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 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. 



Around the Network
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.

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. 

I know no one said it. And I know people are trying to use "I had fun there after the critics are wrong". But some people will have plenty of fun even if others think it's very bad.

eva01beserk said:
Runa216 said:

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.

Doesn't seem much logical to push bad or mediocre as incentive to sell a platform. I rather not play even for free a bad game. So I doubt MS plan on doing the games mediocre to advertise gamepass.



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 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. 

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.



Machiavellian said:
Runa216 said:

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 agree on preferring to look at reviewers that may have similar taste, and also read what is said to see if perhaps what he is putting as good or bad align with what you want on that game. There are also plenty of reviewers doing reviews for types of game they abhor which is about useless, even if some say they want to hear a reviewer who hate that type of game to see if it's worthy or not.



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

Haven’t had a chance to try it yet, though the reviews don’t look promising. Anyone know how the multiplayer mode is?



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

barneystinson69 said:
Haven’t had a chance to try it yet, though the reviews don’t look promising. Anyone know how the multiplayer mode is?

Very unique, probably the most unique MP mode I have played in a very long time. But it’s also very bare bones and ultimately not that great. 

It reminds me of when the network adapter launched for PS2 and we saw a bunch of shallow shooters with MP that had no progression or depth or stat tracking, it was just there. That’s what the MP feels like, but slightly enjoyable. They don’t even have group matchmaking in yet. 

The tech with the cloud stuff is cool, some of the destruction is pretty spectacular, but overall it’s meh.

Im just about done with the game and will write one of my Unbiased Reviews for it. I’d give it a 7.5, iirc the same score I gave Spider-Man and probably 1 point higher than I’d give Mad Max, another open world game in playing through right now. 



Machiavellian said:
Runa216 said:

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'.



Finally beat it. On the hardest setting, that final boss fight was a pain. But very enjoyable, and surprising as hell. Also spoilers, the ending sets up nicely for a Crackdown 4.



Runa216 said:
Machiavellian said:

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'.

Would you really care if a critic thought a particular movie like "The Note" was a awesome movie but its not a movie you would either want to see or enjoy but that same critic game a movie like "The Terminator" a low score but its right up your ally and something you think is awesome.  By that same metric, if the critic who thought the Terminator is awesome and also thought the "The Note" is awesome as well, even if its not a movie you normally enjoy you might take a stab at it.  If a reviewer loves RPGs but doesn't like FPS shooters, would I really care about his or her more perspective.

Even your analogy on games you would perfer to play like Red Dead and GOW, I have friends who thought Red Dead was boring and GOW was pretty but mundane.  I personally loved GOW and actually was bored of Red Dead and probably would enjoy Crackdown 3 because I like games where I can just jump in, destroy crap and make my own fun.