Crackdown 3's campaign looks enjoyable simply for looking like more Crackdown.

[Chazore]

smroadkill15 said:

I'm not sure how the game looks linear when it's literally the completely opposite. Players can go do any mission, in any order they desire. The innovation is in the cloud based multiplayer mode. I'm not saying the multiplayer will be on the same tier as the currently most played games, but you can't say it's not innovative. How many games have transforming vehicles? Characters visually and physically transforming from collecting orbs? Crackdown is the only one I can think of. 

Well it's suppose to be very arcade style game, and over the top. The original Crackdown still holds up as far as gameplay goes, and this is a more polished version of that. 

Terry Crews is perfect for this game. 

Crackdown 2 had a sandbox mode which allowed you to spawn anything you wanted, and do a bunch of other stuff. Hopefully this game has the same. 

I'm talking of the story itself, the very linear design in general. Play anywhere you want, but the story won't ever at all be muddled right?. Why would it make sense to forcefully muddle up the main story by allowing it to clusterfuck itself?. You have to make it linear in it's design, to prevent it from being read from different points at different types. WoW allows us to now play on any continent of any zone, without having to be a specific level (Legion exp for example), and that itself is designed with a linear story that adds up to one single point, rather than multiple clusterfucked points because you chose to do the missions in a totally different order. 

Claiming it's very innovative (using "very" or not is still a claim)is giving it far too much credit.

How many games have transforming vehicles?.

 

I dunno: 

Playing both the character on foot, and transforming into a vehicle, that you can also customize is pretty innovative than the typical tried and tested GTA or Saints row style approach, that has already been done before. 

I didn't say he wasn't perfect, I said they could have better made use of the money on other things, than an expansive actor.