It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Heard it was shorter. As far as the dumb little gripes to do with having tank destruction instead of septic assault or whatever I could give a shit less.

So it's supposedly shorter, more expensive than the now marked down Saints Row 2, and they took away some player choice or something. That's all I really care about, I could care less about the "shift in tone" that critics sometimes complain about, because while the 3rd may be more over the top, it's always been a batshit crazy game from what I can tell.

So the question is, what do you guys think of SR3? Should I start with 2 or 3?
Post edited June 14, 2013 by JCD-Bionicman
avatar
JCD-Bionicman: Heard it was shorter. As far as the dumb little gripes to do with having tank destruction instead of septic assault or whatever I could give a shit less.

So it's supposedly shorter, more expensive than the now marked down Saints Row 2, and they took away some player choice or something. That's all I really care about, I could care less about the "shift in tone" that critics sometimes complain about, because while the 3rd may be more over the top, it's always been a batshit crazy game from what I can tell.

So the question is, what do you guys think of SR3? Should I start with 2 or 3?
If you intend to play SR2, then for the love of god, don't play the PC version. I suspect that if there were an award for "worst port of a big budget game ever", then SR2 would take home the prize money. Not saying that SR3 has a good port, not at all, but at least it is playable.
SR2 bases its speed on your processor's speed, so if you happen to have a processor that is faster than it intended (i.e. an Xbox processor), then time will flow faster, as will everything else (which made driving nigh unplayable). Some people made a fan patch for it, so it is at least playable, but to be honest, I don't think poor ports like these should be supported.

Should you start with SR 2 or 3 if you can get the console version for SR 2? SR 2. SR3 has more things to do, but SR 2 actually manages to be funnier. And this is actually due to the shift in tone, as the craziness feels funnier due to it being contrasted with some more normal things.

As far as player choice goes, neither game had a lot of it in the first place. The main "choices" you have is which order you want to do the quests. SR2 has 3 linear quest chains, but you can jump between them, and then there are some side activities. SR3 has more variety in its side activities.
I haven't played SR2, so I can't compare the two games. SR3 is a really fun game, but it is a bit short. I think I finished the campaign + DLC missions in about 20 hours, which is not a lot for an open world game. And once you're done with the story there's really not much left to do (except to finish all the side activities). There's little player choice in the game - during a few of the missions you can choose between two options, but your actual decisions aren't very important.
Post edited June 14, 2013 by spindown
I picked it up in the Humble THQ bundle, so got it for dirt cheap. I haven't gotten around to playing it yet, but I figure no matter what it will be worth it.
2 has the better story. It can be hilarious and offensive one second, then BOOM, it sucker punches you. It also has better customization, letting you choose your jacket, shirt, undershirt, etc. However, the controls, while not terrible, are stiff and unresponsive, particularly in the quick select menu. Expect glitches as well.

3 has far better controls, and a very nice upgrade system for both the boss and the weapons (tripled barreled incendiary shotgun, Deagle with explosive rounds...). However, character customization had to be cut back due to increased detail in the models. Gangs also all drive the same vehicles, whereas 2 gave them distinct selections. The stoy is more of a thrill ride (Deckers.die, for instance), and lacks some of the punch 2 had.

3 would be a good starting point really. If you can find 2, and can handle clunky controls, then definitely get it. They're both good.


EDIT: also, 3 has a button dedicated to cup-checking people.
Post edited June 14, 2013 by Finalguard
I've voiced my opinion countless times here on the board already, but here goes again, this time a shorter version:
I hated SR3. SR2 had just the right balance of action and humor, but SR3 took the silliness levels to whole new levels, becoming completely ridiculous, unfunny despite trying really hard, and I just couldn't take anything even remotely seriously, although that probably is kind of the point in the game.

But other than that, the missions were also a lot less fun, as were the rival gangs and the characters within. So, if you want a good GTA clone with some humor mixed in, go with SR2. SR3 is, in my opinion, a real piece of shit game and it ruined all my interest towards the series. I heard they're going to make SR4, but apparently that will be even MORE ridiculous. In other words, a game I would probably hate every minute playing. It's a shame, because after SR2 I had real high hopes for the third installment and I would even consider SR2 the best game of the year it was released in.

tldr version: Go with SR2. Fuck SR3, it sucks major balls. I would rate the games like this: SR2 - 85-90, depending whether or not you're going to play it with a friend or not. SR3 - 10-15, whether or not you have a friend to share the awkwardness with.
As someone who never played SR2 both of us here had a load of fun with Saints Row the Third, it was fun and silly in the right ways.
Post edited June 14, 2013 by Pheace
I played through SR3 with my wife and we had an absolute blast. The game is ridiculous and just a lot of fun. I can't wait for SR4.
I got SR3 in some Steam deal for the complete pack, so it didn't cost much at all that way and I got all the campaign DLC for a few more missions. I have to say, I loved the game. Sure it is over the top, sure it is silly, but so what? That's part of what the game is. Also, not having played SR1 or SR2 did not impact on any understanding of the story, I was able to jump in and pick it up fine.

I can't give an opinion on SR2, though, due to not having played it.

I've watched the trailer for SR4 and it looks like more of SR3. However, the system requirements state that it needs a quad core CPU, so I won't be getting it any time soon as I'm still dual core.
avatar
JCD-Bionicman: Heard it was shorter. As far as the dumb little gripes to do with having tank destruction instead of septic assault or whatever I could give a shit less.

So it's supposedly shorter, more expensive than the now marked down Saints Row 2, and they took away some player choice or something. That's all I really care about, I could care less about the "shift in tone" that critics sometimes complain about, because while the 3rd may be more over the top, it's always been a batshit crazy game from what I can tell.

So the question is, what do you guys think of SR3? Should I start with 2 or 3?
For the love of God don't get the PC version of SR2. Just don't. As AFNord said it's probably the worst port ever made. If your CPU runs at different clock speed than the Xbox 360's processor you'll have issues.

I haven't played the third one yet, so i really don't know which one is better gameplay-wise. If you don't own a console, then your only option is to get SR3. SR2 is unplayable on the PC version.
The PC version of SR2 is unplayable 'out of the box', but with the Gentlemen of the Row mod it's actually pretty stable in my experience.

SR3 is just... wonderfully stupid. Love it.
avatar
JCD-Bionicman: Heard it was shorter. As far as the dumb little gripes to do with having tank destruction instead of septic assault or whatever I could give a shit less.

So it's supposedly shorter, more expensive than the now marked down Saints Row 2, and they took away some player choice or something. That's all I really care about, I could care less about the "shift in tone" that critics sometimes complain about, because while the 3rd may be more over the top, it's always been a batshit crazy game from what I can tell.

So the question is, what do you guys think of SR3? Should I start with 2 or 3?
Ignore SR2, it is one of the worst console ports you'll ever have the misfortune of trying to play.

When I first got SR2 I played it on my old computer which was able to play GTA4 with medium/high settings at a playable framerate, SR2 on the other hand, while looking more like GTASA was only playable at the lowest possible resolution with everything set to low, my current computer can power through it, but then there's the comparatively horrible vehicle controls you have to deal with anyway. It's a disaster on PC. Just youtube the cutscenes and be done with it. SR3 is better in almost every single category.

As for being shorter, eh it's an open world game, it'd only be short of you joylessly speedrun through it. I have 67 hours played and have finished it twice. Is it more expensive than 2? yeah, no shit it is, it's a newer game. That's not a valid complaint IMO especially with things like Steam sales, i paid $15 for SR3 which is $5 less than the standard price for SR2 on Steam.
I've only played SR3 and it was hilarious - kinda short feeling for an "open world" kinda game, but I spent about 20 hours in it and didnt do much of the sidelines stuff.
avatar
AFnord: SR2 bases its speed on your processor's speed, so if you happen to have a processor that is faster than it intended (i.e. an Xbox processor), then time will flow faster, as will everything else (which made driving nigh unplayable). Some people made a fan patch for it, so it is at least playable, but to be honest, I don't think poor ports like these should be supported.
Not even that, time will go faster the more your CPU speed differs from the Xbox 360 - both slower and faster (according to http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1715922).

Great thing about the speed increase, I learned to handle the game relatively well at that speed, so when I found the patch, everything was a breeze as I suddenly had a lot of time to think about the next turn.

And yeah, I did find a lot of fun in Saints Row 2, despite its shortcomings as a horrific port (I wasn't going to bother finding a space to set up my 360 and find a copy of the game for the console, when Gamersgate was selling the Steam key at 75% off at the time).
Post edited June 14, 2013 by Maighstir
avatar
JCD-Bionicman: Heard it was shorter. As far as the dumb little gripes to do with having tank destruction instead of septic assault or whatever I could give a shit less.

So it's supposedly shorter, more expensive than the now marked down Saints Row 2, and they took away some player choice or something. That's all I really care about, I could care less about the "shift in tone" that critics sometimes complain about, because while the 3rd may be more over the top, it's always been a batshit crazy game from what I can tell.

So the question is, what do you guys think of SR3? Should I start with 2 or 3?
avatar
AFnord: If you intend to play SR2, then for the love of god, don't play the PC version. I suspect that if there were an award for "worst port of a big budget game ever", then SR2 would take home the prize money. Not saying that SR3 has a good port, not at all, but at least it is playable.
SR2 bases its speed on your processor's speed, so if you happen to have a processor that is faster than it intended (i.e. an Xbox processor), then time will flow faster, as will everything else (which made driving nigh unplayable). Some people made a fan patch for it, so it is at least playable, but to be honest, I don't think poor ports like these should be supported.

Should you start with SR 2 or 3 if you can get the console version for SR 2? SR 2. SR3 has more things to do, but SR 2 actually manages to be funnier. And this is actually due to the shift in tone, as the craziness feels funnier due to it being contrasted with some more normal things.

As far as player choice goes, neither game had a lot of it in the first place. The main "choices" you have is which order you want to do the quests. SR2 has 3 linear quest chains, but you can jump between them, and then there are some side activities. SR3 has more variety in its side activities.
I foolishly purchased Saints Row 2 some time ago. The cars move too fast, you have to be Data from Star Trek TNG in order to drive and the game is choppy inside buildings. Horrible port.