Sections

Saints Row: The Third trailer asks, “Who doesn’t want to be Johnny Gat?”

Friday, 22nd July 2011 05:07 GMT By Brenna Hillier

Also featured: bobble heads, swearing, things going boom – all constructed with in-game assets. Glorious.

This latest trailer for Saints Row: The Third pits the Syndicate against the Saints, busy working a heist disguised by their own merchandise. Is that a thing you can do? I hope so.

Saints Row: The Third is due on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in mid November.

Thanks, GiantBomb.

Breaking news

20 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Christopher Jack

    DAY FUCKING ONE!!!

    #1 3 years ago
  2. HauntaVirus

    MOTHER FUCKING DAY 1, MOTHERFUCKS!
    PWND @ 1:29!!!

    Should I get it for PC or XBOX???

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Christopher Jack

    PS3 if you have one, bonus content. If not, depends on what you want really, I’d personally rather the controller for a 3rd person games.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. sb319

    Looks horrendous.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Yoshi

    Have they said if this’ll have co-op story yet?

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Blerk

    This is definitely on my Christmas list! :-D

    #6 3 years ago
  7. el duderino

    We need XBOX720 and PS4 right fucking now.Looks horrible.Will buy it day one for the lulz but it still doesn’t change the fact that today’s average pc (4 core cpu + 1 gb gpu + 3 or 4 gb ram) beats the living shit out of current consoles.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. Phoenixblight

    @7

    Again Graphics do not make the game. Gameplay does. If you are basing your entire collection on how the game looks and what they do with tech then go pick up a simulator.

    Crysis is the perfect example lots and lots of eye candy no actual gameplay.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Erthazus

    @8, graphics make the game so is physics if your setting is mature and in the real world.
    you are incorrect here.

    Graphics and gameplay are the part of the game ! Nuff said. Without them you could never experience something that was on the PC before it was PS1 or PS2 era.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Phoenixblight

    @9 Yeah just look at COD, L4D, Team Fortress 2, WOW, Halo, Fable, and SIms. Those are all games that have outsold Crysis or any game that is heavy on the tech. SO again you fail.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. DSB

    Hehe, obviously the guy is desperate for an argument. If you can’t argue against the game itself, go for something unimportant, like the way the textures look, or the when the game engine was invented.

    It’s a pathetic pseudo-argument :P

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Erthazus

    @10, TF2, WOW have a very nice art style, so your argument here is invalid. L4D is a nice looking game.
    Halo – marketing campaign.
    Games that are heavy on the tech and sold very well are Gears Of war series, Uncharted 1-2, God Of war 3, Battlefield series, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and etc.

    So it is you who FAIL. there are a lot of games with great visuals that have absolutely fantastic sales. but i don’t play sales, i play games with Great gameplay AND Visuals.

    @DSB,
    “It’s a pathetic pseudo-argument”

    said someone who started to argue about unimportant stuff like guns weight and etc.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Phoenixblight

    @12

    “@10, TF2, WOW have a very nice art style, so your argument here is invalid. L4D is a nice looking game.”

    Oh Gawd thats not tech thats art. There is a difference.

    “Games that are heavy on the tech and sold very well are Gears Of war series, Uncharted 1-2, God Of war 3, Battlefield series, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo 5 and etc.”

    Again all these games did well because of their game play not what they did with tech or art that only adds upon the game play. If they had all the tech and no actual game play they would fail horribly.

    People don’t buy game and say “I like the art style, I will pay 60$ for it.” No THey first say “this game looks really fun I want to to play it.” If you are getting a game based purely on visuals then you fail. Shiny doesn’t make up the gameplay.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. Erthazus

    @13, “Oh Gawd thats not tech thats art. There is a difference. ”

    Art can be done only if you have the right TOOLS for it aka engine. when you build a game, you build or buy a specific engine for your artistic vision.

    “People don’t buy game and say “I like the art style, I will pay 60$ for it.” ”

    you are not just that guy who buy games for their art style. There are gamers who buy a game just for that. Good example: Enslaved
    Crappy gameplay, but some people loved it.

    “Again all these games did well because of their game play not what they did with tech or art that only adds upon the game play. If they had all the tech and no actual game play they would fail horribly.”

    of course because of the gameplay, but just go to any youtube video and read below them what people will say: “OMGZ, GRFX FOR GRAN TURIZMO 5 IS SO MUC BETTER than FORZA 3!111″ or “FFFFFFFUUUU!!11 Unchrtd GRFX are AWSUM!1″

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Phoenixblight

    “of course because of the gameplay, but just go to any youtube video and read below them what people will say: “OMGZ, GRFX FOR GRAN TURIZMO 5 IS SO MUC BETTER than FORZA 3!111″ or “FFFFFFFUUUU!!11 Unchrtd GRFX are AWSUM!1″”

    THats what you offer for evidence posters from Youtube. Let me go grab posts from 4chan to support my case….. ~_~

    #15 3 years ago
  16. stretch215

    Why does any still respond to this asshole?

    #16 3 years ago
  17. DSB

    @12 Not to feed your psychosis here, but I don’t recall talking about guns weight.

    I do recall talking about core gameplay to base my opinions on a certain game, while adding that a properly trained soldier who can’t handle an assault rifle looks a bit crap at his job.

    The fact that it looks silly is not what I dislike about the game, as games are rarely very close to reality. I dislike it because the handling of the guns themselves is sloppy. I just prefer things to be tight.

    To me that’s a bit more substantial about the actual game itself, rather than simply picking out pointless details, to somehow make a purely subjective opinion sound qualified.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Erthazus

    @15, no, i’m just saying how it is. 4chan or Gametrailers… or youtube.. or kotaku… or even VG247.

    Graphics sells game. Always sold it and always will do the trick. Just go to any forum or site and click to Batttlefield 3. I can guarantee you that 80% of gamers will say: OMG GRFX, jizzed in my pants.

    Gameplay can’t sell a game until you will try it (Because judging a gameplay from a trailer is impossible, except for features if you like them, or setting… maybe story). The last and the best thing that can sell game = Marketing campaign. There are a lot of games with fantastic gameplay that sold worse then shitty fitness game and you know it.

    @DSB, “I dislike it because the handling of the guns itself is sloppy. I just prefer things to be tight.”

    thats your opinion, because they are not sloppy. It’s the style and mechaic of the Battlefield games and this is it’s characteristics. It won’t change in the near future.

    CS to this date don’t have even Ironsights and in my opnion shooting from M-16 is freakin satisfying.
    If you think that Call Of Duty stuff are so tight it;s your personal opinion. No one runs with guns like that. Guns don’t shake in your arms like that. You can see that even in character animation from 3rd person perspective in CoD. If you like that shaking, well… good for you. That shaking clicked with you and other gamers. Personally i don’t have problem with that too except for the ultra precision and ballisticks which are absolutely incorrect because Id Tech 3 does not have physics engine when it was created (For quake 3 it was cool because it is sci-fi and precision there was super important even with rocket launcher that shot rockets straight by the geometry). Call Of duty only have it’s proprietary simple engine that simulate pre-calculated animation. Thats it.

    Even when you shoot from RPG-7 it feels like you are shooting from Rocket Launcher from quake 3.

    With new Frostbyte engine in Scorched3D you can shoot and there’s no pre-calculated animation on whatsoever because Frostbyte 2.0 simulate gravity.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. DSB

    CoD is at least as unrealistic as any other game. I don’t recall saying otherwise. It doesn’t change the fact that the guns actually hit where you shoot, much like they do in Counter-Strike, which is the main thing.

    It’s worth noting that in BF2 even the AKs didn’t shake as much as the M4s do in BC2. Again, I don’t care whether it’s realistic or not, that’s just a detail and most people won’t recognize it. I just think it’s unsatisfying that they don’t hit where they shoot. Of course that could also be down to the fact that Counter-Strike and the CoD series are more aimed towards the competitive audience, whereas the newer battlefield titles are lot more about being open to everyone.

    I don’t see any reason why everybody would like the same thing, but it is a bit funny to see Battlefield fanboys cheer for Counter-Strike, while hating a game that’s a lot more like it than Battlefield ever was.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. DaMan

    ^(more like @Dsb) Quake 3 engine has zero to do with it. There’s nothing preventing you from extending it’s physics or adding your own, I don’t recall Quake 3 having skeletal animations.

    Source engine is based on GoldSrc, which in turn was based on Quake 1 one.

    #20 3 years ago