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.
At BOLDED: For me, this is the reason why I take reviewers opinion with a grain of salt unless they share similar interest in games I like. I have read way to many reviewer fatigue to know that its best to have a feel for a reviewer before taking their opinion to heart. Its like a drug, once you have it you are always looking for the next high. If you play games for a living and not for the pure enjoyment of playing games, they they are always looking for the next fix which old school games like CD3 will never satisfy. This is why you have to understand the goal of a game and the audience its trying to reach. There really isn't a lot of games that play like CD3 so trying to say other games do what it does better probably isn't the right way to look at it. Instead I would say other games does things differently and for gamers who are looking for those types of things, this isn't the game for them.
I don't know if that's really all that fair, to be honest. It's the same thing with film criticism; yes, a critic or reviewer may not share your ideals, but they have worlds more perspective than the average joe. When you've played basically everything, it's far easier to pick out flaws and far more welcome to praise quality when it shows up. 'good enough' is fine for the average person, but for reviewers, 'good enough' is boring. it's bland. It's not fun to play but it's also not fun to talk about.
I'd rather play something outlandishly bad like Ride to Hell Retribution than something bland like Crackdown. I'd rather play something outstanding like God of War or Red Dead Redemption than Far Cry 5. Crackdown and Far Cry are functional, decent games with plenty of content and carnage and catharsis, but they're kinda bland. competent, but bland. when you've reviewed things for so long and the 'average' game gets a 6/7 out of 10, then you ache for the games that impress or are just so amazingly bad it'sat least fun to talk about.
Crackdown, Sea of Thieves, and State of Decay are all 'meh' games. Not bad enough to warrant outlandish hatred but not good enough to recommend. Just bland. They exist, but bland.
In an era where we have as much variety and as many options as we do, 'bland' is not enough. 'okay' is shorthand for 'boring'.
My Console Library:
PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360
3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android
Top 6 this generation:
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4