Saint's Row 4 Developer Feels Juvenile Tone Is Element Of Success

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Saint's Row 4 Developer Feels Juvenile Tone Is Element Of Success



"We don't take ourselves too seriously," says Volition's Jim Boon.

Fans of giant purple dildos, rejoice, as Volition's Jim Boon feels that dildos - and all the antics that have characterized Saint's Row in the past - are part of the series' DNA, and critical to its success. Moreover, Boon claims, the fans wholeheartedly agree, and are demanding more.

"I think our tone is an element of our success," says Boon, adding that "we have a lot of passionate fans that love [Saint's Row], so I think we are striking the right chord." It's liberating to be able to do pretty much whatever you like, without restriction; it's also putting the pressure on Volition to come up with new toys for gamers to play with. So long as they're fun, of course; fun is what made Saint's Row 3 sell as well as it did, and Volition's hoping for more of the same - in terms of sales - from Saint's Row 4.

"We do get an awful lot of feedback from fans telling us how much they love our juvenile tone," Boon claims, "with some asking us to go even further!" So it's just as well, as Boon points out, that Volition doesn't take itself too seriously. Particularly given the THQ bankruptcy saga [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/121692-Bankruptcy-Court-Approves-THQ-Sale]; a team needs a good sense of humor to get through something like that. Come launch day, August 23rd, you'll know exactly what kind of juvenile antics Saint's Row 4 has in store for you.

Source: PC Gamer [http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/19/saints-row-4s-producer-i-dont-think-that-srs-tone-gets-in-the-way-of-bigger-sales/]


Permalink
 

Eiv

New member
Oct 17, 2008
376
0
0
Its the same tone that means I wont be buying the 4th.

1st = good
2nd = better
3rd = WTF POS
4th = Refer to 3rd

Shame, they had a good thing going with Saints Row 2, decent story and gameplay.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
Oh no, they are listening to their fans, or rather the most vocal segment of their fan base. This can only spell disaster in my opinion.
 

chuckey

New member
Oct 9, 2010
260
0
0
There's a difference between goofy, silly fun, and stupid, immature fun. The first is what I liked about GTA: SA, and Saints Row 2; the latter is what I disliked very much about Saints Row 3. Sure, it's stupid and goofy but for me, it just didn't cut it. I feel as though the developers said, "screw the plot, let's just add as much crap as we can for no reason."

Look, I'm all for fun and wacky, but there comes a point where you need to have a balance of fun with serious. If they say that the "Juvenile tone is the element of success," then that means older gamers are no longer part of their core audience. (which really isn't a shock to anyone.)
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
I'm inclined to agree, to a point. Saints Row 3 wasn't received terribly well because it lacked the serious base from which helicopter-diving-downward-dildo-sword-stab is fun & cathartic. IMO, making the game's entire world as silly as the protagonist (can be, should they choose to) took away the contrast; When everything is wacky & insane, all wackiness & insanity blends into the background
 

MissP

New member
Feb 6, 2013
24
0
0
chuckey said:
There's a difference between goofy, silly fun, and stupid, immature fun. The first is what I liked about GTA: SA, and Saints Row 2; the latter is what I disliked very much about Saints Row 3. Sure, it's stupid and goofy but for me, it just didn't cut it. I feel as though the developers said, "screw the plot, let's just add as much crap as we can for no reason."
Agreed. I actually only recently got around to playing the third one, which I picked up because I remember people raving about it when it came out, even though I'd never played the first and second installments. It was just...TOO much. I sure don't mind goofy, wacky humor, but there has to be something to balance it out. It felt like the game was constantly in your face with its shenanigans, trying waaaay too heard to constantly be funny.

It's like in movies, when they have a wacky comic relief character, they typically include a more down-to-earth character--a "straight" man--to provide contrast. There's no straight man in SR3. Oh well, not for me I guess.
 

Frylock72

New member
Dec 7, 2009
193
0
0
Saints Row 2 was the peak of the series. I'm not a fan of watching the Saints become a bunch of Jersey Shore Kardashian ripoffs. The biggest mistake was abandoning the story of the first game altogether. In Saints Row 2 we got a secret mission to find Julius, and then that's it. No closure with Dex, or Troy. At least you get to deal with Donny, but that's kind of disappointing.

The gameplay of 3 was annoying as well. Only one level of minigame, and an obnoxious leveling system instead of the great open-ended system that SR2 had. Forcing a grind instead of letting your players unlock things at their leisure is just an irritating game change. Oh, and the completely anti-climactic death of the first gang's boss in SR3. You build him up, and have him kill Gat OFF-SCREEN, and he dies like a ***** and we have to deal with that idiotic Bane wannabe luchador the rest of the game.

Does anyone know which ending to SR3 was canon? Because if Shaundi's dead, then to hell with SR3 and 4. Saints Row 2 was an amazing balance of drama and shenanigans. I liked Carlos, and I understood that he was having trouble dealing with Maero and being a good lieutenant. I also got righteous on the Brotherhood when he was killed. The game didn't suffer because of the insane, silly shit you could do, but in Saints Row 3 they just tried too hard.

By the way, that TRON level in Saints Row 3 was a real eyesore.

MissP said:
chuckey said:
There's a difference between goofy, silly fun, and stupid, immature fun. The first is what I liked about GTA: SA, and Saints Row 2; the latter is what I disliked very much about Saints Row 3. Sure, it's stupid and goofy but for me, it just didn't cut it. I feel as though the developers said, "screw the plot, let's just add as much crap as we can for no reason."
Agreed. I actually only recently got around to playing the third one, which I picked up because I remember people raving about it when it came out, even though I'd never played the first and second installments. It was just...TOO much. I sure don't mind goofy, wacky humor, but there has to be something to balance it out. It felt like the game was constantly in your face with its shenanigans, trying waaaay too heard to constantly be funny.

It's like in movies, when they have a wacky comic relief character, they typically include a more down-to-earth character--a "straight" man--to provide contrast. There's no straight man in SR3. Oh well, not for me I guess.
Sure, and you can have that all you want. But Saints Row was never fully defined by that wackiness. There was always the plot and the characters there to balance it out and bring you back to earth. If they wanted to do something like this, they shouldn't have put it under the Saints Row brand name.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Good. But only so long as there are serious moments to counter-act the ever-increasing ridiculousness. That's what made Saints Row 2 so good, and left me feeling a little bit lacklustre after Saints Row 3.
 

Clankenbeard

Clerical Error
Mar 29, 2009
544
0
0
Leviano said:
Bindal said:
Leviano said:
Its the same tone that means I wont be buying the 4th.
For me, that actually IS a reason to buy it.
Each to there own I suppose. No accounting for taste.
Bindal's taste is different from yours--he has accounted for it and I agree with his bottom line.
My accountants are similarly prepared to see SR4 wackiness revenues with a projected net future value of "fundiculous".
It would seem that this mentality is the one weighing in more heavily with Volition.

Grammar Infraction: "their" (Yeah, I took the low road.)
 

jericu

New member
Oct 22, 2008
152
0
0
What I liked about Saints Row 2 is how the sillier parts were both A) still somewhat grounded in reality, and B) used to juxtapose against the more serious parts of the game, which I won't spoil here. It's part of the reason I was disappointed by what I saw of Saints Row 3, which admittedly I haven't played. It all looked like it was going to ignore the serious moments that made SR2 so great, and assume people loved the game because of the sillier parts, like driving around in a septic truck spraying poo everywhere. I can't fault them for continuing in the juvenile direction, it's clearly made them a fair bit of money, but I am disappointed that they've made this decision.
 

twm1709

New member
Nov 19, 2009
477
0
0
What made the previous games interesting was that the wackiness merely added to the game. Now you are a superhero fighting aliens... trying too hard IMO
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
There is a difference between not taking yourself seriously in a smart way, and not taking yourself seriously in a dumb way. SR3 was immature without reason and context. It didn't have a vision behind it. It wasn't justified. It felt out of place. And SR4 is aiming for the same thing.

Compare that with the upcoming FC3: Blood Dragon and you can clearly see the vision behind the over the top nature of that game and why it exists.
 

Longstreet

New member
Jun 16, 2012
705
0
0
I thought SR3 was actually better than SR2, but that might be because the latter had a horrendous PC port.

That aside, SR3 was fun and if they continue down that path i'll get SR4 aswell.
 

Ironside

New member
Mar 5, 2012
155
0
0
Its a shame that they are continuing in the same fashion that they started in Saints Row 3. Clearly I must be in the minority of people who didn't like the direction they chose though since they wouldn't be continuing it if it wasn't successful. Saints Row 2 is still the high point of the series for me and I live in hope that they will one day make another game similar to it.
 

Somebloke

New member
Aug 5, 2010
345
0
0
At what point does one's: "not taking oneself too seriously", become a matter of: "taking one's: 'not taking oneself too seriously', too seriously"?