Saint's row

I heard it's a pretty decent game, but that it's too heavily based on GTA to be a real hit by itself. Apparently the multiplayer is really fun and is one of the best parts of the game.
 
its garbage... feels like a quick release due to constant buggyness... i would rather play gta3... online mode is so ridiculous... quick match? HA! bullshit!!! you cant just enter a room and join a game... you have to start a new game each time and end up waiting about ten min for the game to start each time... the actual game lasts about five min and then guess what,,, back to the main menu to wait AGAIN!!! you cant just stick with your group and move on to another round with a new stage or mode... ... the problem is for the quick match to begin, you have to have a certain number of players or some time has to pass (havent figured out the pattern yet)... people come in, see that they have to wait and then leave the game... you will see 4 players drop to 3 and back up to 4 then to 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 and back up and so forth numerous times cause people dont believe that other people will wait for the game to start... sorry for the shit typing but i am really frustrated just thinking about all the time i have wasted... now, that critic is just for the "quick match" cause i havent quite figured out gang mode yet, but if quick match is that slow, i think ill forgo that torture... thank g-d i rented this game instead of buying it and THANK G-D i borrowed the 360 instead of buying it... what a piece of crap system... nothing i have played feels next generation (dead rising was fun and interesting though not up to what i expected out of a 360)... cant wait to blow a weeks pay on PS3... back to saints row; maybe there just isnt enough people playing it online... i dont know... there are 4 modes: protect the pimp, deathmatch teams or solo, pimp the ride and big chains where u kill people and pick up their chains and take them to a drop of point to score (kinda capture the flagish)... the graphics offline are far better than online mode...
 
wow. While its ineteresting to see you write everything that comes to mind as it happens would it have killed you to put some complete sentences in there!? :guts:

Anyways I agree with Aaz, if you were dissapointed with the 360 the ps3's not going to have much more to offer (except the bigger whole in the wallet). Both systems are basically an upgrade in hardware, leaving he poor gaming experience completely reliant on the capability of the software creators.

the 360 doesn't really have a hit yet. People are moving from release to release but nobody sticks to a game for long.
 
CnC said:
the 360 doesn't really have a hit yet.  People are moving from release to release but nobody sticks to a game for long.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm having a blast so far playing and replaying Prey and Deadrising. So far I'm glad I got a 360.
 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:
Really? I'm having a blast so far playing and replaying Prey and Deadrising. So far I'm glad I got a 360.
Click to expand...

Yea, those are both good games,but they aren't really keeping players for long. I'm speaking of the players as a whole tho. Most game media sources are saying that most owners of the 360 are just moving from one game to the next.

I still do, however, intend to get a 360 soon. The list of games that I'd like to play on it is getting long enough to where I can rationalize buying it.
 
Well, from what few PS3 demos I have seen, I have been impressed. Even if the PS3 and 360 only have slight hardware upgrades, I believe that PS3 will put it to better use given their record with PS2 over XBOX. The XBOX had one half way decent game; HALO. I personally didn't care much for it. I prefer more realistic enviroments in first person gaming. Feel free to let me know if there were any other games I had missed. No backwards compatibility in the 360 is just insulting. It ranks right up there with having to buy a remote to play a DVD on the Xbox. I played Dead Rising one time through because I felt the replay value was rather low. You spend a majority of the game attempting to guide bad AI to safety. I wished I could injure most of the people you had to save just so I could carry them. That really should have been an option.

"I am here to save you. Let me see your leg a second."
*crack*
"Ah, you broke my fucking leg you maniac!"
"This looks serious, I better carry you."

I just couldn't go through it again though it was quite fun the first time. With the exception of the quoted area of this reply, I hope this meets APA and CNC standards.
:guts:
 
Lets not turn this thread into an 360 vs. ps3 debate, as its not about that. I just want to state that I have quite a few xbox games that I enjoy a lot (halo isn't really one of them, but its ok). That aside its really the responsibility of the software developer to make a good game, whether it be on 360 or ps3. Both systems are pretty close to each other in their hardware.

But back to Saints Row. Those people who want a GTA game on a next gen before the next GTA should be satisfied with Saints row. What it rips from GTA it does well, and what it tries to originate it does mediocre. This is pretty much what every reviewer is saying. Its ok but does nothing for the genre except update the graphics.
 
i agree with you and your reviewers CNC... thats to the point... i just was overly disappointed because i was so looking forward to playing a GTA style game online... i knew it could only be chaos but i didnt expect it to be crap with an intensely horrid wait... i was also expecting a mode that had the whole map of the game available (a little unrealistic i know) that would allow players to choose gang sides and do rival missions (WoW style sorta)... i once had a gta mod for pc that allowed online play but did the same thing as SR... there were only races and small maps...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top