Zero Punctuation: Saints Row 2

[ygetoff]

The only thing Saints Row did better is by adding a bunch of useless features. If Rockstar had left off where they did from San Andreas they too would have added a bunch of useless features.

Unfortunately they decided to NOT follow San Andreas' footsteps. They instead removed features and worked on other areas like,graphics,physics,and detail. I myself am a modeler and can appreciate the amount of work put into making the GTA 4 city. You can tell that in Siants Row 2 they just copied buildings and textures all over the place to fill things up.

To summarize what I'm trying to say in Gta 4 you can go to the middle of the city and stare at beautifully modeled buildings, amazing car models and physics, and an astounding amount of adverse and active pedestrians. In Saints Row you won't see any of that, but you can get in a side seat of a car and shoot rockets!

It really depends what kind of gamer you are. Personally I would love to have both scenarios. But if I have to chose I'd rather play a game that has style and grace than one that was made to keep ADD kids busy for long periods of time.

yes game with bad graphic are never any fun at all *rolls eyes*

You missed his point - he appreciates the beauty of GTA4 above the fun - you wouldnt expect fun from a painting or some fine literature but that doesnt mean it is inferior. Games dont always have to be about fun.

However...

I'd worry about appreciating GTA4 for architechural modeling because if you care to glace your eyes a little above the ground floor level you'll find they arent just identical but downright lazy at times. Also, yes i see the appeal of a wonderfully detailed city where everything happens as it should but there were few times where there was anything i actually wanted to look at, just because life is a wonderful magical thing to some doesnt mean it is everywhere, and if your're going to base a game on that you should pick a location you'd actually want to be in.

Actually the point of games is to entertain so, yes, they HAVE to be fun. That's why they're called games. If they weren't fun we would call them [World of Warcraft] I mean jobs.

 

[Andaxay]

"Team Rocket style."

...Best...reference...ever...

Agreed! I had a good chuckle at this one. A lot of people I know have said SR2 is better than GTA4, but I didn't expect it from Yahtzee if I'm honest.

 

[Avida]

The only thing Saints Row did better is by adding a bunch of useless features. If Rockstar had left off where they did from San Andreas they too would have added a bunch of useless features.

Unfortunately they decided to NOT follow San Andreas' footsteps. They instead removed features and worked on other areas like,graphics,physics,and detail. I myself am a modeler and can appreciate the amount of work put into making the GTA 4 city. You can tell that in Siants Row 2 they just copied buildings and textures all over the place to fill things up.

To summarize what I'm trying to say in Gta 4 you can go to the middle of the city and stare at beautifully modeled buildings, amazing car models and physics, and an astounding amount of adverse and active pedestrians. In Saints Row you won't see any of that, but you can get in a side seat of a car and shoot rockets!

It really depends what kind of gamer you are. Personally I would love to have both scenarios. But if I have to chose I'd rather play a game that has style and grace than one that was made to keep ADD kids busy for long periods of time.

yes game with bad graphic are never any fun at all *rolls eyes*

You missed his point - he appreciates the beauty of GTA4 above the fun - you wouldnt expect fun from a painting or some fine literature but that doesnt mean it is inferior. Games dont always have to be about fun.

However...

I'd worry about appreciating GTA4 for architechural modeling because if you care to glace your eyes a little above the ground floor level you'll find they arent just identical but downright lazy at times. Also, yes i see the appeal of a wonderfully detailed city where everything happens as it should but there were few times where there was anything i actually wanted to look at, just because life is a wonderful magical thing to some doesnt mean it is everywhere, and if your're going to base a game on that you should pick a location you'd actually want to be in.

Actually the point of games is to entertain so, yes, they HAVE to be fun. That's why they're called games. If they weren't fun we would call them [World of Warcraft] I mean jobs.

1) http://www.answers.com/entertainment Does. Not. Mean. Fun... And from wiki "A video game is a game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device" again, no fun has to be present. That said GTA4 was a fun game, at times, for a short while so even by your misconceptions it forfilled its purpose.
2) WE - the public - called it a game, hell, call it an interactive movie if you really want all the facts remain, doesnt make it any less worthwhile.
3) The WoW thing... *sigh* nevermind

 

[LoudMouthPuertoRican]

Dont know why but I want him to attack Fable 2. I like the game but he hated the other one and I'd just like to see what he has to say about it, and one of my favorite parts...the dog

 

[reaper_94]

another great video hehe can't wait for this week's video

 

[wildde]

i think he forgot that at every activity you get two rewards for compleating them,the only thing that kept me in the crazy acion.You get a wepon acuaracy upgrade by flinging poo at houses(on diversions you only get one reward[running around naked gives you one reward])
pleas stop comparing games while leving alot of the game out of the review!

 

[Concretexx]

I purchased GTA: San Andreas on a whim last year, and I had a lot of fun with it for about a week. Before that, I hadn't played a GTA game since the very first one. I was reluctant to buy GTA IV, due to the general consensus being that it wasn't as "free" as I would have liked - something that irked me while playing GTA: SA.

I'm also a big FPS fan (ever since Wolfenstein 3D), but for some reason I had completely missed Painkiller. I went and bought Painkiller based on your review, and now I'm going to buy Saint's Row 2.

 

[dejawolf]

tamest ZP video review so far.. and still more awesome than 90% of the other trash around. i must be spoiled.
seems like yahtzee is losing some of his edge.
oh well, had to happend sooner or later.

 

[Gutterpunk]

We all need to shut up about Evil Genius.

First, Yatzee would probably play Dungeon Keeper before he played Evil Genius. I mean... Dungeon keeper is way better.

Second, Evil genius IS NOT WHAT HE WAS DESCRIBING. Calling Evil Genius a Super Villain sandbox game is like calling GTA a mafia micro-management series.

 

[ygetoff]

The only thing Saints Row did better is by adding a bunch of useless features. If Rockstar had left off where they did from San Andreas they too would have added a bunch of useless features.

Unfortunately they decided to NOT follow San Andreas' footsteps. They instead removed features and worked on other areas like,graphics,physics,and detail. I myself am a modeler and can appreciate the amount of work put into making the GTA 4 city. You can tell that in Siants Row 2 they just copied buildings and textures all over the place to fill things up.

To summarize what I'm trying to say in Gta 4 you can go to the middle of the city and stare at beautifully modeled buildings, amazing car models and physics, and an astounding amount of adverse and active pedestrians. In Saints Row you won't see any of that, but you can get in a side seat of a car and shoot rockets!

It really depends what kind of gamer you are. Personally I would love to have both scenarios. But if I have to chose I'd rather play a game that has style and grace than one that was made to keep ADD kids busy for long periods of time.

yes game with bad graphic are never any fun at all *rolls eyes*

You missed his point - he appreciates the beauty of GTA4 above the fun - you wouldnt expect fun from a painting or some fine literature but that doesnt mean it is inferior. Games dont always have to be about fun.

However...

I'd worry about appreciating GTA4 for architechural modeling because if you care to glace your eyes a little above the ground floor level you'll find they arent just identical but downright lazy at times. Also, yes i see the appeal of a wonderfully detailed city where everything happens as it should but there were few times where there was anything i actually wanted to look at, just because life is a wonderful magical thing to some doesnt mean it is everywhere, and if your're going to base a game on that you should pick a location you'd actually want to be in.

Actually the point of games is to entertain so, yes, they HAVE to be fun. That's why they're called games. If they weren't fun we would call them [World of Warcraft] I mean jobs.

1) http://www.answers.com/entertainment Does. Not. Mean. Fun... And from wiki "A video game is a game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device" again, no fun has to be present. That said GTA4 was a fun game, at times, for a short while so even by your misconceptions it forfilled its purpose.
2) WE - the public - called it a game, hell, call it an interactive movie if you really want all the facts remain, doesnt make it any less worthwhile.
3) The WoW thing... *sigh* nevermind

but a game is a device to pass time and time flies when you're having fun...so therefore games have to be fun. I'm pulling out my ace in the hole here and saying that Yahtzee would agree with me.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I'm surprised to see a positive review I can appreciate.
The last positive review I remember him giving was for No More Heroes which didn't deserve it. This game at least deserves the praise. Rather than sending you around town mowing lawns and pumping gas, this game has you running around blowing stuff up and flinging crap at things: much more entertaining don't you think?
I'm glad he pointed out that it's no technical marvel but if you can look past glitches and draw distance problems, you'll dig SR2. And if you're going to compare it to a GTA game, compare it to San Andreas. The story in SR2 doesn't last nearly as long and the map isn't quite as big but it gives you even more crazy things to do.

 

[Avida]

but a game is a device to pass time and time flies when you're having fun...so therefore games have to be fun. I'm pulling out my ace in the hole here and saying that Yahtzee would agree with me.

*gives up*

 

[The Ruiner]

I am happy to see Yahtzee, and I agree on something again. It's been quite a while as well. It really does make me sick at how a lot of critics hold GTA IV as the holy grail, but in reality it was the first in the series that made me have to force myself to finish it! Saint's Row 2 is not nearly as polished, but you soon lose sight of the graphics when the fun factor the game has is 10 times more.

 

[wildde]

but in reality it was the first in the series that made me have to force myself to finish it! Saint's Row 2 is not nearly as polished, but you soon lose sight of the graphics when the fun factor the game has is 10 times more.

I liked looking at new stillwater, very diferent from the first and alot has changed(ALOT).
Also whats up with the flashing diversion, i have to stand still and wave my junk around while blind people start trying to beat me up! very wierd indeed, but infair!
O never played GTA4 but ever since this guy revwied it, my eyes just skiped to the next game.

 

[Scakes]

but a game is a device to pass time and time flies when you're having fun...so therefore games have to be fun. I'm pulling out my ace in the hole here and saying that Yahtzee would agree with me.

*gives up*

I'm with you on this one, Avida.

 

[ygetoff]

but a game is a device to pass time and time flies when you're having fun...so therefore games have to be fun. I'm pulling out my ace in the hole here and saying that Yahtzee would agree with me.

*gives up*

ok, that's finally over, so i can climb back into my cave and never leave again (mainly because the cave has fallout 3)

 

[overfiend_87]

true that it isn't Sandbox, however it's getting closer to it. The patch after the new one coming out is called architech where you can make your own missions, but I'm not about to get into a big argument over it.

It might appeal to him to know that they have been thinking of making a stand alone to CoH that's single player. They should really make a sandbox one too that'll be on Consoles.

 

[PsiMatrix]

Bit late chiming in on this one but I've just played through one run of SR2 and loved it. Not in the least because Tynesha (what I call my lead) blasted half the freaking city apart, killing gang members left, right and centre before finishing with a cliched but enjoyable boss fight.

And it is better than GTA 4 for exactly the reason Yahtzee has stated: fun. I got progressively bored of the GTA series after Vice City and trying the Stories sagas for PSP didn't enthrall me too much either. GTA4 is stodgy by comparison to SR2 but I would argue that it isn't competing with GTA4 but something between GTA 2 & 3.

I loved being able to customise my character (my first being a blue-hair fox who fit nicely into the world and the next a hardened cockney bastard who still makes me laugh as he plays off against the US cast (Mreow, Eliza Dushku)), the missions have plenty of black humour in them, the action sequences are pretty well scripted out...

... it sucked me in. When Tynesha tackled Merrow in his tattoo parlour and bricked the musician friend to filleting the Ronin's leader on a boat, I was drawn into the world more so than boring Niko. Which drew me back to playing the earlier GTA series and what I wanted most to happen with them: put myself in the game. Putting the pieces of my character together made me feel like I was more than just the voice in their head telling them to go left or right.

Then there's the whole gang ideal. Part of what knawed at me whilst playing GTA installments was that you were a solo master criminal, doing all the tasks yourself. SR2 on the other hand allows you to recruit helpers and has fellow gang members patrolling the streets of neighbourhoods you capture. Brilliant. What good is being a crimelord if you don't have a few lackeys to help you out? Multiplayer with a co-op mode too? Fantastic!

And I'd actually like to thank Yahtzee for being such a discerning gamer. Were it not for his rev... appraisal of SR2, I might not have bought it.

 

[3nj0i]

I will only buy this if i get to throw old ladies into jet turbines.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The only thing Saints Row did better is by adding a bunch of useless features. If Rockstar had left off where they did from San Andreas they too would have added a bunch of useless features.

Unfortunately they decided to NOT follow San Andreas' footsteps. They instead removed features and worked on other areas like,graphics,physics,and detail. I myself am a modeler and can appreciate the amount of work put into making the GTA 4 city. You can tell that in Siants Row 2 they just copied buildings and textures all over the place to fill things up.

To summarize what I'm trying to say in Gta 4 you can go to the middle of the city and stare at beautifully modeled buildings, amazing car models and physics, and an astounding amount of adverse and active pedestrians. In Saints Row you won't see any of that, but you can get in a side seat of a car and shoot rockets!

It really depends what kind of gamer you are. Personally I would love to have both scenarios. But if I have to chose I'd rather play a game that has style and grace than one that was made to keep ADD kids busy for long periods of time.

yes game with bad graphic are never any fun at all *rolls eyes*

You missed his point - he appreciates the beauty of GTA4 above the fun - you wouldnt expect fun from a painting or some fine literature but that doesnt mean it is inferior. Games dont always have to be about fun.

However...

I'd worry about appreciating GTA4 for architechural modeling because if you care to glace your eyes a little above the ground floor level you'll find they arent just identical but downright lazy at times. Also, yes i see the appeal of a wonderfully detailed city where everything happens as it should but there were few times where there was anything i actually wanted to look at, just because life is a wonderful magical thing to some doesnt mean it is everywhere, and if your're going to base a game on that you should pick a location you'd actually want to be in.

Actually the point of games is to entertain so, yes, they HAVE to be fun. That's why they're called games. If they weren't fun we would call them [World of Warcraft] I mean jobs.

1) http://www.answers.com/entertainment Does. Not. Mean. Fun... And from wiki "A video game is a game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device" again, no fun has to be present. That said GTA4 was a fun game, at times, for a short while so even by your misconceptions it forfilled its purpose.
2) WE - the public - called it a game, hell, call it an interactive movie if you really want all the facts remain, doesnt make it any less worthwhile.
3) The WoW thing... *sigh* nevermind

but a game is a device to pass time and time flies when you're having fun...so therefore games have to be fun. I'm pulling out my ace in the hole here and saying that Yahtzee would agree with me.

Games don't have to be fun. But if they are not fun they are simply crap games, which is a definition I think applies to GTA4.