Hold up there, you missed the =Ulquiorra4sama said:
like this:
Anyway, I (and most others) play Saints Row for the silly, over the top action. If I wanted to go play a fo serious ho hum sandbox game, I'd pick up GTA. Until then, Dubstep Gun.
Saint's Row 4: You are the president with superpowers and a dubstep gun
- Thread starter ScrabbitRabbit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
like this:
Anyway, I (and most others) play Saints Row for the silly, over the top action. If I wanted to go play a fo serious ho hum sandbox game, I'd pick up GTA. Until then, Dubstep Gun.
Basically, you don't care for it so no-one else does?Akratus said:
I don't get why people are getting so worked up about SR:4; I personally loved the wackiness of SR:TT. It's what set the game apart from GTA to me. Also, the fact that it didn't bother sticking to realism also made me love it more, like the 8-bit tank you can drive, or the fact that you can go to any garage you own and spawn pretty much any vehicle you wanted.
As others have said, if you want a more serious game then switch to GTA or something. Or, if you want more of SR2, then go play it again.
The sad thing is, when a sequel to a game is the same as its predecessor, people will complain, but when its different, they still complain.
Hell, both sides of that coin are in this thread; There are people complaining about how different the series is from SR:2 while others complain about how SR:4 looks like the same as SR:TT...
I can not express how disappointed I was in the 3rd. Unless I hear otherwise, that it fixes all the problems I had with 3 I'll wait for it to hit the bargain bin.
Then Saints Row 3 cames out and it seemed like.... okay, my sociopathic Joker character has become jaded and bored by success... Also they kill Johnny Gat and we don't even see the Syndicate attack the funeral, it all happens off screen.
And what the fuck did they do to Shaundi? She went from being a sexy offbeat stoner chick to a total diva.
I loved how emotionally inconsistent it was. It made me feel like the player character was tried and true sociopath, which he pretty much was.SajuukKhar said:
Then Saints Row 3 cames out and it seemed like.... okay, my sociopathic Joker character has become jaded and bored by success... Also they kill Johnny Gat and we don't even see the Syndicate attack the funeral, it all happens off screen.
And what the fuck did they do to Shaundi? She went from being a sexy offbeat stoner chick to a total diva.
Yeah, I hate what happened to Shaundi, and Johnny dying. But I like The Boss a lot. He's a tried and true sociopath, jaded by success, like you said. It's like, "Well, crap. I have my own effing energy drink. I'm untouchable! I'm freaking bored... Let's go make some fun!"SaneAmongInsane said:
well I know i'm skipping this game. I also don't see why they haven't tried to do a spin off for SR2 fans. any way I don't count SR:TT and SR:4 as part of the real story line, I'm just going with the boss died at the end of sr 2 due to brain damage from the coma.
*sigh*lacktheknack said:
I hate this argument. I fucking hate it. I saw it on YouTube in the comments for the announcement trailer: "If Saints Row The Third was too goofy, go back to GTA!"
What people mean when they say that, is that SRTT lacks context. Its goofiness exists with no form of context, and thus it's kinda boring in a way. SR2 HAD context. It was goofy, with context. Just because it wasn't "over the top" like SRTT doesn't mean that everyone should start fucking off to GTA.
Yahtzee made a delightful EP about it:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9276-Context-Challenge-and-Gratification
SR2 had all three of those things. That's what made it a great game. I won't be buying SR4, but I won't be buying GTA IV either. Next time someone tells me to go back to GTA, I swear to God...
EDIT: Granted, "fun" is subjective to the individual. I can't tell you that you didn't like SRTT. That would make me an idiot. But there's a point where people need to admit that SRTT had no context for the weird shit that it through in there. If you like it, that's fine. But if people like SR2 better, it doesn't mean they should just jump ship, and it doesn't mean they want an increasingly "gritty" GTA game.
I really did prefer the SR2 approach of having it be normal gangs in some sense of semi-realistic environments with just a touch of the wackiness thrown in the make it unique and fun, so I will admit that this isn't exactly what I was hoping to see.
But y'know what, it still looks fun, I'm still going to buy it, and I'm willing to bet that I'm going to enjoy it.
There are 2 things though that I would like for them to bring back into the series
1. Let us re-watch game cutscenes. I have no idea who decided to take that out, but please bring it back.
2. Put small cutscenes before the mini-games again. Again, no clue who decided to take those out. I loved meeting the wacky characters who were actually hiring my guy to do these things.
...and while I'm wanting to see stuff again, any chance we can get the talk radio back? I'm sure No because 2 or 3 didn't have it but...y'know...I can dream.
But y'know what, it still looks fun, I'm still going to buy it, and I'm willing to bet that I'm going to enjoy it.
There are 2 things though that I would like for them to bring back into the series
1. Let us re-watch game cutscenes. I have no idea who decided to take that out, but please bring it back.
2. Put small cutscenes before the mini-games again. Again, no clue who decided to take those out. I loved meeting the wacky characters who were actually hiring my guy to do these things.
...and while I'm wanting to see stuff again, any chance we can get the talk radio back? I'm sure No because 2 or 3 didn't have it but...y'know...I can dream.
...TO YOU.camscottbryce said:
I didn't find it boring in the slightest. It's one of the few sandboxes I've 99%'d.
I am not what you mean by "it didn't have context". I don't think you really know either, seeing how you slung the word around four times in four sentences without any alternates or clarification.
Are you saying the craziness didn't make sense in the story or setting? Because it really did. After the opening, I knew that I was in a parallel universe where stupid stuff happened and it is accepted as common. The S&M horse-chase sequence, Dr. Genkii's kill-everyone TV show, and the hilarious "Health Insurance Fraud" bits were not "contextless", they were PART OF the context. You may say that they didn't gel with the standardness of the everyday citizens, but I just straight-up disagree. The standard people with the fairly standard radio stations and the standard rundown feel of the city before you come in and really start messing up the seriousness actually made me feel like I was doing something different and fun.
Claiming it didn't have context in that form would be more or less saying "I can't deal with things that aren't based on real life". If you want something based off reality for better and worse, than the new Saints Rows and Just Cause are simply not your bag. And that would lead me to believe that yes, you would be better off playing GTA or early Saints Row.
(Then again, if you liked Saints Row 2, there's a decent chance you'll like Just Cause 2 as well. Try that one.)
EDIT: Granted, "fun" is subjective to the individual. I can't tell you that you didn't like SRTT. That would make me an idiot. But there's a point where people need to admit that SRTT had no context for the weird shit that it through in there. If you like it, that's fine. But if people like SR2 better, it doesn't mean they should just jump ship, and it doesn't mean they want an increasingly "gritty" GTA game.
I'll concede to that, but you still have Saints Row 2.
I don't have anything like Saints Row 4 yet.
Let me have my fun.
Why.
Why go to the extremes.
GTA V most likely will be uber realistic tone and thats just BORING.
Saints row 4 is going to be stupidly over the top wacky and innmature.
WHY THE HELL CANT I HAVE SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE? GTA VICE CITY (And to a lesser extent San Andreas, althougt I rather play Vice City FTW) WAS THE BEST OF THEM ALL, NOR TO INMATTURE AND OVER THE TOP NOR STUPIDLY REALISTIC
GTA Vice City is the best sandbox game of this kind IMO, it still is.
Why go to the extremes.
GTA V most likely will be uber realistic tone and thats just BORING.
Saints row 4 is going to be stupidly over the top wacky and innmature.
WHY THE HELL CANT I HAVE SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE? GTA VICE CITY (And to a lesser extent San Andreas, althougt I rather play Vice City FTW) WAS THE BEST OF THEM ALL, NOR TO INMATTURE AND OVER THE TOP NOR STUPIDLY REALISTIC
GTA Vice City is the best sandbox game of this kind IMO, it still is.
I'm sorry but lacktheknack, calm the hell down, we're not trying to take the game away from you. We're simply stating that we are personally displeased with the direction of the game, we're tired of the new 'SO WACKY!' fanbase hand-waving away our concerns by telling us to go to other games. If Grand Theft Auto had the tone we wanted, we would be playing it instead of discussing this, if Just Cause had the tone we wanted, again, playing it instead of discussing this. To my knowledge Saints Row 2 onwards have been the only game with a serious emphasis on customization and giving your gang an identity you want, when we say context we mean there's some set-up before the crazy stuff happens.
'But why?' is the question we ask when there is no context. Why are we wandering around naked high on date rape drugs when we could have just as easily stormed the place? Why did they choose to give an important character throughout the series an off-screen death when virtually everyone else - including supporting characters - had their death shown? Why are we bothering to do this stupid gimp chariot race thing when it feels like it would've just been faster to go on foot? Why, why, why. There are many questions raised but few of them answered, on top of the terrible DLC practices.
As I said before it feels like the silly side murdered the serious side, then the silly side decided to make the game anorexic so it was all bones and no meat. There is style, there is flash, glitz, and it feels more refined than 2 but like it has so much less than 2. 4 seems like it's continuing this trend; amping up the ridiculous and removing more of the fun in favor of little gimmicks that lose their appeal. Fast.
Yes, I am freaking annoyed by the 'GTFO' responses of the other camp.
'But why?' is the question we ask when there is no context. Why are we wandering around naked high on date rape drugs when we could have just as easily stormed the place? Why did they choose to give an important character throughout the series an off-screen death when virtually everyone else - including supporting characters - had their death shown? Why are we bothering to do this stupid gimp chariot race thing when it feels like it would've just been faster to go on foot? Why, why, why. There are many questions raised but few of them answered, on top of the terrible DLC practices.
As I said before it feels like the silly side murdered the serious side, then the silly side decided to make the game anorexic so it was all bones and no meat. There is style, there is flash, glitz, and it feels more refined than 2 but like it has so much less than 2. 4 seems like it's continuing this trend; amping up the ridiculous and removing more of the fun in favor of little gimmicks that lose their appeal. Fast.
Yes, I am freaking annoyed by the 'GTFO' responses of the other camp.
I absolutely hate this attitude. Telling us to play "x" game instead is moronic. Replace saints row with half life and gta with call of duty. You'll get the gist of what I mean.lacktheknack said:
When people are fans of a certain series, they would rather developers fix the issues with the game they like rather than jump ship every time something goes wrong.
I'm glad you read the article /sarcasmlacktheknack said:
The point of linking the article was to explain the ideas of context, gratification, and challenge. Here's a useful excerpt:
"I hope you're still picturing that XKCD-style triangle chart because now I want you to imagine Saints Row 2 being pretty much in the middle, and that's why I liked it. It had challenge, it was certainly very gratifying, and the context of your customised character clawing his (or her or its) gang up to the dizzy heights made it involving. Saints Row 3 you have to imagine being nudged a little too far from the Context point and a little too close to Gratification. So while it is still fun in a ragdolls to the wind kind of way - there's hours of fun to be had just in running around doing sprinting takedowns, especially the one that ends with your character doing a cheeky swimsuit pose and smile for the camera - it's no longer fun on the same number of levels. And even if there's still enjoyment in it, a sequel should always be admonished if it turns out to be less than its predecessor. Because that is a series that is not moving in a forward-style direction."
If you're still too ignorant to read that, here's a TL;DR version: Saints Row 2 had your customized character getting his gang up the ladder (context), all while challenging the player and providing gratifying game play. IT IS STILL FUN, IN SRTT, to use sprinting takedowns and blow ragdolls all over the place, but there isn't as much context (why is the main character doing these things? Take down the morning star? Yes. Participate in a weird Dr. Genki killfest? Why? "I don't know, because it's goofy and funny and hilarious... who0o0o0o.")
The reason why people are upset isn't because it's not like GTA, or because it's not serious. They don't like it because it didn't have what SR2 had, and as Yahtzee said: "...even if there's still enjoyment in it, a sequel should always be admonished if it turns out to be less than its predecessor. Because that is a series that is not moving in a forward-style direction."
Again, it's FUN. Sure, at least, for a while. But whacking dudes with dildos and using superpowers is coming off as being goofy and gimmicky without providing proper context for the player or the character to really care.
This fellow also did a decent job explaining it.
Comrade Richard said:
