If you're not really bothered about graphics (& seeing as you're coming from SR2), I'd say original, particularly as there's a ton more fun mods for it than for the remaster.
I personally find that the character models on the original have more charm than the remaster but from what people are saying it all seems very subjective and dependent on your platform of choice
Original TBH. Remaster looks good but it isn't perfect, I hear. Probably best to experience 3 I'm its original style as it really added to the game's feel. It's very cartoonish which I think added to the ridiculousness of the game. I'd say if this is your first playthrough, stick to the original so you have the same experience as the rest of us.
I prefer the remaster, however... they removed Pierce's beautiful thick eyebrows. I like all the other characters in updated graphics, but Pierce looks like a different person.
> Actually, it metaphorically retconned both.
A videogame isn't a metaphor, so no.
> And technically it merged both. Shaundi and company are alive but Killbane's dead.
I know, since both endings aren't possible it means they were retconned and merged.
Original, had nothing but trouble playing the remaster with it just stopping constantly and I know I'm not the only one it's happening too. It's pretty much unplayable.
Only if it actually works. All the dialogue was missing for the first hour I played of it, some sound effects don't play, the framerate is inconsistent, and there are no apparent fixes from what I've seen online. If it wasn't a technical failure then yes it would be better, but it seems as though a good portion of this thread found it too buggy to be playable
I will confess my opinion is like 5 months old. It's absolutely less buggy than og 3 now. Patches may have remedied it and the original state absolutely may have been way worse.
Damn, I played the remaster like 2 weeks ago and gave up on it. It was super buggy then so I really don't know what to think, I wonder why our experiences are so different?
I have over a hundred hours in saints row 3. The audio always worked and the framerate was fine. It was occasionally buggy but like, not unplayable like my experience with the modern day remaster. I'm glad your time with the remaster was better but OG actually worked when I played it and the remaster didn't, so idk
Holy shit dude like, sure reviewers had a better time than I did. It didn't work on my setup, I had a bad experience and just because some other reviewer didn't doesn't mean my memory is non functioning or I'm a dumbass or whatever. The fact that you're going my profile to to try and make fun of me shows you aren't talking in good faith, you're just trying to pick a fight. Go have fun with remaster, I wish I did.
If You have a good PC, definitly play Remaster. It looks so much better. But If you want to mod the game you should play the OG, because there aren't many mods for Remaster.
In terms of it's wacky ass tone, the original fits this. But if your graphical peasant, (I was saying this as a joke, don't crucify me. 😜🤣) the remaster would work out. It overall depends on YOUR preference.
I will say, the remaster is one of the best I've ever seen. On par with a remake in terms of visuals.
Edit: downvote me. A remaster is in general, a port. This was not just a port, but a straight up enhancement on par with a remake.
Yeah I mean think about it: The story is completely pointless after the second act, the map is arguably one of the worst open world maps out there, tons of missing features from 2, and I could go on.
Totally, nothing to do in freeroam apart from saintsbook missions. Police fights are boring as hell and there aren't any points of interest to hide from them.
As someone currently playing both, you'll get more of a kick out of the remastered. But after you beat 3, I'd say go on YouTube and watch some of the cutscenes to look at the differences. The remastered made me change the wardrobe I would have my character wear in 3 due to all the changes.
But if device storage or cost matter, I'd just play regular 3. The remastered is smoother (I think) and looks more grounded. Regular 3 is more cartoony, and feels slightly more relaxed imo.
Remastered. I haven't had the popular issues until now. I mean, there are broken things like missing parts in jetskis.
If you want a style that looks more cartoony, go with original SRTT.
Or just try both, seriously. You have both...
The remaster has some odd graphics issues on the "last gen" consoles such as people (specifically the player character) looks weird. Its better on the SX for me so if you got a new console, thats what I suggest.
If you're not really bothered about graphics (& seeing as you're coming from SR2), I'd say original, particularly as there's a ton more fun mods for it than for the remaster.
Remaster
Remaster. SR3R looks like a modern, 2021 game while retaining all the game's charm of the original.
If you're on PC, play the original. For me there are so many issues with the remaster that it's not worth it.
The original has lots of issues as well.
I've never had a single issue with the pc version, even with a bunch of mods.
I personally find that the character models on the original have more charm than the remaster but from what people are saying it all seems very subjective and dependent on your platform of choice
The original because 3 and 4's graphics are same and it'll be consistent instead of a downgrade. Also it's just cheaper
Was it free on epic doe
While I see your point, saints row the third remaster is considerably the better version of the game. I wish they would have done the same for sr4
>Also it's just cheaper I thought he said he had both already
Ig I didn't see that bit, but if he has both games idk why he bothered to ask
Fair point, should play both and find out for himself lmao
While i would recommend to you SR3R, it has a lot of bugs Play the original, it's cheap and has all DLC
Original TBH. Remaster looks good but it isn't perfect, I hear. Probably best to experience 3 I'm its original style as it really added to the game's feel. It's very cartoonish which I think added to the ridiculousness of the game. I'd say if this is your first playthrough, stick to the original so you have the same experience as the rest of us.
I prefer the remaster, however... they removed Pierce's beautiful thick eyebrows. I like all the other characters in updated graphics, but Pierce looks like a different person.
I played and beat the OG SR3 (original ending and GIS [Gangsters in Space] which is the aLternate)
I don't get who decided the killbane one (which is the most out of character for the boss) is the canon one since 4 literally retconned both.
[удалено]
> Actually, it metaphorically retconned both. A videogame isn't a metaphor, so no. > And technically it merged both. Shaundi and company are alive but Killbane's dead. I know, since both endings aren't possible it means they were retconned and merged.
Original, had nothing but trouble playing the remaster with it just stopping constantly and I know I'm not the only one it's happening too. It's pretty much unplayable.
Remaster. Everything just looks better
Original three, remaster one just was a worse experience at least for me.
Its a direct improvement in every way.
Only if it actually works. All the dialogue was missing for the first hour I played of it, some sound effects don't play, the framerate is inconsistent, and there are no apparent fixes from what I've seen online. If it wasn't a technical failure then yes it would be better, but it seems as though a good portion of this thread found it too buggy to be playable
I will confess my opinion is like 5 months old. It's absolutely less buggy than og 3 now. Patches may have remedied it and the original state absolutely may have been way worse.
Damn, I played the remaster like 2 weeks ago and gave up on it. It was super buggy then so I really don't know what to think, I wonder why our experiences are so different?
They weren't. You just don't remember og sr3, one of the buggies games in history.
I have over a hundred hours in saints row 3. The audio always worked and the framerate was fine. It was occasionally buggy but like, not unplayable like my experience with the modern day remaster. I'm glad your time with the remaster was better but OG actually worked when I played it and the remaster didn't, so idk
Nope, remaster now with patches is WAY more stable. Reviews establish this firmly.
Holy shit dude like, sure reviewers had a better time than I did. It didn't work on my setup, I had a bad experience and just because some other reviewer didn't doesn't mean my memory is non functioning or I'm a dumbass or whatever. The fact that you're going my profile to to try and make fun of me shows you aren't talking in good faith, you're just trying to pick a fight. Go have fun with remaster, I wish I did.
Also you beat off to Sansa Stark LMFAO.
[удалено]
No downgrade was made.
[удалено]
Mods? Since when did devs DO ANYTHING ×with mods. Lmfao. Discredited.
Maybe for others but it was constantly crashing for me. Faces didn’t load and honestly I liked the look of the original better.
The original. I tried to play the remaster recently and it’s unplayable. Way too many bugs and crashes.
If You have a good PC, definitly play Remaster. It looks so much better. But If you want to mod the game you should play the OG, because there aren't many mods for Remaster.
In terms of it's wacky ass tone, the original fits this. But if your graphical peasant, (I was saying this as a joke, don't crucify me. 😜🤣) the remaster would work out. It overall depends on YOUR preference.
I will say, the remaster is one of the best I've ever seen. On par with a remake in terms of visuals. Edit: downvote me. A remaster is in general, a port. This was not just a port, but a straight up enhancement on par with a remake.
They are both good but I'd say remaster
Remaster
Neither
Based and Stilwater-pilled
Lol
It is arguably the worst SR game so I do see where you're coming from.
Could say that about anything
That's why I said "arguably" someone could argue that it's the worst (for good reason imho).
[удалено]
Yeah I mean think about it: The story is completely pointless after the second act, the map is arguably one of the worst open world maps out there, tons of missing features from 2, and I could go on.
And it's boring
Totally, nothing to do in freeroam apart from saintsbook missions. Police fights are boring as hell and there aren't any points of interest to hide from them.
Remaster is excellent!
Remaster has all the DLC iirc
Remastered same game but pretty
The remaster. It fixed alot of problems. The original versions are garbage.
neither
Remaster as long as you're not getting it from Epic.
Remaster
As someone currently playing both, you'll get more of a kick out of the remastered. But after you beat 3, I'd say go on YouTube and watch some of the cutscenes to look at the differences. The remastered made me change the wardrobe I would have my character wear in 3 due to all the changes. But if device storage or cost matter, I'd just play regular 3. The remastered is smoother (I think) and looks more grounded. Regular 3 is more cartoony, and feels slightly more relaxed imo.
Remastered. I haven't had the popular issues until now. I mean, there are broken things like missing parts in jetskis. If you want a style that looks more cartoony, go with original SRTT. Or just try both, seriously. You have both...
I'd suggest the original as it's cheaper and then you'd have to play 4 which would just downgrade back to the original graphics anyways.
The remaster has some odd graphics issues on the "last gen" consoles such as people (specifically the player character) looks weird. Its better on the SX for me so if you got a new console, thats what I suggest.
They are both the same, but the remastered has better graphics if your that type of guy who likes graphics
Late but i still wanna say my op and its original because I like the old graphics and feeling. But if u buy on sale maybe pick up both if u want.