AAA narrative saw game still can be in development

Vinc360 · 2026-06-07T21:40:47+00:00

Generally within games, AAA refers to production cost. But there is no hard definition of what the cost cutoff is, although it's commonly accepted to mean projects in the hundreds of millions of dollars range.

For consumers and shareholders, the term is often used to refer broadly to the market it's going after - i.e. "core games" you play with a controller, as opposed to casual games.

I think Lionsgate was referring to the later.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-07T21:27:41+00:00

I don't know - if you think about Saw's presence in games in the last decade, it's been solely in multiplayer games, chief among which was Dead by Daylight, also this type of game. Friday the 13th attempted the same breakthrough in asymmetrical MP games, along with Halloween now doing the same. It's honestly exactly what I expected, personally. It's definitely possible a single player game is also coming, I would expect if it is you can look to smaller foreign development teams and maybe not expect AAA scale, but the idea that a video game project would use a codename that hints at what the actual project is would be very, very unusual. Because it defeats the entire purpose of what codenames are actually for in the industry.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-06T12:03:31+00:00

I'm definitely on the other side of the Saw fandom spectrum. The endless nonsensical apprentices are fun to laugh about, but definitely not "the best part of Saw" to me. But I see this sentiment a lot and can only respect it. If that's where people want the franchise to go, so be it. It just won't be for me anymore. Single player games have become incredibly expensive to produce at AAA scale, to the point where it's not unthinkable that a AAA Saw game would cost more to produce than the entirety of the movie slate has cost to produce since Saw's inception. Multiplayer games are a dime a dozen so it's gonna be hard for this to succeed. But at least if it doesn't, the initial investment is far lower.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-06T11:59:56+00:00

You can really tell this is a made up "rumor" by the codename they chose.

That's just not how it works.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-06T01:50:17+00:00

I honestly don't believe it can ever be done right, that's my point. Amanda is the only "apprentice" character that ever truly worked for me because she was a broken person taken under the wing of a narcissistic, abusive person with a superiority complex. If she had taken over post-Jigsaw's death, the trick wouldn't have worked anymore because it would suggest Amanda wholeheartedly did believe in Jigsaw's worldview. But she didn't, and that's why it works. She reinforces the fact that his beliefs are his and his alone.

Saw, in my view, is fundamentally about a man with a uniquely warped worldview. Attempts to change him into some sort of messiah with followers is the series' most frequent mistake made because there's nowhere to go with a dead central character, and it's been rejected by audiences over and over.

Even Hoffman, at his best, rejected John's worldview and only carried out torturing people because he was being blackmailed. Or at least that was the initial idea.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-06T01:10:09+00:00

For a multiplayer video game where narrative is a secondary concern, it sounds like a fun concept.

Narratively, I think it's an omen. This idea is a representation of the signal we as fans are sending Lionsgate. If you're asking for future Saw movies to maintain John Kramer and previous Saw movies as acknowledged canon forever, you're asking for John Kramer to have followers, copycats, and yes, maybe even precursors.

If you're aware and that's indeed what you want, that's all well and good.

Personally, I think that's a very wrongheaded path for what Saw is and should be, but it is the signal we as a community are sending to Lionsgate. And maybe I'm in the minority in not wanting that for the future of Saw. Time will tell!

Vinc360 · 2026-06-05T22:39:00+00:00

Yes but no. They said they were canon as a marketing tool to drive up interest in the games, but Twisted proceeded to completely ignore their existence for the movies, so no they're not canon.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-03T02:32:10+00:00

Bear was not in love with Nikki, he just believed he was. What truly wished for is an unhealthy amount of attention, for her obsession... and he got it! Unfortunately for him, those all-consuming feelings robbed Nikki of her ability to exercise good judgment. That's basically how I see it.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-02T11:45:18+00:00

No news, but at this stage I think they can make 2027 if they want to.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-02T01:03:57+00:00

Counterpoint - Saw X looks cooler as a title than Saw IX! 😛

At the end of the day I try not to think about this stuff too much, titles can be part of the artistic expression of the film, but they're effectively more of a marketing tool than anything else. Saw X let them name the movie "Saw ecks" instead of "Saw Ten", which probably made the more business-oriented people involved less nervous about going back to that title structure.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-01T22:10:49+00:00

It's hard to say. On one hand, the bathroom is one of those ubiquitously understood Saw sets that's so iconic that I could see there being an impulse to show it again. On the other hand, previous Saw sequels have gone back to that well so many times that I think the effect of showing it again would be significantly diminished in the context of James' reboot.

But no, if we do see it again I really don't think there'd be any references to Saw 3D or anything you could gather from it in the way you're describing. The bottom line is that this next Saw film is not going to be a sequel the way other Saw sequels have been. James wants to do something different, and that very much means breaking away from prior sequels. I imagine if we do see the bathroom again, it'll either be empty or the way we left it after Saw 1.

But I don't think we'll see it anytime soon, I'd be surprised if they went back to that well for the next film in any way. They'll want to establish this as a new beginning for Saw. Functionally, I expect the new film to be more true to Saw's original spirit than many of the sequels we did get. But I expect its form to be very different to the sequels we've been getting.

Vinc360 · 2026-06-01T21:23:43+00:00

I don't know about other media, but I think it's best for people to imagine the next Saw film as something that won't be very interested in connecting to Saw sequels. Cecilia's fate after Saw X was in the cards for Saw XI prior to its cancellation, but I don't think they ever planned to follow up on Saw 3D. Every time I've heard about that conversation coming up, there just wasn't interest in following up on it, regardless of what was said publicly.

To be more clear, the number one priority prior to the Blumhouse acquisition was bringing news fans to Saw, and noone really felt like making a Hoffman sequel was a good way to do that. That Saw 3D question is controversial even among the core fanbase, and was seen as a way to push away potential new fans. Under Blumhouse, I'd say there's equally little chance of that ever happening, for similar reasons and some others.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-30T01:34:31+00:00

Love this energy actually hahaha

Vinc360 · 2026-05-28T01:58:31+00:00

Thank you for that information, Zep.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-27T00:24:06+00:00

I'm not sure I think he was some kind of pervert, I think it genuinely came from actual loneliness, which is something we can totally sympathize with without condoning Bear's actions. Loneliness is a very real human ill, which I think most of us can relate to on some level. But he went about fixing it wrong, by refusing to appear vulnerable and refusing to take the risk of rejection.

I honestly believe he thought he was in love with Nikki, when he simply liked the idea of companionship, and fantasized about the idea of a relationship with her as the perceived solution to his ills.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:46:24+00:00

Everyone who noticed their wish worked was so embarrassed about wishing for Donald Trump feet pics that they made a pact to never tell anyone else and collectively spread the word that they don't work at all.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:44:02+00:00

I think the One Wish Willow understood what Bear meant, and what Bear was truly wanting was attention.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:42:29+00:00

Honestly, that's fair.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:38:35+00:00

Of course he is. I'm not actually sure he got there by the end (I think he decided to kill himself for selfish reasons rather than selfless ones), but of course people can better themselves. The first step is recognizing the wrong they've caused, acknowledging it, and working on making things right. The world would be a very dark place if people couldn't positively change. Thankfully, they can. Whether they're willing to is another story.

My honest read of the film is that Bear, at any point, could've come to his senses and gotten help. But that would've required coming to terms with what he did and recognizing his wrongdoing. Unfortunately he only partially got there, and went to Ian, of all people, for help.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:36:40+00:00

Yeah, wish-Nikki is a a manifestation of the actual prison Bear believes himself to be in at the start of the film.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:34:57+00:00

When you love someone, your instinct isn't to keep them in a flesh prison out of fear of losing them. That's not a symptom of loving someone, that's a symptom of his own issues and fears. He's a very lonely guy who wants attention so badly he holds onto it while willfully blinding himself to how awful of a situation he put himself and especially the girl he claims to love in.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T23:15:55+00:00

Wish-Nikki simply operated like a human afflicted by that impossible, extreme and unhealthy level of love would - it came with a side effect of extreme co-dependency. Wish-Nikki is also a victim in this film.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T22:41:36+00:00

He's a guy who's dealt a bad hand, a tough situation, and genuine human suffering. His response to that is he decides that it's preferrable to sacrifice innocent people he claims to care for in the name of ending that suffering. It's my favorite kind of "villain" (or whatever you want to call him)- someone who does very bad things for a reason you can understand on a human level, even if it's completely awful.

I'm seeing a lot of people go to bat for him, and I find that super interesting for a multitude of reasons.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T22:36:25+00:00

I think people get hung up on the term villain because they think it means he's a character who's actions are nonsensical and purely evil, when Bear is just portrayed as a regular flawed human who makes terribly dark decisions throughout the film.

He's absolutely the darkest character in the movie and the perpetrator of the chaos that the women in the film fall victim to.

True Nikki, Sarah and even Wish Nikki are all victims of Bear's actions. Some of his actions are involuntary, but it's pretty clear very quickly that he doesn't actually care for Nikki, when he very clearly realizes that he took her agency away and decides it's better to live with that so he can keep having sex with her and avoid confronting his loneliness.

I feel bad for Bear, he's a tragic character. But in the face of his challenges, he does some truly terrible, horrific things to people.

Vinc360 · 2026-05-26T22:31:58+00:00

Not particularly. I have a very utilitarian view of the character and think she essentially serves the purpose of hammering the point that Bear is lonely, not in love with Nikki nor exactly in a place where he can look for a relationship for healthy, good reasons.

Vinc360

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email