So far the game is meeting all expectations. Very addictive.

I get that feeling with a lot of games too. HLTB is just the average time to beat it. Some people are way faster, and others take way longer. I swear Xenoblade 2 took me almost 300 hours, but a lot of people were doing completionist runs at 150 hours. But I'm the sort that meanders around and takes his sweet time doing things. I'll explore every nook and cranny of a game before I move on. Then there's the kid at my local game shop back in Phoenix who beat Enter the Gungeon in four hours. He was just really damned good at Shoot 'em ups. Anyway my point is we have to keep in mind that other people play differently than us, and this is just the average time. 

We can point out other games' average times though, and come to a reasonable conclusion that Crackdown 3 is short for an open world game. 

Well in Canada for post-graduation this is the scale we use and that i'm personally used to using. You need to get 66%(C+) to pass. You put more value on the letter Grade. 

In term of game ranking a pass C+ would be 6.5/10 or 6.6 & above. 

Letter Grading System - Graduate students

Still seems like 8.0-8.9, 7.0-7.9, 6.0-6.9 is the correct way of using your grading scale.

I tried the game yesterday and all I am gonna say is that it feels like a xb360 game. Definitely not my type of game. Is it really a 60 meta game?, I don't know. Don't feel like playing the game anymore.

It's all personal preference... really what is the difference between 6.3 and 6.4 or 7.1 and 7.2.  

There many grading scale on metacritic that use a 5 stars system without using 1/2 stars. So, there a huge gap between a each stars.  Some critics are ask to review game in genre that they don't enjoy. 

But, fortunately once you get enough score the Meta score stabilized. If you were to read all 73 critics for Crackdown 3 most of them tend to talk about how the game fail to live up to their expectations, match the development initial ambition for the game and doesn't innovate enough.  If it wasn't for gamepass and it was any other game and it received such low score I would of not bothered playing. 

Crackdown 3 got almost 20 reviews that are 50 and under, to me that's a broken game, buggy, unplayable & un-enjoyable game.  Over 25% reviewed this game has trash. 

I think it's a fun & enjoyable game that deserve a better score because you have the option to play it with gamepass. 

But you’re using random stats from a website to factually state Crackdown 3 is a “huge step back” from CD1 in terms of content. So you’ve beaten Crackdown, exactly what in the game do you think takes over 40 hours for a “completionist”? 

Also comparisons with games using this website is dumb as hell. Thanks to the proliferation of websites that give you guides on achievements and trophies I could easily look up a map to see all the orbs and complete the game much faster. It’s just not a reliable way to compare the games. There’s much more to do in CD3 and of course multiplayer.

So for Opencritic any game below 65 is considered weak? This clearly shows 66-74 is on mediocre/average as we usually see claimed in VGC.

Well that is collective of people experience, what you see can be totally different though.

You only claim it is fair because it defends your point, that is the issue.

Ok you considering it mid tier, even if from what we see from MS along the years put it as high tier to them. But that really isn't much of a worthy discussion.

Sincerely I find it very hard to believe that the best implementation of UE4 would be on the lower end of the scores (we do know that very few game score lower than 60), and even without playing it I also wouldn't see 60 as an appropriate score for a game that works well and deliver what it's supposed to do.

If the gaming score really used full spectrum from 0 to 10, instead of 5 to 10, then perhaps 60 would be a fitting score, like a little above average. But on our use of the scale 7-7.5 seems more likely to be right.

You miss some intervals in your scale =p and yes considering how we have scores 6-6.5 should have only bad games with under 6 broken. And on that I hardly see justifiable to give CD3 a 6.

And yes, it is a mess even on Metacritic themselves to have any consensus.

Price and scope is taken in consideration. I'm pretty adamant that they evaluate Indies, AAA, platforms different scales. Because we can certainly find a plethora of worse games but that had smaller scope and expectation scoring better than CD3.

And as much as I don't like MP and could completely ignore it, if it's part of the package it should be considered. Of course a critic could put it like "Solid and fun campaign, 7.5, dragged by a shitty MP" on the review.

I much prefer continuous than discrete =p

Just as a general statement, y'all need to stop devaluing negative reviews just so you can feel good about yourselves.

Bad or middling reviews don't mean a game doesn't have value. A game can get a 5/10 and still be enjoyable for certain people, you know. A game like this which has an average review aggregate around 60% means that it's overall not good (especially when compared to other games similar to it, within its genre, or overall), but that doesn't mean it's not fun. There are people out there who LOVE Fallout 76, and that was a dumpster fire of a game.

That doesn't mean it was a good game.

I actually kinda feel sorry for anyone desperate enough to cling to such small victories. What sort of gaming life do you have that THIS is the hill you want to die upon?

Furthermore, Xbox just can't catch a break. Three of its last four exclusives (State of Decay 2, Sea of Thieves, Forza Horizon 4, and Crackdown 3) all had bad to terrible reviews, ESPECIALLY compared to PS4 and Switch. When Sony's putting out games like God of War and Spider-Man while Nintendo is putting out stuff like Super Smash Bros. Ultimate and Octopath Traveler, it's kind of sad to see the only great game to come out on Xbox One over the past two years has been Forza.

I did a bit of digging on GameRankings (I prefer it to MetaCritic, personally; way easier to sort and search for what I'm looking for and 2 more decimal places) and I found the following data in 2018. Now, these are for console exclusives, not including PC or last-gen/portable games, just games that exist solely on PS4 but not on Switch/Xbox One, On Switch but not PS4/Xbox One, or on Xbox One but not PS4/Switch. They also needed to have 20 or more reviews to be counted (Sadly few indies for this reason; had to be consistent with the rules; that sad we both know that PS4 and Switch would be GREATLY helped if I lowered the review threshold). So, for exclusives, we have:

Sony had 4 games with a 90% or higher
Nintendo had 1 game with 90% or higher
Microsoft had 1 game with 90% or higher

Sony had 9 games with 85% or higher
Nintendo had 3 games with 85% or higher
Microsoft had 1 game with 90% or higher.

Sony had 12 games with 80% or higher
Nintendo had 6 games with 80% or higher
Microsoft had 1 game with 80% or higher (Seeing a pattern here?)

Sony had 13 games with 75% or higher
Nintendo had 11 games with 75% or higher
Microsoft had 1 game with 75% or higher (Still only Forza Horizon 4)

Sony had 14 games with 70% or higher
Nintendo had 14 games with 70% or higher
Microsoft had....drum roll please........1 game with 70% or higher.

Now, some of those games went multiplatform this year or will be (HEre's looking at you, Dragon Quest XI), but for 2018, those are the stats. As you can see, Sony and Nintendo had a BUNCH of exclusive titles to come out on their respective platform. anything under 70% tends to be overlooked (I used to only go 80% or higher, then down to 75% and now 70%, but I don't see myself going down any farther than that since at this point we start to get to games that aren't that well liked at all, even if the 'reviews' had them pegged as 'decent').

So when people criticize Microsoft for not having any exclusives, that's why. They released a few games in 2018 and 2019, so here are Microsoft's Exclusives that got 20 reviews or more and their GameRankings %:

92.24% - Forza Horizon 4
67.68% - Sea of Thieves
65.67% - State of Decay 2
61.57% - Crackdown 3

Not only is that number low (only 4 games), but outside of Forza they're all middling to poorly reviewed. Does that mean the games lack value? Hell no, wanton destruction or squad-based pirating have their place, as do zombie survival games...they're just not good examples of that.

Point is: Dynasty Warriors 9 got better reviews than Crackdown 3, and even Jim Sterling hated that game and he's a total lover of that franchise!

So yeah, that's the bottom line. Microsoft's exclusives suck lately. They have for years. Even if you go back to 2017 to add Cuphead, Forza 7, and Halo Wars 2, it still pales in comparison to the output of either PS4 or Switch. Xbox One, spread between 2017, 2018, and 2019 doesn't compare to a single year of either PS4 or Switch. Nintendo, in less than 2 full years, has already got an exclusive lineup far better than what Xbox One has accrued in more than five years. That there, that's a problem. Maybe instead of clinging to your brand loyalty, it might be time to jump ship. No point in being sunk with it. 

P.S. Super Lucky's Tail, which came out in 2017 and therefore wasn't involved in this discussion for the most part, got 63.95%, making THAT game get better reviews than crackdown.)

They showed a lot of first party stuff at E3 2015. Gears 4, Halo 5, Forza, Fable, ReCore, Gears Ultimate, Cuphead, Rare Replay, and Sea of Thieves. That's nine games. Also remember that Papa Phil considers anything with a partnership to be first party, so thats why he'd consider Cuphead first party. That's a ton of content.

The rest of your links don't provide an ounce of credibility to your argument. Did you even read them? The only relevant one is the first one where he says that they will increase their commitment to first party studios... and it's from 2018, aka last year, the year they bought like 6 studios. The second one discusses no more buying third party exclusives and that seems to be the case? Maybe I'm mistaken but I can't think of any after Tomb Raider. The last one is mostly generic PR stuff throwing out names of exclusive launch window games and other exclusives not released yet.

So in those links, in one he said they were going to commit harder to their studios and they went out and bought a bunch of them. What a liar. /s