Talk:Saints Row: The Third/Archive 1

Archive 1

Important notice

This is not a suggestion thread for the game Saints Row 3. All discussion should pertain to potential improvements and issues with this article itself. If you wish to make a suggestion about the game itself, please do so elsewhere such as on public forums. Thank you. CR4ZE (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

 when is this game coming out  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.70.96 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 

Shortening name?

Is there an encyclopaedic way that we can shorten "Saints Row: The Third" when referring to it throughout the article? Most game articles do this (ie "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" becomes "Skyrim", "Grand Theft Auto IV" becomes "GTA IV"). I was thinking either "SR3" or "SRTT", but "The Third" would be fine as well. CR4ZE (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

How about SRIII? That's what the box art picture in the article shows/states. (86.145.35.3 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

We want to use an abbreviation that is regularly used in the press, which I haven't seen (compared to GTA IV for example). If you want a shorter name, you can use The Third. -MASEM (t) 14:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Masem. Let's use that for the time being. CR4ZE (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Final

Hello. Not to interrupt but are there any sources or references that state that SR3 is the final installment? 202.67.123.75 (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they have called it one time or another the Saints Row trilogy. --99.8.47.225 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Release date

I could've sworn to god that in North America, the game is coming out on November 15. Not the 14th. Unless it's possibly coming out for PC on the 14th, but it should be noted as such. Can someone please verify whether is is seriously coming out for all consoles on Nov. 15 in North America? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.253.80 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen nothing to suggest a 14th release date. It might unlock for US West Coast players on the 14th, but it's still being released for everyone in NA on the 15th. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In France he is out on November 15, 2011 I put the reference for console and PC, I'm French I is quen it and exit! User:counny 16:42 November 15, 2011 (CEST) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

Potential Plot Spoilers

I think we should remove the headings that are listed in the plot section as it can be considered as spoilers to anyone who hasn't yet finished the game or got to that certain part.We should keep the details but just remove the headings as it's hard for people to avoid reading it and potientally spoiling it for themselves.Darkside2000 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DLC Mission Packs

I noticed that a fourth mission pack (Shaundi Returns) was added to the article recently. I haven't been able to find any information about it from other sites, nor do I recall there being any announcements for it. Is it even real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHB-XYZ (talk • contribs) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical Issues

"These performance issues have since been addressed through patches." To this today, there are still high-end AMD Radeon users that get unbearable performance in this game. You can find many threads about this on the official forums and on the Steam game forum. I know because I was one of them until I recently got a GTX 670, replacing my Radeon 5970. The game runs smooth as butter now. In all honesty I do not know if this problem is Volition, AMD or both. But to say that the issues have been addressed is not entirely justified. Specularr (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saints Row: The Third/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 07:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You got this one up to scratch pretty fast.

• The Metacritic thing again. Per the discussion I started at Talk:MoS I'll let it go, but I do think per LEADCITE you should place the footnote in the lead, because you're treating "generally favorable" as a quote. Lead could use a little more beyond that about the critical reception in the way of a sentence or two.
• The lead states that there is multiplayer in the game. That's only true to the extent that there's two-player co-op and since co-op is already mentioned, I'd just lose multiplayer. Readers would assume that means competitive multiplayer, which creates some redundancy with Gameplay explaining that there isn't.
• Any reason you've taken out the Plot section? I'm neutral about them as well, but this game has enough of a cinematic narrative to have its plot summarised.
• Following on from my second point, Development could use some more on why Volition removed multiplayer. I remember them talking about it in the Game Informer unveiling. Can you get your hands on it? I'm sure I have it saved somewhere if you can't.
• You're missing wikilinks for Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto IV and Grand Theft Auto clone. Also, in Reception, it would be more helpful to the non-player to cover the game's comparison to GTA with a little more clarity. The reader doesn't know why "Grand Theft Auto IV's serious turn let the Saints Row series be a "gleeful silly sandbox game". Even though you have some mention in Gameplay, it isn't clear that reviews were marked by GTA comparisons. Something along the lines of "Critics likened the game's format to that of Grand Theft Auto's" in the first paragraph of Reception would do. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one thing to add myself: did Volition ever confirm the first Enter The Dominatrix announcement really was an April Fools joke? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw that it was getting a lot of hits for being free with XBL's Games with Gold though the article was shitty, so I just went with it and got carried away—now it's 100% new. I think I've addressed all of the above. Since none of the coverage was more descriptive about the plot, I didn't find the minutiae worth including. If you see aspects of the plot that would be worth including, let me know why you think so (or perhaps you can point me to RS that also think so). I don't have the April 2011 Game Informer issue, if you have a copy. I didn't finish wikifying since things were still moving around and I didn't want to redo work, but let me know if you see something I should address. Re: April Fool's—I'm not sure, but it's up to what the RS say anyway czar ♔ 08:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes look good. Some more thoughts:

• Though the new concision is great, your cuts to Gameplay have removed some information I think should be mentioned. Some explanation of the open world design would be helpful, like how I have GTA V. If you can find some RS for it, the game's linear mission structure should definitely be mentioned, as it completely deviates from the first two Saints Rows. The weapon wheel is a fairly independent feature from Saints Rows' contemporaries and could be mentioned (not compulsory, but it could be worked in).
• With regards to my point above about the Plot being removed, and the want for more on the open world design, my suggestion would be to put the plot back in (with minor cull) under a "Synopsis" section, with a new "Setting" section in front of it (and optionally have the Synopsis section in front of Gameplay). This is commonplace in articles like BioShock Infinite where the reader having an understanding of the plot/setting would enhance their understanding of Gameplay. The open world design could be mentioned here, in addition to mentioning how the player's direct actions in the game can permanently change the game world (such as when you make the choice in the game as whether or not to blow up that big skyscraper, permanently upgrading cribs that then alter the skyline, gaining control of territories that eradicate rival gangs' presence there). This is all mentionable content, but if you'd rather not have a Synopsis you could work it into Gameplay if it retains focus. Although I'd say having a Synopsis section is the best approach.
• You don't need coverage in sources for an overview of the plot if you're only really dealing with an overall summary of the story. An uncited, concise plot summary would comply with MOS:PLOT. Or you could add in cites from the actual game. The game includes decisions for players to make throughout the game, and multiple endings. In terms of sources actually talking about plot, you need only look to the reception section, where the plot and some of the themes have been thrown around by journalists. I think the plot's definitely includable if its writing is kept tight. Looking back on the diff before your work there was a fairly well-formed Plot that could be cut back to integral moments to the story, player-made decisions etc. Ask yourself; "why not?"—most FA-level articles I see have a plot section.
• As the actors are notable for work outside the game, the voice cast should be put back in. If you wish (and I leave it up to you) you can negate a bullet-point list by mentioning the voice actors in brackets after their voiced character in a Plot section. Either/or. Behind the Voice Actors is a reliable replacement for IMDb. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to dig out that Game Informer cover issue and add what I feel is missing from it myself. Do you have want of it yourself? CR4ZE (t • c) 11:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a scan, I'd like to edit it in myself (it also might help clarify the stuff I don't know). I agree that your gameplay suggestions would be good, but they haven't been covered in the reviews I've read. I'll look harder. There's also a good chance the GI article may cover some of it. I'll see what I can do with the plot—I usually adhere to a stricter form of WP:V, myself, and only repeat parts of the plot that the RS found necessary (because I don't trust what isn't cited). Cast lists are specifically recommended against in WP:VG/GL (WP:VGSCOPE #10), but let me know what you think of that.czar ♔ 14:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Okay, here's my plan for the plot. I dropped in the old version as a plot section for now and later when I have time (or fortitude) I'm going to source it from the Prima walkthrough, which covers the bases of reliable and verifiable. czar ♔ 14:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC) I just re-read what you said about the plot, but the review RS I've read don't say much of anything past the first two pre-Steelport missions and that the gangs exist. FYI czar ♔ 15:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought Troy Baker would perhaps be an exception to the rule where "games where the video game cast is particularly notable", because....it's VG royalty Troy Baker. But only if there's a logical way to do it, like a mention in Development. Up to you. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Good news. I've read through the Game Informer cover reveal and it works perfectly as a source for some of my suggestions, including some plot. There's plenty of great info in there for you. Emailing through to you. Also...is there...slight humour in your writing? If so, brilliant. "Design director Scott Phillips on handling the dildo bat for the first time"—I lol'd. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Once you get it, careful that you don't miss the "Narrowing The Focus" box on pg 53, which is what I was talking about with the removal of multiplayer. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm all about the subtlety. Looking forward to checking out the GI source. I couldn't find a source that explained the weapon wheel as an idea, so that part may not be worth explaining. Also I have sources that say the story progress is linear, but I'm not sure this is worth adding if there isn't a source that also says that this deviates from the series precedent (which I can't find). Thanks czar ♔ 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Game Informer preview you're getting directly mentions that it's a deviation on pg 52. Email me back so I can send the scans through (can't attach files through Wikimail). CR4ZE (t • c) 15:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: Kotaku (RS) mentions the weapon wheel in their review. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@CR4ZE, I saw that too, but it's a mention and doesn't explain what it is. czar ♔ 06:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a common term, much like "crosshair" or "ammo", for a feature that's been used in countless AAA-games like GTA, Assasin's Creed, BioShock, Dead Rising... I don't see any OR concern if you mention that the game features a weapon wheel because an explanation is not likely to be challenged. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@CR4ZE, okay—I think I've covered everything. Take another look? czar ♔ 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Great work. In the interest of absolute transparency I'll state for the record that while I have previously been a major contributor I had not edited the article for three years, and took the review after Czar had conducted a complete rewrite. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   CR4ZE (t • c) 06:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If anything, that makes you most qualified to review it, no? Thanks for the helpful review czar ♔ 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lack of voiceovers info

I just noticed there's no info about the famous voiceovers the game got. Ex-porn actress Sasha Grey, ex-wrestler Hulk Hogan and ex-Lost actor, Daniel Dae Kim, all did voices for characters in the game, I think it's relevant and should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.72.87 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tallyho (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Euchrid (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Modern"

Metacritic classifies SR3 as in the "modern" genre. Whatever that is, it's new (pun somewhat intended). czar ♔ 22:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I found most sources to call the game "action" instead of "action-adventure". I used the latter since it's how the first two games were referenced and a few do call it "action-adventure". Even that seems kind of archaic now that "open world" has become somewhat of its own genre. czar ♔ 23:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination

{{Did you know nominations/Saints Row: The Third}} czar ♔ 06:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Saints Row: The Third edit

Hi there,

This is regarding an edit I made earlier on the Saints Row: The Third article which you reverted with the following reasoning: "Not minor reformatting—needless detail added to infobox, "multiplayer" even though the article says there isn't any, DLC is final section because it serves as a "Legacy" send-off."

There are a few clarifications I'd like to make which I feel might explain why I think those changes are needed.

• "Needless details added to infobox" --- I believe this is with reference to the game engine. The article currently lists "Havok" as the engine being used in the game. However, that misleading from a technical standpoint. The actual "game engine" is called CTG Engine. Havok is the physics engine that works in conjunction with CTG, similar to the way PhysX works with the Unreal Engine. Therefore, I believe it needs to be mentioned that CTG Engine is being used along with Havok for physics, as is done in a lot of other video game articles. Merely mentioning Havok alone will not serve this purpose.

• "multiplayer" even though the article says there isn't any" --- The game has cooperative multiplayer, but not competitive multiplayer. But a multiplayer mode is indeed present in the game. The article lists just "cooperative", which in turn is a "multiplayer" mode.

• "DLC is final section because it serves as a "Legacy" send-off" --- I'm not quite sure what this means. Generally, the DLC section (including downloadable expansions) is listed before "Reception", whereas "Sequel" is listed after. I believe that's the standard format for a lot of VG articles. "Legacy" in my opinion should only be used if the game has influenced other similar projects.

Please let me know your thoughts regarding this matter.

Regards, --CoolingGibbon (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page czar ♔ 14:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@CoolingGibbon, CTG is not mentioned in the article as a game engine. Before that change is made to the infobox, it needs to be reliably sourced within the article. And even if it were sourced, we typically use the shortest version of the engine in the infobox. Engines are almost always customized, which is fine to elaborate in the prose but not helpful to elaborate in the quick reference infobox. "Cooperative" is a more descriptive word for the mode than "multiplayer", so I don't agree with that change. Most games end with a "Legacy" or "Sequel" section as a send-off from the article. In this case, the sequel is linked to the DLC and they both occurred after the original Reception, which is the rationale for its placement. czar ♔ 14:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I specifically recall CTG Engine being mentioned in the article reviously.Someone must've edited it out due to lack of references or something. However, the point I'm tryiung to make is that Havok being mentioned as the game engine is plain wrong. No games are made with only Havok. Havok is also not a "custom engine" and neither is it the "shortest version" of anything... rather it specifically handles the physics in Saints Row: The Third. If needed I can make the necessary changes with proper citations, else this glaring error will persist. As for cooperative I guess that's acceptable, though I'd prefer "multiplayer (co-op)" for best results. Regarding DLC, only Enter the Dominatrix fits the criteria as per your description. There are numerous other DLC packs mentioned in the article which have nothing to do with the sequel. Please consider this thoroughly once more if possible. Normally I wouldn't be so adamant... it's just that I'm playing through the game right now and these errors are just too hard to not notice. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There was no source to back up that CTG was an engine. The article has been completely rewritten since then. The DLC is connected to the sequel via the "Enter the Dominatrix" ordeal. I'm not convinced that its placement would be better otherwise, and the GA review and edit consensus support that (unless someone else wants to chime in). czar ♔ 03:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I said... someone removed it probably because it was not sourced. I can add it back along with a source if need be. Also, like I also mentioned previously... Enter the Dominatrix was initially planned for SR3 but was eventually carried forward to SR4. Also, the DLC section in the article also mentions other DLC that were released as part of SR3, such as Genkibowl and Gangstas in Space. I think these released DLC need to be highlighted more than the DLC which was "planned" but not released as part of SR3. Either way, if you want to go for RfC, I'm in. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see what source you'd use for the CTG Engine. The individual DLCs could be expanded, but I don't think they need more than two or three sentences apiece. I could do that next weekend. I think an RfC over section placement is overkill. czar ♔ 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here:http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/03/25/take-a-video-tour-of-saints-row-39-s-new-city.aspx --- It discusses SR3's design using the CTG World Editor. Furthermore, if it takes RfC (or any other feasible solution that you might suggest) to sort out and fix these errors, I'm all for it. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That source is already used in the article and it discusses CTG as a level editor, not a game engine. Usually you'll get third opinions from page watchers, if you wait. If that's not an option, asking WT:VG for input will work better than listing an RfC. czar ♔ 05:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks, I'll start a new discussion at WT:VG with reference to this one and see if there's a solution to this. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)