Saints Row: The Third - Review

Since 2006, “Saints Row” has been gang-banging its way out of the shadow of its fellow third-person shooting, open world, gun-toting, car-stealing extravaganza, “Grand Theft Auto”. With this third installment to the series, Saints is looking to expand that gap far beyond what many would have ever believed. Though gigantic purple dildos played a major role in the advertising campaign of the game, that isn’t the only ‘gap enlargement’ tool at play here.

---

Saints Row: The Third
Xbox 360, Playstation 3, PC
Single Player, Co-Op
Developer: Volition, inc.
Publisher: THQ
ESRB Rating: M for Mature
Price: $59.99

---

Right off the bat, Saints Row: The Third’s over-the-top action hits the stage with an epic bank-breaking and mid-air battle prologue, setting the tone for much more extreme gameplay elements to take place down the line. You return as whatever (unnamed) custom boss of the 3rd Street Saints you decided to craft or download from the game’s in-depth initiation station, male or female.

The game’s story is fun. It is your duty as the boss of the Saints to recapture your gang’s clout in the city of Steelport by buying up property and beating out other gangs through violence or challenges, which wind up being violent, anyway. The Saint’s gang members’ working relationships come off as believable and genuine, greatly in part due to the quality voice performances of the game’s cast. The plot is full of twists and turns, with hard-hitting ‘holy shit’ moments aplenty. An aspect that makes the game’s narrative work so well is the dialogue and voice acting of each individual character as you progress through the game. There are also ‘choose your own adventure’ elements that provide a tinge of welcomed replay value. That factor plays a major and minor role when it comes to the game’s ending. Major because the choice you make forever changes the face of aspects of the city; minor because you have the choice to go back and get the alternate ending. One is indeed more satisfying than the other.

Saints Row: The Third plays near to the style of an arcade adventure. The default shooting configuration may be a bit sluggish for those more experienced, quick-to-react gamers. Head shots and nut shots being the key to stopping an assailant cold is very gratifying. The driving is fairly far from a simulation experience. Things like power-sliding can be pulled off without a hitch once you understand the simple control of the driving mechanics. Yes, some vehicles do feel heavier than others, but you will only have to adjust slightly to get used to each particular set of wheels. The game’s assorted flying contraptions control much closer in style within their vehicular grouping. There are also boats in the game…but they don’t matter when it comes to the grand scheme of things.
Rounding off the SR3’s base story are an assortment of mini-games that must be played in order to obtain 100% of sections of Steelport. These, and the three tiers of difficulty of each challenge, keeps things from becoming too repetitive when it comes to progressing through the campaign.

Combat, health, weapon, and car upgrades will make your adventure in Steelport easier as you go. The gun pickings have their typical pistol, SMG, and rifle selections; however, it is the other special gun options that make SR3 outstanding as a third person action game. Car modification is possibly the most gratifying and addictive hobby in SR3. With the customization options of each individual ride, you may want 2 or 3 of a kind in your garage, as if you are preparing for your own personal ‘tricked-out-whip’ convention.

There is nothing graphically groundbreaking about SR3. That’s not saying it isn’t a pretty game, though. The colorful Steelport environment holds up fairly well, considering there is no apparent loading time during travel from one section of the city to another. The loading doesn’t really come into play until you change instances or die. With the graphics engine does come a load of glitches that may be encountered during your exploration sessions; mostly getting stuck in walls.

All in all, Saints Row: The Third is a fun game, once you get past the fact that most of the NPC’s in the game drive as if they have Tourette’s syndrome. The level of customization is notable. Custom fashion, custom gang, custom cars, and low speed rickshaw chases make SR3 more of a unique experience than a mindless slaughter fest GTA clone. It’s over the top action will excite most crowds, causing a lot of “Oohs” and “Oh Damn’s!”. Despite all the story has to offer, SR3 is short, if you choose to go simply from one in-game mission to another. If you do choose to go for 100% completion, you could easily squeeze 40 hours of gameplay out of this one, not including Whored mode. THQ has yet to announce what the DLC content will be, but after playing through the game’s story completely, there is a chance a good portion of it will be story based.

Whatever Happened to Co-op Gameplay?

Remember when you were a kid and there was no online gaming?  A time when players could actually invest time with each other in a game? Just you and your brother or sister or best buddy sitting in the living room playing Contra or Double Dragon side by side and yelling at them, “Come help me!  Save the health for me, stupid!  I want the special weapon!”  You could reach over and hit them if they deserved it.  You could see the look on their face when you defeated the boss character together and advanced to the next level.  And it was glorious!  Oh, how we miss the inclusion of co-operative play in a wide range of our games!


What ever happened to those days?  The main focus of most modern day games is massive online multi-player, but some of us long for the good old days when it was just you and a friend next to each other on the couch, killing every Nazi or zombie or mutated soldier that you see.  Army of Two had the right idea a few years ago, but the execution was not quite up to snuff.  What the gaming world needs is a return of 2-4 person co-op gameplay with their own unique stories, not running around from one online match to another to see who can get the most points.


It seems like some developers have gotten a bit lazy with their writing.  Since the demand is so high for quality MP the single-player campaigns are getting shafted.   For example, Call of Duty: Black Ops and Medal of Honor were two of the most highly anticipated games of 2010, mostly for their MP.  Because of that the developers had only about six hours of campaign play for each and focused the rest of their attention on the MP.  People basically payed $60 for a MP experience.  Now it is true that MP has an almost infinite replay value, but where’s the challenge?  There is no change in difficulty level; no Easy, Medium, Hard, or Insane in the MP realm, only try to be the best person to point and shoot and not get shot in return.  Yes, there is some small amount of strategy involved, but MP situations rarely require much team thought and players can go rogue if they decide their team isn’t doing their job.  The cooperative style of gameplay seems to be dying off again.  When we first bought our next-generation systems companies were playing up the Co-op play style, but as the years have gone on there are far too few games in which players can proceed through the story with a friend.  MP combat is booming in a big way, but we miss the good ol’ days of Toejam and Earl where one of you gets chased by the boogie man, while the other is running from the creepy dentist; the thrill of yelling at your partner, face to face, for falling off the edge of the world and needlessly dying.

This is a feeling that pretty much made Arcades what they were back in the day.  I remember going to my local arcade and standing in front of the Turtles in Time machine where I’d choose whatever joystick was Leonardo (Of course) and sink my quarter into the machine with a satisfying “clink.”  It would take less than a minute before someone else walked up and do the same.  By the time two minutes had passed, four people were at the machine bantering like they were the best of friends.  All too often in video games nowadays these kind of social moments are being missed out on.  Sure, we have a fantastic time killing each other in Battlefield and Call of Duty, yet those games lack any sort of camaraderie unless you have a team.  Many of us who grew up with video games as kids have turned into adults with the want to sit down on the couch and play games together with our friends, even if it is on our own couches from  the other side of the world.


What we need in the gaming world is a shift back to the way things used to be.  There is nothing wrong with massive online MP games, but the demand for co-operative campaigns is coming back.  There have been several arcade titles recently that are realizing this and making the jump (Lara Croft: Guardian of Light, Castle Crashers, & The Dishwasher to name a few), but these are baby steps.  Baby steps in the right direction, but baby steps none the less.  Ever wonder why companies are re-releasing old arcade games like Turtles in Time or X-Men Arcade?  It’s not only because of the nostalgia of those games, but because we can play them with friends both online and at home.

Just recently Rocksteady announced to us all that Batman: Arkham City would be devoid of multiplayer.  This would be a perfect opportunity to use a great deal of Batman’s partners.  I don’t see how Nightwing, Batgirl, Catwoman, Huntress, Robin, and Red Robin  could sit back and watch such a disaster unfold in front of their eyes and then suddenly say “Meh, Batman can handle it!”.  It’s a wasted opportunity so extend the game to open the playing field to you and a friend.


This isn’t the only game where the opportunity is squandered.  Guerilla Games pretty much puts you in a heated war versus the Helghast in Killzone 3.  In design you’re pretty much matched up with a partner throughout the entire game so it confuses me how another player could not have been in control of one of the soldiers.  It could have lead up to some great fist pumping moments with friends as you both shot your way through a heart pounding struggle.


Now there are a good number of games that DO promote a cooperative style: Gears of War, Resistance, Halo, even Rock Band, while games like Uncharted 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction include a separate form of co-operative modes.  Finally we have games that get the point but fall short of what to expect in the internet age.  Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an amazing 4-player beat ‘em up, but unfortunately you can only play this game offline with your friends.  Which used to be great when we were all kids and didn’t have internet lines everywhere.  Nowadays we want the option to play on the couch AND online; either/or shouldn’t be the only option in any case as gamers have grown up and so has the world.  Technology has advanced so far in the past 20 years that there should be a solution to this.  Why pick one over the other when you can have the best of both?  The opportunity is there.  So many games and players are just begging to have a co-op option without making it an absolute necessity.  All we ask, as players, is that developers put a little more time and love into the idea and give us what we’ve been longing for for so many years: a return to the classic co-operative format so we can sit and enjoy a game the way we used to.  And maybe just punch the guy next to you when he snags your well earned weapon.


[Article co-written by Kevin “Games” Jones & Christina “RogueNurse” Weber]

Nerd Rage: Get A Job

By Roger Gaw

Let me give you a little background on me before I begin. When I got my Playstation 3 in 2006 I had been working 40+ hour weeks in the rain, wind, snow, cold, heat for about 2 years as an electrician. That’s right I busted my ass in the construction field and as a 1st and 2nd year apprentice during those years believe me my work was not easy. I dug ditches carried equipment that weighed hundreds of pounds and so forth for very conservative pay.

So what am I getting at? For everyone who bitches about the PS3 being too expensive if you want one bad enough get a job and work for it. If you don’t want one that bad then shut up and play Xbox. And some things are worth saving for. I had to save my money for my PS3. At the time for a PS3 and a game it costed me about 3 weeks pay. But I wanted it. So I worked my ass off and got it. I didn’t blow my paycheck every week on stupid shit. I set a goal and I achieved it. When I decided that I wanted a giant 4-wheel drive diesel pick-up truck I understood that I had to save and build my credit for about 2 years before I could finance one. But you know what? I did it. Because I wanted it. And believe me they didn’t lower the price because I didn’t make enough money.


In conclusion if you want something then get off your ass and go get. I’m sick of my generation wanting something but not having the ambition to get it. Or if you say I’m not paying that much then you don’t really want it do you?

Nerd Rage: PS3 is better than Xbox 360. The truth hurts.

By Roger Gaw

Before I begin I want to state that this is solely my opinion. It in no way represents the stance of Nerdiest-Kids. Now on to the article.

Let us look at the obvious reasons first shall we? The raw brute power of the PS3 dwarfs that of the Xbox 360. That’s just the common undeniable truth. Now we can move on to the Blu-ray. While Xbox 360 still uses the standard DVD disc, Sony took a look into the future and developed the Blu-ray. The Blu-ray can hold 6 times as much information as a standard DVD. So when all you 360 owners are swapping your discs when you play Final Fantasy XIII just remember that the last time I had to disc swap was for the original Metal Gear Solid about ten years ago. Let’s not even talk about HD-DVD. That failed harder than laser disc.

And now to address the my favorite argument of the 360 fanboys. I’m not a PS3 fanboy by the way, I just call a spade a spade. “The PS3 has no games.” Wow. To be fair it is true that the 360 has a larger library of games than the PS3 because it did come out first. But nobody plays those games anymore ladies and gentlemen. People are playing games that are coming out TODAY! People aren’t playing Xbox games that came out in 2005. They are playing games that came out within the last year or so. And games that came out in the last year or so ARE AVAILABLE FOR BOTH CONSOLES! And don’t give me that exclusive crap. Exclusives are few and far between and the PS3 has just as many or more than the 360. So you can not argue with me that the 360 has better games because most games are multi-platform.

One of the main reasons I’m writing this article is that I’m just sick of people hating Sony for building a great machine. People say it costs too much. But you have to look at what it costs to make the said machine. They are loosing tons of money selling it at $400.00.
And another reason I think people hate it is because Sony completely dominated the last two console wars Nobody could touch PS1 and PS2. And Americans by their very nature want the underdog aka 360 to win. That’s why people rooted for the Giants to beat the Patriots. People hate winners. It’s a fact. On a side note I really do hate the Patriots. Those cheating bastards.

Again I’m not a fanboy. I own both consoles and I just want to give the Devil his due. Sony made a better console. Period. There is some irony to this article though. I’m writing while I’m talking in an Xbox Live party. Because unfortunately that’s all my friends have are Xbox.

So as I say when people hate on me. Don’t hate the player. Hate the fame.

Roger Gaw

Nerd Rage: We are all becoming slaves. Stop HOARING!

This is a response to my esteemed colleague, Rob Sporer’s article. He would have you to believe that achievements are a positive addition to gaming. I on the contrary, will point  out to you how they are ruining gaming and what gaming was meant to be.

First of all, let us look at what playing video games is supposed to be about. They are supposed to be a fun escape from the everyday drudgery of work or school. I can not tell you how many times I’ve heard someone say “I’m working towards (insert achievement name here).” Excuse me? You are working at a game? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of playing the game? When you start getting frustrated and feel some how obligated to perform a certain task that is not playing my friends. That is working.

My second point is what’s the point? What is the point of this meaningless number next to my gamertag? I don’t care if you have 50,000 achievement points. All that means is you have far too much time on your hands.

Now I will accept achievements on one condition. I WANT MY ACHIEVEMENT TO MEAN SOMETHING!!! By this I mean that I want an unlockable weapon or character that goes along with my said “achievement”.  I don’t want to say “ooooo cool I got 100 points for 4 hours of frustration and anxiety”.

So my friends, don’t give in to peer pressure and achievement whore with everyone else. Play games for fun. For I assure you that having fun is well……fun.

Roger Gaw

Staff Writer