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:

Cerebralbore101 on 17 February 2019
KBG29 said:
Gaming media really needs to grow up, they are not doing any favors to the industry. I am so tired of games getting overly praised or punished due to their ties to specific platforms. This game is in no way a 5 - 6. If this was just a random game from a 3rd party it would easily land in the 7.5 - 8.5 range.

I completed the campaign a couple of hours ago. Took me 14 Hours, I collected 630 orbs, and completed all side content. As someone that never played the first Crackdown, and coming from a heavily PlayStation focused background, this feels a lot like Infamous, which was one of my top five favorite games on PS3.

Crackdown 3 is pure simple fun. If you are looking for a game to jump around, collect items, blow away enemies, and feel like a super hero, then you will have an absolute blast with this title. It runs flawlessly, loads and reloads within seconds, delivers reliable gameplay, and offers a decent size sandbox to play around in.

My Score 8.0

So in other words you did a borderline completionist run in 14 hours? A lot of reviews were saying that the game could be beaten in 6 hours. Sorry, but a 6 hour game in no way deserves 8/10. Not for an asking price of $60 at least. If MS had priced this game at $20, then I'd agree with you. 



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 17 February 2019
thismeintiel said:
Machiavellian said:

Why would you care about anything until he was actually head of the Xbox division.  Where you in the conference rooms when decisions were made.  Do you even know how any of those decisions went down or if he fought for them and lost.  You are making judgement on information you have no clue on what happen.  I have worked for MS in the past and can tell you that certain titles may sound important but there are a lot of layers to them.  I have no clue what he contributed or not during the times he wasn't the boss, but as the boss, I can directly see what his vision is now.  

I am not covering Spencer ass, for some reason you believe a huge company like MS moves like a developer.  So what exactly are you blaming Spencer for since he gain control of the XBox division.  How hard do you think he may or may not had to change senor management to actually purchase new studios and the other efforts since his term.  Stop acting as if you have all the information or even know how MS work because right now only thing I see is you making an opinion on what you believe happen or has happen.  Nothing moves fast at MS, that is the first thing you should know.

His actions in the last 4+ years are right before your eyes.  Sure, he has moved a step or two ahead in terms of services, but has completely fumbled the ball in terms of games.  Unless the management has another big shake up before next gen, I don't see any changes to this mismanagement of IPs and devs.

So you ignore everything else he has done and only look at a few games that did not score great.  Is that your only measurement because if so, I guess we do not need to continue this discussion.  You already made up your mind.  I am looking at the entire change to not only the Xbox division but MS outlook on studios and games period.  That include the PC space as well.  I see that MS noticed as a company their lack of high quality software and has purchased companies to fill that gap.  Its not like this is something that can be turned on a dime or that companies with high quality talent are just sitting out there waiting to be purchased.  From interviews with the companies that did get purchase and some that MS was interested in, it appears they have been active in seeking and making deals for years.  Come the next Gen, this will be a full gen where Phil will be the boss, so it will be interesting to see what comes out from all the new studios and the current ones.



Snoopy on 17 February 2019

So far, I give crackdown a 3/5 (I rate using whole numbers only). The game would've scored a 4/5 if it fixed some of the wonky controls and had must-have features at launch like friend invites. I do hope this game sells well so not only can we get another and hopefully much-improved crackdown, but Microsoft might buy the main crackdown development studio and we can continue growing Xbox games.



Conina on 17 February 2019
Cerebralbore101 said:

So in other words you did a borderline completionist run in 14 hours? A lot of reviews were saying that the game could be beaten in 6 hours. Sorry, but a 6 hour game in no way deserves 8/10. Not for an asking price of $60 at least. If MS had priced this game at $20, then I'd agree with you. 

The score depending on the price?

So "Crackdown: retail/digital version" is a 7/10 (until the price is reduced in a few months) and "Crackdown: GamePass version" is a 8/10?

And since I can play it 60 days for €2 (GamePass promo) it should be a 9/10?



zorg1000 on 17 February 2019
Conina said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

So in other words you did a borderline completionist run in 14 hours? A lot of reviews were saying that the game could be beaten in 6 hours. Sorry, but a 6 hour game in no way deserves 8/10. Not for an asking price of $60 at least. If MS had priced this game at $20, then I'd agree with you. 

The score depending on the price?

So "Crackdown: retail/digital version" is a 7/10 (until the price is reduced in a few months) and "Crackdown: GamePass version" is a 8/10?

And since I can play it 60 days for €2 (GamePass promo) it should be a 9/10?

Ya I dont see how length or price determines a games score. I would rather spend $60 for 4 great hours vs $30 for 20 boring hours.



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

Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 17 February 2019
zorg1000 said:
Conina said:

The score depending on the price?

So "Crackdown: retail/digital version" is a 7/10 (until the price is reduced in a few months) and "Crackdown: GamePass version" is a 8/10?

And since I can play it 60 days for €2 (GamePass promo) it should be a 9/10?

Ya I dont see how length or price determines a games score. I would rather spend $60 for 4 great hours vs $30 for 20 boring hours.

Me too. I just recently finished the first Devil May Cry and I'd say it was one of the best games I ever played. That's only like ... a four and a half hour to six hour game, depending on how good you are. It's made to be replayed too and has great attention to detail and design. 

To be fair to Cerebral I guess, it is an open world game. But I actually think this is the problem with a lot of open world game design. Developers feel they need to justify their games existence by adding in a ton of filler content that isn't fun and just becomes a checklist. 



Cerebralbore101 on 17 February 2019
Conina said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

So in other words you did a borderline completionist run in 14 hours? A lot of reviews were saying that the game could be beaten in 6 hours. Sorry, but a 6 hour game in no way deserves 8/10. Not for an asking price of $60 at least. If MS had priced this game at $20, then I'd agree with you. 

The score depending on the price?

So "Crackdown: retail/digital version" is a 7/10 (until the price is reduced in a few months) and "Crackdown: GamePass version" is a 8/10?

And since I can play it 60 days for €2 (GamePass promo) it should be a 9/10?

You're not buying it with Gamepass though, just renting it, or paying for a Netflix-like service. 



zorg1000 on 17 February 2019
Cerebralbore101 said:
Conina said:

The score depending on the price?

So "Crackdown: retail/digital version" is a 7/10 (until the price is reduced in a few months) and "Crackdown: GamePass version" is a 8/10?

And since I can play it 60 days for €2 (GamePass promo) it should be a 9/10?

You're not buying it with Gamepass though, just renting it, or paying for a Netflix-like service. 

You are side stepping the point.



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

Wyrdness on 17 February 2019

Quite a shame this but from what I've heard this series has been static for a while it's not that it's bad but that each game hasn't moved the series forward at all, MS has this issue where they have some trouble keeping their main flagship titles consistent over a period of time. I'm not entirely convinced that simply buying studios will fix their problems because they've been doing that for a while you need to know how to handle each studio to get the best from them otherwise the won't be good synergy like what ended up happening with Rare and eventually Lionhead.



Cerebralbore101 on 17 February 2019
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
zorg1000 said:

Ya I dont see how length or price determines a games score. I would rather spend $60 for 4 great hours vs $30 for 20 boring hours.

Me too. I just recently finished the first Devil May Cry and I'd say it was one of the best games I ever played. That's only like ... a four and a half hour to six hour game, depending on how good you are. It's made to be replayed too and has great attention to detail and design. 

To be fair to Cerebral I guess, it is an open world game. But I actually think this is the problem with a lot of open world game design. Developers feel they need to justify their games existence by adding in a ton of filler content that isn't fun and just becomes a checklist. 

The original DMC took me 14ish hours to 100% complete, not counting replaying the game on harder difficulties.  I think I got about 22 hours of fun out of DMC1. Keep in mind that it launched all the way back in 2001, and was absolutely groundbreaking. I can't think of a single hack n' slash before it that does even 30% of what DMC did. Crackdown 3 on the other hand looks to be a simple clone stamp of the first game, in a genre that regularly hits 80 hours of content. I kind of expect 20 to 40 hours for an open world game. IMO Spiderman was the perfect length at 40 hours to Platinum it.

If a game costs $60, and takes me 15 hours or less to 100% complete, with no replay value, then that just isn't enough for me. 

At the same time though, I don't really like padding in games. There are some games out there that will be 60 hour experiences, stretched out to 80 or 100 hours. I'm not a fan of that. The length and replay value of games could be a huge long thread by itself. 

Anyway 6 hours to beat the main game is not defendable. Especially not for an open world game.