Crackdown 3 Review Thread - MC: 60 OC: 62

[Mr Puggsly]

uh-huh said:

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.

But Crackdown 3 wasnt a lazy effort and I can make a massive list of current gen games that arent much different than last gen, or were feasible last gen. 8th gen for the most has just been better graphics.

If Crackdown 3 existed as is on multiple platforms I think it would have actually received more praise because the game is fine. Being a 1st party game is part of the criticism.