Now a sequel to Saints Row: The Third- Enter The Dominatrix

[Bebpo]

Same city

I know SR1->SR2 but that's because SR1 was mediocre in the first place, so SR2 had room to make it AWESOME.  SR3 is already good, I wonder if they can really add/change enough to make it feel fresh and not just like a $60 DLC mission that takes 10 hours to clear.  The DLC missions were kind of so-so and I would not want 10 hours of them.

[Human Snorenado]

SR3 is good but it's not because of the map, it's because of the craziness of the game/missions and freedom you get.  They can ABSOLUTELY improve the setting and make it more distinct and flavorful, the city was one of my few gripes about the game.

[Rahxephon91]

Hopefully they make the middle not suck like it did in 3.

[Himu]

Same city

I know SR1->SR2 but that's because SR1 was mediocre in the first place, so SR2 had room to make it AWESOME.  SR3 is already good, I wonder if they can really add/change enough to make it feel fresh and not just like a $60 DLC mission that takes 10 hours to clear.  The DLC missions were kind of so-so and I would not want 10 hours of them.

SR3 is a major step back from SR2 in terms of locales, hidden shit, easter eggs, side quests, and things to do and most of is BECAUSE of the map and SR1 -> SR2.

And for what it's worth, SR2's Stilwater feels completely different from SR1's Stilwater.

Also, SR1 is NOT MEDIOCRE.

[fistfulofmetal]

Jeff from Giantbomb had the right idea. They should name this "The Next Great Sequel in the Saints Row Franchise."

[Himu]

No. Saints Row 4 Lyfe.

[benjipwns]

This game was oddly rushed based on interviews like Tom Chick's and building the new engine didn't allow them to go all out. Plus they were working on the Red Faction games at the same time, now they can just focus in on adding all sorts of awesome. They have the engine in place, the city is generally built already and they can add onto/rework it like Stilwater was for 2, all the other improvements to the gameplay are in place.

I mean there are all sorts of things like hospitals, arenas, casinos, warehouses, etc. already around the map that aren't used. Everything downtown. SR2 took you into non-cribs like the museum, hospital, the rec center, etc. for missions. In SR3 you basically only drive by any of this, maybe start/end a mission outside one.

I assume most of the DLC is actually cut content. (Intentionally so or not.)

[pilonv1]

You can look back on Saints Row 1 and trash it, but in 2006 it was amazing.

They can ABSOLUTELY improve the setting and make it more distinct and flavorful, the city was one of my few gripes about the game.

Agreed 100%, it's part of the reason I've not gone back for a lot of stuff like finding cars & assasinations because everything looks the same unless you're in the airport or army base. Steelport appears to be about 90% cut + paste neighbourhoods. Even if it's not, the areas aren't recognizable enough at first glance.

That isn't at all a problem in the first two games. I could probably draw a Stillwater map and pick out the theme of each area - you know where the trailer park is, the suburbs, downtown shopping, the beach, the airport, chinatown, the docks, industrial area, the slum where you start out, the sporting stadium etc... All you needed to to was look at your surroundings and you knew where you were and where you had to go.

[Himu]

SR1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> GTA4

[Human Snorenado]

SR1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> GTA4

That's like the world's biggest non-statement, for fucks sakes a bag of wet farts >>>>>>>>>> GTA4

[Himu]

SR1 is really underrated.

[Rahxephon91]

You can look back on Saints Row 1 and trash it, but in 2006 it was amazing.

Was it? They really didn't have the tone down back then. It was hardly funny or over the top, but instead filled with pretty shitty wanabe gangster story shit with some pretty terrible cutscenes. It was pretty much the definition of some old white folks trying to get "it". Oh and having to do their terrible side missions was not fun and felt like lame padding.

Then comes SR2 which is a pretty great game and in some ways better then even 3.

Oh and GTAIV was great and Gay Tony was pretty much better then any other open world game this gen.

[pilonv1]

Was it? They really didn't have the tone down back then. It was hardly funny or over the top, but instead filled with pretty shitty wanabe gangster story shit with some pretty terrible cutscenes. It was pretty much the definition of some old white folks trying to get "it". Oh and having to do their terrible side missions was not fun and felt like lame padding.

It was a great game though, regardless of what your opinion of the story and characters are. Like it's any worse than "HEY COUSIN LETS LOOK AT SOME TITTIES"

Then comes SR2 which is a pretty great game and in some ways better then even 3.

Won't argue with that.

[Himu]

SR1 had plenty of funny moments. Also, the story was actually pretty solid and refreshing from the rest of the genre, especially the ending. The customization, humor, controls, and features put it over ps2 era GTA's and GTAIV came out and SR1 pissed on it.

[Himu]

terrible cutscenes.

terrible cutscenes.

terrible cutscenes.

[pilonv1]

SR1 had plenty of funny moments. Also, the story was actually pretty solid and refreshing from the rest of the genre, especially the ending. The customization, humor, controls, and features put it over ps2 era GTA's and GTAIV came out and SR1 pissed on it.

Even if you take out the story, the rest of it was leaps and bounds ahead of any other open world game at the time. And it was still more fun than GTA IV once it came out.

[Himu]

how can anyone be a johnny gat fan and hate on SR1? Johnny barely does anything in 2 cuz he's hurt and in 3 he's dead.

[cool breeze]

You can look back on Saints Row 1 and trash it, but in 2006 it was amazing.

yeah, this past weekend I found the old demo DVD.  Derailing a train with an RPG was mind blowing back then.  I remember car radios being special because they stayed on after you left the car.  There were a ton of subtle bits that were amazing compared to San Andreas, even if it's all about the tech.  GTA4 similarly had these improvements and more, but Saint's Row was the first 'next gen' GTA.

And it had multiplayer.  I tried it once and it was a "holla holla get dolla" experience.  Don't think it was free roam, just regular death match on a city block or something.

[chronovore]

There was pretty standard deathmatch (Chainz) and team deathmatch, and a protect/kill the VIP mode, but the real joy was the "bling my ride" mode, where you had to do battle for car upgrades, then drive the blinged ride to a location to show it off. That mode was a lot of fun, and required serious teamwork.

Unfortunately SR1 multi was plagued with team-killers, particularly the VIP mode.

[Bebpo]

I only played about an hour of SR1 when it came out but it just seemed like a me too GTA clone with nicer graphics.  All thug and gangsta and wasn't really my thing.  Kind of soured me on the franchise and why I skipped SR2 and wasn't hyped for SR3 until I played it and it was awesome.

[pilonv1]

When did you play SR1 though? Seems people who don't like SR1 fall into two camps - those who take all the gangsta/thug stuff too seriously and those who didn't play it when it was released. I think some of the appreciation of the game is lost if you're coming back to it after playing more technically advanced later gen games.

You should go back and try SR2 now Bebpo, it's probably better than 3 overall.

[Rahxephon91]

terrible cutscenes.

terrible cutscenes.

terrible cutscenes.

Oh thats so funny. She's white and it's playing on conservative stereotypes.

I just didn't find anything funny about that game and I remember even their talk show radio thingy being a complete absence of humor. If anything the game felt like it was trying way too hard and laked any actual cleverness which you can find in a GTA game. Better gameplay? Yeah, but I found nothing else redeemable here. I never finished the story mode, because I found it extremely boring. Not a real argument, but I can't give a better reason and it's been far too long since I played the game to actually have details.

So what you will about GTAIV and it's pretty in love with itself story, but I sure found it to be a way better written and clever thing, at least outside of the main plot.

[Himu]

What do you think this genre is? All it EVER is, is playing on stereotypes, cliches, and genre tropes. Conservative? Where did you get that?

GTAIV writing is atrocious. Let's make the characters and location "realistic", but let's put them in the same "satirical" setting. Game goes from "I keeled people, smaggled people...END MY LIFE NOW" to "let's hunt down a gay guy on an online dating site and shoot him in the face in a restaurant" to TW@ CAFE. AHAHA. SO FUN-KNEE. So you have this shit sandwich of crappy serious writing, mixed up with crappy humor writing, mixed in with character who won't shut the fuck up. I start a mission, these characters go on for 5 fucking minutes. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[benjipwns]

But the writing in GTA III and IV...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I actually loved Vice City, but I assumed it was a parody of the genre...

[close]

Then SA and IV got serious again.

[Human Snorenado]

Vice City is the high point of the GTA series for me.

[Joe Molotov]

But the writing in GTA III and IV...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I actually loved Vice City, but I assumed it was a parody of the genre...

[close]

Then SA and IV got serious again.

SA was serious? SA was hilarious!

[Himu]

Vice City is the high point of the GTA series for me.

.

[benjipwns]

Vice City is the high point of the GTA series for me.

yep, even though the map sucks

SA was serious? SA was hilarious!

But...  black people...

[Himu]

But the writing in GTA III and IV...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I actually loved Vice City, but I assumed it was a parody of the genre...

[close]

Then SA and IV got serious again.

SA was serious? SA was hilarious!

The entire part in Los Santos they're like MAN, DRUGS IS FUCKED UP MAN. And it's laid on pretttttty thick. But yeah, past Los Santos, SA strips its more serious flavor.

But I still don't like the writing. I think SA was the step towards the atrocious writing in IV.

[benjipwns]

The entire part in Los Santos they're like MAN, DRUGS IS FUCKED UP MAN. And it's laid on pretttttty thick. But yeah, past Los Santos, SA strips its more serious flavor.

But I still don't like the writing. I think SA was the step towards the atrocious writing in IV.

Awww you had to ruin my racism.

Yeah I didn't like the Los Santos part. Mostly tedious.

[Himu]

I have never been able to fully replay SA.

[Bebpo]

When did you play SR1 though? Seems people who don't like SR1 fall into two camps - those who take all the gangsta/thug stuff too seriously and those who didn't play it when it was released. I think some of the appreciation of the game is lost if you're coming back to it after playing more technically advanced later gen games.

You should go back and try SR2 now Bebpo, it's probably better than 3 overall.

I played SR1 when it first came out.  The thing is I don't like and have never liked GTA.  I like driving around the sandbox cities and exploring, but that's about it.  Don't like the thug/criminal settings, don't like the missions.  So I gave SR1 a chance but it just felt like "next-gen GTA (better controls, better graphics, online play)" and I bailed early on.

I like SR3 (and would probably like SR2) because it's nothing like GTA anymore.  It's a crazy goofy sandbox action game.

[chronovore]

Bebpo, you would mostly like SR2's story, as it's 75% of the way to SR3's madness. There are some fairly crazy missions, but there are also some brutal moments which are given with a straight face. It's thematically inconsistent.

The gameplay though, overall, is more varied and madcap than SR3. It's not as pretty, but the areas of Stillwater are more apt to give a strong sense of place and are more able to orient the player than the more homogenized city of Steelport.

I also agree with Himumu that San Andreas starts off serious, and is a step in the Housers' direction of "let's be auteurs" than Vice City or GTA III.

[cool breeze]

yeah, I liked the way Jeff from Giantbomb sorta defined it as SR3 is Johnny Gat all the time, where in SR2 the main character is the straight man grounding the antics.

also the other day I was playing volition's punisher game and the combat is really similar to SR2/3.  Same way you take hostages, can toss them around or instantly kill them.

[Himu]

Bebpo, you would mostly like SR2's story, as it's 75% of the way to SR3's madness. There are some fairly crazy missions, but there are also some brutal moments which are given with a straight face. It's thematically inconsistent.

I disagree. I like that there are serious moments with the crazy. It makes the story have more impact. SR3 is completely lacking in serious moments aside from bad ending. What I like about SR is that it's zany and crazy and sometimes what the fuck, but the games still have great characters and can completely pull off more serious parts. Is it really thematically inconsistent for one of your crew to get killed only to fire back with fire?

I prefer SR2 boss. SR3 boss is a pussy in comparison.