Crackdown 3 Review Thread - MC: 60 OC: 62

[DonFerrari]

Cerebralbore101 said:

DonFerrari said:

 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.

 

This is what you said... not that they took a half decent, but that they made a half decent game. Terry Crews doesn't change the game one iota. It certainly can help promotion or some people enjoyment, but the game doesn't change because of he.

So again your evaluation of half decent doesn't deserve a 75 score.

Also I agree that a game shouldn't be evaluated on expectations, but on what it delivers. But matter of fact unless you think there is a conspiracy of reviewers it seems like they don't like what was delivered more than just taking points on their expectations. If we were discussing a 90+ game that deserve let's say 95 but lost some points in some reviews because the reviewer wanted stuff that is his like not what the game is about that would be a different discussion.

Could swear I remember a Metacritic thread where some people were defending that for game 70 is average/mediocre and other group defended that average would be 50 up to 60. VGC really lacks a consensus on what thresholds we separate broken, bad, regular, good, great, excellent, epic, etc.

Opencritic has a formula for whether a game is tagged as Weak, Fair, Strong, or Mighty. 

The OpenCritic rating is based on the percentile ranking of each game's Top Critic Average:

• Mighty: Games averaging in the 90th or above percentile
• Strong: Games averaging in the 60th to 90th percentile
• Fair: Games averaging in the 30th to 60th percentile
• Weak: Games averaging in the bottom 30 percent of games

The Top Critic Average cutoffs happen to be 84 and above, 75-83, 66-74, and 65 and below. Note that, for a game to have a Top Critic Average, it must have at least 3 numeric reviews from top critics.

In order to be weak, a game has to be in the bottom 30 percent. 

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

Cerebralbore101 said:

I thought it would take 30 days for enough people to do completionist runs. But I guess not. Enough people have beaten it.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=38828

49 people beat the game already. Crackdown 1 was a 43.5 hours long for completionists. https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1964 Crackdown 3 is 13.5 hours long for completionists. The game was a massive step back from the original 2007 release, in terms of content. 

I don't believe that's accurate. In the original Crackdown you basically kill the bosses and upgrade all your stats. Other than that you chase orb things and do driving missions. Crackdown 3 actually has more stuff to do.

I COULD elaborate. But why should I bother? Its evident you don't know anything about these games really.

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

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:  

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?

I'd say Crackdown 3 is more like mid tier, not low tier. The game was at a bunch of E3s because of delays and the MP was ultimately thrown together.

Again, games as polished and feel as tight as Crackdown 3 generally don't score that low. My source? I say that as someone who has played numerous UE4 games on Xbox One and the Digital Foundry guys were also impressed.

I'm suggesting people who are in this thread and know nothing about this game (like yourself) should watch that video. Its a fair analysis and will likely change your views a bit.

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.

yvanjean said:

DonFerrari said:

 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.

 

This is what you said... not that they took a half decent, but that they made a half decent game. Terry Crews doesn't change the game one iota. It certainly can help promotion or some people enjoyment, but the game doesn't change because of he.

So again your evaluation of half decent doesn't deserve a 75 score.

Also I agree that a game shouldn't be evaluated on expectations, but on what it delivers. But matter of fact unless you think there is a conspiracy of reviewers it seems like they don't like what was delivered more than just taking points on their expectations. If we were discussing a 90+ game that deserve let's say 95 but lost some points in some reviews because the reviewer wanted stuff that is his like not what the game is about that would be a different discussion.

Could swear I remember a Metacritic thread where some people were defending that for game 70 is average/mediocre and other group defended that average would be 50 up to 60. VGC really lacks a consensus on what thresholds we separate broken, bad, regular, good, great, excellent, epic, etc.

That's the main problem there no standard for rating. To some people a 4/10 doesn't mean it's broken/awful game. 

We already talk about this in a previous thread but for Metacritic they rank game in three categories:
Positive 75-100
Mixed  50-74
Negative 0-50

Personally for me:
9.0+ Masterpiece
8.0-8.5 Great game
7- 7.5 Good game
6.0-6.5 Bad Game
anything under 6 is Broken or Awful game

There are many issues with ranking this game, should you consider the price? I don't think a bad Multiplayer that can be ignored should lower the score of the overall game review. If you do consider the price you must also consider the Gamepass.

Full retail price - Campaign and MP - I would rate this game a 6.
If you ignore the price entirely and rate the package I would rate this game 7.5
Gamepass  - I would rate this game a 8    

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.

yvanjean said:

zorg1000 said:

Very odd ranges, is there a reason you dont list 8.6-8.9, 7.6-7.9 & 6.6-6.9?

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

Descriptor	Letter Grade	Grade Point Value
Excellent	A+ A A-	4.0 4.0 3.7
Good	B+ B	3.3 3.0
Satisfactory	B- C+	2.7 2.3
Failure	C C- D+ D F	2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.0

I much prefer continuous than discrete =p