I actually enjoyed PS All Stars more than Smash. I don't particularly enjoy Smash games for long. Point being, every has differing opinions.
-
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.
Scores don't matter, or why I think Crackdown 3 is in my running for GOTY
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
I actually enjoyed PS All Stars more than Smash. I don't particularly enjoy Smash games for long. Point being, every has differing opinions.
I'm glad you like it. But it got boring and repetitive super fast. Imo it deserves the scores it got. What matters in the end is you got your monies worth.
The bolded statement is complete rubbish.
What if I fundamentally disagree that the supposed faults are actually faults? There is no objective metric for quality. Beyond technical aspects there are no objective faults (even then the impact of those faults on the overall quality of a title is subjective).
I don't consider any game I enjoy to be mediocre because the very fact that I enjoy it means it has succeeded and therefore, to a degree, must be a good game.
People are obviously free to disagree but that doesn't make statements like "You can love mediocre games" valid in any way.
No critical consensus is ever going to convince me that CD3 is a mediocre game. In the same way no critical consensus will convince me that RDR2 is a good game. It's all subjective.
I can't speak for Crackdown but I'm firmly in the scores generally don't matter to me camp, if I like the look of something then I go for it, reviews only pique my interest when something gets near unanimous praise or derision like BotW and Fallout 76 respectively.
Yes scores don't matter. I thought this was settled like 20 years ago, and the people who still talk about scores were either crazy or just doing it for fun. People will never stop being assholes on the internet regarding the RNG that is the games reviews media machine unless scores just go away completely, and they're forced to actually read and discuss the criticism within those reviews.
I think it actually deserved the scores it got....but not any of the hate it got.
Thing is with scores and people these days anything below 70 is basically trash, which just isnt true.
The Campaign is fun and once your agent is even slightly leveled the game really starts going.
But once youve completed it, Orb hunting is the only thing left....and Orb Hunting for me happened during my playthrough so I really had no reason to keep going.
But gonna keep jumping back in every now and then to max level my Agent...gotta do dem pullups.
Thing is with scores and people these days anything below 70 is basically trash, which just isnt true.
The Campaign is fun and once your agent is even slightly leveled the game really starts going.
But once youve completed it, Orb hunting is the only thing left....and Orb Hunting for me happened during my playthrough so I really had no reason to keep going.
But gonna keep jumping back in every now and then to max level my Agent...gotta do dem pullups.
I enjoyed it for what it was, a fun old school game. It should not have taken as long as it did to make but it's a really fun game. Weight of expectations killed it, I think.
Did it review better or worse than Just Cause 4? I played that after CD3 and really didn't enjoy it as much despite loving that type of game.
Did it review better or worse than Just Cause 4? I played that after CD3 and really didn't enjoy it as much despite loving that type of game.
Its monkey talk....so obviously whatever is being said is pointless.
Same people dismissing posts due to spelling or grammar errors....its a veiled way of putting someone down, then riding off on their high horses.
Yeh, I've never had an answer to that question and I think we all know why.
So why does it put you off?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fam
It seems in this context OP was using it to address the community as a family, which is a positive thing.
It suffered in reviews because it indulged in the bad aspects of the games of this time. There are a million indie games that celebrate past eras of gaming that get celebrated because they still make sure to be good games.
I actually agree that the game did play like something from a decade ago, but so does DMC 5 and Resident Evil 2 Remake. It's just a poor choice of reasons of why to discredit a game.
I really didn't enjoy Crackdown 3 though.
I really didn't enjoy Crackdown 3 though.
I mean I enjoyed Evolve and I know how painful it can be to watch people shit on what you love. Your op is obnoxious though, stop trying so hard.
I loved every minute of CD3!! I recommend raising the difficulty and experimenting with all of the crazy ass weapons, great game!!!
Glad you're loving Crackdown 3 man! I really enjoyed my 8 or so hours with it but unfortunately the bland world and repetitive objectives got to me in the end. I think the scores it got are pretty fair.
But I will say that Mass Effect Andromeda is one of my favorite games this generation and we all know how well that game was received. So I feel you OP.
But I will say that Mass Effect Andromeda is one of my favorite games this generation and we all know how well that game was received. So I feel you OP.
I had a ton of fun with Crackdown 3 as well. Blew through the entire story, and had tons of mindless sandbox fun, and collected hundreds of orbs along the way. This is all I ever wanted out of the game, so I was thoroughly fulfilled. I got the game on gamepass, so I didn't need to pay much of anything either.
I would say it's a top 10 contender for sure. Not sure how much further than that it would go though.
I would say it's a top 10 contender for sure. Not sure how much further than that it would go though.
I think it's more of a generational thing than a high horse. But also I don't know what monkey talk is. Is that a thing or are you just saying it's silly language?
Yep, as i get older, i find myself completely tuning out critics reviews. Uncharted 4 a 93? come on. It's a snoozefest. I find that critics and to a lesser extent gamers, care more about story than they do about gameplay. The way combat and moment to moment gameplay is discussed is almost an afterthought. Andromeda, Metal Gear Survive, and most recently Anthem are some of the best playing games this gen with absurdly low scores. Meanwhile games with mediocre to flawed moment to moment gameplay like Uncharted 4, witcher 3 and rdr2 are in the mid to high 90s. And i say that as a huge fan of Witcher 3 and RDR2.
other games recently that i believe critics got wrong were
- Detroit - 78? Only two points above vanilla Destiny which was a very flawed game? Whats flawed about detroit? it is better than any adventure game on the market. what is it being compared against?
- Horizon 89 - this game not hitting 90 is ridiculous, but i understand it came down to one 4/10 review from US Gamer which pushed it under 90 but it shouldve never been that close.
- The Last Guardian - 82 lol.
I like Gamespot's old system back in the 2000s when they would assign a score to individual aspects of the game. IIRC, they had it split down like this
- Gameplay
- Story
- Sound
- Graphics
- Value
Not everything was weighted the same. Value and gameplay made the biggest difference in the score. Value or i think reviewer's tilt is what they called it took into account the overall gameplay experience.
Nowadays, reviewers treat games like movies and books. Some are so scared of getting lambasted for scores, they dont even score anymore. Games are different. You are not going to watch the Avengers for 400 hours no matter how much you enjoy it. they shouldnt be reviewed like movies.
I think the Gamespot system worked well especially for flawed games with high production values. if the story, graphics and other tech were great, the game couldnt be given a ridiculously low score like RE6 on Gamespot which was given a 4.5 just because the reviewer was having a bad day when he reviewed it. had they been forced to review it on the old scale, it wouldnt have scored so low.
They can probably modify it to merge Graphics and Sound into one category called Tech. And add split gameplay into Combat and Level Design. Lets stop trying to treat games like a freaking Picasso painting and we might be able to critque them accurately again.
other games recently that i believe critics got wrong were
- Detroit - 78? Only two points above vanilla Destiny which was a very flawed game? Whats flawed about detroit? it is better than any adventure game on the market. what is it being compared against?
- Horizon 89 - this game not hitting 90 is ridiculous, but i understand it came down to one 4/10 review from US Gamer which pushed it under 90 but it shouldve never been that close.
- The Last Guardian - 82 lol.
I like Gamespot's old system back in the 2000s when they would assign a score to individual aspects of the game. IIRC, they had it split down like this
- Gameplay
- Story
- Sound
- Graphics
- Value
Not everything was weighted the same. Value and gameplay made the biggest difference in the score. Value or i think reviewer's tilt is what they called it took into account the overall gameplay experience.
Nowadays, reviewers treat games like movies and books. Some are so scared of getting lambasted for scores, they dont even score anymore. Games are different. You are not going to watch the Avengers for 400 hours no matter how much you enjoy it. they shouldnt be reviewed like movies.
I think the Gamespot system worked well especially for flawed games with high production values. if the story, graphics and other tech were great, the game couldnt be given a ridiculously low score like RE6 on Gamespot which was given a 4.5 just because the reviewer was having a bad day when he reviewed it. had they been forced to review it on the old scale, it wouldnt have scored so low.
They can probably modify it to merge Graphics and Sound into one category called Tech. And add split gameplay into Combat and Level Design. Lets stop trying to treat games like a freaking Picasso painting and we might be able to critque them accurately again.
Last edited:
It's okay to like things others including critics don't. the trick is knowing when your seeing something others haven't flipped to yet and when it's a case of your taste just not minding the things that are bad about it.
An example of the first I don't have in games but I do have a film. John Carpenters The Thing bombed at release, critics hated it and audiences ignored it. Thanks to home video though the gospel was spread and audiences came around, and most critics of the day turned around and admitted they were wrong. So it can happen but it's not often.
But Crackdown is the second kind. Also in that category and it's a good one and has been mentioned in this thread is Agents of Mayhem. Now if there is one company I stan for and my post history is clear about this it's Volition. And I enjoyed AOM enough to play it once for fun and now again for YouTube. Doesn't mean the Critics or Audiences were wrong it means I have a taste and see enough of their calling cards to enjoy it. Doesn't change the fact it's a really stylish package wrapped around the most boring repetitive shooting ever with no co-op in what feels like it's designed for that.
No amount of making a team of Pierce, Gat, and Kinzie and my enjoyment of that will make those things better, especially for others and maturity is realizing it's okay to enjoy unpopular or not so good things.
An example of the first I don't have in games but I do have a film. John Carpenters The Thing bombed at release, critics hated it and audiences ignored it. Thanks to home video though the gospel was spread and audiences came around, and most critics of the day turned around and admitted they were wrong. So it can happen but it's not often.
But Crackdown is the second kind. Also in that category and it's a good one and has been mentioned in this thread is Agents of Mayhem. Now if there is one company I stan for and my post history is clear about this it's Volition. And I enjoyed AOM enough to play it once for fun and now again for YouTube. Doesn't mean the Critics or Audiences were wrong it means I have a taste and see enough of their calling cards to enjoy it. Doesn't change the fact it's a really stylish package wrapped around the most boring repetitive shooting ever with no co-op in what feels like it's designed for that.
No amount of making a team of Pierce, Gat, and Kinzie and my enjoyment of that will make those things better, especially for others and maturity is realizing it's okay to enjoy unpopular or not so good things.
Last edited:
Then you are in the same camp as OP. And you believe scores truly don't matter. I disagree. I think there are many metrics that make up quality of a game. And it's why we have a standardized GOTY show every year. I recognize that I love some mediocre games.
This isn't really something you can agree or disagree on.
Games are a form of art. Beyond technical aspects there are no objective metrics of quality.
Your opinion that a given game is mediocre is just that, an opinion. It is no more or less valid than my opinion or reviewer #46's opinion on the game.
A GOTY award is merely a select group's opinion. Again, that group's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's, individual or otherwise.
Quality is a subjective value, this is a fact.
Last edited:
Crackdown 3 is a fun game. Would I have paid 60 bucks for it? Hell no. Games Pass is the gift that keeps on giving. It is by far a better game then Anthem though. Too bad that is not on games pass because I'll never get that 60 bucks back.
I think scores matter, but still also agree with jem's point that they're subjective.They matter because they're a quick concise way to convey your subjective assessment of a game. Very few things cited as a "flaw" in a game, short of actual game-breaking bugs are objective flaws. What may constitute a "grind" for one person may well be a "lack of meaningful progression" to someone else if it were removed. One person's "gripping narrative" is another person's "lack of agency". Score aggregation are little more than popularity measurements amongst game critics.
And I explicitly refer to "game critics", because by and large if you polled every person that plays games on the planet, almost nothing that wins GOTY each year would. Right now Fortnite would probably win it every year FIFA didn't.
I don't buy my games based on review scores so that part I can certainly agree with. I still enjoy Vanguard Bandits and back when it came out it had middling scores from what I can remember.
It's great that people do enjoy CD3 but I found it to be a forgettable game. It was disappointing because I really enjoyed the first game and had subbed to game pass (granted it was only $1 at the time) to play it. When I was playing I would think about how much fun I had playing Saints Row 3 and 4 and how CD3 just seemed like it hadn't caught up to what other similar games have been doing for years.
It's great that people do enjoy CD3 but I found it to be a forgettable game. It was disappointing because I really enjoyed the first game and had subbed to game pass (granted it was only $1 at the time) to play it. When I was playing I would think about how much fun I had playing Saints Row 3 and 4 and how CD3 just seemed like it hadn't caught up to what other similar games have been doing for years.
I don't disagree that a GOTY award is an opinion. But I believe it is a valuable opinion. As it props up the very best of what the art has to offer (in one group's opinion). It sends a message what kind of quality is acceptable. I'm sorry, but if Crackdown 3 got 9s and 10s, I would be very worried about what kind of games we'd be getting in the future.
Scores do matter. Bought Travis Strikes Again: No More Heroes last night. I was hesitant to pick it up due to the mediocre reviews from critics but I loved the first two games so I thought hey, why not, when I saw some of the praise in this thread. This is one of the worst games I've played in recent memory and I feel like I wasted $30.
Sure. I've loved plenty of games that were considered mediocre. And I can also recognize the problems the games had and why so many considered them weak.
I found Crackdown 3 to such a game, though not one I particularly loved. It was okay, but that's about it. I enjoyed it for what it was and the 5 or so hours I spent playing it. I'll probably never finish it because it got too old too quickly and there's not enough new to keep me playing.
I found Crackdown 3 to such a game, though not one I particularly loved. It was okay, but that's about it. I enjoyed it for what it was and the 5 or so hours I spent playing it. I'll probably never finish it because it got too old too quickly and there's not enough new to keep me playing.