. The mundane is represented so shallowly in Saints Row, it simply cannot entertain without the flash of absurdity and violence.

How Saints Row and Grand Theft Auto can be compared as equals eludes me, because Saints Row is certainly a poor excuse for an open world game and world simulation by any standard. The disparity of quality is so huge, I'd argue the two franchises don't play in the same league - GTA is proper world simulation, Saints Row is mere minigame collection. Saints Row succeeds as a minigame collection. It's lots of fun played that way. Other than that, not so much.

On a sidenote - the city feels so flat and ugly and faceless - did Detroit (apparently the ugliest and most rundown city in the States, according to popular media) stand model for Steelport? Damn the place is ugly.

I never thought I'd be defending this game, but I do disagree with a few things.

1) Quicktraveling would defeat the purpose of roaming around this open world. The developers mean for you to actually get in a car and drive to places in order to buy them. Not only does this make players memorize the map and learn to drive better, it also means that they don't just visit storefronts and mission locations. Also, there are some random events consisting almost entirely of "rival gangs are in your turf, kill them", which wouldn't be as dynamic or interesting if you didn't happen to be driving around that area at the time.

2) Yes, SR3 can't entertain without the flash of absurdity and violence, but there's no shortage of that. Even on the streets, running people over sends them flying into the air like crazy ragdolls. You can hit something very hard and watch your character eject out of the car and fly forward, also quite amusing. You can get out, start running, push the "awesome button" and kick someone out of a car and land yourself in the driver seat. You can run at someone and push that same button and see your character knockout random people with animations that range from "amusing" to "the best thing in the game". You can grab a dildo bat and start beating people with it. All of this sounds pretty psychotic, but then absurd psychotic glee is kind of what this game is about.

3) Saints Row the Third is not the most mechanically perfect game in the world. Rote firefights are often boring. Driving never feels wonky but it's not particularly satisfying either. But at least it isn't a pain to actually play, something that Grand Theft Auto IV actually is. It also gives itself completely, or at least it tries, to the same wacky antics that many open world players engage in when they're not in the middle of a serious story cutscene.

Don't mistake this for a change of heart about Saints Row the Third - I still think it's for the most part a mediocre game, and for all of the wacky antics that spice up that gameplay the actual story writing has all the quality of an OK Youtube skit. Anything funny about it occurs because of some stupid little thing that the player did with a peripheral mechanic, or a handful of the side stuff (Insurance Fraud is pretty brilliant), not often because the main parts of the game are actually all that entertaining. These are things that I thought you were getting at above. But it does have more substance than a simple minigame collection.

#20 Posted by mosespippy (4031 posts) -

@seppli: I actually enjoy the driving in GTA IV for the most part. My one gripe with it is that the slightest bump will take the tires off the ground, so you lose speed and control going over the curb on almost every corner. At least with the fast cars anyway. The slower stuff like the Rebla, I find very fun to drive. But that is a problem though isn't it? The fast cars are frustrating to drive while the slow cars are fun.

The boringness mostly stems from the open world side activities. There are the activities like eating, drinking or going to the strip club which are literally driving from A to B to C and doing nothing while you're there. The bowling felt off for me but I was in 5 pin bowling for 7 years. Maybe it felt right for casual bowlers used to 10 pin. The pool physics seemed unplayably broken. Darts was alright. I much preferred the games from Red Dead; Liar's Dice, Poker and Horseshoes.

The gunplay in Saints was better for me too. In GTA all the enemies are dudes with guns. They hide in cover, poke their head out and then you shoot them, picking them off one at a time. At least in Saint's Row there are a variety of enemies. I particularly enjoyed fighting multiple Deckers specialists at a time. I agree that higher fidelity leads to more rewarding outcomes (it's why I disabled the auto aim in GTA IV) but the enemies also need to be challenging for it to be rewarding.

#21 Edited by rebgav (1429 posts) -

Yay, another dumb comparison between SR3 and GTA4.

You're right OP, the only things that SR3 does well are absurdity, hilarity, and a wealth of varied content and customization - while the mechanics are just straightforward, accessible and enjoyable without requiring any sort of commitment or practice to enjoy the experience. Some people might point out that those are all things that other games tend to strive for and yet often miss the mark completely but don't be tricked into giving the game props for that.

I think that you may be giving GTA4 just a bit too much credit if you think of it as a "proper world simulation." I am not even going to point out all of the limitations of that game, it's well-worn territory at this point. I put over 100 hours into that game between 360 and PC and I enjoyed it but it certainly wasn't because of the shoddy combat or the two dimensional character archetypes borrowed from half-remembered movies. The driving was fun though, I'll back you up on that.

#22 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@mosespippy said:

@seppli: I actually enjoy the driving in GTA IV for the most part. My one gripe with it is that the slightest bump will take the tires off the ground, so you lose speed and control going over the curb on almost every corner. At least with the fast cars anyway. The slower stuff like the Rebla, I find very fun to drive. But that is a problem though isn't it? The fast cars are frustrating to drive while the slow cars are fun.

The boringness mostly stems from the open world side activities. There are the activities like eating, drinking or going to the strip club which are literally driving from A to B to C and doing nothing while you're there. The bowling felt off for me but I was in 5 pin bowling for 7 years. Maybe it felt right for casual bowlers used to 10 pin. The pool physics seemed unplayably broken. Darts was alright. I much preferred the games from Red Dead; Liar's Dice, Poker and Horseshoes.

The gunplay in Saints was better for me too. In GTA all the enemies are dudes with guns. They hide in cover, poke their head out and then you shoot them, picking them off one at a time. At least in Saint's Row there are a variety of enemies. I particularly enjoyed fighting multiple Deckers specialists at a time. I agree that higher fidelity leads to more rewarding outcomes (it's why I disabled the auto aim in GTA IV) but the enemies also need to be challenging for it to be rewarding.

In my opinion, the faster cars are appropriately demanding to handle in GTA IV. It speaks for the depth of its driving model that fast cars are much harder to master than slower more mundane ones - a feat that's far from impossible. I often went for highspeed joyrides in the fastest cars without ever losing control and crashing. The skill required to do so is called risk management. The virtues are focus and foresight and discipline. Driving supersports cars cleanly and speedily though metropolitan traffic is by far my favorite thing to do in GTA IV. Racing was my favorite activity, both in singleplayer and multiplayer.

The satisfaction comes from controlling something so powerful, it could easily destroy me if I let it. To reign. To tame. To harness. All that power. To do so in an environment that's inherently chaotic. That's what makes that particular circumstance of GTA IV's design especially rewarding for me. I am keenly aware that the broad audience doesn't appreciate that aspect of its design, evident in the rebalancing of motorcycles and the slight overhaul of the entire driving model for its two expansions. I did not appreciate that trend, and I hope GTA V doesn't go any further in that direction.

I agree that the side missions/minigames were a disappointment in comparison to prior GTA games. The shooting mechanics in GTA games thus far were clunky, and the direct approach of Saints Row does indeed feel immediately better. It's been way too long for me to comment in-depth about the merits and failures of GTA IV's shooting mechanics. All I can say is that Saints Row's firefights lack the immersive quality GTA IV's had - to the best of my recollection.

#23 Posted by mosespippy (4031 posts) -

@seppli: I certainly agree with you about Saint's Row's lack of immersive quality in firefights. The enemies feel like they are using pea shooters and nothing can kill you. But that helps contribute to the overall ridiculousness; you wouldn't use a dildo bat in a gun fight if guns could kill you. The lack of challenge in firefights in exchange for foolishness is also a contributor to why I think the game won't age well.

#24 Posted by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

@seppli said:

@gogosox82 said:

I don't think its any more shallow than any other 3rd person open world game but I can listen to the argument.

Helicopters are a perfect example of shallow mechanics squandering the game's potential for the mundane to be awesome. It's an extremely shallow flight model to begin with, disregarding torque and inertia and whatever other forces would play into it, going for an always level altitude that's completely at the player's behest, no matter what. What makes matters worse, the rate at which choppers ascend and descend is so ludicrously low, it's akin to making choppers move on a 2D plane entirely. Volition has essentially killed the z-axis in the name of approachability in order to circumvent a 5-minute learning curve. In doing so, my potential enjoyment of flying helicopters has been crippled even beyond how shallow the flight model is to begin with. Such a shame.

This attitude to mechanical depth permeates throughout the product. I bet it's the result of focustesting. Letting meatheads play the game for an afternoon, and after adapting the game to such feedback, that's the shit we end up with. Sure - all of these mechanics are servicable when everything comes together in activities and missions, but it could be so much better if at least some mechanical depth remained.

Ever noticed how the driving model for cars isn't really analog? Cars have two speeds. Slow and Full Speed. Braking? Always full breaks, stopping on a dime. No finesse whatsoever. Instead of proper driving physics, there's a dedicated *powerslide* button. What an abomination.

You are absolutely right however. I enjoy the fuck out of Saint's Row: The Third - but by every quantifiable quality in terms of core gameplay - it's a lesser game. Certainly in comparison to GTA IV, which outside of the rather clunky shooting mechanics, does a quantifiably better job at pretty much everything else - especially driving. It works with much higher fidelity simulations, offers a much higher degree of finesse and potential mastery.

It's a popular opinion amongst player's who didn't enjoy GTAIV driving model, that driving just is *shit* and *unfun*. Well - if one lacks the will to master the finesse of a much deeper driving model, then sure - it sucks. In many ways GTAIV had a more accurate driving model than even a semi-sim-racer like Forza has. That's what makes playing it so damn rewarding.

Right, I like I said. Its not the great game design that people like. The gameplay is simple, accessible, and it works. Most people won't even notice the car comparison when they drive. They just want the drive to be smooth and fun to do, not be technically impressed by it.

Saying GTAIV is better is more of an opinion than anything else. I think GTAIV is probably better from a technical standpoint, but it was kind of a chore to play for me where as SR3 was always fun (unless your talking about GTAIV online then that shit was like the funniest shit ever in a videogame) even it isn't as polished as GTA. It also seems like your looking for something different than SR just doesn't offer, probably never has offered. It seems like realism is something your more focused on. I don't think SR has ever strived for that in any of their games. It more about fun, interesting characters interacting with each other in a fun story. The series has never been about having driving that accurately reflected how you drive in real life. So the game just might not be your thing, which is fine. There are games that are really popular on this board, like the Arkham games for example, that I'm not a big fan of but I would say their bad or technically inferior to other games. There just doing something that doesn't necessarily interest me and I think SR is just doing something that you don't find that interesting.

#25 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@gogosox82 said:

@seppli said:

@gogosox82 said:

I don't think its any more shallow than any other 3rd person open world game but I can listen to the argument.

Helicopters are a perfect example of shallow mechanics squandering the game's potential for the mundane to be awesome. It's an extremely shallow flight model to begin with, disregarding torque and inertia and whatever other forces would play into it, going for an always level altitude that's completely at the player's behest, no matter what. What makes matters worse, the rate at which choppers ascend and descend is so ludicrously low, it's akin to making choppers move on a 2D plane entirely. Volition has essentially killed the z-axis in the name of approachability in order to circumvent a 5-minute learning curve. In doing so, my potential enjoyment of flying helicopters has been crippled even beyond how shallow the flight model is to begin with. Such a shame.

This attitude to mechanical depth permeates throughout the product. I bet it's the result of focustesting. Letting meatheads play the game for an afternoon, and after adapting the game to such feedback, that's the shit we end up with. Sure - all of these mechanics are servicable when everything comes together in activities and missions, but it could be so much better if at least some mechanical depth remained.

Ever noticed how the driving model for cars isn't really analog? Cars have two speeds. Slow and Full Speed. Braking? Always full breaks, stopping on a dime. No finesse whatsoever. Instead of proper driving physics, there's a dedicated *powerslide* button. What an abomination.

You are absolutely right however. I enjoy the fuck out of Saint's Row: The Third - but by every quantifiable quality in terms of core gameplay - it's a lesser game. Certainly in comparison to GTA IV, which outside of the rather clunky shooting mechanics, does a quantifiably better job at pretty much everything else - especially driving. It works with much higher fidelity simulations, offers a much higher degree of finesse and potential mastery.

It's a popular opinion amongst player's who didn't enjoy GTAIV driving model, that driving just is *shit* and *unfun*. Well - if one lacks the will to master the finesse of a much deeper driving model, then sure - it sucks. In many ways GTAIV had a more accurate driving model than even a semi-sim-racer like Forza has. That's what makes playing it so damn rewarding.

Right, I like I said. Its not the great game design that people like. The gameplay is simple, accessible, and it works. Most people won't even notice the car comparison when they drive. They just want the drive to be smooth and fun to do, not be technically impressed by it.

Saying GTAIV is better is more of an opinion than anything else. I think GTAIV is probably better from a technical standpoint, but it was kind of a chore to play for me where as SR3 was always fun (unless your talking about GTAIV online then that shit was like the funniest shit ever in a videogame) even it isn't as polished as GTA. It also seems like your looking for something different than SR just doesn't offer, probably never has offered. It seems like realism is something your more focused on. I don't think SR has ever strived for that in any of their games. It more about fun, interesting characters interacting with each other in a fun story. The series has never been about having driving that accurately reflected how you drive in real life. So the game just might not be your thing, which is fine. There are games that are really popular on this board, like the Arkham games for example, that I'm not a big fan of but I would say their bad or technically inferior to other games. There just doing something that doesn't necessarily interest me and I think SR is just doing something that you don't find that interesting.

I like the game. I am playing the shit out of it currently. That doesn't stop me from criticizing it. To think and talk about what I don't like about it. Why I don't like it. And what I'd like better. Especially in the light of how much critical praise Saints Row: The Third has gotten, and how dominantly some players like to decry GTA IV as boring crap, whilst announcing Saints Row as the genre's new saviour.

I don't deny that Saints Row: The Third is fun, because it is. I'm just arguing that quantifiably, it's a lesser game than GTA IV, and most other games doing similar things - because regardless of what it does, it does none of it particularly well. Outside of its over-the-top absurdity and hilarity - all the core gameplay mechanics are merely serviceable, and none of it is really exceptional.

So that's where my objection to the popular Saints Row reverie is coming from.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.