Quantcast
Crackdown 3 Review Thread - MC: 60 OC: 62

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

Tagged games:

This really is a puzzling one. All I remember the hype about "The Cloud", how this game would change gameplay forever. There is this tweet from Phil Spencer:
"Just played Crackdown3 w/xxx Best CD exp I've had. Agent control, world is very alive, diverse enemies, really fun."
That was in January 2017...... so if the game was "really fun" over two years ago, what the hell happened in those last two years?
And looking at that, seemingly infuriating to some, (Sterling?) video, it does look like a game running in backward compatibility mode. I'd really have liked to be the fly on the wall while this game was (mis-)managed to the death.



drkohler said:
This really is a puzzling one. All I remember the hype about "The Cloud", how this game would change gameplay forever. There is this tweet from Phil Spencer:
"Just played Crackdown3 w/xxx Best CD exp I've had. Agent control, world is very alive, diverse enemies, really fun."
That was in January 2017...... so if the game was "really fun" over two years ago, what the hell happened in those last two years?
And looking at that, seemingly infuriating to some, (Sterling?) video, it does look like a game running in backward compatibility mode. I'd really have liked to be the fly on the wall while this game was (mis-)managed to the death.

 

Phil isn't lying with that statement. CD3 is the best CD to date. The controls of your agent are on point. The world is large with lots of places to explore. There is a  more diverse amount of enemy and bosses compared to previous games. I agree with him that it is fun. The game being fun is subjective to each person. Some like myself who really enjoy the CD franchise, are having a great time playing the single player. CD3 is getting destroyed by reviewers who were expecting more from the game after such a long development. Instead we got more of the same. To some people who really enjoy CD, they don't mind that at all. 



DonFerrari said:
yvanjean said:

I'm not reading what I want to read, you simply made a stupid comment and I'm trying to informed you. Because, you clearly seem to imply that Crackdown 3 was the crowning achievement of Microsoft effort on Xbox one and this will dampen their effort. Your simply ignoring all the re-investment in gaming and the studios that Microsoft acquired in the last year that clearly prove you couldn't be further from the truth. Crackdown 3 was in development nightmare and was a game from the previous regime at Xbox that wanted to push for cloud gaming. Instead of cancelling yet another failure development, Phil Spencer and co at Microsoft tried to salvage the work done so far and made a half decent game. Including Terry Crews to the game really help it stand out for what was a very mediocre effort help give character to the game. The game is virtually glitch and problem free in my 15 hours of gameplay, I haven't experience any issues or bugs, from a technical point of view it's a very well made game. Like I said personally I would give the campaign a 7.5/10, I don't intend to play much of the multiplayer but that doesn't justify the 5/10 score.  

I disagree with your cloud bullshit statement, I think the game should be judge on the final result not on the development. It's not like Microsoft lied about what the final game would finally deliver and the cloud tech was more a technical feature demo then it was trailer for crackdown 3. At the time when they were talking about Crackdown 3 it was going to push cloud gaming tech. 

I think most of the 5/10 keep talking about the 5 year development that were needed to create Crackdown 3 and that the final result doesn't quite add to their expectation of a game that would of been in development for so long. But, if you actually took the time to try out Crackdown 3, the game is hardly worth a score of 5/10. But, Reviews are subjective and the reviewers are entitle to their opinions. Crackdown 3 is a fun game that can be played for very cheap if you get gamepass. I don't think anyone should pay full retail price when they have the gamepass option. If you don't have access to internet, you should wait for a price drop because I expect this game to be discount soon after release or go somewhere with internet access and take advantage of gamepass. It's not a bad game just not a master piece. 

A half decent game (your call) really doesn't deserve any score above average. So 60 meta is about right. You wanting to give half decent a 7.5 really would be a score distortion, how would you differentiate a half decent, decent, average, good, great, excellent and epic? Would all be on a 0.5 difference?

@thread It is funny to see people that say score doesn't matter defending this game should have scored higher, also even funnier that on games that have achieved 90+ meta when others criticized the odd score of 40 they would defend that some people didn't agree that game was great but then here can't accept that most critics didn't like this game.

I said they took a half decent game and made it good by adding Terry Crews combine with solid gameplay and polish in term of performance.  This game keep getting score in the 40 or 50 which should be reserve to broken game. If you read the review they are punishing the game for not delivering on it's promise rather then rating base on what was the final product.  

After playing this game, I hope that we get a Crackdown 4 or Free DLC but this time focus on campaign that is centered around Terry Crews. 



Tommy Jean, CPA, CGA

vivster said:
yvanjean said:

I think most of the 5/10 keep talking about the 5 year development that were needed to create Crackdown 3 and that the final result doesn't quite add to their expectation of a game that would of been in development for so long. But, if you actually took the time to try out Crackdown 3, the game is hardly worth a score of 5/10. But, Reviews are subjective and the reviewers are entitle to their opinions. Crackdown 3 is a fun game that can be played for very cheap if you get gamepass. I don't think anyone should pay full retail price when they have the gamepass option. If you don't have access to internet, you should wait for a price drop because I expect this game to be discount soon after release or go somewhere with internet access and take advantage of gamepass. It's not a bad game just not a master piece. 

So you're saying the Meta score is completely justified. Glad that we agree.

I'm glad you have enough common sense to back away from your previous comments on Xbox Games Studios.

Yes, I always believe that Meta score is completely justify. The Meta Score always adjust to remove the odd ball super negative or super positive reviews. Consumer should know what they are getting and I don't think anyone that don't want to support the developer and have more similar content should pay full retail price. 



Tommy Jean, CPA, CGA

Chris Hu said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Your question doesn't involve it being full price though. Your question involves it being heavily discounted in a few months. And at that point, we can and should compare it to other games that were heavily discounted. It still winds up at the bottom of the barrel in a price to content/replay-value contest with other heavily discounted games of the same or similar genres. 

Crackdown 3 is about a 3rd the content/replay-value of the original. If that's not a 6/10, I don't know what is. 

Says a guy that hasn't played the game yet and your assumptions are wrong nobody so far has unlocked all the achievements for it so at this point nobody knows how long it take to truly 100% complete it.  

I thought it would take 30 days for enough people to do completionist runs. But I guess not. Enough people have beaten it.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=38828

49 people beat the game already. Crackdown 1 was a 43.5 hours long for completionists. https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1964 Crackdown 3 is 13.5 hours long for completionists. The game was a massive step back from the original 2007 release, in terms of content. 



NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, PS2, GBA, GameCube, Wii, PS3,
Wii -U, PS4, Switch, and PC. 

yvanjean said:
DonFerrari said:

A half decent game (your call) really doesn't deserve any score above average. So 60 meta is about right. You wanting to give half decent a 7.5 really would be a score distortion, how would you differentiate a half decent, decent, average, good, great, excellent and epic? Would all be on a 0.5 difference?

@thread It is funny to see people that say score doesn't matter defending this game should have scored higher, also even funnier that on games that have achieved 90+ meta when others criticized the odd score of 40 they would defend that some people didn't agree that game was great but then here can't accept that most critics didn't like this game.

I said they took a half decent game and made it good by adding Terry Crews combine with solid gameplay and polish in term of performance.  This game keep getting score in the 40 or 50 which should be reserve to broken game. If you read the review they are punishing the game for not delivering on it's promise rather then rating base on what was the final product.  

After playing this game, I hope that we get a Crackdown 4 or Free DLC but this time focus on campaign that is centered around Terry Crews. 

 Instead of cancelling yet another failure development, Phil Spencer and co at Microsoft tried to salvage the work done so far and made a half decent game. Including Terry Crews to the game really help it stand out for what was a very mediocre effort help give character to the game.

 

This is what you said... not that they took a half decent, but that they made a half decent game. Terry Crews doesn't change the game one iota. It certainly can help promotion or some people enjoyment, but the game doesn't change because of he.

So again your evaluation of half decent doesn't deserve a 75 score.

Also I agree that a game shouldn't be evaluated on expectations, but on what it delivers. But matter of fact unless you think there is a conspiracy of reviewers it seems like they don't like what was delivered more than just taking points on their expectations. If we were discussing a 90+ game that deserve let's say 95 but lost some points in some reviews because the reviewer wanted stuff that is his like not what the game is about that would be a different discussion.

Could swear I remember a Metacritic thread where some people were defending that for game 70 is average/mediocre and other group defended that average would be 50 up to 60. VGC really lacks a consensus on what thresholds we separate broken, bad, regular, good, great, excellent, epic, etc.



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


DonFerrari said:
yvanjean said:

I said they took a half decent game and made it good by adding Terry Crews combine with solid gameplay and polish in term of performance.  This game keep getting score in the 40 or 50 which should be reserve to broken game. If you read the review they are punishing the game for not delivering on it's promise rather then rating base on what was the final product.  

After playing this game, I hope that we get a Crackdown 4 or Free DLC but this time focus on campaign that is centered around Terry Crews. 

 Instead of cancelling yet another failure development, Phil Spencer and co at Microsoft tried to salvage the work done so far and made a half decent game. Including Terry Crews to the game really help it stand out for what was a very mediocre effort help give character to the game.

 

This is what you said... not that they took a half decent, but that they made a half decent game. Terry Crews doesn't change the game one iota. It certainly can help promotion or some people enjoyment, but the game doesn't change because of he.

So again your evaluation of half decent doesn't deserve a 75 score.

Also I agree that a game shouldn't be evaluated on expectations, but on what it delivers. But matter of fact unless you think there is a conspiracy of reviewers it seems like they don't like what was delivered more than just taking points on their expectations. If we were discussing a 90+ game that deserve let's say 95 but lost some points in some reviews because the reviewer wanted stuff that is his like not what the game is about that would be a different discussion.

Could swear I remember a Metacritic thread where some people were defending that for game 70 is average/mediocre and other group defended that average would be 50 up to 60. VGC really lacks a consensus on what thresholds we separate broken, bad, regular, good, great, excellent, epic, etc.

Opencritic has a formula for whether a game is tagged as Weak, Fair, Strong, or Mighty. 

The OpenCritic rating is based on the percentile ranking of each game's Top Critic Average:

  • Mighty: Games averaging in the 90th or above percentile
  • Strong: Games averaging in the 60th to 90th percentile
  • Fair: Games averaging in the 30th to 60th percentile
  • Weak: Games averaging in the bottom 30 percent of games

The Top Critic Average cutoffs happen to be 84 and above, 75-83, 66-74, and 65 and below. Note that, for a game to have a Top Critic Average, it must have at least 3 numeric reviews from top critics.

In order to be weak, a game has to be in the bottom 30 percent. 



NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, PS2, GBA, GameCube, Wii, PS3,
Wii -U, PS4, Switch, and PC. 

Cerebralbore101 said:
Chris Hu said:

Says a guy that hasn't played the game yet and your assumptions are wrong nobody so far has unlocked all the achievements for it so at this point nobody knows how long it take to truly 100% complete it.  

I thought it would take 30 days for enough people to do completionist runs. But I guess not. Enough people have beaten it.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=38828

49 people beat the game already. Crackdown 1 was a 43.5 hours long for completionists. https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1964 Crackdown 3 is 13.5 hours long for completionists. The game was a massive step back from the original 2007 release, in terms of content. 

I don't believe that's accurate. In the original Crackdown you basically kill the bosses and upgrade all your stats. Other than that you chase orb things and do driving missions. Crackdown 3 actually has more stuff to do.

I COULD elaborate. But why should I bother? Its evident you don't know anything about these games really.



Recently Completed
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)

Mr Puggsly said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I thought it would take 30 days for enough people to do completionist runs. But I guess not. Enough people have beaten it.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=38828

49 people beat the game already. Crackdown 1 was a 43.5 hours long for completionists. https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1964 Crackdown 3 is 13.5 hours long for completionists. The game was a massive step back from the original 2007 release, in terms of content. 

I don't believe that's accurate. In the original Crackdown you basically kill the bosses and upgrade all your stats. Crackdown 3 actually has more stuff to do.

I COULD elaborate. But why should I bother? Its evident you don't know anything about these games really.

I played and beat Crackdown 1. https://www.xboxgamertag.com/search/cereboralbore/ That's my ultra-old XBL profile. I had to make a new one due to realizing, I missspelled it, but yeah there you go. 



NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, PS2, GBA, GameCube, Wii, PS3,
Wii -U, PS4, Switch, and PC. 

DonFerrari said:  
Mr Puggsly said:

I'm gonna recommend you watch the Digital Foundry video for Crackdown 3, the campaign video. Because some of the things you're saying just aren't reality. For a UE4 game, its one of the more polished games using that engine. MS played trailers at numerous E3s, many delays allow that to happen, but that doesn't make it AAA. Also, the game didn't appear to change much since the 2017 trailer.

I don't think anybody is arguing the game should be praised though. I think the reviews were harsh given the game isn't buggy, it actually is polished and its fun. Its probably my favorite game to ever score that low. I'm actually less bothered by the critics and more bothered by people like you that haven't played the game but have opinions.

To anybody that wants to have an opinion without actually playing, at least try watching the Digital Foundry video covering the campaign. Especially if you're the kind of person that makes claims its not polished.

How many low tier games do you remember appearing in so many E3s, having hype and touting a special feature of the platform?

Games doesn't lose score only on the merit of being buggy. And on being one of the most polished, do you have any source?

Why people that want to have an opinion needs to watch a specific video that praises the game you want to address? Why all other reviewers aren't acceptable to base the opinion?

I'd say Crackdown 3 is more like mid tier, not low tier. The game was at a bunch of E3s because of delays and the MP was ultimately thrown together.

Again, games as polished and feel as tight as Crackdown 3 generally don't score that low. My source? I say that as someone who has played numerous UE4 games on Xbox One and the Digital Foundry guys were also impressed.

I'm suggesting people who are in this thread and know nothing about this game (like yourself) should watch that video. Its a fair analysis and will likely change your views a bit.



Recently Completed
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)