Talk:Saints Row: The Third/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. -M ASEM  (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) PIE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.116.185 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 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.  --M ASEM  (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)

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)
 * , 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)