It takes way longer then 6 hours to beat the main game in order to beat it anywhere near 6 hours you have to be some kind of gaming wiz and play it on the easiest difficulty.

Nobody 100% the single player in Crackdown 3 yet.  Nobody so far has found all the agility and hidden orbs.

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.  

So, in the 4+ years that he has been in charge, he had enough sway and power to completely change the direction of Xbox into a more service oriented product, but can't oversee the development of games to make sure they are of good/high quality and have a decent flow of them, even the ones that have been in production for the same amount of time he has been in charge?  And remember, he wasn't just birthed the day of his promotion. He has been overseeing the development of games during the 360 era onto the XBO, as he was a head of MS Studios.  No, that blame gets put squarely on the man who left almost 6 years ago?  Yea, sure, got it.  You are right on one thing.  This convo is over.

I might be crazzy here. But this seems to be a let down mainly cuz of the cloud. While yes this games does look pretty bad but it was never meant to be good, just a tech demo for the cloud. Basicly this was the hyped secret sauce that turned out horrible. Sad that the cloud power was all smoke cuz the ps4 was more powerfull than the x1.

Eh, I'm just going off of what other people in this thread have said, and what reviews have said. I'm willing to give it a month, and see what Howlongtobeat says. See you in 30 days!

However Wrecking zone isn't even discussed in here. It's all about the single player campaign from what I see. Maybe the single player campaign is mid 70's and it's the multiplayer that drags the score down.

Idk if its tied to what console they are on or not, but this is maybe the third or fourth Xbox game with reviews that have left me puzzled.

ReCore is a solid action game with great platforming and retailed for $30, it didn't deserve a low 60's.

State of Decay 2 delivered everything I wanted in the sequel and has also offered a lot of good free content post release, also $30, also bizarre low scores.

And now Crackdown 3. I guess it just isn't modern open world enough, reviewers need you to collect 40 robot shards to upgrade your ammo pouch or drive 10k miles to increase your driving ability or something. My only complaint so far with the game might end up being its length. I've already killed two bosses and I'm only like 7-8 hours into the game. Outside of hunting down orbs, there might not be much to do here after you complete the game. Which is fine, same thing happened with the first game, and then Infamous with the shards. But it becomes a problem when there's not much else to do.

I gotta say though, it's pretty cool how they let you tackle the game any way you want, AFAIK you can even climb the final boss tower and beat it first if you were so inclined. But at the same time, defeating other bosses makes other boss fights easier because of the aftermath of those bosses going down. For example, defeating ROXY and taking back monorail stations, opens up friendly rail gun turrets, which makes the chemical missions easier because they help out against the enemies. And if you defeat the chemical guy, you stop the supply of Chimera or whatever the shit in the game is, which allows you to climb the security bosses tower easier because the vents are no longer toxic.

And while you're essentially doing the same type of thing over and over again in different parts of the city (fight robots at monorail, destroy various equipment at dig sites, etc) they throw enough twists into different ones as you progress that it keeps things interesting. Not to mention as you destroy more and more of the infrastructure, they start sending more and more enemy raids at you. Plus your ever increasing abilities and gadgets.

I've even come around on the cloud damage since the tech test, because some of the other maps have some simply insane shit going on in terms of colossal damage. They picked the shittiest map for the tech test. I still don't see the MP being anything special, but that damage is legit.

I have also wondered for awhile, what kind of impact GamePass has both on expectations for games, and how people feel about them after playing them. I paid $50 for the UE of State of Decay 2, so it doesn't apply, but how would I feel about CD3 if I paid $65 for it as opposed to paying $10 a month and getting it on the service? Maybe this helps explain some of the gap between how the general gamer attitude about Crackdown 3 is as opposed to reviewers.

Problem is, that Phill have promised for like 4-6 years to improve 1st party. And we have had people in the site defending that it isn't something he can do over night, but then on 6 month window they buy/increase/create 5-10 studios? It clearly shows that it wasn't something in the top of their list until now, and he have been lying for a long time.

He really isn't. When you see reviews the tier of the game in question certainly affects the score. I don't see reviewers using similar metrics to evaluate GTAV, GoW, etc compared to let's say Celeste, Flower, etc.. they are on their tier about top notch, they have high score, but you can hardly defend that if the Indies or A tier were judged as harsh as they do to AAA they would hold their scores.

I would say people are more lenient when they pay less for that content. Sure that a game won't become the best or worse you ever played based on being free or costing over 60 USD. But the middle term can certainly be affected by how much it costed.