Saints Row reboot

FearTheCow said:
I ventured over to the games sub reddit, turns out the demographic targeted by the game love it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the reddit crowd of 2022 loves this.

Although keep in mind, the reddit crowd of 2022 is the same as the Facebook, etc crowd.

Meaning, posts from real users are buried/downvoted, and you only see the fake user account bot farms paid for by the advertising agency for the game.
 
I got the game loaded up and it's on my older x470 with the 3700x, this is the Sapphire Pulse RX 6600 Lite Editon without SAM on, It says in Toms hardware ( Moving up to higher settings and frame rates, as usual, necessitates better hardware, with the GTX 1070 or RX 5700 recommended for 1080p medium at 60 fps)

Game ran pretty good at those setting in my recording, Re Live can't recorded smooth is what your seeing or my 144Hz is fast lol.

 
crazycrave said:
I got the game loaded up and it's on my older x470 with the 3700x, this is the Sapphire Pulse RX 6600 Lite Editon without SAM on, It says in Toms hardware ( Moving up to higher settings and frame rates, as usual, necessitates better hardware, with the GTX 1070 or RX 5700 recommended for 1080p medium at 60 fps)

Game ran pretty good at those setting in my recording, Re Live can't recorded smooth is what your seeing or my 144Hz is fast lol.

Click to expand...


How is the actual game?

For recording I like Nvidia Shadow Play (or whatever it is called these days) and always gives me good results. Does AMD not have something similar?
 
The reviews on youtube are trashing this game. I was looking forward to trying it too, guess not anymore lol.
 
I've heard a good description on what this game is actually like: Like it was made by people who only have a faint idea on how a videogame should play and look like.
Like when the big bang theory gone from a geek sitcom to a "what normies think about geeks" sitcom. This game is made to be like what non-gamers think a game is.
They tried to mimic certain game mechanics and elements, but it's all superficial, clumsy and shallow.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I stopped watching ACG years ago for this. He gives an entire speech for something that could be said in 1 sentence.
Brevity is the soul of wit, my dudes.
Click to expand...
Except he can't because that's not how youtube works. Try creating a 1-sentence review channel and see what happens.
 
Flogger23m said:
How is the actual game?

For recording I like Nvidia Shadow Play (or whatever it is called these days) and always gives me good results. Does AMD not have something similar?
Click to expand...
I like it so far, but wait for some discounts and update patchs before buying I would say, I readed the Tomshardware review last night and change some things in the setting, 1080p Med is best for around 80 - 100fps and without RT.

My board is CX, could put the RTX 3070 just to record, it never gave the play back shutters recording itself.
 
DPI said:
Except he can't because that's not how youtube works. Try creating a 1-sentence review channel and see what happens.
Click to expand...
That is no excuse. Video is already a very inefficient way to transmit information, and it is made 10 times worse if someone goes out of his way to be long winded.

And there are counter examples where someone can be successful with 2-3 minute videos.
 
DPI said:
Except he can't because that's not how youtube works. Try creating a 1-sentence review channel and see what happens.
Click to expand...

YouTube is actively promoting sub-60-second short videos. It would get boosted to the top.
 
M76 said:
That is no excuse. Video is already a very inefficient way to transmit information, and it is made 10 times worse if someone goes out of his way to be long winded.

And there are counter examples where someone can be successful with 2-3 minute videos.
Click to expand...

That's how the Youtube algorithm works (at least for the moment, they change it on a whim). It's not just about how many people view your video, but how long people watch it, how much they engage with it (likes, dislikes, comments, shares) and how much of the content of that creator you watch. Well, that, and Youtube arbitrarily deciding whether or not you're "worth" boosting.

Axman said:
YouTube is actively promoting sub-60-second short videos. It would get boosted to the top.
Click to expand...


ACG has done some shorts, but that format is pretty shit for reviews. It's neat for getting some quick thoughts out and great for little skits or small bits of, very surface level, information but not really a great format for any depth.
 
Derangel said:
That's how the Youtube algorithm works (at least for the moment, they change it on a whim). It's not just about how many people view your video, but how long people watch it, how much they engage with it (likes, dislikes, comments, shares) and how much of the content of that creator you watch. Well, that, and Youtube arbitrarily deciding whether or not you're "worth" boosting.
Click to expand...
Watch minutes are related to ad revenue, more minutes watched = more ad revenue. Of course if you can make people watch your long videos you win big, but if you loose half your audience for saying nothing in 1000 words, then you might want to rethink your approach.
I have bailed on many channels for this reason, they don't get to waste my time for tiny bits of information. I just recently discovered a channel I'm interested in the content, but literally every video on the channel is 16 minutes, there are a few that warrant this runtime, but a lot of it could be cut to 5 minutes or less. I told the youtube algorithm that it should not recommend this channel to me anymore.
Derangel said:
ACG has done some shorts, but that format is pretty shit for reviews. It's neat for getting some quick thoughts out and great for little skits or small bits of, very surface level, information but not really a great format for any depth.
Click to expand...
shorts are trash, they are all vertical videos, I'm not watching that if it is the last thing on earth. I also send channels packing where half the timeline is made up of shorts.

The older I get the less time and patience I have for BS low quality content.
 
M76 said:
Watch minutes are related to ad revenue, more minutes watched = more ad revenue. Of course if you can make people watch your long videos you win big, but if you loose half your audience for saying nothing in 1000 words, then you might want to rethink your approach.
I have bailed on many channels for this reason, they don't get to waste my time for tiny bits of information. I just recently discovered a channel I'm interested in the content, but literally every video on the channel is 16 minutes, there are a few that warrant this runtime, but a lot of it could be cut to 5 minutes or less. I told the youtube algorithm that it should not recommend this channel to me anymore.

shorts are trash, they are all vertical videos, I'm not watching that if it is the last thing on earth. I also send channels packing where half the timeline is made up of shorts.

The older I get the less time and patience I have for BS low quality content.
Click to expand...
Right-click Short, Copy video URL, paste & go in address bar. Takes you to the standard video page.
 
M76 said:
shorts are trash, they are all vertical videos, I'm not watching that if it is the last thing on earth. I also send channels packing where half the timeline is made up of shorts.
Click to expand...

Also you can't go back or forward to certain parts of the video, you need to watch it from the beginning. What kind of idiot thinks that is helpful or useful in anyway? What are we doing, going back to functionality of 1990 era video players? It also promotes dumbing down of discourse.

Of course, long winded videos artificially stretching things out for ad time aren't good either. But even those videos are better than "shorts" will ever be.
 
It had to be a first for me in any video game, people flying thru the windshield because they forgot to add seat belts to the game!
 
crazycrave said:
It had to be a first for me in any video game, people flying thru the windshield because they forgot to add seat belts to the game!
Click to expand...
That was in Saint's Row 2 or maybe not until 3. It was a part of the game, to see how far you could throw yourself out of window after hitting something. This is far from new.
 
My 19-year-old daughter came over to spend a few days with me, she played an early Sanit Row 1 or 2 before, so this was a blind test as she started her game and played maybe 4 or 5 hours so far, she says, she likes the game and all the crazy stuff about it, just didn't like the areas in towns where no people or cars can be found.

The part about needing an SSD for DX 12 is BS, I have one of those 2 Tb Seagate Barracuda SATA plate drives with the game load there, with windows 11 running on an SSD alone and the game loads and runs fine being on it. I always like those Seagate drives for price to storage size, it cost $45 for OME from newegg around 2018 -19 era.
 
Last edited:
Co-op is a broken mess. My wife and I been trying to play co-cop (both on PC's) and it always results in someone getting dropped within 10-20 minutes, mission bugs (some missions/side tasks will show one screen...but not the others), and just other weird glitches (the non-host player cannot steal cars at times for example).
 
I'm confused why anyone would have bought this game when we all knew before releasing it was garbage, and the reviews also confirm it.
 
I didn't buy it, came with my RX 6700, same with Sniper Elite 5. it needs some patch work just like any game.
 
crazycrave said:
I didn't buy it, came with my RX 6700, same with Sniper Elite 5. it needs some patch work just like any game.
Click to expand...

This is the saddest statement I've read.


No.

'needs patch work just like any game' is a fucking terrible, no-good, defeatist, dystopian statement.

No. It didn't used to be like this. Games used to be completed and then launched. Games used to work day-1 with Possibly minor and rare visual bugs as a worst-case scenario.

People accepting garbage encourages the creation and sale of garbage.

Don't make excuses for a corporation that would emphatically slit your throat if it meant they'd get a 5% bump in their share price.
 
A lot of games way back then were buggy at release too. They either needed patches or simply never got them. That doesn't mean it is acceptable in modern games. I'm just pointing out how buggy games have been around forever.
 
KazeoHin said:
This is the saddest statement I've read.


No.

'needs patch work just like any game' is a fucking terrible, no-good, defeatist, dystopian statement.

No. It didn't used to be like this. Games used to be completed and then launched. Games used to work day-1 with Possibly minor and rare visual bugs as a worst-case scenario.

People accepting garbage encourages the creation and sale of garbage.

Don't make excuses for a corporation that would emphatically slit your throat if it meant they'd get a 5% bump in their share price.
Click to expand...

No, you're just viewing the past through rose colored glasses. Many games had major bugs and issues in the past as well, especially in the PC space. Older RPGs were especially filled with bugs and other issues. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem now, but people need to stop pretending that games were magically better in the past. The industry as a whole was certainly better (in some areas, at least) but games have always suffered from rushed development, bugs, performance issues, missing content, etc. Let's not forget that in the era before wide-spread internet, people that weren't lucky enough to have access had to BUY PC gaming magazines in order to get demo floppies or discs that would contain game patches. Without those you were stuck with whatever state the game launched in, no matter how buggy and broken it was.

There are A LOT of problems with the modern industry and how games are handled by corporations but going around crying about how much better things used to be does no one any good.
 
Derangel said:
Let's not forget that in the era before wide-spread internet, people that weren't lucky enough to have access had to BUY PC gaming magazines in order to get demo floppies or discs that would contain game patches. Without those you were stuck with whatever state the game launched in, no matter how buggy and broken it was
Click to expand...

I don't remember that...I remember developers making patches available online and you had to manually download and install it yourself
 
polonyc2 said:
I don't remember that...I remember developers making patches available online and you had to manually download and install it yourself
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you didn't have online access (or a friend/family member with it) you were stuck buying magazines to in order to get game updates. I wish I still had my old gaming magazines and demo discs so I could mention some specific examples. I did, however, find a picture of an issue of PCGamer that mentions patches on the demo disc.

s-l500.jpg
 
Derangel said:
Yeah, if you didn't have online access (or a friend/family member with it) you were stuck buying magazines to in order to get game updates. I wish I still had my old gaming magazines and demo discs so I could mention some specific examples. I did, however, find a picture of an issue of PCGamer that mentions patches on the demo disc.

View attachment 507328
Click to expand...
I didn't buy magazines specifically for the patches, but it was a nice value-add to see the CD have a few patches for the games I was currently playing. My parents didn't connect to the internet until 1997. Sometimes my dad would download patches at work to bring them home, like he did for Doom.
 
Armenius said:
That, and Shacknews.
Click to expand...

And File Front, Moddb (yeah they had some official patches too). Games did have official websites often with the patches but they would be hosted all over. But if you were on console you were stuck with the bugs, and many console games had freezing bugs. And PC games often didn't release in a good state like STALKER. And many would never get into a good state.
 
Flogger23m said:
And File Front, Moddb (yeah they had some official patches too). Games did have official websites often with the patches but they would be hosted all over. But if you were on console you were stuck with the bugs, and many console games had freezing bugs. And PC games often didn't release in a good state like STALKER. And many would never get into a good state.
Click to expand...
I've said elsewhere that with consoles you could often write or call the publisher to get an updated version of the cart or disc when an update was made, especially for critical issues. Many did it for free, but some required a small fee or at least the price of shipping.
 
Derangel said:
No, you're just viewing the past through rose colored glasses. Many games had major bugs and issues in the past as well, especially in the PC space. Older RPGs were especially filled with bugs and other issues. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem now, but people need to stop pretending that games were magically better in the past. The industry as a whole was certainly better (in some areas, at least) but games have always suffered from rushed development, bugs, performance issues, missing content, etc. Let's not forget that in the era before wide-spread internet, people that weren't lucky enough to have access had to BUY PC gaming magazines in order to get demo floppies or discs that would contain game patches. Without those you were stuck with whatever state the game launched in, no matter how buggy and broken it was.

There are A LOT of problems with the modern industry and how games are handled by corporations but going around crying about how much better things used to be does no one any good.
Click to expand...


Okay, looking back there were some games that released with major bugs. I was wrong to blanket state that it never happened.

However, a hill I am willing to die on is that it was the exception, not the rule and now, like the previous post I quoted, consumers are now treating it like its the rule.

Thats what I'm so upset about.
 
There are still plenty of good games that release with few bugs. I'm honestly not sure what the ratio of stable games then vs now would be. Would certainly be an interesting study to see. But there were many, many buggy and incomplete games released in the past. A lot of truly awful games released back then, and even if it wasn't the bugs they just had massive flaws in basic game design.
 
Flogger23m said:
There are still plenty of good games that release with few bugs. I'm honestly not sure what the ratio of stable games then vs now would be. Would certainly be an interesting study to see. But there were many, many buggy and incomplete games released in the past. A lot of truly awful games released back then, and even if it wasn't the bugs they just had massive flaws in basic game design.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that hasn't changed. Shitty game mechanics get made today, which sucks but it's not getting worse.

It seems to me like every major big-budget release is unfinished and racked with game-breaking bugs at launch. Imagine if Metal Gear Solid 2 on PS2 had this level of bugs? That was a huge budget game for it's time and had tons of hype. It released in a finished state. Were there bugs? sure, Speedrunners could show you bugs. But they were rare and mostly unnoticeable, with most players not even realising they happened.

Imagine if Konami released MGS2 with menu options that didn't work? or AI that just randomly disappears, or soft-locks that can ruin savegame progress. There would have been a recall: People would have thought "This is garbage and I want my money back". Same with ANY of the disk-based Gran Turismo games, Super Mario Anything... even third-party niche games like Twisted Metal, Turok, Goldeneye, Anything Rareware...

Games didn't release like this: with major, advertised features not working for most users and bugs so frequent no single user can play the game through without knowingly experiencing one. That didn't used to be normal. and I'm tired of pretending like it is!
 
KazeoHin said:
Okay, looking back there were some games that released with major bugs. I was wrong to blanket state that it never happened.

However, a hill I am willing to die on is that it was the exception, not the rule and now, like the previous post I quoted, consumers are now treating it like its the rule.

Thats what I'm so upset about.
Click to expand...

Gen 1 Pokemon (there aren't many games today as utterly broken on a mechanical level as Red, Blue, and Yellow), first two Fallouts, everything Bioware ever made, any number of massive first and third party console games that had major performance issues (seriously, go back and look at just how poorly some big games ran on the NES, SNES, PS1, etc), and so on. While games were significantly more simple (programming wise) back then, there were still a lot of common issues we simply ignored. Anyone that grew up playing PC or console games through the 80s and 90s were played games that, objectively, ran like dogshit. We just accepted it because it was the norm at the time. We were happy to play games like Doom at 15fps, deal with developers not even trying to optimize games on consoles, and we simply didn't even realize how poorly designed a lot of games were back then (not to say this isn't a huge problem today). That said: There is an interesting wrinkle in all of this. Japanese games. Before the age where games would get released around the world at roughly the same time, Japanese games would sometimes get fixes for their international releases to address issues that were in the Japanese version.

How things are now is a major problem and it is something that needs to be addressed. There are reasons beyond patches being so easy these days. As I said earlier in this post: Modern games are orders of magnitude more complex. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of times more lines of code in games now days and many times the number of people working on big projects. You add that with management that only cares about hiring deadlines, no matter the state a game is in, then throw in crunch culture to make things even worse. So now days we have too many, massively overworked, cooks in the kitchen combined with terrible management on top of games far too complex for their own good and it's all a recipe for disaster. With more people buying games, with more money coming into the industry, things should have gotten better over the years. The stumbling of the early 3D era and the massive growth of the industry in the early 2000s should have led to games that have less issues, games that are put together better, games that are better optimized, etc. You're right, consumers have been ignoring it too long. It's something that needs to be talked about more and ignored less. This is especially a problem with gamers that have grown up with games of the last 15-20 years as the industry devolved. There are so many problems with the industry at large right now, that I feel like people get overwhelmed trying to keep track of it all and some things get ignored and simply accepted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top