-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Crackdown 3 Review Thread
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
I was just thinking that. I feel the entire industry is going to change. There will not be previews etc. It will be, in some cases a stealth drop.
Every review and opposing comment discusses the dev time and how many resources this game has taken up. Imagine if it just stealth dropped like apex. I would put money it would still have its issues highlighted but these scores wouldn't be this low.
I've spent the last hour or so watching 4K footage from various channels and I must say the game is at least aesthetically pleasing. Those neon lights are absolutely gorgeous.
You would be surprised then. I and many people I know were very disappointed with Gears 4. I still can't bring myself to finish it, and I'm not the kind of person to just drop a game.
I was utterly, totally, and completely bored the whole game through. It didn't help that the bland, boring, ugly, focus-tested, marketing-department-designed, TV commercial-esque characters utterly dominated in a story that did not flow together and could not hold my attention. I know I played about 3/5 of the campaign and could not tell you what it's about. Yet again, that just isn't how I normally am with games. And I've met plenty of people who feel either the same way or similar.
There is some fun to be had with Crackdown 3 for sure but it's very much a game stuck in the past. Decent enough if you just want more of the same Orb Collecting fun but not so good if you were hoping for something that took the series further. If this came out a few years after the original on 360 (instead of the crap Crackdown 2) it would have reviewed much better but in 2019, it can't really compete on the same level as other modern open world action games available.
The current 60 MC score (basically 6/10) seems about right really, if using the full scoring scale properly and not the fan boy scoring scale (anything under 7 is complete trash) It's an above average AA game and delivers some fun gameplay but the overall package isn't close to the top quality AAA games currently out there.
The current 60 MC score (basically 6/10) seems about right really, if using the full scoring scale properly and not the fan boy scoring scale (anything under 7 is complete trash) It's an above average AA game and delivers some fun gameplay but the overall package isn't close to the top quality AAA games currently out there.
I reckon on the software side Microsoft gave up years ago for this gen. I have no other theory why their output is so lacking this gen.
Instead focussing on (probably) cheaper initiatives to improve their image, like cross play, backwards compat, etc. Those things are good for gamers as well, but in the end it all comes down to games.
Well your very anecdotal experience clashes with my very anecdotal experience.
So, you think games being released with no lead up and a chance to have it reviewed will mean it gets better scores? That seems shady as fuck
As I expected, despite your original assertion that "no one was disappointed" you've responded to my point that you are objectively incorrect, with a shift in subject to the quality of the game itself, rather than its reception, which was your original topic/thesis.
My point was not to say the game is objectively bad. My point was that I totally and utterly did not enjoy it, and know many people who didn't. The idea that it's just this wonderful game is not universal, and your "very anecdotal experience" only weakens your position, since you have projected your opinion upon the gaming community at large. I did not do so, only stated mine, and that of others I have spoken to. You made a large sweeping statement that was easily countered. But nice try.
You said you didn't think any one was disappointed. That just isn't true, and I used myself as an example.
User Warned: Antagonizing other members
I remember people getting really angry when it was suggested that the destruction didn't look super impressive ccompared to games in the past and even to previous showings of crackdown 3. I wonder where those people are now.
Last edited:
User Banned (3 Days): System wars and continued pattern of trolling
Happy to see this fail. I was tired of this games bullshit from announcement. Ive heard about crackdown once or twice a month for six years. I can finally see it fade into obscurity, but sadly we didnt get the version set to release last year or the year before. Those would have been powerfully bad.
Was the cloud real? Are tests being done?
Was the cloud real? Are tests being done?
Generations over if u dont have a xbox one nothing will convince you. Next games are halo gears NTs game and ori that's it basically
I've seen people on Twitter make the "fake reviews" claim. Fairly predictable behaviour from the ones I am referring to though.
I think the destruction is one of the very few good aspects of the multiplayer mode.
So here I am.
I was speaking about the reviews of the game.
Of course some people were disappointed with it, some people were disappointed with 2018 god of war.
You can't satisfy everyone.
Fun, no story, dumb, simple. I'm loving it hahahah having a blast hunting orbs and trying the driving achievements.
Not all games need to have the God of War weight, density and quality. Sometimes only exploding things is enough.
Not all games need to have the God of War weight, density and quality. Sometimes only exploding things is enough.
So you're saying that you spent time denying a downgrade that even digital foundry had made note of?
I think everyone acknowledges that the tech demo that was shown at Gamescom uses the same tech as the multiplayer mode, but not on the same scale.
We've given many reasons why we think it is like this. And we had nice discussions if going from tech demo to gameplay could be called a downgrade.
Don't really know why you are looking for a fight on this. Just enjoy the game. Acknowledge the destruction technology works. And acknowledge the tech demo set unrealistic expectations. Maybe tweet Phil Spencer that you are angry about it.
Let it go.
I understand the sentiment. But if it were true the game would be sitting above a 60 metacritic. Clearly exploding things isn't enough.
Crackdown simply should have been better. You can still make something fun and simple while also maintaining a decent standard of quality, Nintendo has a character based entirely around that with Mario.
They tried to sell those games with little to no content or large issues for a lot of money on day one. Why wouldn't reviewers review the product being sold? Unless the games are sold at an extreme discount because of how rough they are at launch, there's no reason to lie or pull punches in reviews because maybe eventually the games will be amazing.
MS's problem isn't that they focus on online games, it's that they've consistently released very few games, many of which were mediocre to outright bad.
I do feel that the games press need to check in more often with anniversary reviews. Yeah, they dump some news out there, but the fundamental locked in score that everybody sees is the launch one.
So you're a crackdown fan who just wanted more crackdown, yet your score is 1/10 higher than the consensus? Lol
That's such a detrimental and poor way to look at things. These publishers charge $60 for them day one, thus they are reviewed as they are day one, because they're still charging full price for them either way. You can't review a game based on expectations or promises, only what is there for you to play.
If publishers want better reviews, simply put they should put out more polished games with more content on day one. I for one am glad games like Sea of Thieves or Gran Turismo Sport got hammered for a lack of day one content, and games like State of Decay 2 for a lack of polish. Developers and publishers need to learn that it isn't okay to release half baked games. If it isn't ready or there isn't enough content to justify a day one purchase, simply put, don't release it. Otherwise adopt an F2P model akin to Apex Legends etc.
I don't mean their opinions are invalid, it's just "exaggeration speak". They can think what they want, but this doesn't control like a 5/10 game. I really feel this is a better game than it's being reviewed, and it's the first time that I'm honestly shocked that it's reviewing as poorly as it is. That's too bad for the devs and the franchise, because the game really isn't that bad.
Why? Because they've released some badly reviewed games? I think they were a bigger laughing stock back in 2013.
I think Microsoft is a great contribution to the gaming industry at the moment. Their push for crossplay, their accessibility controller, the investments they do in gaming and even the server capacities that powers many multiplayer online games.
You can think what you want but the three or four reviews I've read did a better job backing up their opinion than you just did. The mission design is egregiously bad is the thing that sticks out to me.
I wonder why MS, not really having a signature AAA 1st party Open World Action game (at least none that I can think of right now?), hasn't put more force behind this over all those years it was in development. Like it's not like Crackdown doesn't have potential, what exactly was the problem? The lack of meaty content in this is just jarring in my opinion. It's nuts how they let themselves dominate by Sony like that.
This and the barebones multiplayer are the two reasons I can't recommend this game. The rest of it is all pretty.. good?
The mission structure is just very repetitive. In the parts I've seen and played right now I see one interesting boss fight (the industry one).
The game is not bad. It's just.. a 2007 game in a 2019 shell.
Just played 1 hour of the game but, if "meaty content" means missions and a structure like every other open world game, I'd take a 60 metacritic game that doesnt follow those trends over jsut another open world game.
It's not the best game ever made, but it's not a 5 either. I'm not going to sit and write a review just for you. I'm just throwing my two cents in. The barrier to entry is so low with gamepss that franchise fans should try it anyway.
Because this 2007 point keeps being brought up, just to remind everyone that in 2007 we had the release of Bioshock, Halo 3, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, Orange Box (Portal), Team Fortress 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Mass Effect, God of War 2 and more.
When people say it's like a game from a decade ago, presumably they mean a game that was not so great or exceptional even a decade ago.
Yeah I feel you, not every game has to be RDR or whatever but it's not like MS already has one of those games in their portfolio. This just looks kinda weird standing next to what other platform holders have been pumping out over the last couple of months/years.
Except it follows open world trends from 10 years ago instead.
People can do what they want, I just take exception to people trashing reviewers because they feel differently and the biggest issue you have is with the scores. Have you read a single in depth review of the game?
User Banned (1 week): History of system wars, returning from ban and resuming banned behaviour
Ms fans act like they are a cult. You can't say anything negative about Xbox brand. They will hunt you down you ask for a ban. You can't deny how great their games are and the whole media is wrong.
But when it comes with articles saying Xbox is set to dominate nextgen they are right.
They make 1-2 threads about negative aspects from sony. They point Sony as arrogant. Always the same users and it is fine.
But if you show the reality to them how Ms lacks in game department. How bad there games are you get banned.
That's how the cult of Xbox works in Era since last E3 allowed by the mods
Everyone with eyes know what I'm saying is the truth.
Everybody can see the whole threads created every week against Sony. How arrogant they are. Against Lauren, Ryan. Always made by Xbox fans.
Does it? From what I know it still has that non-linear structure of beating the bosses, improving your character in any way you like and physics based gameplay.
Those were in the first crackdown more than 10 years ago, but those were never a norm, and thats the reason I always loved crackdown and wanted a sequel.
All fanboys are the same, doesn't madder who they support.
Its not this game only. Their biggest games like Gears and Halo are Meh at the best their new IPs cant even hit 80 at metacriticts. The only good game that they make atm is Forza and thats it. Microsoft is far from what it used to be and what can be. Its a shame.
I don't mind the review scores to be honest. A bit surprised that they aren't at least 70+ but reviews are opinions.
I watched DF's tech analysis and it has me very excited for the game. I loved Crackdown 1 and this looks essentially like more of the same, which is absolutely fine by me. Looks nice at 4K too. Sure it has its own aesthetic, but so did the first game and I liked that, so again, "more of the same but looks nicer" is absolutely fine.
I watched DF's tech analysis and it has me very excited for the game. I loved Crackdown 1 and this looks essentially like more of the same, which is absolutely fine by me. Looks nice at 4K too. Sure it has its own aesthetic, but so did the first game and I liked that, so again, "more of the same but looks nicer" is absolutely fine.