There goes Volition

Pour one out

Why can't I love Saints Row The Third?

 Just tell me to stay, dammit!

There was a time when the Saints Row franchise sat at a very special place in my heart and on my shelf of games to play, a time of laughs and fun, and a time that was over far before this new remake series was even a twinkle in Volition's eye. Whereas once it the total epitome of any and everything I could possibly seek out of an open world game, it wasn't long at all before I grew out of the temporary charms the property once offered and consequently grew totally out of this franchise of games. It was never a question of the crassness of the jokes, it was just the style of this approach to open world development, with irrelevant silliness and customisation given paramount importance- all that just no longer aligned with what I wanted from gaming. But that drop-off did not come around the time of Saints Row the Third either, it was definitely in the interim gap between 4 and the reboot. So if that's the case; why can't I fool myself into liking Saints Row the Third?

Though I recognise it's many failings and have since found a series that did the thing I once thought Saints Row was the master of ten times better than those games could ever conceive of, my boyhood love of Saints Row 2 has pretty much grandfathered it into a place of love and reverence within my heart. I couldn't possibly, as I am, bring myself to dislike Saints Row 2. But I cannot spare the same leniency towards it's direct sequel. Where as Saints Row 2 bought me this expansive and distinct open world dripping with side activities around an irrelevant action-gangster movie style plot peppered with dashes of melodrama to make the world feel grounded and thus of some small consequence- Saints Row the Third seemed to spit in the face of most all of that. The open world felt bland and uninspired, the side activities felt laborious and  uncreative and the narrative lost any and all allusion to grit, purpose and consequence and yet still expected anyone to care about it's drastic split-choice ending. I didn't and I never could.

And it's odd for me to lay all of this down when Saints Row the Third was a game I followed like a hawk during it's marketing phases. You must remember that Saints Row 2 was a masterclass of how to make a great crime action game to my inexperienced eyes; I worshipped that game enough to play it to completion no less than 5 times. That's perhaps not 'full completion', but I'm talking finishing all of the side activities, all properties purchased, all missions done, most collectables- pretty much everything of consequence I finished in those 5 playthroughs. For the time, Saints Row 2 was my easy 'forever game' that I could pick up to fulfil any wanting mood. If I wanted to roleplay, I'd go fashion shopping and force my insane games upon the residents, if I wanted to fight zombies I would load into the special zombie wave minigame mode, if I wanted to feel like a TV star I'd grind out the cop-show minigame. Anything I could ever want was in Saints Row 2. So when word started spreading about the newest entry to follow up my love, I could all but faint.

But beyond the honeymoon period of that first playthrough, I've found it truly difficult to justify picking up Saints Row The Third for a second playthrough. I've tried, again and again. I tried at the time, I tried again when I got an Xbox One through the backwards compatibility, I tried again with the Remaster on my PC, I'll probably try again at some point in the future when I forget how easily that game manages to consistently lose me. Some part of me wants desperately to like Saints Row, but the other part of me can't help but see a game that was designed specifically to exorcize all the elements of the Saints Row formula that I thought made that franchise. Because you see, I could have made any openworld game my playground- but Stillwater from Saints Row 2 was special because I felt like it mattered, I felt like it was real to some level and I was playing with that world's strings whenever I departed on my, often somewhat demented, machinations. But as the developers of The Third have been on record stating: all those grounding elements of Saints Row 2, the street-level stakes, the melodrama and the occasional threat of grime, those were considered necessary limitations towards the ultimate vision of the Saints Row franchise. That vision, for the time of it's release, was completed with Saints Row The Third.

Now to be clear, I don't think that Saints Row the Third is a bad game- hell, I think some parts, characters and missions are the best the franchise has to offer. In particular there's the flagship mission in which you infiltrate what will soon become your penthouse whilst Kanye West's 'Power' plays in the background, and it's all an increadibly hype mission. The spectacle and the action hits its vast heights, the mission doesn't overstay its welcome, and if you're fast enough it's totally possible to wrap up events by the time the song is over. But unfortunately, that mission is something of an outlier in a game full of missions that the developers desperately want to be big spectacle headliners. They detailed as much in the press tour for the game wherein Volition developers and designers claimed it was their goal to have at least one unique objective in every level- which itself seems like a fairly reasonable expectation, only for that desire to end up being achieved in technicality rather than in gameplay practice.

I think the limitations of the scale first became apparent to me on the introductory level, a level which was hyped to hell and back before the game released. Why? Because of how whacky and zany it sounded on paper, of course! The Saints, disguised as mascots of their now-celebrity selves, attempt to rob a bank and end up in a wild shootout which has them dangling the entire vault of the bank in the air by the hooks of a flying skycrane whilst it demolishes the top floors of a skyscraper. Doesn't that sound crazy and exciting beyond belief? And it would be... in a live action show. What you must remember is that the concept of 'spectacle' is handled differently in a video game than it is on a show- on TV the events themselves are what wows the audience, with the controller in hand it's how we have a direct influence on those events. That's partially why Quick Time Events never feel as satisfying as those epic in-action flourishes we get to pull off with the right skill, timing and/or luck.

Break down the first mission of Saints Row the Third into it's base gameplay components and you're looking at a mission which goes like this: Basic shooting gallery followed by a small three wave 'ambush' scene finished off by an on-the-rails shooting section against a boss helicopter. Those are the bare bones we have. Fleshing those bones out is what completes the product, but when it comes to Saints Row 3 the developers preferred to play up the wackiness of the cutscenes rather than the substance of the gameplay. Ultimately, a lot of mission end up feeling really straight forward or unintelligently bloated as the design direction gets lost in the pursuit of absurdity above all else- and if that absurdity managed to translate back to the gamepad, maybe they would have had something.

As it stands, the reason I can never find myself playing through Saints Row the Third again is because whenever I play through these opening acts, trying to rekindle something worthy in this package, I just end up getting bored. The sandbox feels inconsequential, the missions look fancy but play hollow and I don't feel anything for the progression of the plot or the story. Not that Saints Row 2 was a genius in any of these categories, but that game at least catered to each listed category somewhat. Saints Row 3 fails even that and what remains is a game that, for me and my tastes, aged like a grape. Now the shrivelled raisin that is Saints Row 3 bares more in common with the modern Saints Row franchise than the previous game I loved ever will, and despite lip service being played to fans of similar sensibilities, it's clear that the restraint of Saints Row 2 is still regarded as a prevailing weakness. As such, for better or for worse, Saints Row just isn't my type of franchise anymore. 

Saints Row: the franchise of mids

 Sing it off to Valhalla; chuckie!

So Saints Row is dead, I think that's a truth without question in the eyes of most with the powers of basic observation available to them. Volition alienated their existing fanbase to cater to a new fanbase who, much to Volition's utmost surprise, expect fun and working products... which Saints Row... isn't. Luckily the game is going to get much more exposure and success than it deserves thanks to the brand it's borrowing from and the novelty of pointing and laughing at a trainwreck, but I think it's safe to say that after a mess like this no one with any industry sense is going to have any faith in Volition. Bare in mind that their last game, Agents of Mayhem, was another absolute misread of their target audience and how they should be marketed towards. That game sold as much as a Sunday market stand would, and whilst Saints Row is obviously going to do better than that on account of just how big this brand used to be, something tells me it's not going to change the trajectory of the downward graph investor's are looking at when they examine the Saints Row franchise.

Which all means we've lost the potential viability of a franchise that, to be honest, had already run its natural course and ended up in a pit of mediocrity. Whilst I've never been a screaming, raving fan of the Saints Row games, I have played every single one of them and absolutely remember a time when they could be considered a real contender in the market. I've enjoyed just about every game in the franchise up until 4 wherein I lost interest entirely; and there even a moment where I could have been nutto for the series; but even Saints Row 2 didn't quite live up to my expectations at that time. You see, the more I examine it, the more I come to the same conclusion; that the Saints Row games have forever been and will always be mid. Apart from this reboot which is apparently an actual poor quality mess. So if long term viability is up on the table to be cut into ribbons; I'm saying it ain't no big loss.

If we go back to the very first Saints Row, a game that many people have invoked recently as if recalling some long-forgotten masterpiece that once graced a dirty and dull world; the game was just sort of alright. It was an obvious clone of GTA that didn't even really lean into the humorous aspects the franchise would become known for too much. If anything, they attempted to lean into the same sardonic view of contemporary and thematic issues and topics that the Rockstar franchise does, only without the vast talented writing talent to make it nuanced and fun. The gameplay was as bad as every open world game's gameplay was back then. The characters were fairly one-note and predictable. Although, and I recognise that this is as substantial as waving your hand over your eyes and declaring you've spotted the 'x-factor'; there is a charm to the game. It's not a chore to play, at least not the first time. The clunky dialogue and performances fit their era; and the city of Stilwater has personality to it; which is more than I can say for literally every other open world game that Deep Silver Volition has ever made.

Saints Row 2 was probably the moment where this franchise really stepped out for itself. When GTA was edging more towards realism, Saints Row was pointing and laughing whilst leaning more towards the inanity of video game craziness. That understated side of the original was blown up into the driving force of Saints Row 2, and most all the rest of the minigames and activities that have become such mainstays of the franchise that the team are incapable of envisioning any more, were born for this game. It played significantly better than Saints Row 1, simulated a more complete open world and just generally provided a very malleable playground for destruction, much as you'd might expect from the team behind 'Red Faction'. There was also a point in time when people used to laud the story for Saints Row 2, (which is broadly just the exact same framework as Saints Row 1 refitted to slide atop 2) as the 'perfect balance between comedy and drama'. In hindsight I can certainly say there is a balance, and it is somewhat effective; but that title of 'perfection' seems laughable in a post Yakuza 0 world. Just like Saints Row 1, 2 has sort of shrunken with age and whilst I still think the game stands out as 'respectable'; it's not a generational masterpiece like the PS2 era GTA games are. One might even call it... mid tier.

Saints Row 3 was when the series got stuck. They tried to balance a tightrope with Saints Row 2, and that showed them their audience reacted best to the silly content, so they made a game leaning more into all the zaniness. Now it was all about throwing as much craziness as they could logic out: stripper assassins? We can make it work. Dildo Bat? Amazed we didn't do that earlier. Text-based adventure segment? It would have to be brief, but we could swing it! Zombie invasion? Oh, well that just sounds like a piece of cake! All of which resonated with a lot of people out there who saw Saints Row as the sillier brother to GTA, but which came at the cost of the open world. Steelport has been Volition's worst open world. A stale, grey, industrial block entirely lacking in character and distinction. And as the world became more boring to explore, the activities provided therein became more of a chore than a distraction. A check-list of 'do this for X reward' instead of 'do this because it's fun'. Progression in some angles, regression in others. Perfectly middling.

And then Saints Row 4 went off the deep end. Like your drug addict friend that you watch slowly lose all grip on themselves; Saints Row slipped into the crazy and went too far with it. Not to the point where it became offensive; but to where it became boring and predictable. Rather than be a great game in it's own right with comedic elements, Saints Row decided it was going to become a parody of it's own genre and mock any others it could get it's sights on too. Stakes stopped mattering, characters stopped developing, (which, as much as I knock Saints 3; they were still progressing as characters until 4) nothing had any weight to it anymore; which made the act of breaking the rules inconsequential. Heck, they blew up the earth and replaced it with a matrix-like simulation, subconsciously erasing all stakes and giving them the go-ahead to do whatever they wanted. And when logic doesn't matter anymore, the question then comes up about how crazy you can go; and Volition just aren't that creative. It was all pretty bland-silly, not head-churning silly, and to call the game 'mid' is honestly something of a glowup.

Agents of Mayhem is a curious matter. Created as a kind of clean break away from what Saints Row was becoming, whilst staying beholden to it's brand and a choice selection of its character's in a confusing display that made the marketing as convoluted as the Wii U's. The original pitch appeared to be that it was a television show set within the Saints Row universe, but that couldn't be possible because the entire earth was destroyed at the beginning of 4. And then Johnny Gat was in the show? How could that be? He was killed in the 'real world' which meant he'd have some trouble playing himself on TV. (Also, he was one of the gang that believed the celebrity-status was 'selling out', so he wouldn't star in a show anyway.) Basically, no one knew what Agents of Mayhem was supposed to be even contextually let alone in gameplay. (They kind of made it look like a hero shooter.) And so the game sold about five copies. I was not one of them, I can't really attest to if the game was another mid or not.

Which brings us back around to the reboot. Saints Row is not the golden standard of the industry so delivering a thoroughly average game is not, in itself, a betrayal to the shining ideals of the franchise. However, delivering a hardly functioning mess knocks an average down to a pitiable low. Also, I hear tell that Agents of Mayhem is still increadibly buggy five years after launch, so it's somewhat possible that Volition leave Saints Row in a decently shoddy state when they abandon ship from this cursed franchise. Does that mean we'll never get the masterpiece that Saints Row is capable of? Honestly, I don't think this series ever had itself a firm enough grasp on it's own identity in order to create that masterpiece. It's entire life it has existed purely within context of others. Saints Row 1 was Grand Theft Auto but scrappier and back to 'the streets'. Saints Row 2 was 'Gta but fun and silly again'. Saints Row 3 was 'your typical open world game but crude and wild where it's purpose is to make meta jokes on as many pop culture topics the team can think of', and Saints Row 4 was just an episode of Family Guy but a game. Maybe somewhere in the minds of Volition's the point of this reboot was to give Saints Row that identity, as the game that identifies with the modern struggling young adults; but they're fear of committing to a new direction, whilst simultaneously fearing associating with what came before, led to a final product totally pulled apart at the seams.

Safe Houses in Games

Little pigs, little pigs; let me come in...

With the recent announcement of the 'Saints Row 3 Remastered' I was reminded of a few things; firstly of how hilarious the concept of the first level is: with the Saints robbing a bank whilst dressed as themselves; and Secondly how I always had trouble replaying that game due to one thing: the amount of time it would take to unlock the main safe house. (Seriously, in Saints Row 3 it takes the entire first act. No, that crappy apartment from the beginning doesn't count.) And that got me thinking about what exactly it is about video games Safe Houses that we gel with so much. (Or should I say "that I gel with"? Does anyone else feel this way? Am I a freak?) Why is it that open world games feel like they're missing something essential when you lack a home HUB to return to, even in situations when that HUB is a space wherein literally nothing of consequence ever happens. (As is the case almost all of the time.)

I do find it exceptionally odd as when you come down to it shouldn't the allure of a video game be derived primarily from the gameplay? And yet we enjoy times when our game has great story to it and world building, throw in a strong character arc and things are perfect. Is this just the leftover pretentious pandering that arises from creative critique in general or is there something primitively satisfying about a rounded experience that is common across all forms of creative expression. (Am I getting too general? I'm gonna focus into "Why are there still safe houses in games") Before I explore this subject I should preface this with the same warning that I do with all blogs like this, I am not an expert and this will come down to personal preference so feel free to vehemently disagree with literally everything that I say.

Firstly, let's define what exactly we mean by 'Safe house'. This is a term borrowed from police terminology and popularised in games by titles like GTA to infer a 'base' who's location is largely secure and/or unknown to the public, thus designating it 'Safe'. Although to be even more literal to gaming, a 'safehouse' is merely a type of HUB for players to return to between missions in order to perform some necessary actions like saving the game. As the art of game development evolved and things started to become more intuitive and user friendly, even die-hard Open world titles like GTA started to leanoff on having to return to your 'safe house' and those locations started becoming less and less essential in video games, although you'll still find them in the majority of open world games.

So perhaps the obvious question to ask in regard to 'safe houses' is whether or not they still have a relevant place in modern game design or if they are a redundant hold over. Should there be some sort of movement to move past such a concept and leave it in the past alongside 'limited lives', 'points' and 'time dependant levels'. In order to figure this out I decided to look over the way that safe houses exist (or don't) in a few fairly recent open world titles in order to come to a conclusion in this matter. (Obviously, I can only look at games which are released for this so 'Cyberpunk 2077' cannot be counted even thought that game does tease a safe house that I think looks really cool.)

As I started with it for some reason, the first game I will look at in this regard is Saints Row. Or rather the first series, as Saints Row has based itself staunchly on the Grand Theft Auto formula since it's inception and that means each and every game has boasted some form of Safe house. In the first game all this space really served for was a save point and wardrobe service, although in the second game they really bought out player's safehouse as an in-game menu. Player's could use their TV to watch cutscenes, like one would expect from a bonus menu, and even customise the style of their gang. Although the players had no explicit need to go to this place due to rather regular autosaves, apart from the occasional need to pick up a new car or take some revenue from the safe present in each house. So from that angle, Saints Row is actually very minimalist with how they treat safe houses, allowing players to buy more extravagant ones but lacking any real purpose to doing so.

If there could be one point said towards why this system might still be relevant to it's game, it's because Saint's Row is a very fast paced humour dependant title. At the heart of everything the game offers there should be someway to make the player feel powerful in a humorous way, and I guess the team couldn't see many opportunities in that through simulating house life. That being said, the act of buying and acquiring more lavish and opulent houses is in line with the 'gang boss' context that the franchise is built upon, therefore it makes thematic sense to include that dynamic even if you don't really do anything with it in terms of gameplay.

Speaking of Grand Theft Auto, why not take a look at how Safe houses work in their games? For the first 3 2D titles (1,2 and London) these locations didn't really have any presence in the game, even at the start of the 3D era these locations were still just 'save here' zones. San Andreas remains the only game in the entire series that allowed players to actually buy and go inside of bought houses at their own whim, bringing that sense of actually having a home to come back to. There still wasn't a great deal to do at these homes besides save, change clothes and eventually collect upon unlocked items, but it did serve as an interesting measure of your progression of means throughout the narrative of the game. Only once GTA 5 came along did Rockstar finally kill the need to save anywhere (although you'll still always load up in your safe house.)

As I mentioned, the logic of having a safe home to come back to fits neatly into Grand Theft Auto even if such locations lack in actual functionality. GTA prides itself in being a sardonic mirror upon our reality that mimics a day-to-day lifestyle only in a violent world with fewer consequences. It makes sense, then, for the player to have a home and one that matches the condition of the character along their typical arc. (Which in GTA games usually follows the tried and true 'rags to riches' model) Although in Grand Theft Auto V these places also served a great tool for characterising each of the three protagonist by the world which they willingly choose to reside in. Trevor lives in a trailer far away from the big city, Micheal lives in the affluent upper LS neighbourhood and Franklin starts off in the ghetto before moving into a luxury pad in the hills. It's a great way of telling the audience at a glance who everyone is and what their most base, materialistic goals are.

Now here's a wildcard to consider, ladies and gentlemen, as the Far Cry franchise has been a open world game for as long as 2004 and yet only one of the games has featured a safe house system. Now that isn't to discount how throughout the Far Cry games there have been homely locations in the map, but these only served limited narrative points rather than locations with actual gameplay benefits. Only in Far Cry 2 could you explore about Africa and open up safe houses in which you could save, (an incredibly precious action within the surprisingly hardcore action of FC2) store a weapon (equally as important) and change the time of day. (Which supposedly helps for being sneakier in the later hours, but I suspect that's more of a 'placebo' situation.) But for the rest of the games there are no safehouses at all, and in fact all of the gameplay revolves around the moment-to-moment outpost conquering action rather than the moments inbetween which can  make downtime rather boring as a result.

Now as Far Cry is a first person franchise, one could be forgiven for assuming that the added one-to-one connection between the player and the character would make it more likely for the developers to include creature comforts like a home to retreat to, but quite often with FPS games the opposite seems true. I think that is because there is a part of the 'safe house mechanic' that is more psychological in the way that it gives the character a place in their world that makes them feel part of, hence making that world seem a little more real. In a third person game, all of the little things that make the character feel more real to the player are invaluable to ensure the player cares about the protagonist, whilst in first person games that connection is innate, thus character building and sometimes character narrative take a backseat. Plus, in Far Cry's case it makes absolute sense for there to be no place for the protagonist to call their own, as the entire franchise is built around the concept of people being put in situations that are a far cry from their day-to-day. (It all makes sense.)

But if we're going to sit here and talk about first person shooter action it only makes sense that I talk about a game I've played religiously over the past 2 weeks, even if it may not technically be open world, and that's 2016's DOOM. This is a level based story driven game, therefore it should make sense for their to be no home hub for the Doom Slayer, however in this year's DOOM Eternal, the slayer actually does have a base in 'The Fortress of Doom'. So why is there none in the 2016 game? Well, for one there is the narrative explanation which I'll extrapolate upon; 2016's DOOM follows a series of logical narrative events as the Doom Slayer attempts to seal up a portal to hell after stupid humans open it for what must be the freakin' 5th time. Though simple, this chain of events has a certain pace to it wherein Hell threatens to escape the boundaries of Mars and threaten the Earth unless the Doom Guy can wrap things up quickly, which makes it incompatible for that pacing if he had a home base to lounge around in inbetween missions. (Whereas in Eternal the world has already fallen so there's fewer timed stakes at hand.) But there is also another dynamic to consider.

You see, 2016's DOOM served as a revival of the long dormant DOOM franchise which hadn't be touched for 12 years prior and as such it was meant to be a celebration of all things great about the DOOM licence. That meant fast paced bloody action and a blatant intentional disregard for evolved storytelling. This amounts to the point where the team even dehumanise Doom Guy by canonically renaming him as 'the Doom Slayer' to highlight the fact that he exists as an extension of the player through which to channel their demon killing talents, rather than as a character entity of his own. Therefore there is little reason to give him his own space in the world as he doesn't need to appear real, he is the player and they are him. (And the player is real. Right?)

Looking back at another third person open world game we have one title that breaks the rules I just laid out; 'The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt'. This is a game that paints an involved RPG world brimming with storytelling potential and opportunities and yet there is no home base for Geralt of Rivia to set himself down in. (That is, until the post game DLC 'Blood and Wine') Functionally, this makes sense as there is quite literally no need for there to be any home base. Players can save anywhere they want and thanks to Witcher Meditation they can augment the time of day whenever they want to, so there's no gameplay mechanic that requires a safe house. Although that hasn't stopped quite a few other modern open world games so I expect there's a more thematic reason for the lack of a home. (No, I don't include Kaer Morhen. Sue me.)

In the lore, Geralt of Rivia is very much a wanderer who is obliged to help the less fortunate (provided that they can pay) but not to stick around and help people get back on their feet. Couple that with the heavily 'adventure-focused' narrative of Wild Hunt, revolving around chasing down Ciri, and it makes sense for Geralt to always be in motion, even if technically a Witcher cannot survive off mediation alone. (At least I think not, I don't know for sure.) In 'Blood and Wine', however, a big part of that narrative is around Geralt taking a step back to settle down, so it makes sense for him to have a house in which to rest his head, and to live in for the foreseeable future.

Another non-typical Safe House system in a modern third person open world game exists in Rockstar's 'Red Dead Redemption 2'. In that game, the player doesn't really have a home to go back to as much as they have a camp wherein all the members of the Van der Linde gang set themselves up. This is the place where the player goes to between missions and is actually at lost more essential then other homes as it's somewhere for the player to eat, sleep and take missions. These actions can feasibly be taken anywhere thanks to a camping mechanic (aside from the taking of missions, obviously) but the game encourages players to return to the camp as often as possible and become familiar with the place. This base is unique in that it moves across the map alongside the narrative, changing the activities available there as you go.

Again, I think this iteration of 'Safe House' comes down to thematic reasons in that all of Red Dead Redemption 2 exists to create the life of an outlaw. That means living in the woods away from prying eyes, staying close to those you trust and running from the law when necessary. This also serves a functional narrative purpose as you get chased around the country to more secluded places after which you go from 'living free' to 'living like rats' as the gang dream begins to wilt around you. Rockstar achieved something very special with Red Dead Redemption 2 and I think a lot of it comes from the emotional attachment that they establish between the player and the camp. (alongside its inhabitants) Showcasing how the 'safe house' mechanic doesn't always need to be necessary to the gameplay to be valid and justified, they might even get creative with it.

Ultimately, I think that predominate purpose for 'safe houses' are less for the tangible reasons and more for the benefit of world building. Most games that have 'safe houses' and so implement them in that pursuit and those that do not usually do so because they don't have to worry so much about world building. So whilst the functionality of 'safe houses' are mostly redundant and/or forced (I.e. locking manual saves to returning to the safe house) they do pose a viable thematic purpose. For my part, however, I think there's another piece to this puzzle. Just as I pointed out that games with a pace to keep avoid unnecessary down times, those that don't need to keep up such (like RPGs) can utilise downtimes and peaceful moments to amplify the action packed moments down the line. Therefore if the player gets used to hanging around at home and being relaxed it can make those flashes of action just that more impacting and special. So for that reason I do not think that game design has outgrown the concept of safe houses, and in fact they are just as useful/relevant now as they've always been. (Just maybe in ways that aren't exactly obvious.)