By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Crackdown 3 Review Thread - MC: 60 OC: 62

Tagged games:

The only good XB1 exclusives are Forza, Gears Remastered, Gears 4, Halo MCC, Halo 5, Killer Instinct, and Sunset Overdrive. Six of those are playable on PC. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 15 February 2019

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I keep seeing comments like "ohhh this is just this sorta game" or "da critics are just totally out of whack with this, they just don't understand". 

Critics have praised many games that do something similar to Crackdown. Many games have gotten a score when they were "just trying to achieve what Crackdown wanted to achieve". To imply that people must be looking for a deeper alternative or fundamentally don't understand the point of the game because it got a negative metacritic score is silly. You can make a game who's goal is to make things go boom boom and bang bang, and it can still be not bad. Or it can still be received positively. Shocking, I know. 

Disagreeing with critics is fine, but let's not pretend like good simple fun is just too abstract a concept for them. That's disingenuous. They may be pretentious, but they aren't that pretentious. I'm willing to admit that how "worthy" a game is of a high score is a genuine problem with many game reviews, but it's not really the case with Crackdown. It's just a game which is divisive and which many people think is either really good, really bad or really mediocre. That's all there is to say about it really. 

Also, it's funny to see the sentiment come out that "not every game is for everyone/needs to be tailor made for everyone" ...... until the 90+ meta game gets a "troll" review that states a different opinion  

You don't know me but I usually read threads where you happen to post in and I almost always disagree with your opinions. This post however, freaking nails it.

If you're enjoying the game, great. I myself enjoy games/movies/comics that are mindless fun but have a lack of depth or a good storyline from time to time. However the idea that a critic can't enjoy "turn-your-brain-off" games is baffling to me in a world where so many multiplayer shooters are not only very popular but have good scores from reviewers as well. Those are the very definition of "turn-your-brain-off" games in my view.



Mr Puggsly said:
mjk45 said:

I think you have misread my reply, my answer was focused on the second part of her question about how a game with such a low score wasn't canceled since that seemed to be more answerable rather than playing  two different games with different circumstances off against each other, Instead I tried  to try to explain the circumstances surrounding Ms and the Xbox one and their  link to crackdown 3 at inception raising Crackdown 3's profile well above what it's history would suggest ,and how that made it harder for them to give up on it.

Here's a thought, did MS anticipate such low scores?

I mean this isn't like some Bethesda game launched in a broken state. Crackdown 3 is totally functional game, it feels polished, its the fun I expected from the series. Its almost like being something of throwback is both what makes this game fun but poison to the critics.

Maybe this is something like an Earth Defense Force game. The people who enjoy it don't care about the reviews, but it likely has wider appeal. Ultimately, it just might be a polarizing game.

I don't think it has much to do with being a "throwback".  Most of the reviews I read thought that it was too repetitious, unvaried, and even boring.  Those aren't properties inherent in older games, just older games that weren't well designed.  One review said that everything kind of turns into "white noise," with nothing to break it up.

Now, if you love that particular kind of white noise then you'll probably like the game.  If you don't love it, then you probably won't like the game very much, because there seems to be almost nothing else, no other degree of depth or substance other than that white noise.  It's a one trick pony and you'd have to really, really enjoy that one trick to buy that pony.  That's why I don't see any problem with the negative reviews or review scores.  Writers aren't just writing these reviews for people who already like the Crackdown formula, they're writing them for everyone, from a general perspective.  

Which is why people should read the damn reviews instead of worrying about that little number at the end.  



Spike0503 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I keep seeing comments like "ohhh this is just this sorta game" or "da critics are just totally out of whack with this, they just don't understand". 

Critics have praised many games that do something similar to Crackdown. Many games have gotten a score when they were "just trying to achieve what Crackdown wanted to achieve". To imply that people must be looking for a deeper alternative or fundamentally don't understand the point of the game because it got a negative metacritic score is silly. You can make a game who's goal is to make things go boom boom and bang bang, and it can still be not bad. Or it can still be received positively. Shocking, I know. 

Disagreeing with critics is fine, but let's not pretend like good simple fun is just too abstract a concept for them. That's disingenuous. They may be pretentious, but they aren't that pretentious. I'm willing to admit that how "worthy" a game is of a high score is a genuine problem with many game reviews, but it's not really the case with Crackdown. It's just a game which is divisive and which many people think is either really good, really bad or really mediocre. That's all there is to say about it really. 

Also, it's funny to see the sentiment come out that "not every game is for everyone/needs to be tailor made for everyone" ...... until the 90+ meta game gets a "troll" review that states a different opinion  

You don't know me but I usually read threads where you happen to post in and I almost always disagree with your opinions. This post however, freaking nails it.

If you're enjoying the game, great. I myself enjoy games/movies/comics that are mindless fun but have a lack of depth or a good storyline from time to time. However the idea that a critic can't enjoy "turn-your-brain-off" games is baffling to me in a world where so many multiplayer shooters are not only very popular but have good scores from reviewers as well. Those are the very definition of "turn-your-brain-off" games in my view.

Thanks. Nice that you agree Though disagreements are fine, too.



Yes just the good reviews are honest.....



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I've been having enjoying the game so far. Single player is exactly what I was wanting out of a Crackdown game. What's funny is, for how many people criticized the graphics, I think it's one of the best parts about it. I love the colors and visuals of the world. I haven't ran into any performance issues or glitches. Gameplay is solid. Weapons are varied and each have a uniqueness to them. It's a very well polished single player.

Multiplayer on the other hand, I don't care for at all. Destruction is okay. There is zero progress or rewarding aspect of it besides winning. They should have just scrapped it, and went with a battle royal mode in the main city instead.



smroadkill15 said:
I've been having enjoying the game so far. Single player is exactly what I was wanting out of a Crackdown game. What's funny is, for how many people criticized the graphics, I think it's one of the best parts about it. I love the colors and visuals of the world. I haven't ran into any performance issues or glitches. Gameplay is solid. Weapons are varied and each have a uniqueness to them. It's a very well polished single player.

Multiplayer on the other hand, I don't care for at all. Destruction is okay. There is zero progress or rewarding aspect of it besides winning. They should have just scrapped it, and went with a battle royal mode in the main city instead.

Haven’t even tried the MP outside of the technical test and I agree with what you said. Sucks that reviewers expected something else but I’m more than happy for Crackdown 1.5 and graphically the game nails the Crackdown style.

Ive been surprised at how good the platforming is.



I think the graphics are fine for this game. You don't need 4K nonsense for a game to be good and fun. But at the same time I agree that it looks like a 360 game. 

Just going to post an excerpt from Jeff Gerstman's review. He's basically saying that the missions are all lifeless clones of one another. That and the game is only 6 hours long. 

It's probably the layout of the city. The island you're on does have some high buildings, but the orbs feel carelessly strewn about in some zones of the city, placed onto low rooftops that don't even pose a meaningful challenge. In other sections, the orbs seem weirdly scarce. But in the case of all this, the orbs just don't always feel like they've been placed in interesting spots. WIthout that--and, honestly, after all these years, it's hard to imagine simple orb collection as a standout feature at all--the rest of the game manages to feel very generic.

Sure, you jump higher as you level up, but other games have done the "open-world game but with powers" stuff really well in the years since Crackdown 2. This one really feels like it's going through the motions at every turn, with an utterly lifeless story and generic missions that feel like they were clone-stamped into the world for you to do over and over again. Every monorail station takeover mission feels identical. There are roughly two types of industrial/chemical missions. Two types of enforcer missions. And so on. It feels like you're just hopping around the world, never quite as quickly or as nimbly as you feel like you should be, performing the same six tasks over and over again. Eventually you unlock boss fights, but these aren't especially creative and don't stand out much. Most of them felt like they were missing a phase, like something else should have happened but then... nope. You win. Completing the campaign with almost all of the non-race missions completed took me somewhere around six or seven hours. You can go back in, you can take your leveled agent into a reset city, and you can play on multiple difficulties, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this stuff a second time. It's not bad, but nothing about it stands out (actually, having the game crash to desktop the first time I beat the final boss and having to replay that entire fight all over again stands out, but you know what I mean).



Mr Puggsly said:
zorg1000 said:

You are giving mixed messages in this post.

You say people had low expectations but then say it's a blast if you accept it for what it is which doesnt add up if expectations were low to begin with.

You also say 4-5 years is common (which is true for big AAA titles) then you go on to say it's not a AAA title its just another Crackdown game.

I'm saying general consensus, the views of people that aren't necessarily Crackdown fans, were low expectations to begin with. However, if you just wanted more Crackdown, it delivers and those are the people that will enjoy it most.

Long development periods isn't just a AAA thing. I mean just a few on the MS side that come to mind are Cuphead, Ashen and Below. I'm sure there are many examples... https://medium.com/the-last-night-devblog/why-do-independent-game-developers-take-so-long-to-make-games-661f98433411

I tried to avoid mixed messages, but I think you got mixed up by adding your own thoughts.

While that's true, I think you can figure out how that's a completely different situation that doesnt apply here. Indies can take a long time since they are small teams with small funding and sometimes the developers have other full time jobs.

The above doesnt describe Crackdown 3 and it's not a high-quality AAA release so a 4-5 dev cycle is way too long. As a mediocre/average AA release it should have a 2-3 year cycle.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I'm saying general consensus, the views of people that aren't necessarily Crackdown fans, were low expectations to begin with. However, if you just wanted more Crackdown, it delivers and those are the people that will enjoy it most.

Long development periods isn't just a AAA thing. I mean just a few on the MS side that come to mind are Cuphead, Ashen and Below. I'm sure there are many examples... https://medium.com/the-last-night-devblog/why-do-independent-game-developers-take-so-long-to-make-games-661f98433411

I tried to avoid mixed messages, but I think you got mixed up by adding your own thoughts.

While that's true, I think you can figure out how that's a completely different situation that doesnt apply here. Indies can take a long time since they are small teams with small funding and sometimes the developers have other full time jobs.

The above doesnt describe Crackdown 3 and it's not a high-quality AAA release so a 4-5 dev cycle is way too long. As a mediocre/average AA release it should have a 2-3 year cycle.

Crackdown is also a lot more polished than the average AA game and has a unique PvP. However, I'm sure if I look up development time of many games 4-5 years isnt gonna be that unusual. If anything, maybe Crackdown 3 was just announced too soon for hype reasons, 1st parties tend to do that.

I like Crackdown 3 in its current state, not a broken mess, so the delays were likely a good thing.

I'm noticing the people on this forum that have actually played are generally pretty positive about it. Nobody is arguing its a ground breaking experience, just fun.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 16 February 2019

Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)