This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
once you see this sig, you must copy it and make it your sig for 2 days
Don't read this sig.
SR2 wasn't very good.
Political correctness is fascism with manners.
SR2 wasn't very good.
...at getting me to turn it off!
It was a blast to play and way more fun than a lot of games at the time. I still play it to this day. My character looks like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys.
I'M RUNNIN' THIS MONKEY FARM NOW, FRANKENSTEIN!!! - Capt. Rhodes, Day of the Dead (1985)
SR1 < SR2 < SR4 < SR3
There is no I in team, But there is an I in Win
Just finally finished SR3 100%. It took me 64:00 hours on the dot. A good half of that was just screwing around. In fact I was a level 50 before even completing act 2. I've never played SR2, but I really don't think it would give me the hours of enjoyment that 3 did.
JascoD~ He said black ops 2, not Battlefield 3. CoD can be played at the same time you're making a sandwich.
The best one was the first, and that's only because it provided an open-world crime game fix before a GTA hit this gen.
Still, the only thing memorable the series brings to the table is insurance fraud missions. Those are still awesome!
well i don't really hate you with a burning passion because i don't really give you that much thought, but i do think you're a ****ing idiot.
I beat SR3 for the 3rd time today (first with the DLC).
2 > 3.
Only thing 3 has on 2 is gameplay. In every other way 2 is better.
All of them so far have been good and enjoyable games to me, and I expect 4 to continue that. But to me, 2 took everything that 1 did and made it better. 3 improved the gameplay, as I said, but it cut so much of the depth from the game that it just comes up shallow in comparison to 2.
It is understandable to me to some extent. As I understand it, 3 was being made while THQ was dealing with money problems. That probably hurt not only the budget for 3, but also the amount of time they had to finish it. I figure they wanted to hurry up and get it out the door to bring in more money more quickly, so they took some shortcuts with it. That is my belief anyway, I don't know that for sure.
Hopefully 4 won't have any of those problems. As I see it now, the main problem 4 will have is that they've continued to go off the deep end with the story and whatnot. Even though I preferred the more serious tones that 1 and 2 had, I can deal with the off the deep end stuff if the rest of the game is deep enough. Hopefully it will be.
And to think...people laughed at me when I said MS could out-EA EA any day of the week.
Who's laughing now, *****es???
I figure they wanted to hurry up and get it out the door to bring in more money more quickly, so they took some shortcuts with it.
This seems like a fair explanation - SR3 looks all shiny, but as you say it lacks the depth of fun of SR2 IMO. Sure, the missions are pretty crazy, & if you were to tell someone about how you spent your time in the game it would sound like you had some wacky adventures, but SR2 gave me more personal fun moments - emergent vs structured narrative, I guess.
Like TheMuffin, I took ~70hrs for a first playthrough of SR3 and much of that was messing about early on, so it was definitely still a fun experience. SR2 though was 120+hrs and I still feel like I could play more (shame the multiplayer Strong Arm was less fun than it should have been!). Even the map of SR2 is more memorable to me, it felt like it had more recognisable zones and I had less trouble navigating because I could tell where I was (maybe I'm just getting old though...).
tant d'echecs, tant de defaites
3 was like almost game of the year on Giantbomb, says something. Stupid fun can be great. It mkaes fun of every big game out there. Rdr, AC, Cod, Halo, Me... it's funny as crap. This 4th one though, they might have done a little too much, and I think the series will die after it, or they will change things up for the next game.