Best of 2011 Honorable Mention: Saints Row The Third

The 2011 Shacknews 'Game of the Year' awards begin today with our list of honorable mentions. These titles didn't quite crack our overall top five, but deserve your attention.


After jumping out of (and into, and back out of) a moving plane, it's hard to believe Saints Row: The Third can keep its pace throughout the entire experience. Oh boy, does it. Volition's title, which in some instances can only be described as a fever dream, is over-the-top and fun. Saints Row: The Third isn't afraid to be nonsensical in its quest to be wholly entertaining. Sure, some of the gags fall flat, but it's crazy experience that goes beyond any other game in its genre (not the dildo bat genre, the open world one).

It was a game that I, along with some of my colleagues, wrote off as a game comprised of fart jokes wrapped in a GTA-cloned shell. Saints Row: The Third goes beyond that initial core design philosophy--because let's face it, the series has hit those points already--and offers players an experience so unique that it's a series that has set itself far apart from the competition. The game is insane on every level and is definitely one of the year's best.

The Shacknews 2011 Game of the Year awards are based on a weighted scoring system between all staff writers and editors. Throughout the week we'll be revealing our 'Honorable Mentions,' which include the titles that did not quite make our overall 'Top Five Games of the Year.' The Shacknews 'Game of the Year 2011 Award' will be revealed on January 20.

Xav de Matos was previously a games journalist creating content at Shacknews.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    January 10, 2012 12:00 PM

    Xav de Matos posted a new article, Best of 2011 Honorable Mention: Saints Row The Third.

    The 2011 Shacknews 'Game of the Year' awards begin today with our list of honorable mentions. These titles didn't quite crack our overall top five, but deserve your attention.

    • reply
      January 10, 2012 12:15 PM

      Honorable Mention? aw hell naw!

      • reply
        January 10, 2012 12:39 PM

        Everything is wrong. >:( I'm gonna go lay down this has winded me.

    • reply
      January 10, 2012 12:56 PM

      I still can't decide if I want to play this. The GiantBomb people gushed about it since its release. It was their runner up for the GotY. Everything about it though seems repellant. Also I still have like two games that I've already bought that haven't been opened. This game feels like how Red Dead did last year where I didn't play till like June of this year and regretted taking so long to get to it.

      • reply
        January 10, 2012 1:00 PM

        If you like games that are fun then it's awesome. If you hate fun and joy in your heart then it won't be for you.

      • reply
        January 10, 2012 1:03 PM

        What seems so repellent about it?

        • reply
          January 10, 2012 1:04 PM

          he's allergic to awesome.

        • reply
          January 10, 2012 1:30 PM

          I can understand where he's coming from, I think... I always got the impression the series took a fairly self-serious approach to the whole hood gangster stereotype, and to a certain extent that is true of the second game (which I played in anticipation of the third game, after hearing SR3 was good). But with this third game it basically goes all out the window with the very first mission, and the game self-satirizes that aspect over and over again in the first few hours, almost to the point where I kind of wonder if people that liked the previous games for the whole hood gangster thing will even like this game at all. From what I hear (again, I'm only a few hours into it), it eventually gets so absurd and far removed from that premise that it is practically immaterial to its appeal.

          • reply
            January 10, 2012 1:34 PM

            It was always a satire, it was always meant to be over the top and silly. It was a reactionary game to all the stupid pretentious bullshit Rockstar was trying to shove down our throats with GTA that started with San Andreas (Which was still a great game, don't have a hissy fit) and went FULL RETARD with GTA 4. It's what an open world crime-game should be. Ludicrous and insanely fun, not full of itself and boring.

          • reply
            January 10, 2012 1:37 PM

            the first game was semi-serious, the second was not. It was ridiculous and fantastic. SR3 then turned that shit up and broke the knob off.

            • reply
              January 10, 2012 1:54 PM

              Kinda like the Evil Dead movies.

              • reply
                January 10, 2012 5:28 PM

                this is an apt comparison and by the same token I can understand why someone would enjoy army of darkness but not evil dead 2

                • reply
                  January 10, 2012 5:37 PM

                  I'm weird, but I really liked Evil Dead and Army of Darkness, but not so much Evil Dead 2.

                  Evil Dead took itself pretty seriously, and it worked despite the primitive effects and nonexistent budget.
                  Army of Darkness was clearly way over the top and more humor than horror.
                  I couldn't decide how seriously I was supposed to take Evil Dead 2, which hurt my enjoyment.

                  On the other hand, I loved Saint's Row 2, but didn't love Saint's Row 3 quite as much.

            • reply
              January 10, 2012 5:27 PM

              well, I don't know how serious the first one was but the second one I thought definitely had its serious "this is some gangsta shit" moments that, even if meant to be purely satire, fell flat in that regard. it was also over the top in a lot of places, but not moreso than earlier gta games, and I felt it still took some of the hoodlum bullshit fairly seriously.

              I don't mean to say it's a bad game, but I can understand why someone might be turned off by it. I certainly was until I got word that it is Actually A Good Game.

      • reply
        January 10, 2012 1:05 PM

        The game is the best co-op game that exists.

        • reply
          January 10, 2012 1:42 PM

          It's also one of the laggiest and most broken online co-op game I've played in a while. Was constantly out of sync with the other player.

          I've seen people on the forums say it'll be laggy even on a LAN, that's fucked up. When it works it is fun, but there were too many technical problems I kept running into, couldn't force myself keep playing coop. They need to fix that shit.

          • reply
            January 10, 2012 3:41 PM

            I played it on LAN and didn't have lag. Closest was I guess some occasional lag driving together in the same vehicle. There was only one show stopping bug that caused coop play to be suspended to my knowledge, but I think it was just because I was dumb ultimately more than an actual bug with the game (I didn't start the game in the co-op option).

          • reply
            January 10, 2012 5:25 PM

            I suffered very few issues with it until the latest patch, and I played through the whole game co-op.

            • reply
              January 10, 2012 5:58 PM

              So the patches made it worse?

              The hitching when driving is the most apparent thing, but running into invisible cars because the traffic is out of sync, dying because of invisible or stationary enemies that are actually moving in the others game, unable to get into your partners car because he's a mile away even though you see him right next to you, etc happens every game. Seems to get buggier and laggier the longer you play, too.

              • reply
                January 10, 2012 6:28 PM

                We did suffer more problems later on in the game, but the last patch absolutely tanked both of our DX11 performance. :(

          • reply
            January 10, 2012 5:50 PM

            I've never had a problem with lag except *maybe* after using nitrous in cars.

        • reply
          January 10, 2012 1:46 PM

          Really shitty that you can't play local co-op, though.

        • reply
          January 10, 2012 2:45 PM

          No, SR2 is.

          SR3 was fun, but SR2 is better in regards to co op, cinematics / story-telling, and player customization. SR3 looks a lot better though.

          • reply
            January 10, 2012 5:52 PM

            I agree that SR3 is the best I've played, ever. Have patches/mods made SR2 playable on PC?

        • reply
          January 10, 2012 6:01 PM

          It really is and I've been vocal about it. I still proclaim these GTA/Just Cause/Saints Row/AssCreed "open-world" games the best genre for cooperative gaming. It removes the repetitiveness of doing all the side missions while making the world feel more alive and spontaneous. All free-roam titles should have co-op from now on, it's perfect.

      • reply
        January 10, 2012 1:45 PM

        You want to play this.

      • reply
        January 10, 2012 6:47 PM

        I like that no one's doing demos right now. Saves me getting sucked into these titles and I'll buy them in a year for $5.

    • reply
      January 10, 2012 1:19 PM

      I'm playing this right now, I'm a little over 30 hours in and my game says I'm 90% complete. I got 100% in SR2 and really enjoyed it, and this one was pretty much equally as entertaining. I don't know if I can pick one over the other (between SR2 and SR3 that is), because they both have their ups and downs.

      Saints Row 3 gets big bonus points for one glorious thing though: hoverbike. I love that thing.

    • reply
      January 10, 2012 3:06 PM


    • reply
      January 10, 2012 3:47 PM

      Um yeah, this game was ok. I rented it and played for about 6 hours but it lost it's appeal shotly after. The only cool thing was being able to run around naked and kill people, something about that is just funny to me.

Hello, Meet Lola