By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Crackdown 3 Review Thread - MC: 60 OC: 62

Tagged games:

DonFerrari on 27 February 2019
SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm with you on that. Great games I want physical and I may buy full price or wait 6-12 months to pay less. All the rest I don't mind just downloading and paying very little for it.

I was more talking about the damn datacaps that go hand to hand with all digital consoles concepts. That in the end seems like you may end expending more and not even having the games in the end.

Yep, and every time you get a new PC/laptop you have to re-download everything.

Anyway, got my answer. If you install through the store it says it needs 25.8 GB. However if you install through updates/download gamepass tab, you can install the campaign seperately which takes 21.7 GB. So Wrecking zone is apparently 4.1 GB. 21.7 GB I still have room for!

Allowing partial downloads to only what you want to play is a great thing.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 28 February 2019
DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

DLCs are sold separate and cost extra money, that is reviewed individually.

Frankly, there have been many games that reviewed well for the campaign experience even if the MP felt forced in. That was especially prevalent last gen and early in the 8th gen.

Again, you're adding nothing to the discussion.

Not all DLC are sold, and some are even part of the disc. Very few DLC ever get reviews, even more for a Meta.

Also those games you are saying but not listing, had the MP also evaluated. But did they suck? And how can you assure it didn't take any of the score due to it?

Again, you're adding nothing to this.

On a side note, I'm not even sure critics are factoring in MP when they reviewed this game. You're speaking as they definitely did.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

SvennoJ on 28 February 2019

My first impressions are pretty much in line with a 6/10 game. Yes, it is polished, runs well (some occasional stutter on pc even from SSD yet not game breaking) and looks pretty good. It falls short in fluidity in movement and animations. After Spiderman the movement feels quite clunky and dated making the combat feel lacking something. I'm not far in yet, just the first boss and a station master defeated, 15 orbs or so collected. Perhaps it gets more fun later, however it can't compete with FH4 for my attention. Not a chance.

I did not download the multiplayer app as I don't have gold anyway. FH4 seems to work fine without gold as I see other players driver around as ghosts, yet I'm assuming you need it for actual multiplayer matches and games like sea of thieves? It says xbox live required to play on xbox in the store, does that mean it's not required when playing on PC?

Ahh: If you're playing on Windows 10, you do not need an Xbox Live Gold subscription to play online.

Awesome, when my usage cycle resets, more games to try out! Odd strategy by MS but I like it.



Machiavellian on 28 February 2019
DonFerrari said:

You don't need to play something to not like it, you can see gameplay and read the reviews glaring points to base the opinion that the game isn't good. Even more you can't even be sure if people that are criticizing haven't played just because you don't like what they say.

Yes, you do not need to play something to not like it just like you do not need to know someone to dislike them.  The thing is people throw out opinions as if they played the game or if its a person like they know the person.  There are many games I thought looked like junk or did not look interesting when looking at the gameplay but changed my mind once I actually had a chance to play.  At the end of the day, an opinion without first hand experience is pretty much only worthy to the person giving it.  I would always take an opinion from someone who shares my interest in the type of games I play who has experience with a game then any particular critic or a person just throw off their opinion with no knowledge of the game outside of their knowledge of reviews.



DonFerrari on 28 February 2019
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

You don't need to play something to not like it, you can see gameplay and read the reviews glaring points to base the opinion that the game isn't good. Even more you can't even be sure if people that are criticizing haven't played just because you don't like what they say.

Yes, you do not need to play something to not like it just like you do not need to know someone to dislike them.  The thing is people throw out opinions as if they played the game or if its a person like they know the person.  There are many games I thought looked like junk or did not look interesting when looking at the gameplay but changed my mind once I actually had a chance to play.  At the end of the day, an opinion without first hand experience is pretty much only worthy to the person giving it.  I would always take an opinion from someone who shares my interest in the type of games I play who has experience with a game then any particular critic or a person just throw off their opinion with no knowledge of the game outside of their knowledge of reviews.

And that is a pretty valid position to make. Certainly if I had enjoyed the first couple games I would be more inclined to buy and test the 3rd one even with low grades. The discussion is more on the "the scores are unfair because I like the game" than scores define if anyone is allowed to like the game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 28 February 2019

If you participated in the Crackdown tech test, you should have an XBL message today with a free month of GamePass aka the “Netflix of gaming”.



Machiavellian on 01 March 2019
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

Yes, you do not need to play something to not like it just like you do not need to know someone to dislike them.  The thing is people throw out opinions as if they played the game or if its a person like they know the person.  There are many games I thought looked like junk or did not look interesting when looking at the gameplay but changed my mind once I actually had a chance to play.  At the end of the day, an opinion without first hand experience is pretty much only worthy to the person giving it.  I would always take an opinion from someone who shares my interest in the type of games I play who has experience with a game then any particular critic or a person just throw off their opinion with no knowledge of the game outside of their knowledge of reviews.

And that is a pretty valid position to make. Certainly if I had enjoyed the first couple games I would be more inclined to buy and test the 3rd one even with low grades. The discussion is more on the "the scores are unfair because I like the game" than scores define if anyone is allowed to like the game.

I agree that just because someone likes a game that low scores should be thrown out or ignored.  I will say that their can be a certain base bias that goes into scores especially if reviewers consciously or unconsciously enjoy one platform over another.  Either way, the vast amount of low scores means that CD3 is one of those games where its a love or hate type of game.  If going by the reviews you are probably going to enjoy the game based on your expectations and style of gameplay you like not because the game is broken or some rushed out cash grab.



DonFerrari on 01 March 2019
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

And that is a pretty valid position to make. Certainly if I had enjoyed the first couple games I would be more inclined to buy and test the 3rd one even with low grades. The discussion is more on the "the scores are unfair because I like the game" than scores define if anyone is allowed to like the game.

I agree that just because someone likes a game that low scores should be thrown out or ignored.  I will say that their can be a certain base bias that goes into scores especially if reviewers consciously or unconsciously enjoy one platform over another.  Either way, the vast amount of low scores means that CD3 is one of those games where its a love or hate type of game.  If going by the reviews you are probably going to enjoy the game based on your expectations and style of gameplay you like not because the game is broken or some rushed out cash grab.

Yep, seems like competent enough that if you like the type of game and can ignore minor flaws and graphic not being very high quality you'll have good fun.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Runa216 on 01 March 2019
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

I agree that just because someone likes a game that low scores should be thrown out or ignored.  I will say that their can be a certain base bias that goes into scores especially if reviewers consciously or unconsciously enjoy one platform over another.  Either way, the vast amount of low scores means that CD3 is one of those games where its a love or hate type of game.  If going by the reviews you are probably going to enjoy the game based on your expectations and style of gameplay you like not because the game is broken or some rushed out cash grab.

Yep, seems like competent enough that if you like the type of game and can ignore minor flaws and graphic not being very high quality you'll have good fun.

Nobody's saying you can't have fun. It's a question of, relative to its cost and other games in its genre, HOW much fun are you having? Mediocre games can be fun, but when you stack everything up it just doesn't compare to its contemporaries. THAT is why it's getting middling or poor reviews, it's a disappointment to most. And those who play games for a living have played a LOT of games and find this one in particular to be boring, uninspired, repetitive, and lacking in polish. It's not a BAD game, but it's not a particularly good game, either. It exists. It's barely competent, and other games do what it does better. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

eva01beserk on 01 March 2019
Runa216 said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep, seems like competent enough that if you like the type of game and can ignore minor flaws and graphic not being very high quality you'll have good fun.

Nobody's saying you can't have fun. It's a question of, relative to its cost and other games in its genre, HOW much fun are you having? Mediocre games can be fun, but when you stack everything up it just doesn't compare to its contemporaries. THAT is why it's getting middling or poor reviews, it's a disappointment to most. And those who play games for a living have played a LOT of games and find this one in particular to be boring, uninspired, repetitive, and lacking in polish. It's not a BAD game, but it's not a particularly good game, either. It exists. It's barely competent, and other games do what it does better. 

Not worth $60. So why not try it on gamepass, then might as well try the other games there for te same $10. 

This kind of mediocre game is perfect advertisement for gamepass. Maybe this game was a disappointment on purpose. Maybe future xbox games are headed for the same fate. not to push sales or quality but to push gamepass subs.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.