What exactly do you think the definitions of "transsexual" and "genderqueer" are, for starters?Zachary Amaranth said:What, particularly is in need of expansion here?cassiebearRAWR said:Care to expand on that?
What exactly do you think the definitions of "transsexual" and "genderqueer" are, for starters?Zachary Amaranth said:What, particularly is in need of expansion here?cassiebearRAWR said:Care to expand on that?
You can also buy one from Planet Saints. Funny that..DataSnake said:There's a bowler hat available...as part of an on-disc DLC pack. I WISH I was kidding.
In a lot of respects, I think SR3 did improve upon SR2. The core gameplay is much better and the addition of mini-bosses means that you can't just go on a rampage at the start of the game, easily score a really badass armored vehicle turning most of the missions into a cake-walk by using that vehicle as much as possible. The new weapons are tons of fun and mixing grenades into the action is far simpler. And the main story missions are a hell of a lot of fun and often delightfully over-the-top.canadamus_prime said:It seems developers these days don't have the slightest clue how a sequel is supposed to work. Like isn't a sequel supposed to improve on the previous one not detract from it?
Well I'll have to take your word for all of that as I've never actually played a Saint's Row game. I was mostly talking about the altogether too common practice of removing or, heaven help me, streamlining features when sequel time roles around. Esp. when it's done to features that people liked. Presumably those would be the features you'd want to improve upon in the sequel, not remove or dumb-down. ...oh pardon me, "streamline."Netrigan said:In a lot of respects, I think SR3 did improve upon SR2. The core gameplay is much better and the addition of mini-bosses means that you can't just go on a rampage at the start of the game, easily score a really badass armored vehicle turning most of the missions into a cake-walk by using that vehicle as much as possible. The new weapons are tons of fun and mixing grenades into the action is far simpler. And the main story missions are a hell of a lot of fun and often delightfully over-the-top.canadamus_prime said:It seems developers these days don't have the slightest clue how a sequel is supposed to work. Like isn't a sequel supposed to improve on the previous one not detract from it?
The big problems I see are:
1) An unfocused single player campaign. SR2 featured lots of cool characters, but their involvement in the main story was often minimal. SR3 similarly had a lot of cool characters, but they were all shoved into the main story, so it didn't feel like you were discovering them, simply having them foisted upon you. They also stepped on their emotional beats, so the death of a major character has you waiting for him to return, rather than seeking revenge. Even the finale, you're basically offered up a choice between your homies or revenge against someone who was barely a speed bump on your road to continued power.
2) Lack of depth. For the first time since SR1, they created a city from scratch... and like the original there wasn't tons of cool things to find. SR2 had underground pedestrian walkways that you'd probably never go in during a regular playthrough and secret islands and all sorts of great touches that simply weren't there in SR3. The big difference was SR2 was refining a pre-existing game world and instead of creating a completely new environment, expanded upon the first.
3) The activities simply weren't up to scratch. In the second game, they were either an extension of the sorts of things you were doing in the main missions (Snatch or Escort) or an over-the-top diversion from it (Septic Avenger or Insurance Fraud). I'm currently replaying SR2 and there's a couple of times where the gameplay is really similar to the Activities, such as Gat's journey to the hospital being very similar to the Drug Trafficking activity. But SR3 ramped up the main missions to the point where something like Snatch was a significant gameplay downgrade. The Professor Genki show, while being little more than a wacky Hogan's Alley, at least felt like it belonged in the same game as an aerial tank battle. And while I'm grateful there's not six instances of an activity at every location (making the activities a serious grind in SR2), only one instance is too few.
4) Bonuses... while I like the leveling system with bonuses available for each level, there's simply not enough bonuses for the various challenges and activities. Without tangible rewards, why bother completing all the challenges. There should be a bonus item or skill for every single one of those... I get 50 nutshots, I want a cod-piece added to my wardrobe. And the more cheat-like skills like immunity to bullets, make them cheat-codes not a way to continue the game without an ounce of challenge.
They removed a fair bit, but SR2 had all sorts of diversions and stunts, which really weren't that much fun. Seriously, there's a tow truck diversion which they thankfully chucked over the side, as it was just tedious and frustrating... and your only reward for doing it was a pimped out tow truck and progress on an achievement. Really, a lot of it was there just to give the achievement hunters something to do. Yes, I've spent more time than I should have getting a three gold star wheelie for no other reason than to do it.canadamus_prime said:Well I'll have to take your word for all of that as I've never actually played a Saint's Row game. I was mostly talking about the altogether too common practice of removing or, heaven help me, streamlining features when sequel time roles around. Esp. when it's done to features that people liked. Presumably those would be the features you'd want to improve upon in the sequel, not remove or dumb-down. ...oh pardon me, "streamline."
It's almost like they're trying to make Saints Row into an R-rated Sims, when you get right down to it. Constantly releasing piece after piece to get more and more from people that already bought it.Zachary Amaranth said:Not to mention the game's significantly shorter with less content all around.Vausch said:That's becoming a real problem with the games industry, isn't it? I'm fine with DLC as a whole, it's a good concept and additional campaigns and stories that won't make or break the game are good ideas (Al-la Fallout 3/NV), but ones where the content seems like it was necessary and should have been on the original game to begin with, especially ones that give you the feeling that they planned to put it on the game then purposefully removed it.
The fact that they have 40 weeks of DLC announced is indicative of the problem, too. Instead of keeping us playing with a lot of shit, they plan to make us pay to squeeze longevity out of a shallower game.
Let me be clear: I LIKE Saints Row the Third. I've spent a total of 60 hours across two saves, so I can't bash the game entirely, but it's a wholly shallow experience compared to the last game.
It's less fun, it's less content, it's less...Well, almost everything. Fewer choices, less story, etc. And that doesn't make me want to buy the DLC, it makes me want to put down the game when I'm bored.
SR2, I wanted DLC. I wanted more, more, MORE! And they didn't give us much. Then they gave us a new game, but severely crippled it, and decided "hey, we'll give you more if you pay us..."
Season pass for added content is 20 bucks. That's three mission packs, which will have to be pretty big to get us up to the same level of content as the last game, at a 20 dollar price increase. Not to mention, it doesn't cover all the DLC: Night Blade is a bonus pack in the season pass, but the cheats pack and Shark-o-Matic are two examples of DLC not included.
THQ talked about engaging the player. They don't want to engage us. that's what 2 did. The Third instead offers a way for us to keep paying.
I'm not sure how "I respect you" would in any way need to be contrary to "I'm getting it."Gmans uncle said:Yahtzee, I respect you as a journalist and a critic, (your actually the guy who got me into the biz) but I'm still buying this. Why? Because I've played waaaaaay too much counter strike lately, and I need something with a singularity of fun and zaniness to balance that out.
I'm hoping the first DLC adds a bunch of crazy over-the-top activities and diversions to the game. I've spent 60 hours playing it so far and will very likely replay it another couple of times because it is tons of fun... but without the massive amount of content (even if it's repetitive content) there's really not much reason to keep on playing.Zachary Amaranth said:Not to mention the game's significantly shorter with less content all around.Vausch said:That's becoming a real problem with the games industry, isn't it? I'm fine with DLC as a whole, it's a good concept and additional campaigns and stories that won't make or break the game are good ideas (Al-la Fallout 3/NV), but ones where the content seems like it was necessary and should have been on the original game to begin with, especially ones that give you the feeling that they planned to put it on the game then purposefully removed it.
The fact that they have 40 weeks of DLC announced is indicative of the problem, too. Instead of keeping us playing with a lot of shit, they plan to make us pay to squeeze longevity out of a shallower game.
Let me be clear: I LIKE Saints Row the Third. I've spent a total of 60 hours across two saves, so I can't bash the game entirely, but it's a wholly shallow experience compared to the last game.
It's less fun, it's less content, it's less...Well, almost everything. Fewer choices, less story, etc. And that doesn't make me want to buy the DLC, it makes me want to put down the game when I'm bored.
SR2, I wanted DLC. I wanted more, more, MORE! And they didn't give us much. Then they gave us a new game, but severely crippled it, and decided "hey, we'll give you more if you pay us..."
Season pass for added content is 20 bucks. That's three mission packs, which will have to be pretty big to get us up to the same level of content as the last game, at a 20 dollar price increase. Not to mention, it doesn't cover all the DLC: Night Blade is a bonus pack in the season pass, but the cheats pack and Shark-o-Matic are two examples of DLC not included.
THQ talked about engaging the player. They don't want to engage us. that's what 2 did. The Third instead offers a way for us to keep paying.
I'm pretty sure we won't see a ton of new activities and diversions.Netrigan said:I'm hoping the first DLC adds a bunch of crazy over-the-top activities and diversions to the game. I've spent 60 hours playing it so far and will very likely replay it another couple of times because it is tons of fun... but without the massive amount of content (even if it's repetitive content) there's really not much reason to keep on playing.
Much as I ***** about the tow truck diversion in SR2 being no fun, one of these days, I'm going to finish it. Even though I think the sandbox in SR3 is more fun than in SR2, they need those seemingly never-ending goals to keep players motivated. And why they didn't put in more achievements, I don't know... those work as sandbox goals, too.
I had a lot of fun with SR3 and yet I can't find fault with anything said.Yahtzee Croshaw said:Saints Row: The Third
This week, Zero Punctuation reviews Saints Row: The Third.
Watch Video
Did you read the Extra punctuation before commenting on this review? If not I will summarize it for you. In Skyrim he complained that the multiple choices made it hard to know the consequences it would have later in the game. Because of poor choices he ended up at a full stop not being able to go back or forth. What he wanted to see in Saints Row 3 was minor customization that would be entertaining and not change the difficulty one bit.Vegosiux said:So let me get this straight:
Extra Punctuation: Skyrim - "Goddammit there are too many options for character customization!"
Zero Punctuation: Saints Row: The Third - "Goddammit there aren't enough options with the clothes!"
It looks a little odd to complain about there being less options when a few days earlier (or later, depending on when the video was made) you went on about how there's "almost too many options" somewhere else.