Crackdown 3 Review Thread - MC: 60 OC: 62

[DonFerrari]

Ryuu96 said:

DonFerrari said:

From what I remember around the time of the start of this gen MS hd a 5B budget to acquisition/expansion of new studios, which they also used for TV shows if I'm not wrong. So half of it gone to Mohjang, and there were creation of coaltion and 1,2,3 or whatever. Some of those studios they created didn't produce anything as far as we know.

Nope, acquisition budget is a shared budget across the whole of Microsoft, Mojang didn't come out of a '$5B Budget' it came out of a $90B overseas cash reserve, you're thinking of when Don Mattrick said they were investing $1B into Xbox One content. The Coalition has existed since 2010 but gone through a series of name changes, the only other studio they've created this gen are Lift London (Who are no longer an Xbox studio) and The Initiative (From last year).

Well my memory got me then, because I do remember a claim of they having 5B of investment at the start of the gen. But if I was wrong sorry.

And yes googling it I had just this https://www.polygon.com/2013/5/29/4375392/microsoft-has-1-billion-to-invest-in-exclusive-xbox-one-titles on the 1B you mentioned. Although I don't remember they having 8 new IPs and 15 exclusives on launch, but maybe some were smaller games that we just don't remember.

eva01beserk said:

DonFerrari said:

From what I remember around the time of the start of this gen MS hd a 5B budget to acquisition/expansion of new studios, which they also used for TV shows if I'm not wrong. So half of it gone to Mohjang, and there were creation of coaltion and 1,2,3 or whatever. Some of those studios they created didn't produce anything as far as we know.

Anyway, we heard a lot of predictions of MS wining this gen based on their infinite money and buying studios and exclusives all around (as they did for some release window exclusives that they had more than Sony).

But now we are reviewing the past and saying they never committed to increase 1st party before last year.

Excuses are bound to run out eventually. At least the pray and wait for Phil wont last longer than the begining of next gen. One more year for that.

I don't think we will be free of Don having influenced the design of the nextbox because they start developing a new system as soon as the current one launches.

On People saying Phill haven't promissed in the past https://www.polygon.com/2015/4/20/8456445/phil-spencer-e3-2015-first-party-exclusive-games and also don't remember there being that many 1st party on their E3 on that year.

https://www.destructoid.com/-paying-for-third-party-exclusives-isn-t-our-long-term-strategy-says-xbox-s-phil-spencer-297090.phtml

http://hardwareblitz.com/microsoft-invested-expanding-first-party-studios-says-phil-spencer/

http://fortune.com/2014/04/25/new-xbox-head-phil-spencer-discusses-evolving-games-industry/ and this one is funny when talking about the mistakes of the reveal he doesn't criticize the ideas they had on what Xbox should be nor the mandate Kinect, he said they could have made their vision more clear. So here also goes that defense of Spencer having fought back and nothing Don Mattrick done being also on his responsability.

Machiavellian said:

DonFerrari said:

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.

Actually I would also consider this one of those uninformed opinion.  You really do not know what it took to get the budget to purchase these companies.  You have no clue how long contract talks, benefits all the things that are worked out in the purchase of another business.  Just from the experience on the company I worked for just the purchase of one company took 3 years working out the deal.  If the company wasn't up for purchase at the start it could take even longer until you offer the right deal and money.  Just because you see in 6 months 3 studios purchased does not show how long it took to get to this point.  This is why sometimes I have a problem with how gamers view things.  For some reason you all believe things just happen right away.  MS started 6 months ago woeing these companies and bam it happen.  

You can consider all you want. But when all deals get closed/announced pig backed it is quite hard to believe they all started around the same time and finished together. Even more when we hear cases of one of the studios selling because they had a hard time on cash even with success of Senua, which is a recent game. Or devs that were from other company, got independent and them bought on a short time.

Also it really wouldn't take 3 years to increase or open additional teams.

Mr Puggsly said:

DakonBlackblade said:

It had investment, it had the marketing campaign (even placing proeminently at more than one E3), it has the big publisher behind it, it was suposed to be AAA. It failled miserably, MS just hid it in a corner so ppl would forget about it and then pretended it wasn't suposed to be a very big title that fell terribly short. In fact it kinda still is AAA, that is not a measure of quality thats a measure of investment/marketing and the game had a lot of that troughout its 5 year production cycle. I find that a game in this situation has no excuses to justify its lack of polish and for being as dated as this is.

And on the fun matter, thats entirely subjective, if ppl are having fun with it great, ppl can have fun with almost anything and tastes vary from person to person, the complainig about reviews and trying to find excuses for why the game isn't being praized is asinine tough, and I don't mean that for Crackdown 3 exclusively, it always is. The cries of underated or overated are dumb, these things are based on a consensus by very big collective of analysis by professionals, everything is rated just as they were suposed to be, one person's opinion on the matter won't change the consensus.

I'm gonna recommend you watch the Digital Foundry video for Crackdown 3, the campaign video. Because some of the things you're saying just aren't reality. For a UE4 game, its one of the more polished games using that engine. MS played trailers at numerous E3s, many delays allow that to happen, but that doesn't make it AAA. Also, the game didn't appear to change much since the 2017 trailer.

I don't think anybody is arguing the game should be praised though. I think the reviews were harsh given the game isn't buggy, it actually is polished and its fun. Its probably my favorite game to ever score that low. I'm actually less bothered by the critics and more bothered by people like you that haven't played the game but have opinions.

To anybody that wants to have an opinion without actually playing, at least try watching the Digital Foundry video covering the campaign. Especially if you're the kind of person that makes claims its not polished.

How many low tier games do you remember appearing in so many E3s, having hype and touting a special feature of the platform?

Games doesn't lose score only on the merit of being buggy. And on being one of the most polished, do you have any source?

Why people that want to have an opinion needs to watch a specific video that praises the game you want to address? Why all other reviewers aren't acceptable to base the opinion?

yvanjean said:

vivster said:

I never said that they aren't making them. I was implying that the failure of another high profile 1st party game might dampen their efforts and enthusiasm in making many more of them. You should read what I write and not what you want to read.

As for my impressions and the vast majority of critics, it turned out to be right. The game was early announced and rarely talked about, the first preview we got looked like a 360 game without any life and that whole thing with the cloud was complete bullshit from the start anyway. So yes, my and many people's first impression was completely justified. In my opinion the game should get a default 5 point deduction for that whole cloud bullshit, where MS was actively lying to consumers. So anything above 5 is a reward for this game.

Also, unless a review is is talking untruths it cannot be wrong.

I'm not reading what I want to read, you simply made a stupid comment and I'm trying to informed you. Because, you clearly seem to imply that Crackdown 3 was the crowning achievement of Microsoft effort on Xbox one and this will dampen their effort. Your simply ignoring all the re-investment in gaming and the studios that Microsoft acquired in the last year that clearly prove you couldn't be further from the truth. Crackdown 3 was in development nightmare and was a game from the previous regime at Xbox that wanted to push for cloud gaming. Instead of cancelling yet another failure development, Phil Spencer and co at Microsoft tried to salvage the work done so far and made a half decent game. Including Terry Crews to the game really help it stand out for what was a very mediocre effort help give character to the game. The game is virtually glitch and problem free in my 15 hours of gameplay, I haven't experience any issues or bugs, from a technical point of view it's a very well made game. Like I said personally I would give the campaign a 7.5/10, I don't intend to play much of the multiplayer but that doesn't justify the 5/10 score.  

I disagree with your cloud bullshit statement, I think the game should be judge on the final result not on the development. It's not like Microsoft lied about what the final game would finally deliver and the cloud tech was more a technical feature demo then it was trailer for crackdown 3. At the time when they were talking about Crackdown 3 it was going to push cloud gaming tech. 

I think most of the 5/10 keep talking about the 5 year development that were needed to create Crackdown 3 and that the final result doesn't quite add to their expectation of a game that would of been in development for so long. But, if you actually took the time to try out Crackdown 3, the game is hardly worth a score of 5/10. But, Reviews are subjective and the reviewers are entitle to their opinions. Crackdown 3 is a fun game that can be played for very cheap if you get gamepass. I don't think anyone should pay full retail price when they have the gamepass option. If you don't have access to internet, you should wait for a price drop because I expect this game to be discount soon after release or go somewhere with internet access and take advantage of gamepass. It's not a bad game just not a master piece. 

A half decent game (your call) really doesn't deserve any score above average. So 60 meta is about right. You wanting to give half decent a 7.5 really would be a score distortion, how would you differentiate a half decent, decent, average, good, great, excellent and epic? Would all be on a 0.5 difference?

@thread It is funny to see people that say score doesn't matter defending this game should have scored higher, also even funnier that on games that have achieved 90+ meta when others criticized the odd score of 40 they would defend that some people didn't agree that game was great but then here can't accept that most critics didn't like this game.