Assassin's creed 3 or Saints Row the third?

[erbkaiser]

Go for SRTT. It's like GTA3/VC/SA but even more over the top, and with the DLC it has enormous capabilities for fun.
You can basically skip the main missions as long as you want, and just have fun driving around with a tiger, taking a flying broom and buzzing windows, or do whatever you like.
The only real flaw with it is that once you reach a certain point, you never have money problems again. You can literally buy all the weapons etc. which takes way much of the challenge.

AC3 is a hand-holding mess that is only fun in segments. The sailing is cool, and a very few assassination missions can be fun, but I found most of the actual game more a chore to get through, especially the damned frontier where you're always either lost, or running from the endlessly spawning hating guards. The best mission in the game is one of Desmond's, and you cannot replay those if you finished the main story line whereas you can replay everything else.

 

[Sheen Lantern]

SRTT is fun and silly, but with no real substance, however, that also means there's not really anything that stops you from being able to jump right in and enjoy despite never playing the prequels.

Prequels?

Wouldn't that imply Saints Row 3 came before 1 & 2?

What?

Read my post again, I think you may have jumped the gun there a bit

I read it twice, and then again.

I think you might be mixing up the words 'Prequel' and 'Predecessor'.

 

[jessicashadow]

I say get Saint Row the third I had a lot more fun playing that, plus Assassin's Creed 3 is not the best Assassins Creed game in my option. Get Saints Row the third and if you do want to play an Assassin's Creed game I say start with Assassins Creed 2.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Well I've beat Saints 3 twice. I didn't even get past the prolog in Ass Creed 3 (I've been meaning to play it).
Saints 2 is a lot better, playing the whole series from the beginning would be even better, but Saints 3 can still suffice.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

SRTT is fun and silly, but with no real substance, however, that also means there's not really anything that stops you from being able to jump right in and enjoy despite never playing the prequels.

Prequels?

Wouldn't that imply Saints Row 3 came before 1 & 2?

What?

Read my post again, I think you may have jumped the gun there a bit

I read it twice, and then again.

I think you might be mixing up the words 'Prequel' and 'Predecessor'.

No, you're right

My bad, I forget that prequel literally means a sequel that's set before the previous titles, not simply something that's set before.

I derped out on that one.

 

[Bestival]

Get AC3 if you get patriot boners over US history.

Get SR3 if you don't mind sacrificing realism for fun.

Personally I've gotten to about 30% in AC3, and started skipping all the cutscenes around 20% because I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE ITS ALL SO SLOW AND FUCKING BORING AAAH! NO YOU SHIT GAME NOT ANOTHER GOD DAMN CUTSCENE GO DIE!
I fired the game up again 2 days ago and wanted to fucking kill myself after 5 minutes, the only fun I've had in the game at all was randomly running around in the wilderness, hunting.

And that's coming from someone who adored every single one of the previous AC games. Every one of those made me feel like they'd watched my dreams, and tailor made the game to my greatest desires. AC3 was a massive kick in the gonads for me, and so I am a little bit very biased posting here.

However, SR3 is currently at 91 hours played, and not a dull moment in it. I don't really have anything bad to say about it, other than that the way they killed off Gat was very lame. But since you didn't play the previous SRs that won't bother you.

 

[stroopwafel]

I enjoyed both games for different reasons but for gameplay alone Saints 3 is definitely the better game. The only really good gameplay element of AC3 was the naval combat. I agree there were a lot of gameplay ideas crammed into AC3 that just weren't fun or didn't really work out well. The regular melee combat have also always been clunky and unengaging in AC games, though AC3 fares somewhat better. So gameplay isn't it strongest point but it makes up for it with what feels like almost an interactive tour through the 18th century Frontier. I found that part really atmospheric and immersive. AC games always excelled in world building, even if the individual stories are pretty weak and its ridiculous overarching meta-plot is best left ignored.

Saints 3 is just mindless fun but it accomplishes this goal with great results simply b/c its gameplay mechanics(driving and shooting is much better than GTA4, though imo not as good as Sleeping Dogs) are really good and it has an absurd story that never takes itself seriously and opens up a lot of fun situations and gameplay options. My only gripe with this game were the helicopter missions which were just awful.

 

[Belaam]

AC3 was okay. Probably better if I hadn't seen all the mechanics in the last 4 AC games I played previously. Naval combat was pretty awesome, though. Honestly, I think the biggest mistake they made was picking a place and time in history with just horrifically ugly architecture. The pacing was pretty freaking slow too.

SR2 is one of my all time favorite games. SR3 is a mess. It's trying way to hard to be quirky and comes off at pathetic. It is inferior to SR2 in every way. I had weird bridge bugs, bug that kept me from completing achievements and an over all version of "fun" that seemed on line with a drunken frat boy repeating jokes he told you ten minutes ago louder.

Long story short: If you have never played a Siants Row game or an Assassin's Creed game, the real question is whether should you get AC:Revelations or SR2. In which case, the answer is SR2 by a nose.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Which game you think I should buy?

Yeah... I'm with Daystar on this... get SRtT...

If you haven't played any of the Assassin's Creed games, then ACIII is definitely not the place to start, because you get chucked in mid-story and the game is probably the buggiest of the five major releases.

Even for the story, it leaves you thinking *bwuh* more than anything else, though to be fair, I've had it spoiled and am having sooooooooooooooooo much trouble trying to drag myself through the game. Now, I like grinding, and quite a bit, yet ACIII's grinding has genuinely left me bored with the game, and that takes quite a bit of doing... :/ I'm only continuing for the naval missions, which is the one and only decent thing about it.

You should be able to get AC (i.e. the first one) on the cheap now... I think GOG has it for $10 or something, not sure, haven't checked in a while... so it'd be better to pick it up from the beginning. If I have any criticism of it, though, is that the side missions get very repetitive, but there thankfully aren't that many of them and it's a good balance of straightforward gameplay & challenge. The ultimate achievement being counter-killing with the hidden blades... just not the same level of satisfaction as in any of the subsequent titles.

 

[sXeth]

Saints Row at least knows what it wants to be, and sticks to its concept (ludicrous as it may get).

AC3 is a giant pile of random ideas and gameplay hodgepodged into a big mess that forgets for most of the game that you're supposed to assassinate people.

 

[Superland]

Saints Row at least knows what it wants to be, and sticks to its concept (ludicrous as it may get).

AC3 is a giant pile of random ideas and gameplay hodgepodged into a big mess that forgets for most of the game that you're supposed to assassinate people.

it's not about the price, even tho in my country SRTT costs $38, and AC3 costs $45, which is pretty sucks, but yeah.
I dont know why, but I think I should go for the SRTT.
BUT, I would like to hear any other advices.
Thank you guys so much for your help, it helps me a lot, and I really appriciate it!

 

[Something Amyss]

I never played of the Saints Row games before Third, and I had no trouble following any of it.

(In fact, it might be better if you've never played a SR game, because it drops and/or alters several major bits)

It's also light and short enough that you can jump in and play multiple times.

Which may be because it's so insubstantial almost nothing sticks. But still.

 

[Something Amyss]

Get SR3 if you don't mind sacrificing realism for fun.

Isn't that descriptive of most games, though? I mean, even the other game suggested sacrifices realism for fun.

 

[hazabaza1]

AC3 is garbage in basically all respects. Boring story, broken gameplay, repetitive scenery, and easy as piss to booth. Saints Row 3 has a lot of bad stuff to say about it, but at least it's FUN. Assassin's Creed seemed to forget that if Ezio isn't on screen.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

AC3 and SR3, two wholly different games with different qualities. If you're out for mindless fun and really don't give a rats ass about plot, SR3 is the best of the series except for the player customization... that was a huge step backwards. HOWEVER, SR3 also got a huge boost when THQ died and Volition was given the greenlight to allow modders to do their thing. I haven't yet seen any mods because the hounds have only recently been released but I expect there will be some awesome ones.
AC3 on the other hand is a huge story-driven game with a lot of beautiful scenery and a decent plot (though people WILL argue that its a mess) I love the series, but I haven't quite had a chance to sit down and finish AC3. I do enjoy the game as much as the previous entries and the fighting system is fairly easy to grasp and enjoy.
Of the two, I'd say SR3 is the way to go if only for the sure-as-death-and-taxes flood of mods.

 

[BLAHwhatever]

If you want to get into AC, go for the first and AC 2 Brotherhood. Best parts in my opinion. Only thing I really liked about AC 3 was the homestead and the sea battles
God I hope AC4 will kick ass.. Could be the first decent pirate game since ... well the original Pirates! on amiga.

Saints Row 3 would be my recommendation
It's fun, fast, colorful, crazy. A bit disappointing when you played the 2nd part because they recycled alot of side missions. But since you don't know the second, go for it. Or save some money and get the fourth that's coming soon. Looks even more spectacular and delightfully insane. And no more Dr. Genki. Thank GOD.

 

[BushMonstar]

Saints Row 3 has a lot of bad stuff to say about it, but at least it's FUN.

That may just be the best way I've seen the whole game described.

I'd recommend SR3 over AC3, because, at the end of the day, despite how much stuff from the series has been dropped/reduced, and how the game doesn't take itself seriously, it's still really fun. It's kinda bad as a Saints Row game, but it's still a great game in general.

 

[soren7550]

Of the two, go for Saints Row the Third. You can get the Full Package edition (which comes with all the DLCs) for cheap, so get that one.

SRtT is loads of largely mindless fun, and encourages you to go make your own fun, whereas AC3 is mindlessly tedious and frustrating, and discourages you from making your own fun.

I want to go on more about this, but I have a wicked headache, so I'll leave saying that if you want to try the Assassin's Creed series, you're better off starting with either the first or second one.

 

[Superland]

Of the two, go for Saints Row the Third. You can get the Full Package edition (which comes with all the DLCs) for cheap, so get that one.

SRtT is loads of largely mindless fun, and encourages you to go make your own fun, whereas AC3 is mindlessly tedious and frustrating, and discourages you from making your own fun.

I want to go on more about this, but I have a wicked headache, so I'll leave saying that if you want to try the Assassin's Creed series, you're better off starting with either the first or second one.

Thanks alot for your help and time