Saints Row 2

[Chooch]

There is nothing inherently wrong with 'go to a to b to do c' missions, that whole reasoning is wrong. I don't particularly think anyone is wrong for not getting along with it, I don't think it's that good that everyone has to enjoy it, but to say it's 'atrocious' is clearly nonsense. It does what it does really well. Millions of people enjoy it, the vast majority of critics agree it's good. To say it's 'atrocious' is clearly bollocks.

Yeah, atrocious is far too strong a word.

[SomeNaiveChump]

Not really. It's not even a matter of opinion, you're just wrong. It's not "exceptionally bad or displeasing" is it?

Yes, it is. Seems some people are very easily pleased.

Saints Row, for all its shittiness, fixed almost all the things that were wrong with GTA's core game/mission mechanic. As a result the game was much more fun to play. It was also every bit as humorous as GTA games.

Rockstar completely ignored it and broke most of those things all over again.

The game can be fun in small doses online and the physics are great (including car handling), but the core of the game only stands up to the scrutiny of said easily pleased people. I was more excited about the game's release than most and bought a 360 for it (having moved out of a house that had a shared one).

[macosx]

Thanks for putting the millions of people that are 'easily pleased' with the 'atrocious missions' back on the path to great gaming.

[Vemsie]

Thanks for putting the millions of people that are 'easily pleased' with the 'atrocious missions' back on the path to great gaming.

Agreed. So now we're all easily pleased because we like GTAIV? All those millions of people and basically every game publication on Earth? All wrong of course. They're just easily pleased, these "some people". I rarely ever use this fucking smiley but here it goes:

I went to great lengths to write a review about this game. Why? Because I think it's genuinely good.

As for Rockstar "ignoring" THQ, they have every right to. It seems they're pretty successful at their own game. Both critically and commercially.

[MDK]

So anyway, this thread needs more GARY BUSEY.

I want a cross brand tie-in so that cars in the game are fitted with the the Gary Busey Tom Tom Navigator.

[Simmy]

So anyway, this thread needs more GARY BUSEY.

[Yoshimax]

Has that picture been doctored or has he been mong'd by plastic surgery ?

[Fugitive]

So anyway, this thread needs more GARY BUSEY.

Aaargh! My eyes, my eyes!

Looks like the result of a very nasty three-way, high speed, head-on collision between Daryl Hannah, Meryl Streep and Gary Busey.

[Monkichi 3.0]

Yes, it is. Seems some people are very easily pleased.

Saints Row, for all its shittiness, fixed almost all the things that were wrong with GTA's core game/mission mechanic. As a result the game was much more fun to play. It was also every bit as humorous as GTA games.

Rockstar completely ignored it and broke most of those things all over again.

The game can be fun in small doses online and the physics are great (including car handling), but the core of the game only stands up to the scrutiny of said easily pleased people. I was more excited about the game's release than most and bought a 360 for it (having moved out of a house that had a shared one).

Please don't pretend you occupy a position of taste above everyone else. Saint's Row, in it's time, did a lot of great things. I know because I played it to death and liked it. I went back to it recently and it compares very badly to GTA. Rose tinted glasses etc. It did some things which I think were better than GTA, but in general it also lacked a lot, both technically and design wise.

I fully get that GTA IV didn't click with you, and that's fine, but you're wrong to say its an 'atrocious' game or anywhere near. As a product it offers a substantial single player experience (100 hours+ and even though I completed it I haven't done all the missions) plus a solid multiplayer experience.

Sorry mate but you're looking a bit foolish, like those people who walk around saying "Yeah, Guns & Roses were a fucking shit band man, Slash drops loads of notes live and they're pretty bad musicians actually"*. GTA IV is a good GTA game, and it stands head and shoulders above most other games. Did it disappoint some people? No doubt, but it's simply not a shit or 'atrocious' game at all.

*Used that as an example that may be relevant to you.

[Dimahoo]

You really have to compare it to San Andreas to understand the impact it made. Certain things were so much better like the scale (despite the pop-up) and things like explosions.

[SomeNaiveChump]

Sorry mate but you're looking a bit foolish, like those people who walk around saying "Yeah, Guns & Roses were a fucking shit band man, Slash drops loads of notes live and they're pretty bad musicians actually"*. GTA IV is a good GTA game, and it stands head and shoulders above most other games. Did it disappoint some people? No doubt, but it's simply not a shit or 'atrocious' game at all.

I wasn't aware someone could be 'foolish' based on a subjective opinion of one element of a game, especially an element which is objectively limited, restrictive, repetitive, unimaginative and frequently critically flawed. It's not an atrocious game, no. The engine is fantastic. I called the missions atrocious and I stand by it.

To put it another way: I love the engine. I love dicking around in it. I have not enjoyed a minute of the missions themselves. It's like if you had the Super Mario World engine, only to find that the game itself consists of the levels from Bubsy the Bobcat. It's some achievement to make the game a yawnsome, frustrating chore of - in turns - frankly base, stubbornly poor and unashamedly stock design despite such a great engine.

And I don't like GnR but that's because Axl's shit, not Slash.

[son_of_helvetica]

I'm kind of looking forward to this - I played the first game and loved some of the things it offered that GTA didn't (mostly the side-mission-quest-things) and you could tell the developers were fans of GTA though not fully steal from it (I noted in GTA4 there's a Stillwater Avenue ). The graphics whore in me loved some of the lighting effects and the sound design was pretty special too (they totally nailed the sound of a car driving by with its radio blearing)... I think I'm fans of both games, no need to get all arsey about one or the other.

GTA4's just about exhausted for me - the fact I can't find all those pigeons is really starting to annoy me (I'm also a firm believer in not using strategy guides, though this is pushing it...).

[macosx]

Sure it's subjective but you do open yourself to be deemed foolish by denigrating the vast majority of peoples opinions of the game as being 'easily pleased' and by taking the high ground with your (subjective) take on the game. Also to call the missions 'atrocious' is just plain hyperbole/hyperbollocks.I'm sure that many would agree that a lot of the later missions and structure aren't great, but atrocious? No.

"I have not enjoyed a minute of the missions themselves" - and you question being called foolish?

[SomeNaiveChump]

"I have not enjoyed a minute of the missions themselves" - and you question being called foolish?

Damn fucking right I do. Calling me foolish for that is about as valid as me calling you foolish for enjoying them - which I haven't.

[macosx]

30 hour game - most of which missions. Not one single minute of enjoyment. Oh dear.

Still the trade in price is still good.

[SomeNaiveChump]

Precisely.

I've enjoyed the game but only when just fucking with the cops or playing online.

I'm giving you a perfectly valid opinion and you're just going 'oh dear'. Well done on your contribution and considered argument. Well done.

[NecroMorrius]

Calm down ladies!

Synch, I understand the annoyance of just not getting why everyone likes a game so much. I got MGS4 on day of release and thought it was absolute pish... and my comments certainly didn't go down very well here. It happens to all of us sometimes (especially with the biggest releases, purely because so many people buy it). You have to understand though that if a game a ) sells well, b ) matches the developers intended goal/vision and more importantly c ) pleases the vast majority of its target audience, it's a successful game on all fronts. You know what you're letting yourself in for, especially in the case of a game like GTA, where the structure is not likely to differ much from the previous 8 or so titles.

No developer can please everyone, but to matter-of-factly state that a game of GTA's stature is 'atrocious' implies a degree of arrogance or small-mindedness, which I'm inclined to believe doesn't represent you at all. It's perfectly reasonable to dislike something, but to act as if you're right, rather than of a certain opinion, can only lead to friction. Oh, and that disillusion album is pretty good, especially the last track

I'll definitely give SR another look after the debate on this thread. Anyone seen it particularly cheap?

[Monkichi 3.0]

I wasn't aware someone could be 'foolish' based on a subjective opinion of one element of a game, especially an element which is objectively limited, restrictive, repetitive, unimaginative and frequently critically flawed. It's not an atrocious game, no. The engine is fantastic. I called the missions atrocious and I stand by it.

To put it another way: I love the engine. I love dicking around in it. I have not enjoyed a minute of the missions themselves. It's like if you had the Super Mario World engine, only to find that the game itself consists of the levels from Bubsy the Bobcat. It's some achievement to make the game a yawnsome, frustrating chore of - in turns - frankly base, stubbornly poor and unashamedly stock design despite such a great engine.

And I don't like GnR but that's because Axl's shit, not Slash.

The enjoyment of the game is subjective, which is why I haven't said you're foolish for not liking it, but the question of whether the missions are 'atrocious' is not. There are criteria you can measure them against, mostly intended functionality and user experience Vs feedback from the actual users. The vast majority of people have enjoyed the missions, and they play out as designed. Based on feedback and design there are some dodgy missions in there, we can agree on that, but to go as far as saying the whole mission aspect is attrocious is demostrably wrong. Again, intended player experience Vs player feedback can show this.

And I thought you liked GnR, didn't you play in a GnR cover band? In any case, we can agree Slash is quite awesome.

Damn fucking right I do. Calling me foolish for that is about as valid as me calling you foolish for enjoying them - which I haven't.

Nobody is saying you're foolish for not liking them (That would be foolish in itself, we can't tell you what you like). We're saying it's foolish to say that something which plays out as designed, and is enjoyed by most people as designed, is in fact 'not fun' and 'atrocious'.

[SM47]

I'm giving you a perfectly valid opinion and you're just going 'oh dear'. Well done on your contribution and considered argument. Well done.

Nope, you're patronising everyone, telling us we're 'easily pleased' and trying to put your opinion on some sort of pedestal.

[NecroMorrius]

An opinion is perfectly valid until presented as fact, or assumed to have more merit than a conflicting opinion.

Gary Busey says:

"STOP THE MADNESS!"

[SomeNaiveChump]

Nope, you're patronising everyone, telling us we're 'easily pleased' and trying to put your opinion on some sort of pedestal.

'Easily pleased' is just the opposite of 'overly critical', and isn't damning or patronising in any way. It certainly wasn't intended as such.

Also, I really should avoid posting 5 minutes after waking up before work. Sorry about that, y'all.

to matter-of-factly state that a game of GTA's stature is 'atrocious' implies a degree of arrogance or small-mindedness

Not the game, just the missions

To some, the missions are the game. To others they are tacked-on irrelevance to a sandbox/online game and even were they atrocious the game itself would still be worthwhile.

And I thought you liked GnR, didn't you play in a GnR cover band? In any case, we can agree Slash is quite awesome.

No, but I've played a few of their songs in general cover bands. Slash is great, I would like them a lot more with a decent vocalist. Yes, I like VR.

[NecroMorrius]

Not the game, just the missions

To some, the missions are the game. To others they are tacked-on irrelevance to a sandbox/online game and even were they atrocious the game itself would still be worthwhile.

I'm confident most people sit squarely in the middle on this one, I doubt many of us bought it purely for one or the other. For me, I drift from mission to mission with a fair bit of messing about inbetween. I've just finished the storyline tonight finally! The writing toward the end was great. I plan on going back to do some more messing about, find some more pigeons and what not. I found it a very fun gameworld to be in regardless of what I was doing, and it only managed to bug me a handful of times, which is incredible for a GTA game!

It's a real shame you didn't like it, I found it to be a rich experience, and really enjoyed Nico's story. I was often surprised by the depth of writing and characterisation, and kept experiencing funny or satisfying moments of emergent gameplay right up to the end.

Hmm, what to play now...

[Mercury]

I'll definitely give SR another look after the debate on this thread. Anyone seen it particularly cheap?

It'd £9.99 delivered on shopto.

[Blue Screen Error]

Not sure if this was highlighted about the game but -

Saints Row 2 promises a user-friendly approach to cooperative gameplay that'll let you jump in and out of online co-op games at any time, regardless of how far into the campaign each player is. You'd have to be pretty dedicated to playing alongside a friend to completely avoid playing solo for fear of getting out of sync with each other, after all. You'll be able to help other players out with missions that you've already beaten, of course, but what's really neat is that when playing alongside someone who's a lot further into the story than you you'll have the option of playing through their missions as well. Said missions would almost certainly be unavailable to you in single-player mode at that time, but the game will remember that you've beaten them in co-op and, when you reach them in your own story, will give you the option to skip them accordingly.

Its an old preview of it but thats magic.

Also -

When successful, you're shown a newspaper clipping (Headline: "Hippies Mourn Loss of Drug Farm") that will adorn the walls of your crib. It's a wistful token of nostalgia, as well as a functional teleport, that gives you the ability to go back and replay that mission whenever you like.

http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/sain...e;picks;title;3

[Guest]

I'm confounded by people who bitch about the quality of GTA4's offerings, especially if they're comparing it unfavourably to point-missing derivative titles like Saints Row. If you couldn't have fun with GTA4, you should probably give up gaming, but each to their own.

Whatever anyone says - the cars. A real struggle. Perhaps realistic and "challenging" to drive - but after a while you want to be able to mash it round corners and create some far more crazy car flips. SR1, for all it's faults, had some great car chases/police cars flipping and exploding behind you/around you.

Looking back its strange that the real meat of GTA, the driving, went down this route. But I guess the housers want realism, after a fashion.

[Fry Crayola]

I love GTA IV's driving model. Some cars handle like arse, but others (and not always the supercars either) are great to throw around. It took a while to acclimatise to and you can't just mash the handbrake like you could previously, but by the end of the game I was throwing tons of metal around like Elwood Blues.

They made cars fun to drive again. Since Vice City, I'd been grabbing bikes at the first opportunity, now I'm happy to tear up the streets in a taxi.

[Chooch]

But is that because cars are better or they just fucked up the bikes

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

I'll definitely give SR another look after the debate on this thread. Anyone seen it particularly cheap?

I think if you go around town you'll find a high street store selling it for about a tenner or so. Be warned though, it's an early 360 game with all the early 360 game flaws in them (tearing, bad framerates). If you can look through that, you'll find an excellent GTA rip-off which knows exactly what it's doing. And, most importantly, is doing it well.

[Fry Crayola]

But is that because cars are better or they just fucked up the bikes

Better cars, definitely. The bikes are much the same as before.

[SomeNaiveChump]

The car handling and physics on GTAIV is incredible.

The way the cars handle on SR is the game's biggest flaw, way too much grip leaving almost no potential for the spectacular despite everything else present.