That is a totally fine point. As one reviewer who gave 90 (and I don't think it was unfairly high of him) pointed out. Something  "If you liked Crackdown you'll like Crackdown 3". And yes a bad score shouldn't prevent you from trying a game, even more if you know what it is about and that is the type of thing you like.

No problem. I wasn't being sarcastic. You not liking what others/critics like, and liking what others don't is totally fine. You weren't saying GoW is worse than SoT, is that for you it's better, even if because you have more fun.

Understood the second paragraph as well. Yes you shouldn't like/dislike something just because of the score or others liking as well. I love things that most don't like, and also like some they like.

I'm suggesting some of the reviews, like IGN's, is not even constructive criticism, barely a review, it sounds more like a guy sick of video games.

The guy at DF isn't saying its an amazing game or anything like that, I think he just has the perspective of those of us that are actually enjoying it. Its a fun action game and there isn't anything particularly wrong with it, its actually more polished than I anticipated given the development trouble.

Again, if you want to see why people actually enjoy this game try watching that video.

He has a perspective you agree with. Which is fine, but let's call it what it is. And IGN has been meh with reviews in general. 

Well I must say, I played the game last night... its umm.. actually not as bad as many make it out to be. Its actually quite addictive and fun in a old school way. Its not amazing or great but its definitely not bad. The MP mode I struggled to get a good connection due to my poor internet and the cloud physics really push it to its limits. I do enjoy the physics in the MP mode and hoping its the building blocks for future games as devs get better at using the Cloud. Game probably sits around a 7/10 for me. I would easily recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the original games. Its actually refreshing to play a game that's not trying to be like every other game. Also the visuals on a 4k TV look pretty good, all the hate saying this game looks like trash, its one of those games you need to actually see for yourself.

For those who want a honest look and opinion on the game than I recommend watching DF analysis which I linked below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lks6E81EWE&t=8s

Terry Crew's acting alone in the game is worth a check out. 

Well MS can't just focus on what the critics enjoy per se. I mean Sea of Thieves has apparently become a big hit in spite of the critics.

I question if MS anticipated Crackdown 3 would get reviews this bad, because I genuinely feel it delivers what Crackdown fans wanted. Perhaps that's why MS gave out Crackdown 1 multiple times, just to tell people they're doing more of that for the most part.

I mean I understand why games like Recore or Lucky's Tale didn't review well. Although, when a game Lucky's Tale reviews better than Crackdown 3, well I begin to feel reviews just don't matter for this game.

I'm saying if people are willing to take the low scoring reviews as an indication this game shouldn't exist, "it should have been cancelled." I am suggesting try watching the DF video not solely because I agree with it, but its not the disaster some are perceiving.

I get the impression if you want to make a game fun in an "old school way" it has to be in 8 - 16 bit graphics. Otherwise it will get attacked for not pushing the genre forward.

I had fun with this game last night, played a few hours. Its jumping in the front of game I'm playing at the moment.

I kind of wonder if the fact that this game was developed by different divisions or studios for different parts of the game fucked it up. We know that may have been the reason Metroid Prime 4's development was rocky, and that resulted in that version being cancelled and development re-starting from the ground up. Plus I believe Gears Judgment had it's campaign developed by Epic Games, but it's multiplayer developed by People Can Fly, and that game was received as rocky.

For what it's worth, this game is actually very beautiful in singleplayer. I might be mistaken but it seems to me like the campaign is a lot more detailed than multiplayer. So I don't really think the whole "it's such an ugly looking game" really applies to that portion of the game.

Also, the Digital Foundry video was nice.

I agree that people shouldn't let critic scores be the sole reason why they buy or pass on a game. I have enjoyed many games with mixed reviews and disliked many with rave reviews. It all comes down to preferences.

With that said, I think review scores are important for a developer/publishers reputation and its one of the reasons (not only reason, but a big one) that has prevented XBO from getting out of its 7-8 million/year sales pace.

Like the list I provided a few posts back showed, outside of Halo/Gears/Forza, most of their published exclusives fall in the 50-74% range which is considered mixed-average. That doesnt mean those games are bad or cant be enjoyed but from a consumer perspective it doesnt look good when Nintendo/Sony are cranking out exclusive games at a faster pace and with better critical reception.

Microsoft doesnt need to make massive changes to fix this, games that score in the 50-74% range usually do some things very well and have alot of potential but a few noticeable flaws prevent them from reaching that next level. With a few tweaks to their development process you could see them consistently cranking out 75-89% (good-great) rated games instead of 50-74% (mixed-average).

If they can pull that off next generation than their reputation as a developer/publisher will improve alot in my opinion.

Come on, you can't get more old school than Tetris, and Tetris effect sits at 89.
Doom 2016 sits at 85-87.
Nex Machina 88.
Cuphead 88.

Old school doesn't have to be 8-16 bit and still gets reviewed well when done right.