Developer Laziness: Saint's Row the Third

[WanderingFool]

I loved Saints Row 3, I really did, but the truth is truth, Saints Row 2 was just BETTER.

I played Saints Row 1 a few weeks before 3 came out, (I played 2 first, dont ask why) and really didnt like it too much. So having played and beaten all three, I have to say Saints Row 2 is still the best in the series.

So I personally hope they revert to the old formula for 4, and not stick with 3's.

 

[Wereduck]

Saints Row 3 may be the biggest gaming disappointment I have ever had.
...

Word of warning; if SRtT is your biggest disappointment you'd better stay far, FAR away from Master of Orion III and X-Com Enforcer. Seriously, they'll give you seizures or something.

OT: SRtT definitely fell short of my hopes but it has it's positives too. I'm hopeful that all the people calling for the freedom of SR2 won't go unheard and we can get the full package in the next sequel (honestly, it's too big to fix in DLC).

For me, the single best thing that makes SRtT an overall improvement is that they made it much easier to end those random battles with auto-respawning hostiles. In my much-beloved SR2 there was great depth of story and customization but you couldn't mix it up with a rival gang without running to an activity start to dump notoriety, hiding on a rooftop for half an hour while it dropped on its own, or getting killed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah I know it can never be flawless, but they can do a lot better. GTA IV didn't have anywhere near as many bugs as this

To be fair, GTA IV didn't really have as much going, either. I know it's a later game and all that, but SRTT did offer a lot in terms of customisation and activity, while GTA IV took almost all of it out and said something about "new platform." Granted, the city was larger than previous titles while Steelport was smaller than Stillwater 2, but still. In terms of dynamics, Steelport had a lot of it, and LC didn't. The more open your world, the bigger the problems.

Still, a lot of these bugs are horrendous and obvious and have no place there.

 

[Hazy992]

Yeah I know it can never be flawless, but they can do a lot better. GTA IV didn't have anywhere near as many bugs as this

To be fair, GTA IV didn't really have as much going, either. I know it's a later game and all that, but SRTT did offer a lot in terms of customisation and activity, while GTA IV took almost all of it out and said something about "new platform." Granted, the city was larger than previous titles while Steelport was smaller than Stillwater 2, but still. In terms of dynamics, Steelport had a lot of it, and LC didn't. The more open your world, the bigger the problems.

Still, a lot of these bugs are horrendous and obvious and have no place there.

Yeah guess you're right but like you say, some of them are still terrible and there really is no excuse for it, other than apathy.

 

[synulia]

My god, and I can recall how hyped everyone was for this game (not me). Is this backlash at SR3 gonna result in people going back to GTA? I sure hope so.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah guess you're right but like you say, some of them are still terrible and there really is no excuse for it, other than apathy.

And the need to churn out 40 weeks of DLC.

My god, and I can recall how hyped everyone was for this game (not me). Is this backlash at SR3 gonna result in people going back to GTA? I sure hope so.

Depends on whether GTA persists in being boring.

 

[synulia]

Yeah guess you're right but like you say, some of them are still terrible and there really is no excuse for it, other than apathy.

And the need to churn out 40 weeks of DLC.

My god, and I can recall how hyped everyone was for this game (not me). Is this backlash at SR3 gonna result in people going back to GTA? I sure hope so.

Depends on whether GTA persists in being boring.

It seems that we're on opposite sides. I quite enjoy the slow burn of GTA games, love the anticipation of bigger set pieces and badass missions. I feel like Saint's Row gives you way too much all at once, and paces itself poorly.

 

[MattRooney06]

I did find it a little bizarre that a lot of the creativity seemed to be cut, there just didn't seem, to be a reason for it, I liked giving my character his own little walk and fighting style, and being able to choose the angle he wore his hat, and whether he chose to wear his shirt open or not

 

[Something Amyss]

It seems that we're on opposite sides. I quite enjoy the slow burn of GTA games, love the anticipation of bigger set pieces and badass missions. I feel like Saint's Row gives you way too much all at once, and paces itself poorly.

No, I just don't want date simulators, TV watching, and cover-based shooter mechanics in my game. Nor do I want sluggish controls, overly dark environments that make it hard to navigate, or flat characters with a pretense of seriousness.

The "slow burn" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Musiclly enhanced]

At least it works on PC, that instantly makes it better then SR2 in my books. However on console (apart from better graphics and a great opening hour or so) the game is worse then SR2.

mine wont run over 20 FPS despite all other games i own working at 60FPs steadily

 

[XMark]

The structure of the whole game was really strange. It's like, you're on the plane with the big bad guy who's running a powerful crime organization that rivals the Saints. There's a brush with death, Johnny Gat dies (offscreen, and I haven't beat the game yet so I'm not sure if he makes an appearance later on or not) and you're stranded in a new city.

So you're thinking "ah, that's the game idea. We get busted back down to nothing and have to rebuild our empire".
Then a couple missions later you're like "Oh... all right, we got a massive multi-million-dollar penthouse suite and we're still in the tutorial section of the game. WTF?"
And then a couple missions after that you storm the headquarters of the big bad guy and kill him. So you've barely even started the game and you've already resolved the primary conflict and restored your gang to its previous status. It seems like the rest of the game is just going to be mopping up the remnants of the enemy gang's associates.

I dunno, I think I'm about a third of the way through the game. Maybe something interesting happens to the plot later on?

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

I don't know, Saints Row: The Third is my first entry into the series, and I'm having a damn hilarious and great time with it so far. If the previous iteration was "better" as you call it, then why not just go play it? It's not like the game went anywhere.

Isn't something claimed to be "more fun" or "better" completely on a person to person basis? How is that fair?

 

[GonzoGamer]

They're not just lazy, they are greedy. Their entire strategy for SR3 was making more money off of DLC, that they implemented on the actual disc!

This right here.
It wasn't laziness and Saints Row 3. Despite what we saw from our purchase, it's probably much bigger than Saints Row 2. They just chopped away at half the game so they can sell it to us in many separate pieces for a lot more money.

You want proof? Go to XBLA or PSN store and see all the dlc that's already available to purchase (as well as a subscription of some sort for DLC that hasn't even come out yet; they're trying to get you to buy DLC before anybody even knows what it is); it's staggering that they think they can get away with it.

SO I guess THQ is the new Capcom. That's sad. I used to like their games and I used to buy most of them. Not any more.

My god, and I can recall how hyped everyone was for this game (not me). Is this backlash at SR3 gonna result in people going back to GTA? I sure hope so.

SR3 was pretty disappointing but it wasn't as disappointing as GTA4. I was expecting GTA4 to have less content...not that much less but at least I was a little prepared.
They're getting there though. I can tell that they've already cut a bunch of crap that should've been in the game but will be sold later as dlc. If SR3 starts putting up $20 mission packs, they will have arrived.

 

[Lieju]

I think Saint's row 2 really got the wacky reputation because of what GTA4 was like.
It made people concentrate on the wackiness when the game had so much other good sides to it, and in the end how wacky it was, after all?

I haven't played SR3 yet, I have so many games I haven't played yet I'm more interested in getting to, not to mention I still have unfinished activities in SR2...

I don't know, Saints Row: The Third is my first entry into the series, and I'm having a damn hilarious and great time with it so far. If the previous iteration was "better" as you call it, then why not just go play it? It's not like the game went anywhere.

Isn't something claimed to be "more fun" or "better" completely on a person to person basis? How is that fair?

What, opinions are not allowed anymore? I hope that all this feedback will make the designers realize what it was the people liked in their game, so they don't make the same mistakes with the next one. If you liked the game(or preferred it over SR2), great for you, and your opinion is certainly valid, but a lot of fans of the 2 who had finished it were looking forward to having more content and story.

Also if a game has less content, for apparently no reason, than the predecessor, I think it can be objectively said that the other one is better (in those areas, at least).