uh-huh on 25 February 2019
| smroadkill15 said: I've played 12 hours so far and I can say that it's not a bad game. I don't see a reason for it to have any scores below a 6. The game I would compare Crackdown 3 to No Mans Sky. The developers over promised on certain aspects and the end result wasn't what people were hoping. In this case, the multiplayer for Crackdown 3. I already said this, but the multiplayer for Crackdown is lackluster. No Mans Sky scored roughly 7/10, which is about where I would land my score for Crackdown. On the other hand, Crackdown 3's single player is exactly what I wanted and expected. Most people who enjoy Crackdown feel this way. It's easily a better game than Crackdown 2 which scored low 70's. If someone doesn't like Crackdown, then no problem. Everyone has their own taste in games. This doesn't mean Crackdown is a bad game or trash. I keep hearing these words from people who haven't even played it, and are simply parroting what others are saying. I wouldn't put 12 hours into a game if it was bad. |
No way this game deserves to be scored as well as NMS. NMS fell short of its promises at launch and rightfully got lambasted for it. But it still achieved quite a bit that had never before been attempted.
crackdown 3 didn’t promise much to begin with it looked and played like a cookie cutter last gen game and still managed to fall short. This level of laziness and incompetence doesn’t even deserve a score, critics should’ve refused to even review it. And I suspect if this weren’t a MS first party game it would’ve came and went without anyone even noticing.
