Mr Puggsly said:
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 don't think it has much to do with being a "throwback". Most of the reviews I read thought that it was too repetitious, unvaried, and even boring. Those aren't properties inherent in older games, just older games that weren't well designed. One review said that everything kind of turns into "white noise," with nothing to break it up.
Now, if you love that particular kind of white noise then you'll probably like the game. If you don't love it, then you probably won't like the game very much, because there seems to be almost nothing else, no other degree of depth or substance other than that white noise. It's a one trick pony and you'd have to really, really enjoy that one trick to buy that pony. That's why I don't see any problem with the negative reviews or review scores. Writers aren't just writing these reviews for people who already like the Crackdown formula, they're writing them for everyone, from a general perspective.
Which is why people should read the damn reviews instead of worrying about that little number at the end.