Is the whole Saint's Row series worth playing?

#1 Posted by saoakden (189 posts) -

A while back I asked about few games to see wheather or not the games are worth playing. One of the games was Saint's Row The Third. So far, a number of people have recommended playing the game. It looks good and fun. & by the sounds of the critics it was a good game. I noticed that this game was the third in the Saint's row game and I was wondering were the previous 2 games good or not? I remember hearing about the games years ago and I couldn't remember if they were good or not.

#2 Posted by Napalm (9230 posts) -

Saints Row 2 is a goddamn masterpiece. So, yes.

#3 Edited by Barrock (3853 posts) -

I enjoyed them. I don't know how well they hold up after all this time. But I'd imagine they are super cheap by now, so they might be worth picking up. Different from the Third with more of a grounded story... except for some of the side missions.

#4 Posted by SockemJetpack (425 posts) -

Saints Row 2 was a decent game on its own merits and if you can get it super cheap I'd play it first. You get to meet the crew that is central to the third and it's a lot more customizable. However, you don't HAVE to play the second game to have fun with the Third. The Third is great on its own and from a pure fun gameplay perspective is well superior to the second. Avoid the first as it's kinda poopy.

#5 Posted by Ley_Lines (298 posts) -

Saints Row 2 is the pinnacle of the series

#6 Posted by Jay_Ray (1347 posts) -

Saints Row 3 is the only actual good game of the series

#7 Posted by dr_mantas (2558 posts) -

2 and The Third are both great games, I can recommend them both.

I haven't played the first one, though.

#9 Posted by Milkman (18721 posts) -

1 and 2 are fine games but when Saints Row The Third exists, there's literally no reason to play the other ones.

#10 Posted by Jazzycola (671 posts) -

Saints Row 2 is great, it looks graphically like shit now but its fun. Just do not get it on the PC.

Saints Row 3 is amazing, and has a real good style that previous games lacked.

I think SR1 might be a little to far in the past to go back to it. You'd be much better off just playing GTA San Andreas than SR1 in my opinion. SR2 is where they learned from their mistakes, somewhat, and took some chances.

#11 Posted by Gamer_152 (14399 posts) -

If you want to see where the series came from and can get them fairly cheap then it's probably worth it, but I still don't think 1 and 2 can hold a candle to 3.

#12 Posted by Vextroid (1513 posts) -

Just play 2 and you'll be good.

#13 Posted by mandude (2705 posts) -

1 is a pretty cool game. Probably the only one in the series that poses any kind of challenge, or has any kind of pacing. 2 is a mess of terrible pacing and humour that's far too aware of itself to be effective. 3 is kinda the same but it's a far more tightened experience.

I'd just stick with 3. It's not like they're radically different or anything. Play one, you've played them all. I say this as someone who's played and enjoyed them all.

#14 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6117 posts) -

I think the second one is best, but only because you can unlock unlimited ammo early on.

#15 Posted by MyFriendsCallMeJim (12 posts) -

I played 1, and it was fine. A fun game, and not too long. 2 is amazing. I put well over 50 hours into that game and wasn't bored once. It has a lot to do, and there are some callbacks story-wise to the first game, so there is some reason to play them in order. I haven't purchased 3 yet, but I have played it at friend's houses and it seems that it is extremely more polished (and ridiculous) than the first 2.

I got the first one because it was dirt cheap (10 bucks at my local Game Stop), and 2 was more expensive, but totally worth the time and money. I plan on buying 3 soon since I love the first 2 so much. So, basically, to answer your question, yes.

#16 Posted by Silvergun (298 posts) -

SR2 is excellent, and while it really is surpassed by 3, I feel the world has a lot more variety to it and the missions are better on average. SR3's highs are a lot higher, but I think SR2 hits the right notes more consistently.

#17 Posted by CL60 (17119 posts) -

I thought both 1 and 2 were boring as fuck.

#18 Posted by living4theday258 (694 posts) -

2 and 3 were okay not bad games but not amazing games either

#19 Posted by The_Last_Starfighter (357 posts) -

three was great with a friend, 1 and 2 were shite.

#20 Posted by Bane122 (960 posts) -

The first was a passable GTA clone at the time tone but has probably aged pretty horribly while the second one started to bring in more of the humor and better gameplay but is inferior to 3. I would say if you have someone to co-op 2 with it could be worth it, though.

Really the only reason I think it'd be worth playing through the whole thing is to see the evolution from serious if not a little bland game to the batshit craziness of 3.

#21 Posted by Landon (4137 posts) -

All three of them aren't very good. 2 is probably the best.

#22 Posted by phrali (677 posts) -

3 is awesome. 2 is basically unplayable if you play 3 first. Everything about it is dated and not aging well and the controls are poop.

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.