Poll: A question for those who hate Saints Row the Third...

[AngryBritishAce]

Now, I myself purchased Saints Row the Third without knowing much about it. It was £10 in a steam sale, and I didn't have high expectations, as I'm not a big fan of sandbox gangster games in general (yes, I know that's basically gaming blasphemy). When I began playing it, I was highly surprised with it's over the top, whacky gameplay, and ended up spending a lot of time getting to 100% completion.

After this, I bought Saints Row 2, and realised that this game was a lot more serious in tone, while still keeping it's humour. I ended up prefering SR2, however SR:tT's over-the-top gameplay kept me coming back more overall, as it was a great time waster.

When the trailers began playing for Saints Row 4, I turned to the comments section of the vids to discuss the game and realised that most people were extremely unhappy with what they were seeing. They wanted more SR2 and less Saints Row 3. As more info came out, these complaints grew louder. What I saw the most of was people complaining that Saints Row The Third was a shallow experience compared to the 2nd installment and that the game overall sacrificed it's story, characters and overall tone to provide completely different (and unwanted) from it's brilliant predecessor.

Now while I say I agree with this, I simply can't deny that I had a whole lot of fun with SR:tT and I am really looking forward to more of it in SR4. Now, since most of the complaints are that the universe and characters have all been shoved out of the window for this whacky gameplay, I was wondering, for those who hated (or at least disliked) Saints Row the Third, if you would play and enjoy Saints Row the Third if it was labelled as a completely separate game to the previous two.

Same story, same town, but the gang you play as aren't the Saints and all of the returning characters have been switched for completely new characters with the same roles and personality, just different actors, models and dialogue lines. It's a completely stand-alone game and in no way relates back to Saints Row.

Would you enjoy it then? Or would you still think it's lack of story and shallow gameplay not worth the money or time?

 

[Frotality]

i had fun with it, it was just a(correct) sign that someone was taking the series in the wrong direction, accentuating one aspect of the game as if it was the only thing people liked about it. the thing about whackiness is that with no drama to balance it, it becomes routine and ultimately less funny than a much-less whacky game that simply knows when and where to goof off.

the whole god damn appeal and controversy over GTA comes about because stealing cars and murdering cops was still treated as a BAD thing in the game, it still treated you like the criminal asshole you were, and it was cathartic. when you start giving upgrades and items and bonuses for being a menace to society, it stops being hilarious catharsis and becomes just part of the routine of the game. the whole appeal of a sandbox game is letting players fuck w/ shit in ways the design doesnt support, doing things that have no purpose in the game but are possible and fun because the game still provides the means for you to do so. of course SR2 and GTA still have plenty of intentional whackiness, but they have the dramatic counter-weight to let you know that "okay, its still a normal world where gang wars and habitual thievery are frowned upon. so... lets do that."

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

It wouldn't be as bad, but it still wasn't a very fun game. Going over-the-top all the time just makes the game boring. If everything is awesome, then nothing is awesome.

 

[mohit9206]

I thought SR3 was just not for me. It was boring, repetitive with a really weak story all mixed up. Its definitely an overrated game. I love open world games but SR3 just did not click with me like GTA4, Sleeping Dogs and Mafia 2 did. I guess i like games with some serious story.

 

[AgentLampshade]

I'm...not sure actually. While it's true a lot of my problems with the game stemmed from the fact I didn't like the direction they went in, I also feel as a game on it's own, it wouldn't have much to it. The Saints were established in the previous 2 games as badasses who already owned Stilwater, and that's why they were able to go off the deep end with it. It felt a little like a reward for the hard work you did in the first 2.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well I don't hate it but I have a very low parody tolerance, if you throw some silly into a serious game that is like honey glazed bacon for me, but SR3 was just a deep fried twinkie with peanut butter and chocolate on top... it was cool for a first bite but trying to digest the whole thing is nothing short of nauseating torture.

It's the first time I was glad a game is short, but still they had lame content and not much of it.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

No, I wouldn't. It was boring, shallow and insulting to the intellect. It's a stupid game. And on top of that it was butchered and sold in dozens of parts via DLC.

 

[Elijin]

My main issue with SR3 was to do with the gameplay and unlocks. SR2 had a really rewarding system of collection and minigames which constantly rewarded you with unique vehicles weapons and abilities.

Then SR3 had the awful lvling system where you were very quickly invincible, which was not toggle on/off and complete killed a lot of the challenge for me. And the unique vehicles, weapons and clothes were few and far between, instead being held back as paid DLC.

Yes, SR2 also had the abilities to make you godlike, but they had to be earned through doing side missions and activities, which made them feel a lot more deserved and interesting. Also tended to mean they came after the story when you were dicking about, instead of destroying the story with how easily and fast you gained those abilities in SR3.

While I can acknowledge the changes in tone and the story suffering, it was always the full co-op gameplay and great unlock system which pulled me back to the SR games. And with that in mind, Im on the fence for SR4.

 

[JasonKaotic]

Ehh. I don't hate Saints Row the Third. I kind of like it. It's just that it does have to be compared to Saints Row 2 because of how freakin' awesome that game was. The best thing about it was the customisation. So what does Volition decide the most logical thing to do would be? Tear out most of the depth in the customisation and add nothing new to it but a sex appeal slider and a zombie voice. And is it just me or is it impossible to make your character look how you want them to?
And there's also the characters. What the actual fuck happened to Shaundi?

Spoiler

And seriously. Johnny. He's been in the series since the start, he's beloved by fans and is known as a near enough invincible badass. Saints Row the Third just offs him off-camera five minutes in and only mentions him once after that in the whole game. What the actual hell?

And there is the problem that SR3 is just really, really stupid.
Saints Row 2 was the somewhat serious but lighthearted, and had a surprisingly good story, but at the same time had a lot of funny stuff in it. But it was never invasive. A lot of it you had to go out of your way to find, and that made it feel more rewarding, along with being funnier.
SR3 just feels like it was written by a 13-year-old. Dick jokes ahoy, more dick jokes ahoy, giant dildo melee weapon, strippers everywhere, enough forced 'I ARE BADASS' lines to keep you unmotivated for years, and more dick jokes ahoy. And I genuinely don't remember SR3's story at all. SR2's story has some of my favourite game moments ever.

In its own right, Saints Row the Third is a pretty great game, and I admittedly do find myself returning to it more than SR2 for some reason. Mainly for the Vitol and flying bike thing. Those were awesome. It did improve the gameplay, aside from the customisation, and some of the new weapons in SR3 are pretty cool, but everything else in it just feels so shallow compared to SR2.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

No the fact that it was sequel had no effect on how shit I found it to be.

 

[Ziggy the wolf]

im sorry but i loved saints row the third. its silly and over the top and completely unrealistic and with the 4th one coming out i await it with open arms. i play plenty of serious games with gray and boring visuals. at the same time i was Re-playing it, i had purchased KOA Reckoning. it was serious with bright colorful and took itself seriously like a lot of Rpgs tend to do. they were a great contrast and both are great games. people take the game way too seriously and this is a 'leave your brain off' kind of game. normally i cant do that with films and the like but when you are actually a part of the story, its still fun.

SR:tT had its faults and some of them are glaring ones but i can look past it because it was a damn fine and entertaining game. If im looking for art, i dont watch a Michael Bay film.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

For me, I'm not sure if I would've bought it at all if it hadn't been a sequel. It was my love of SR2 that made me pay attention to the Third, if it'd just been another sandbox gangster game it probably would've slipped by me.

Having said that, I'm glad I did buy it, as my opinion of the game has changed over time. When I first played it I wasn't keen on the changes they made, and much preferred the story, characters and general feel of 2. But after playing co-op with my friend, I realised what I did like about Third, which was the sheer capacity it gave you to just go crazy.

If I was playing by myself, I'd still choose 2, but for mucking about, and making ourselves laugh till we cry, I'll go for an evening of nude skydiving races, rooftop rocket duels and zombie fistfights in the Third any day.

 

[Longing]

Ehh, I think so. Obviously it was way weaker than its predecessor, but I still had fun with it. I watched the trailer for the next one a few days ago and I have to say I'm bracing myself for a whole lot of disappointment. I feel like SR3 went to the limit of my patience for wackiness, not sure I can stomach whatever the fuck that was I saw. I liked the two first games because of the whole gang aspect and it seems like they're getting rid of all that for the sake of the series becoming a parody of itself.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

I don't hate the game, but I didn't like it as much as I hoped. I suppose I would enjoy it more if it wasn't a sequel. SR2 set up a huge expectation for me so I was hoping SRTT was gonna be bigger and better, but it wasn't.

Spoiler

And seriously. Johnny. He's been in the series since the start, he's beloved by fans and is known as a near enough invincible badass. Saints Row the Third just offs him off-camera five minutes in and only mentions him once after that in the whole game. What the actual hell?

Spoiler

Not to mention the ending where Johnny appears again without any explanation whatsoever, then the DLC where they turned him into a dumbass giant.

 

[AngryBritishAce]

Spoiler

Not to mention the ending where Johnny appears again without any explanation whatsoever, then the DLC where they turned him into a dumbass giant.

[spoiler/] I assume you're talking about the ending where you save your friends instead of going after Killbane. If that's the case, the guy playing Johnny is an actor brought in specifically to do the "Gangsters in Space" movie, not the real deal. [/spoiler]

 

[Sack of Cheese]

[spoiler/] I assume you're talking about the ending where you save your friends instead of going after Killbane. If that's the case, the guy playing Johnny is an actor brought in specifically to do the "Gangsters in Space" movie, not the real deal. [/spoiler]

Spoiler

Ahh, that so? Because there was a theory that SRTT was a movie too so I got confused.

Come to think of it, I really wish they make SR4 an alternative universe. Then we can go back to the 3 gangs method again.

 

[Smeatza]

Saints Row 3 is the only sandbox game I've played where running around the map causing chaos isn't really that fun.
If it wasn't for the fact it had co-op and I had someone to play the whole game through with I think I would have been disappointed.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Nothing could change the fact that this game is a shallow open world experience. Even without any knowledge of previous SR games it doesn`t somehow extend the short lenght and the boring few side missions/activities. Comparing it with SR1 and 2 doesn`t make any sense to me since it´s already happened that THQ switched everything for the sake of a new direction and created a different game.

 

[Daft Time]

If everything is awesome, then nothing is awesome.

Wow, that's my whole problem with Saints Row: The Third in a single sentence. I wasn't sure you could boil it down so perfectly.

Spoiler: Nice work.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

As someone who didn't hate SRtT but didn't like it much either I'd say that maybe option.
I'd be fairly happy to have a proper sequel to SR2 but I'd still consider 3 to be shallow and only really good for one playthrough and maybe some occasional mayhem.

Meh I'd probably like it just the same.