Just played some wrecking zone and the destruction is legit. You can literally destroy any building. Will play the campaign later.

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.

I have the opposite perspective, I feel people had low expectations due the to long development. Although 4-5 year development isn't really that uncommon.

However, if you look at the 2017 trailer the campaign content looks pretty much the same. I really think much of the development went to the multiplayer and that changed drastically over time. At best the campaign probably had extra refinement with all the delays.

People are treating this as a failed AAA game or something, but its just another Crackdown game. I thought it was pretty evident they were just making another one of those and its a blast if you accept its just that.

Of course some people were hyped for it... And some people are having a ton of fun playing it right now.

If everyone in the world had the same likes/dislikes... We would be living in a very dull place wouldn't we?

I considered it AAA, mostly because of the scarce offerings of exclusive titles on Xbox in general... And the years of development time it had.

Although the advertising for this title seemed to be very light on the ground, didn't see anything about it's release until I saw this thread. Haha

The game is okay though, it's more of the same... But that isn't necessarily a bad thing either if you were a fan of Crackdown 1+2.

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.

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'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.

 I agree play what you enjoy , I remember the first crackdown demo after playing it I recommended to a friend to try it out after a few tries I couldn't get anything out of him,then when the game came out he pestered me to play, you would have thought he was the one who pushed me toward it.

I feel if it had been left to the usual production schedule for a game of it's ilk it would have done fine and most likely posted mid 70's scores , but alas with all the publicity coupled with MS overplaying where the tech was at that time rather than waiting for it to mature, we got this situation of a game being  overblown through no fault of it's own.

I never said that FH4 was the first one to be available online.  Anyway since the release of FH3 a lot more people got external HDD and higher speed internet so it only logical to conclude that FH4 sold a lot more digitally then FH3 during the same period of time and the number of people that played it through early access by buying the Ultimate edition digitally also back that claim up.  Also the game will continue selling since FM8 doesn't come out until next year and The Crew 2 was DOA on the X1 so its only direct competition on the X1 is the 3rd game since the second game got delisted digitally last fall.

Played the game for about four hours today so I far I like it better then the second one could end up liking it better then the first one which I liked a lot more then the second one since I beat it and played through it twice.