It's interesting that they gave 2 the same score as 1 since even most Crackdown fans didn't like the sequel nearly as much.
-
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.
Crackdown 3 Review Thread
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
It's interesting that they gave 2 the same score as 1 since even most Crackdown fans didn't like the sequel nearly as much.
Maybe, but given how lackluster those gameplay elements are, they needed something to hook people in.
Local destruction would have been fine. It certainly would have spiced things up and differentiated the game a bit.
Really surprised at the reviews for this. After just playing for 5 hours straight its one of the most fun open world games I've played in a long time. I loved the original Crackdown though.
Love the progression systems. Really keeps you wanting to move forward.
Love the progression systems. Really keeps you wanting to move forward.
I think the more obvious problem with the destruction (cloud or not) in SP is that it would break the orb collecting mechanic.
If you can blow up a building with an orb on top of it...will the building respawn so can collect it later on or will the orb just fall down? I don't see a satisfying solution to that.
People are saying it similar to when people said "perfect for a rental" during the '90s and 2000s. I'm positive that the vast majority of people aren't trying to say that MS can roll out average console exclusives.
What's interesting about these reviews is that if you assume critics are using the full numerical scale, a 6 is average or even slightly above average.
So, are the people who love this game and espousing endlessly about how 'fun' it is under the impression that this game actually deserves a higher numerical score?
Because if you look at sandbox games like Horizon: Zero Dawn and Spider-Man – two critically adored games that actually look and play like something from this generation – neither even broke 90 on Metacritic.
Do people really think Crackdown 3 deserves to be scored in the 80 range alongside this caliber of software?
I'm sincerely asking.
So, are the people who love this game and espousing endlessly about how 'fun' it is under the impression that this game actually deserves a higher numerical score?
Because if you look at sandbox games like Horizon: Zero Dawn and Spider-Man – two critically adored games that actually look and play like something from this generation – neither even broke 90 on Metacritic.
Do people really think Crackdown 3 deserves to be scored in the 80 range alongside this caliber of software?
I'm sincerely asking.
That's a fair point.
My solution would be to nix the orb collecting or implement it in a different way but in truth I never much liked orb collecting, even in the original game. It always came off as busy work, though I feel that way about most collectibles in games.
Honestly, I am liking that Opencritic has a recommend number as well. Examples of this weeks releases:
In before the CD-fans jump at you, better take cover, pal ;P
This is perfect for DVD only release! Because we know none wouldn't go and watch this in theaters.
Honestly, I am liking that Opencritic has a recommend number as well. Examples of this weeks releases:
Yeah, that's pretty slick.
And ouch at that recommend percentage for CD3.
I keep seeing people calling this game - with a 63 on Opencritic and a 19% recommended score - average. It is distinctly well below average. It is in the bottom quartile of games reviewed on Opencritic. Game reviews absolutely do not use the whole 0-100 scale, so using 50 as some measure of what is average is totally off base. Less than 10% of all games on Opencritic get a 50 or below. Only 24% of games on Opencritic have scored as bad or worse than this one. It stands proudly between Mount and Blade: Console Edition (a fairly unmitigated disaster) and We Happy Few, another massive disappointment.
For a game to be "average," it needs to land in the low to mid 70s due to the way that reviewers at large do not use the bottom half of the scale.
For a game to be "average," it needs to land in the low to mid 70s due to the way that reviewers at large do not use the bottom half of the scale.
Yeah, I thought about that. :)
I guess some people really love collecting stuff in games. (Not just CD fans)
To me it mostly feels like a chore.
The thing is, I only mentioned destruction because of the MP mode. There's a myriad of other ways they could make this franchise something truly unique and amazing while keeping those Crackdown-centric elements.
Which is weird theres such outrage, it was obvious what it was going to be like when we first saw the campaign gameplay.
I keep seeing people calling this game - with a 63 on Opencritic and a 19% recommended score - average. It is distinctly well below average. It is in the bottom quartile of games reviewed on Opencritic. Game reviews absolutely do not use the whole 0-100 scale, so using 50 as some measure of what is average is totally off base. Less than 10% of all games on Opencritic get a 50 or below. Only 24% of games on Opencritic have scored as bad or worse than this one. It stands proudly between Mount and Blade: Console Edition (a fairly unmitigated disaster) and We Happy Few, another massive disappointment.
For a game to be "average," it needs to land in the low to mid 70s due to the way that reviewers at large do not use the bottom half of the scale.
I don't disagree with you I was just employing the 1-10 scale to make a broader point.
People who think these review scores are unfair and too low seem to think this should be scoring in a range comparable with games like Spider-Man, which seems difficult to fathom given how archaic CD3 feels.
That said, I think you're right that most reviewers don't use the full scale so perhaps calling it 'average' isn't all that accurate.
I can't tell either. That's what this thread has done to me
..at the danger of changing what Crackdown means to the die-hard fans. The devs played it safe to cater to them and we're seeing the results. I'm 100% with you, potential is there, but you could as well start a completely new IP. And this is coming from someone who posted in the DMCV thread that I would love the idea of a spin-off without the focus on style-meter...bad idea, gamers are serious about that shit ;P
I thought it looked middling but I was hoping to be wrong.
Truthfully, the outrage is coming from the people who seem to think critics are being too harsh. I think most of us realized this game was a 5 or 6 even if we prayed it might turn out better.
I was expecting an agents of mayhem style game.
I was going to reply by being snarky and saying that they should maybe add a horse and six shooters and camps and...
Instead, I'll just say, play a different game. It's not for you. :) Crackdown 3 is awesome. One of the best games I've played in years. I can't stop playing it, and a huge reason for that is the orb hunting and leveling up as a result. It's perfect for me as is.
For all it's faults, I'd argue AoM is the better game.
Much better than how Rotten Tomatoes does it. Presenting the review average and the positive percentage equally give a much more informative perspective on consensusHonestly, I am liking that Opencritic has a recommend number as well. Examples of this weeks releases:
Crackdown 3 isn't for anyone that expects contemporary gameplay mechanics.
And I'm not saying that to be snarky.
I'm glad you're enjoying it and you're right that it's definitely not for me but it's also not going to resonate with most people because it's far from 'perfect.'
Let's be honest: All you and your ilk wanted was another Crackdown, regardless of the improvements (or lack thereof) and let's leave it at that.
It feels like next-gen Crackdown. I'm loving it. Happy we at least got the game.
The thing that gets me about comments like this is... Wouldn't you have preferred a better version of the game you got? I loved CD1, and many of my fondest memories on the 360 are from that game, tooling around the city with Admiral Woofington and blowing shit up while collecting agility orbs. I beat the game three different times just so I could restart the progression, which scratched a mighty itch for me back then. All I wanted from a sequel to CD1 was a current gen CD game, with all of the improvements to open world games that we have seen in the last decade. Instead, we got a truly mediocre game that does little to differentiate itself from CD1, let alone all of the other open world games that have taken inspiration from it in the interim. Why don't you guys want more out of sequels to your beloved games? Accepting this as "perfect" as it is seems odd to me, given all of the rather glaring issues with the game that could have been rectified without changing the core of what makes the game a Crackdown game. There is a huge middle ground between making CD a copy of RDR and simply improving the game's combat, driving, animations, story, mission design, side content, weapon variety, NPC density, and dynamic events to a level more in line with modern game releases.
Last edited:
I believe that you love the game (and that's fine of course) but what I don't understand is what you feel makes this a 'next-gen' Crackdown?
What, specifically, feels next-gen to you? (Outside of the okay-ish visuals)
Thank You.
I'm so sick of people acting as if we want this game to be BOTW or RDR2. I never said that and neither has anyone else.
I just wanted a Crackdown that felt like something from this gen; something with decent weapon feedback, solid hit detection, quality animation, etc.
Hell, if this game had the hit detection and animation of GTAV – a game released six years ago at the tail end of the SAME generation as CD1 – I'd be ecstatic.
Yeah, I guess it's the graphics? It looks great in 4k. I always preferred the zany gameplay/mission structures of Crackdown, Saints Row, etc and this just feels like more of that goodness.
I mean I guess there could be some improvements, but I'm not sure what those would be without understanding examples.
Have you actually played the game for any length of time?
There are a lot of new things added to the game. Lockdowns where wave after wave of enemies come after you and you have to destroy a certain number of them before you can clear the lockdown. Varied enemy types. Enemies that teleport. Enemies in mechs. Drones that follow you. Missile stations that try to take you out. Propaganda platforming puzzles to traverse that are a real challenge. New abilities that unlock as you level up, like a flying fist punch. There are a ton of cut scenes that explain the relationship of the final boss to the bosses from the first game. The new voiceover character gives the voice of the agency someone to actually talk to and work out the motives of the bosses.
Tons of new weapons. For example, there's an item duplicator gadget that lets you duplicate the last thing you held. So you can duplicate an energy cell at at moment, for example, and throw it at enemies. Did any reviews that you read mention that?
The controls are tight. The city is awesome to explore. It's more Crackdown, but with a ton of new stuff added. It's what I wanted ( I did go back and edit my post to say it is "perfect for me"). Why question this? I'm having a blast with this thing.
The first game wasn't for everyone, either. But for those of us that like to collect, level up, cause mayhem, platform, and have great arcade action, it spoke to us. This game is doing the same thing for me, but even bigger and better.
We still to this day scream "TE VOY A MA-TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR"
For me, the problem is the lack of current gen basics:
- poor animation
- poor enemy hit detection
- poor weapon feedback
- poor physics
Those things alone really stand out and make this feel like...well...Crackdown 1, not a sequel 12 years later.
This game looks and feels like a decade-old game, both from a design standpoint (which I don't personally mind) but also from a technical one. (Which bothers me greatly)
That said, the visuals - at least when they aren't in motion - look fine. I actually like the art style and it's a damn shame the animation and the rest of the presentation don't really match up.
What do you mean by, poor enemy hit detection?
Those changes are fine but the game still plays like something from 2007, which is why the reviews suck and why so many of us are disappointed.
Honestly, if this game looked and played like a current gen game, with the requisite physics and animation and quality hit detection we get in most other shooters, I'd be right there with you.
I don't care if the game is a rehash as long as it plays like something current gen.
They don't really react like they're being shot. And yes, the improvements you listed are steps in the right direction, without which the game would literally just be CD1. However, those things are mostly small improvements to the original, and even taken all together do not constitute what I (and apparently most reviewers) would consider near enough improvement after 12 years and the launch of a new console generation. If this game had come out on the 360, even at the tail end of the generation or as a launch title for the One, I think everyone would be much less down on it. It's the simple fact that open world games have generally evolved over the past decade, and expectations have rightfully evolved with them.
Have you played a shooter since Crackdown? I'm assuming you have.
Most shooters today have some manner of hit detection. In CD3 enemies absorb bullets with no real feedback until they finally collapse. Even if you target specific body parts they show little reaction to a flurry of ballistic projectiles until they succumb. It's literally the same way the first game handles hit detection but the difference is we've come a long way in 12 years and that type of hit detection is unacceptable today.
I'm not saying it has to be on par with Max Payne 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2 but it would be nice to see the bullets actually affect these enemies in a meaningful way.
Crackdown's primary game loops are gun fighting and traversal so it makes sense that both of these things should be polished and contain some nuance.
I think it's funny that when users in here would refer to the game as 'Crapdown' they could receive a warning. And it would certainly not be accepted as a topic title for anything.
But for some reason we do propagate videos that use these kind of titles.
But for some reason we do propagate videos that use these kind of titles.
'It's dire... don't bother with it.'
Welp
It does look extremely dated though, it looks like a decade old budget title.
Favorite quote for me was the ending. "I'm done talking about it...thank fuck."
I had this preloaded on my X Thursday night and while admittedly already worn out I literally fell asleep on the couch playing this.
I haven't been this deflated by a sequel since Just Cause 3.
Great post. This is exactly how I feel. I can't say what score this game should have received, but I don't get the criticism that there's nothing new here (unless, maybe, you only played about the first 30 minutes of the game). I feel like they added quite a few new elements (little things like the super punch are so goddamn satisfying) while still retaining the core elements that make it a Crackdown game.
I certainly have my biases, and one of them is to really, really like Crackdown's core gameplay. Apparently, not a lot of people feel the same way, which is a shame because I likely won't ever be getting another Crackdown game.
I honestly don't think the core gameplay of the original holds up. It was stellar back in the day and I played the shit out of it when it released but I'd argue it's not strong enough to basically re-release the same game twelve years later with a handful of minor, perfunctory improvements and think most people are going to fawn over it they way they did in 2007.
Obviously, if you can't get enough of the original this game scratches that itch but from a critical/review standpoint this game has been treated more than fairly.
Also, sadly, I agree with you that this is probably the end of the franchise.