The lengths people will go to in denial of the most obvious and likely outcome is sort of amusing.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Crackdown 3 Review Thread
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
The lengths people will go to in denial of the most obvious and likely outcome is sort of amusing.
Because it's a game that literally ignores just about every advancement and evolution within the medium since the first game released twelve years ago.
And the MP isn't particularly good either.
It's not a bad game but it's certainly nothing special and unless you simply want Crackdown 1 with slightly better visuals and practically no other added features or improvements you're going to come away underwhelmed.
To put CD3 in perspective, Apex Legends is F2P yet has better gameplay mechanics, visuals and overall production values than CD3, which MS hyped as a AAA release.
Don't worry, he is just "putting out there" you know? Just asking some questions...
Or maybe they think it's a middling game. It's really not that complex fam.
I have played 90+mc games that are way worse than some 60mc games. It's subjective. Reviewers didn't all collectively get together and decide this is the game that they were choosing to abandon their professional integrity for and create clickbait reviews.
We are on rapidly getting into a "the reviewers are part of a secret cabal hell-bent on destroying Crackdown 3" narrative now.
The best people are the ones not even in here but bitching about everyone who doesn't like the game in other Crackdown threads.
Funnily enough, that's exactly what Arthur Gies claimed about Vanquish.
This reminds me a lot of the order 1886 review thread.
But I think burned even more because the order looked amazing.
But I think burned even more because the order looked amazing.
Greenberg has always been a douche. He was a bigger douche during 360/ps3 days.
Imagine if Insomniac made Crackdown 3.
Just imagine.
We saw this in the Sea of Thieves thread, the No Man's Sky thread, and The Order thread before it.
Funny thing? Almost everyone sooner or later takes off the rose-colored glasses and comes over to where everyone else is/was.
Just imagine.
Stages of grief are pretty typical in threads like these among the most strident of fans.
We saw this in the Sea of Thieves thread, the No Man's Sky thread, and The Order thread before it.
Funny thing? Almost everyone sooner or later takes off the rose-colored glasses and comes over to where everyone else is/was.
that man has a family. at least leave them something to bury.
What, specifically, do you think this game offers that is higher than a 4?
The visuals and animation are at least ten years behind the curve.
The gameplay mechanics are just as archaic and the core gameplay lacks any real variety.
The MP is nothing special and seems very bare bones and the oft-touted destruction is less impressive than a game made ten years ago. (Red Faction: Guerrilla)
True, enjoyment is subjective but I'd say a 4 is a very reasonable score having played it myself.
Yeah... Sometimes games are just bad folks.
Ori is coming later this year, just look forward to that since it will certainly be great.
Naa, its just that taking a crap on a game like this is really good business (if you are a website wanting to generate clicks). You can call me whatever you want, but god damn is it working, even on something like this review thread ;)
Not to derail, but Cross play is the future when it comes to having online games last longer. BEING split on different platforms for the same game doesn't make sense anymore. If online infrastructure was complete shit on one platform then I argue it makes sense to go where the stable infrastructure is. But currently, it's pretty good all around maybe Internal servers by Nintendo are not great for their first party, but that doesn't affect games like Rocket league and the likes.
The reason there's so much back and fourth is actually more of the fault of MS and Phil. He publicly wanted this game to hang in the same space as Halo, gears. ANd if that's what his vision was, then he should have let it become that and not be something that at the beginning was dictated by cloud tech which the rest of the company was trying to push for investors.
Sumo is a very talented bunch I still believe Sonic all stars transformed is better than mario kart. But they needed seriously to make the game they wanted, and if they had a vision that had them re-thinking what crackdown was then so be it.
Taking a game where there hasn't been anything since it's shit sequel in 2010 is not something I would have had them make and not update to modern open world games.
I feel bad, as they are very talented, but this project was mismanaged by higher ups and put into a spotlight when it was never super big to begin with and that blame goes on Phil.
He should have put his foot down at some point and been like the cloud stuff isn't working, were scrapping it. Maybe for a sequel. They could have seriously made an amazing multiplayer component with just premade destruction animations.
I would have done that, with a powerball tron type of setup where you start with nothing and have to pick up more orbs to get around, to jump to higher places to get weapons.
Last edited:
For all it's faults I actually think The Order is the better game by a significant margin. That game is both visually superb and the shooting is decent.
Crackdown 3 does nothing well. The shooting is boring, the platforming is weak, and the visuals do not impress in the slightest.
Disagree on the visuals part. I think it's look great. But I can see that it's a style you like or dislike.
So, you'd rather games get sent out as a surprise so people buy them without the knowledge of a review?
Yeah, I'm not up for that at all. We NEED reviews to warn us of Stinkers like this, Jump Force, Quiet Man etc.
I believe most people and reviews are talking about (1) the lateral movement character animations, (2) the poor mission design, (3) the lack of enemy diversity, (4) the car physics, (5) the lack of difficulty, (6) the lack of energy and excitement, (7) the lack of challenge for getting things like orbs, (8) the disappointing length, (9) frequently mediocre boss fights, and (10) the lack of NPC density/life in the world.
The visual clarity and colors are not among the complaints.
I'm playing it right now on pc and I totally disagree on every front.
What do you even mean with "game like this"? As someone else already said, why do you think 90% of reviwers suddenly decided to throw their integrity out the window for this game, simultatiously? Please do tell.
This thread is partially that big because people like you are in denial and come along with the most ridiculous arguments, like "reviews don't matter" in a review thread, or "90% of reviewers decided to shit on this game because for some reason this is the only game where clickbait works". Or disingenuous list wars. Or....I could go on, I'll stop here.
Just put off the tinfoil hat ffs.
There is a lot wrong with The Order. But it certainly looks leagues better than CD3.
That's exactly what someone just said in the thread. That's literally the first thing I read. I will play and judge the game for myself but from the little I've seen doesn't look like an early gen 360 game. That still doesn't mean it's a good game. I'm just not seeing how this looks like a game from 2009.
I'm glad you're enjoying it.
I think the game is one of the biggest failures of this gen.
To each their own.
When I see a 50-60, I expect something about the game to be fundamentally broken. Keeping in mind that the review scales generally seem to start at ~50, I would expect the game to crash a lot, or have horrible frame rates, unplayable or something huge like that.
The last footage I saw had a character trying to get into a car, getting stuck on the side of the car, animation completely frozen for a second, then teleporting to the car that's already driving away, all with either a compeltely frozen character or stiff as fuck animations.
Sorry but the animations most definetly look like a game from 2009.
Was that a bug or does that happen every time you try and get into a car? I get stuck on geometry and weird shit happens in a polished games like COD Black Ops 4 all of the time. I don't say it looks like COD Black Ops on 360.
I didn't try to replicate it. Tried the game at a friends place yesterday and sure as hell won't buy the game. All I can tell you is that the animations suck real bad.
Cool, if you read the contents you still should know very well what they were going for. Had nothing to do with opinions being subjective. At all.
A 50 should be a game that's completely average and not worth playing, despite being playable. Or a game that's decent but with bad tech issues. A game that is literally broken (as in literally cannot be played) should be getting a 1 or 0.
To me a 60 means you can play the game and find some ways to enjoy it or some things interesting about it, despite it paling entirely next to a slew of other games being released.
This is by far a bigger problem than any negative review of any game.
It's a game that does absolutely nothing well.
Not a thing.
It's a boring sandbox, has lackluster visuals, mediocre combat, and very average mission design with little variety.
Come on. Even Red Dead 2 had glitchy moments and that's an animation masterpiece. I got my horse caught on a fence and it spazzed out. Floating rocks. Floating characters. Climbing up to surfaces that didn't exist.
I'll try on gamepass well before paying anything for this. This is exactly why I just don't bother posting in gaming anymore. Ya'll on some how dumb can a grown man sound shit.
I think some honestly need to accept that a lot of reviewers are rightfully very burned out on open-world design that doesn't move the needle. By the same token, I think some taking criticisms that track closely with genre exhaustion by reviewers-at-large to be a counterpoint to other people describing their own enjoyment are out of line as well.
I am having just as much fun traversing the game world in Crackdown 3 as I did in Spider-Man where the web slinging was awesome of course. I basically hate numerical review scores in general regardless of which game or talk about bias and such. I would personally score Spider-Man as a "must play for its gameplay" in terms of how fun it was to do things in it, and so far that is right where I feel with Crackdown 3 based on just having fun with what I can do in the world that the developer created.
Don't worry. There are dumbasses everywhere, not just on here :)
One serious question, if this game would have been a remake of the first, but exactly the same except the first one evil gangs instead of terranova, would have scored better? I get what a lot of people say that the game feels old, dated or old fashioned, but usually feeling old is not that bad considered on a remake.
at the end of the day, that's the bottom line. and it's okay to like a game that others think it shit.
Chromehounds was one of my favorite Xbox 360 games and it reviewed like shit and I would agree with those reviews. I just found a lot of enjoyment in it and made a lot of great memories with friends playing it. Doesn't mean I would disagree with the reviews. It was deficient in many, many areas. But it struck my chords the right way, so I loved it.
So it will be with this game. If you like, it, love it. Just use reviews to guide your expectations.
Probably not. Look at what Capcom did with Resident Evil 2's remake. That's the kind of standard that "remakes" are being compared to.
If the game was just an HD update to Crackdown...idunno. HD updates don't usually get reviews.