Tis the season of a ridiculous overabundance of games flooding the market much too close to one another. Less than a week after Skyrim and less than another week before Zelda: Skyward Sword, I have picked up Saints Row the Third at the prodding of both my cousin and a friend. I started playing through in co-op and things seem to be much as they were in the last game, although the layout seems to have changed somewhat. At this point in the game, there don't seem to be that many diversions available, although you are constantly berated with calls to take out one gang or another to gain territory and income. These gang missions seem to always be one of a couple variations on the "horde/ wave" concept seen in so many games nowadays and even after only a couple of hours, I am already sick of them. I would do other things, but my co-op partner insists on doing them. That brings me to the co-op: I played Saints Row 2 single player and had a blast tooling around the city, doing diversions, story missions, and generally causing mayhem wherever I went. I thought that co-op sounded like a great idea for this game: do everything you would normally do, but with a buddy causing extra damage nearby. Unfortunately, I actually don't know if the game is any better with a second player, and in some ways, it may actually be worse. I still need to play some Saints Row the Third single player to confirm it, but the gangs seem much more aggressive in multiplayer, to the point where I can't seem to go more than a minute without getting shot at by someone. Also, the freedom afforded by playing by yourself feels much more restricted, not because of anything imposed by the design, but because you feel that you must reach a consensus on what you want to do with the other player before proceeding. Otherwise, the game seems like more of what I loved in Saints Row 2, but even wackier, which may be a good or bad thing; at this point it's too soon to tell.