Saints Row 2 Comments by Dan Whitehead

I thought SR2 was awesome. Like GTA without the fun removed.

I am cautious of reviews dishign out 9/10s to any game, but I feel the 360 review score was certainly in the right ballpark. A shame this version suffers a bit in the performance department.

"The GTA That Still Lets You Be Silly"

Thats what would ruin a game for me.

^Yeah having fun is always spoiling games for me.

"The closest the game gets to the likes of GTA's taxi and ambulance missions is Septic Avenger, in which you use a tanker to spray liquid sewage over houses."

Surely the fact that you can actually get into taxi's and ambulances and do missions in them just like GTA is closer???

Besides that, whilst I loved GTAIV especially for it's sheer size and magnitude of the game story, it was just not as much fun as Saints Row 2, although it was still the superior game. Not having to keep your friends happy to gain certain little extras, or move the story along was a great relief whilst playing SA2.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying both GTA and SA, I had fun trashing both Liberty City and Stillwater, and would go back and play both games again for certain.

I played this for the first time this weekend on 360. Restarted one time, played for 4 hours, failed to see the fun in such a hollow experience. Bad controls, looked crap, crap style. It felt freaking 10 years old.

I thought SR2 was awesome. Like GTA without the fun removed.

I came here to say "in before the "SR is more fun than GTA" comments, but I see I am too late. ;)

I've asked a million times (not you), but never got an answer. What kind of "fun" do people miss in GTA IV? It's by far the best GTA game yet (for me), and hence I am having a lot more "fun" than with any previous entries. The driving is a lot more fun, the shooting is more fun, the story is better (not sure that classifies as "fun"), etc., and the physics engine underneath it all makes everything more fun, from blowing up cars, to crashing, to whatnot.

Sorry, I never get this statement, and you're a reasonable young man, so this is the place to ask once more. :)

Well here's my answer.

Firstly GTA4 broke my number 1 rule in sandbox games. Restricting where you could go. I don't want to have to complete a third of the game to be able to explore the map. Ludicrous walls that stop you exploring I detest.
One thing that both Crackdown and Saints Row 2 get right is to allow you to explore the entire map from the start. Same thing in items like Morrrowind or Oblivion. Sure in Crackdown if you go to the 3rd district first you may die a lot. But at least you can go there.

The second thing that was extremely boring in GTA4 was all the friends stuff. Escorting your whining cousin to bowling is not something I would like to do in real life, let alone in a console game.

Compared to the 3rd game GTA4 definitely seems to scale back the fun element in preference to a tighter story, something the lack of exploration early on was obviously built around. But its not what I want from a game. Whether its 45 minute cut scenes in MGS4 or hampering free ranging exploration I don't like to suffer for the story.

I don't get the complaints about the bowling etc., you only need to do it once. Which is what I did. As for restrictions, all other GTA games did the same, surely?

With something like GTA, I like to immerse myself into a real world situation, really get into a cinematic experience and a character. That is 'fun' for me, by ruining the perception of that world by random bollock silliness you are removing the 'fun' for me. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding that what Saints Row does is a complete turn off for some people, with the only comeback being 'well I like fun'. Its a bit insulting that you're assuming we don't like fun too. Our goals and desires from gaming are just different.

Not saying I demand this from all. When I play Super Stardust, I want to fly around shooting things into rocky dust. I don't really care about the motivation of the person sending asteroids down to a planet.

UncleLou - from what I've played of GTAIV (not much, it won't run on my PC), it seemed more about the atmosphere than any specific gameplay element. It just takes itself so seriously, when something like Vice City had a self-deprecating satire that was almost better than the actual game itself.

In fact GTA IV (and San Andreas to an extent) made me realise that it was the attitude that I loved most about GTA, and without that game isn't actually that great.

Regarding the review, I feel a little sorry for Saints Row that it was marked down for technical problems, when GTA IV seemed to get a free ride in that area.

As I say, I don't want to buy a game that recreates New York only to be told, sorry you can't visit Manhattan, the entire place is off limits unitl you've unlocked it.

That's just crap.
In sandbox games I will always pick a truely free roaming game over one that is not.

I like the restricted map, I find it really helps you ease into learning the map. Plus the entire achievement sensation of unlocking a new area for the first time.

Different people, different goals again.

Did GTA 4 let you kick dudes in the balls while dressed as a ninja? I don't think so.

Shame they totally fucked up the PC port. Way to go, guys.

@Widge

Agreed. When I was doing random missions spraying the neighborhood with my septic tanks, all I could think was, why the fuck am I doing this? Am I really wasting my time with this ugly piece of juvenile trash. It just felt incredibly lame and it bored me to tears..

with the only comeback being 'well I like fun'. Its a bit insulting that you're assuming we don't like fun too. Our goals and desires from gaming are just different.

Exactly. I find the word "fun" rather useless to differentiate videogames from one another. I am sure someone with a 3-monitor setup and flightsticks is having a lot of "fun" in Microsoft Flight Simulator, and might find Saint's Row terribly, er, un-fun.

While spraying sewage I pretend I'm spraying menage's house.

"Regarding the review, I feel a little sorry for Saints Row that it was marked down for technical problems, when GTA IV seemed to get a free ride in that area."

Not to be one of those people who moans about reviews...but this is a good point. GTA 4 on the PC was an utter travesty. Getting that fuckshow to run couldn't have been more painful if spikes shot out the screen and impaled your eyeballs during installation.

I played this at the Eurogamer Expo and it was amateurish rubbish. The controls reminded me of that rubbish Microsoft racing game from about 10 years ago and the graphics weren't much better.

"I'm not one for moaning about reviews, but this is a good point. GTA 4 on the PC was an utter travesty. Getting that fuckshow to run couldn't have been more painful if spikes shot out the screen and impaled your eyeballs during installation."

And yet I've been playing it hassle-free from day one. The reviewer of GTA IV said he didn't have many problems, either - that's the only thing he could go by, surely? You can mark a game down if you can be confident that your PC is alright, and you have lots of troubles, but you can hardly mark a game down if you don't, especially when you review it before it is even released.

"I like the restricted map, I find it really helps you ease into learning the map. Plus the entire achievement sensation of unlocking a new area for the first time."

I prefer the more natural feeling achievement of finding something through exploration. Sandbox should be about having a feeling of freedom within the game world, having whole areas blocked off is the opposite of freedom.

Yeah, I understand that. The reviewer says he had no troubles that's fine. But it's not like I'm the only one who has had problems with it either. Not asking him to raise the score, just sayin...GTA 4 PC is a pain to install and runs like dogshit, just like SR2.

I think I prefer the Xbox for games like this anyway, got a big ass TV and driving is much nicer with a pad, it's only the occasional tricky shooting bit that causes me any hassle.

@Pear

Sticks and stones my friend.

" driving is much nicer with a pad"

/points at pad plugged into his PC

Not that I use it. Hate the slow camera when driving in GTA with a pad. Before it snaps back after you cornered, you already crashed into something. Hm. Maybe I am onto something here why so many people didn't like it. ;)

If that was me I'd certainly be thinking "why the fuck am I playing this?", if it was a film that I was sat in front of, I'd be snapping it in half.

The reviewer of GTA IV said he didn't have many problems, either - that's the only thing he could go by, surely? You can mark a game down if you can be confident that your PC is alright, and you have lots of troubles, but you can hardly mark a game down if you don't, especially when you review it before it is even released.

That's true and I agree, but it's very annoying that apparently when that same reviewer put the retail copy on his PC he had the same problems lots of us did, including a 2 hour installation, broken saves and missing textures. Another problem with reviewing early copies I guess.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/12/...

Yeah, I got wireless and wired pads for my PC too, but it's just a bit nicer to lounge on the sofa for a game like this.

"Another problem with reviewing early copies I guess."

True, need to take this into consideration when talking about technical issues on PC games. If you're reviewing an early copy your experience may vary from completely painless to 'holy shit I'm going to hunt down a developer and hurt them'. I've had early review versions of games that were nothing more than an unprotected copy of the game in a zip file with no protection, to time-limited versions that need to be activated and require a special disc in the drive while you're playing.

Actually, you _could_ go to all areas of the map from the start in GTAIV. Just because the cops have it roadblocked off, doesn't mean you can't go there. I got in a car, jump a fence and landed on the railway line and then drove all the way through the tunnels to the other islands. Of course, as soon as I made my presence known, I got a mighty wanted level and every copy was after me, but I could go there.

I eventually ran back down to the subway platform and ran along the tracks, dodging trains, back to safety, and hid while my wanted level went back down. An easy way to get the "One Man Army" achievement, btw!

An easy way to get the "One Man Army" achievement, btw!

I got that from the comfort of my own whirlpool, almost. Shooting helicopters down into the collective police force from the comfort of your own terrace is rather splendid. No fun? Meh! :p

We really derailed this thread now, but I've got the feeling this port hardly deserves better.

Regarding the review, I feel a little sorry for Saints Row that it was marked down for technical problems, when GTA IV seemed to get a free ride in that area.

Had I reviewed GTA on PC, and experienced the same problems, I probably would have marked it differently. Who knows? I just feel that GTA's more realistic story and location does more to justify the tinkering required, whereas SR2's more brattish sensibility would have benefited from more accessible specifications. This simply isn't a game that benefits from such steep system requirements.

"Actually, you _could_ go to all areas of the map from the start in GTAIV. Just because the cops have it roadblocked off, doesn't mean you can't go there. I got in a car, jump a fence and landed on the railway line and then drove all the way through the tunnels to the other islands. Of course, as soon as I made my presence known, I got a mighty wanted level and every copy was after me, but I could go there."

True, I did that as well. Is not like "invisible walls" or something.

Its not just 'fun', it actually wants you to take things that were a chore in GTA out.

Health regenerates so you dont have to start EVERY mission with a visit to the gun store to get armour (especially since they got rid of safe house perks for collecting packages)

The guns you buy are then ALWAYS available at your safe house so you dont have to go to the gun store, again (especially since they got......)

Dying and getting busted doesnt remove your weapons

MID MISSION CHECK POINTS

I could go on, but Saints Row is far more immediate and removes a lot of the tedious mission grind that GTA expects you to do.

Also, while you could go into other areas in GTA, you immediately got a 5 star wanted level and were busted after 30 seconds.

Oh, and there are more than 2 shops on each section of the island.

GTA4 is the single most boring game I've ever played. I bought it and played for a whole hour before vowing never to touch it again. Dreadful dreary rubbish.

Got infinitely more fun from SR. In fact I got more fun from just one of the mission types in SR (insurance fraud) than the whole of GTA4.

I've not played either for enough time to form a reasonable option, but both look great. I'd have neither on PC though, I had GTA3 on PC and it felt too strange playing on PC. I'll stick with the console version, should I get a copy of either.

@Farticus
I'm going to pick it up when I see it in a shop(*) for < £20. Don't go expecting much graphically as by all accounts it's not as good as GTA4. Should provide a bit of entertainment of a Friday though.

(*) I realise Game have it for £17.99 but I've yet to be in one where the queue doesn't snake round the shop due to the ridiculous set-up of the tills.

Re: the whole fun debate GTA vs. SR

SR1 went a good way in including fun to do stuff, what I think it missed from the GTA series was some of the more subtle humour. In general I found the humour in SR1 was a lot more crass than the GTA series.

GTA4 still had a lot of the fun and good humour but the friends stuff did tend to suck some of the joy out of the game for me. It was optional but needed you as a player to make it optional by turning things off or answering the call, saying yes then calling back and cancelling.

The humour is crass, but there's nothing wrong with that. It is clearly just taking the piss, Saints Row lampoons the whole gangsta thing, and SR2 has some genuinely funny moments.

Johnny Gat: "You look different. You done something with your hair?"

I would rate GTA4 lower than every other GTA since GTA3. Why? Because if you don't do the story missions, what is there to do?

I still have GTA: San Andreas installed so I can switch between them at will. Sure, the physics is better in GTA4, but when I want to go driving, I rarely choose GTA4. Even though it claims to have "realistic" physics, all the cars in the game behave as if driven on ice. All the time. Some might think it's fun to go 30 km/h, accidentally touch the handbrake and go sliding backwards for 30 seconds. I don't.

Is it fun to get a phone call every five minutes from a "friend" that punishes you if you don't want to hang with them (doing the same god-awful mini-games over and over)? I don't think so.

I usually enjoy the racing in the GTA games. But either the AI got worse or the AI couldn't handle the car physics either because in GTA4 I never lost a race. I never even got close to losing.

And not owning property? No finding rare foreign cars (the version in GTA4 was too restricted and you never got the fruits of your labours)? Even the collecting parts felt worse (200 tiny, glowing doves?! Did anyone find more than ten?). The jjumps were worse too. When you found them and jumped them, you'd get "You didn't do enough" for no obvious or logical reason. Sometimes it was because you jumped too far, sometimes too short, sometimes the wrong whatever. It was random.

I was hoping for Saint's Row 2 to be good for the PC but apparently it's not. I wonder if a 4870 can make it run acceptably? Not very keen on finding out the hard way.

I enjoyed both GTA4 and SR2, but played SR2 for longer and enjoyed it more. The checkpoints, the great cut scenes, my avatar being an obese diva with a slanty top hat and double SMGs. The mini games were fun, esp the dealer one where you ride shotgun that GTA4 appear to be doing in the new DLC.

Yes it's stupid fun, but what's wrong with that? I like my 'intellectual' games too (SotC anyone?), but there is room for both.

I would rate GTA4 lower than every other GTA since GTA3. Why? Because if you don't do the story missions, what is there to do?

Fair enough - I never cared about the stuff you could do outside of the missions in the GTA III- ironically, I've done more stuff outside of the misisons in GTA IV than in any other GTA.

Even though it claims to have "realistic" physics, all the cars in the game behave as if driven on ice. All the time. Some might think it's fun to go 30 km/h, accidentally touch the handbrake and go sliding backwards for 30 seconds. I don't.

Couldn't disagree more, really. Neither does it feel like you're on ice to me (I find that comment downright astonishing), nor do you need to drive significantly slower. It's not realisitc, but it's a lot more convincing. It's "Hollywood" realism, like in the Driver series.

Finally, cars feel different in more than just speed. A PMP feels heavy, other cars feel very lightweight, the center of mass is different, etc. I've always found the driving in GTA tedious and boring, but I love it in IV. And it's not just the driving physics as such - it's the physicality of crashes, the way explosions near you throw you around, etc. It's little things, but it adds up to a absolute quantum jump in quality for me to the point where IV is the first game where I understand why people love the series so much.

Horses for courses obviously, hm. :)

@Nick

So games are for kids then? 18+/16+ on the label mean anything?

You shut the fuck up.

"It's especially galling to be playing a console port on a machine considerably more powerful than the original platform, yet suffering noticeably worse performance."

This is one of two things - the other being piracy - that will mark the death of PC gaming. It amazes me that a PC gaming enthusiast can spend as much on one component, a video card, as a console gamer will spend on their entire rig, and then be compelled to upgrade again 2 years later. It was always costly, but now that games consistently look nearly as good and run just as well (and often better) on a run-of-the-mill XBox, which requires no driver maintenance, installation headaches etc, it's just become absurd.

I used to justify PC gaming on the basis that I already own powerful PCs for unrelated applications, and using one machine for everything including gaming seemed "efficient". Until I realized that keeping a PC up to gaming spec was not only more costly (in time and dollars) than owning a console or two - the constant tweaking was actually making the PCs less effective for their intended applications.

Just give me mouse support on the XBox and I'm done.

@darc, it's an old argument, and not one I suppose everyone wants to get into again here, but for me PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming, often with better games, and with all the other video/music/internet benefits that come with it. As for "lost time", I can't imagine the time spent adjusting texture settings is very long so that's not a huge factor.

I've always thought if you could get an slot-in module for your console that you play exisiting games twice as fast, plus new games that look much better than anything that came before and cost about £100, wouldn't you buy it? That's basically what PC gaming is like if you have a small idea about what you are doing.

It amazes me that a PC gaming enthusiast can spend as much on one component, a video card, as a console gamer will spend on their entire rig, and then be compelled to upgrade again 2 years later. It was always costly, but now that games consistently look nearly as good and run just as well (and often better) on a run-of-the-mill XBox, which requires no driver maintenance, installation headaches etc, it's just become absurd.

Not absurd at all. Games are significantly cheaper, and PC gaming hardware is as cheap as it never was. I wouldn't save a cent with console-gaming, quite on the contrary. And there's still the issue of the games themselves. There are simply a lot more interesting exclusives on the PC than on any single console for me.

"often with better games, "

I can dig the whole PC gaming is just as cool as your console gaming argument except for that one. That's subjective for each individual, not a fact. And apart from a Vampyre Story or some stuff like Fallout 3 which I can also play on my console I really prefer my console games to most PC games out there.

Fair enough menage, but there are loads of games I would miss from PC gaming if I switched to console, but only a few current console games I'd want on PC - Dead Rising and Metal Gear Solid 4 being the ones that immediately spring to mind.

And even with those PC games like Half-Life and TF2 that have appeared on console, I still feel that they suffer terribly by being adapted for a gamepad.

"That's subjective for each individual, not a fact."

With the huge amount of indie and freeware games as well as all the mods and a majority of the big multi-format releases (not to mention the vast back catalogue), it's a fact.

Sigh, hey, you win, hits ignore button.

I guess it is subjective. I was a vocal advocate of PC gaming for many years, so it's weird for me to be on this side of the fence. Still, I think in a real pound for pound analysis PC gaming is more expensive. The GBP100 argument doesn't address the reality of it. Most folks can get by with a $500 PC for their e-mail, browsing, etc, whereas they're looking at something closer to a grand to get a competent gaming rig, and the latter will require (give or take) annual hardware updates. That's before you start talking about a monitor, at $200 for a mere 19". Whereas a console might hit you for $250, plug into whatever TV you've got lying around, and have a lifespan of say 3-5 years. Right now I'm gaming on a 65" TV in high def, on a console that cost me $199. I can't get a video card that would match the performance of this rig (TV aside, of course) for that amount of money. Forget building a whole high-performance PC! And when I want to play a game, I don't even need to install it, let alone scour forums for patches, upgrade NVidea drivers etc...

It really boils down to whether you've already got that PC in your home, but even then I've come to regard PC gaming as more expense and tedium than the returns justify. And I'm a total tech geek. I just can't see the experience being attractive to the "average" gamer, and this is why I see PC gaming as being in some trouble.

Totally agree about the gamepad vs. the mouse, mind you, though this seems like something that could easily be addressed by console mfrs if the demand were there.

"With the huge amount of indie and freeware games as well as all the mods and a majority of the big multi-format releases (not to mention the vast back catalogue), it's a fact."

All good stuff, I agree, but now that the consoles are online, and indie communities are being embraced by way of XBLA etc, that gap is closing. I'm playing World of Goo on my Wii these days, and thinking, would I really rather be crouched over my laptop, or worse sitting at my computer desk (the latter seeming too much like work nowadays.)