-
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've been waiting and hoping that Nier gets the X Enhanced BC treatment.
Should be any day now...
Thats the thing, if you agree that it is repetitive, but for you it was fun enough that it didnt matter, the review is not wrong. This validates any review for me, general consensus that may or may not apply to you, but gives you an idea on what to expect.
I agree, as long as the reasoning for the comments are sound, the review is valid for me.
I predict that threads in which new people discover that, hey, Crackdown 3 is actually a pretty damn good game are going to become a relatively regular occurrence in the coming years.
Meh. There are always some people who like a particular game. It is like that for virtually every single game. Most people DON'T think Crackdown 3 is a "pretty damn good game" (or even close to that) which is why it has the reception it received. It's cool that you enjoyed Crackdown 3, but it's not some game that got robbed of praise.
I enjoyed my time with it. I was disappointed by the review scores but going in with lower expectations made me less critical of it's shortcomings.
I agree with you OP. It is essentially a remake of Crackdown 1 but with better traversal mechanics and increased verticality. The triple jump and double dash feel incredible to platform with. I really didn't get the hate. It has kind of a bad start because they bombard you with cutscenes and you don't have any of the jump upgrades or fun weapons. But jetpacking around with a black hole gun looking for orbs doesn't get old.
Also it looks incredible in 4k HDR. The graphics are simple sure, but the neon lights at night look amazing in my TV. I wish I could just set the game to constantly be night time.
Also it looks incredible in 4k HDR. The graphics are simple sure, but the neon lights at night look amazing in my TV. I wish I could just set the game to constantly be night time.
I mean, if you enjoyed it that's fine but I understand why the game scored the way it did.
I was a huge fan of the original and I found CD3 painfully middling and downright pathetic given the amount of time that was spent on this project.
It's easily one of my biggest disappointments of the generation.
I was a huge fan of the original and I found CD3 painfully middling and downright pathetic given the amount of time that was spent on this project.
It's easily one of my biggest disappointments of the generation.
I think the issue is the fact that Microsoft was pushing it for so long (It was teased with the Xbox One itself.) that people started overinflating their expectations for it. If they kept quiet about it until, say, the E3 2017 trailer.
Reception would have been a lot better. I mean, look at that trailer! It's Terry Crews devouring the scenery! If you had no idea Crackdown 3 was coming at this point, it would have looked incredible!
Reception would have been a lot better. I mean, look at that trailer! It's Terry Crews devouring the scenery! If you had no idea Crackdown 3 was coming at this point, it would have looked incredible!
That one is a unique case, as the console versions of the game launched in a very unfinished state, but with no branding indicating that it's an early build (The Steam release was, and still is. An early access game.)I put over 100 hours on 7 Days to Die.
Scores mean nothing to our enjoyment.
My problem with CD3 isn't the design or thrust of the game but rather how nothing in the game itself feels like it evolved in a meaningful way over the last decade.
Objectively the game does offer more than the original but it looks and plays so much like the first that I personally couldn't care.
Animation, physics, hit detection, and even verticality have progressed in ways this game never really bothers to try and keep up with. It mimics the original well enough and I guess for some people that mimicry was enough to satiate them but I wanted a Crackdown sequel that felt current gen.
Objectively the game does offer more than the original but it looks and plays so much like the first that I personally couldn't care.
Animation, physics, hit detection, and even verticality have progressed in ways this game never really bothers to try and keep up with. It mimics the original well enough and I guess for some people that mimicry was enough to satiate them but I wanted a Crackdown sequel that felt current gen.
What games have you been playing which match the verticality of CD3?
Spider-Man, AC, Dying Light, just to name a few off the top of my head.
I will say this: The verticality in CD3 is probably the thing it does best.
Sure, there's always some people who like a game, but they usually don't feel compelled to make such a thread unless the general reception gave them the impression that they wouldn't like it. So if I'm right, that's definitely going to signify something. If I'm right.
And I can not agree, I remain of the opinion that the game was judged unfairly by many people, but I already said more than enough about it in the OT.
It was also a victim of circumstances, and a lot of that is down to how Microsoft handled it. It was burdened by the whole cloud compute poster child thing, which was also one of the reasons why it was in development for far too long. But let's not fool ourselves, a part of the reason for its unusually negative reception were also good old console wars. It's the elephant in the room.
I really wish that it was not a first party game. Then maybe it would get the reception that Earth Defense Force games - another bastion of gleefully oldschool arcade action - usually get. It would probably still only garner great scores from a few rare outlets who truly get the appeal, but it would mostly be discussed by its relatively small yet dedicated fanbase. Others would simply ignore it, instead of feeling the strange need to pile up and extinguish any sign of celebration.
Alas, it is a first party game, with some hefty baggage.
I really, really liked the campaign mode in Crackdown 3. I think some of that came from gameplay I super enjoyed wrapped around a simple-to-approach structure with really obvious, really satisfying character growth. Also, I like climbing stuff and finding glowey things.
I'm at a point where I'm basically over incremental, not-actually-meaningful character growth/enhancement glommed onto hampster-wheel game design. For most games, I don't care when the numbers go up if that doesn't feel different in gameplay, and Crackdown 3 was the opposite of that. Presentation was neon-clean in 4K, in a great-looking cityscape with enough variety to make traversal feel right.
All that being said? The pitch-perfect intro didn't really get carried through the rest of the game, and you could 100% the content tons faster than most any open-world game I can think of lately. I totally get many/most criticisms out there. I think for me, it's just that the package did so much right that doesn't really happen elsewhere right now.
I'm at a point where I'm basically over incremental, not-actually-meaningful character growth/enhancement glommed onto hampster-wheel game design. For most games, I don't care when the numbers go up if that doesn't feel different in gameplay, and Crackdown 3 was the opposite of that. Presentation was neon-clean in 4K, in a great-looking cityscape with enough variety to make traversal feel right.
All that being said? The pitch-perfect intro didn't really get carried through the rest of the game, and you could 100% the content tons faster than most any open-world game I can think of lately. I totally get many/most criticisms out there. I think for me, it's just that the package did so much right that doesn't really happen elsewhere right now.
I haven't played Spiderman but AC and Dying Light have no where near the same level of verticality which CD3 has. Are you sure we're playing the same game? The size of the central towers in CD3 is ridiculous. Combine with the fact that scaling them poses a genuine challenge and I'm not sure how you can even put CD3 in the same league as AC or Dying Light.
Did you ever scale the Science Tower?
Hell, once you've maxed out the ability level you can literally climb 10+ stories in a single jump.
Last edited:
Review scores are just, like, someone else's opinion, man. You're welcome to disagree.
What I don't understand is people (unlike the OP) who can't handle the existence of contrary review scores, or say things like "Scores should be banned entirely." Because the corollary of the above, is that your own disagreement does not make a review score less valid or useful for others.
What I don't understand is people (unlike the OP) who can't handle the existence of contrary review scores, or say things like "Scores should be banned entirely." Because the corollary of the above, is that your own disagreement does not make a review score less valid or useful for others.
That's fair, I really love parts of the game and think it deserved a ~75. It does have major issues though, and I totally get reviewers who shat on it.
But yeah, never has a metacritic score stopped me from checking out a game I thought looked interesting, and I bet that's the case for most of you. Some of my favorite games were poorly received.
But yeah, never has a metacritic score stopped me from checking out a game I thought looked interesting, and I bet that's the case for most of you. Some of my favorite games were poorly received.
You've assumed the quality of verticality is predicated merely on how high you can jump.
If that's the only metric we're using, something like Spider-Man still wins because it's faster and features not only equal verticality but far more options for locomotion and traversal.
Verticality isn't just about height, it's about execution, tactility, and options. That said, CD3 has decent verticality; it's arguably it's best feature.
And I'd argue that CD3 excels in each of those factors, far more so than AC or Dying Light.
Last edited:
I can get behind this. Travis strikes again is almost universally panned but I love the fucking thing. Its like the game was made for me specifically.
I don't agree but it really doesn't matter because the verticality in each of those respective games are all very dissimilar in terms of what they aim to achieve.
I only mentioned them because I don't think the verticality in CD3 is all that special outside of the extreme height that can be achieved once you've laboriously collected enough orbs.
And like I said, verticality is probably the only thing CD3 does well.
This is what I was gonna say, I don't understand people that enjoy X game but go crazy(lashing out and shit) seeking validation from reviews.
Not referring to anyone here or in particular just something I've observed for a while.
If my English was better I would have taken the time to write a post like this. That's exactly what I have in my mind about crackdown 3.
I never played the former games... and of course I would have never played 3 without Game Pass, but, in my case, the more complains I read in reviews the more I wanted to play it. Reviewers, since they don't have anything more to do in life, want more complex games, 100 hour campaigns and menus that fill the screen with text.
Crackdown 3 looked more and more like simple fun and that's exactly what it was, I actually found it chilling. Also it is a HDR showcase.
I don't know about the English voices, but the Latin America spanish voices are amazing and give the game a great feel.
It's very simple to play but sooo fun ... and getting orbs is very addictive and gives me that sense of progression that I love in games.
I would add more to the discussion but OP summed up everything pretty clearly.
Oh ... I wish we had an ability at some point to track remaining orbs. I have around 80 more to collect but there's no way I'm looking for them now in all the city.
What does fam mean?
I never played the former games... and of course I would have never played 3 without Game Pass, but, in my case, the more complains I read in reviews the more I wanted to play it. Reviewers, since they don't have anything more to do in life, want more complex games, 100 hour campaigns and menus that fill the screen with text.
Crackdown 3 looked more and more like simple fun and that's exactly what it was, I actually found it chilling. Also it is a HDR showcase.
I don't know about the English voices, but the Latin America spanish voices are amazing and give the game a great feel.
It's very simple to play but sooo fun ... and getting orbs is very addictive and gives me that sense of progression that I love in games.
I would add more to the discussion but OP summed up everything pretty clearly.
Oh ... I wish we had an ability at some point to track remaining orbs. I have around 80 more to collect but there's no way I'm looking for them now in all the city.
What does fam mean?
CD3 has a significant advantage in that your ability to traverse the environment fundamentally changes and increases as you progress through the game. You start out barely being able to jump your own height. Once you've completed the game you can traverse entire buildings in a single jump.
The early stages of the game where you hop around on the ground makes finally the climbing the towers which loom over you throughout the start all the more rewarding. That steady progression heightens (pardon the pun) the verticality beyond just the massive buildings and quick traversal.
The buildings actually feel big because you're forced to experience what it's like stuck on the ground. The games you mention lack that very important element. Pretty much from the get go you're able to climb anything you see so the verticality just feels stunted.
The layout of CD3's world also lends itself to increasing the sense of scale. The giant central towers are visible from nearly every part of the map. Wherever you are you're comparing what you're currently climbing to what lies in the middle. Even when you start scaling some of the larger buildings around the outer rim they pale in comparison to the central towers.
Well, I'm glad that approach worked for you. It clearly didn't work for most and I am, unfortunately, in that particular camp.
Maybe if the rest of the game were better I'd have a bit more enthusiasm for what you're referring to but after about two hours I uninstalled this game and called time of death.
I played the original and admittedly, the stuff you are talking about clicked back then.
Now, not so much.
I'm with you. While I quite enjoyed both, I really enjoyed...like...genuinely enjoyed Agents of Mayhem. Actually hoping for a sequel.
Ahh, so you never actually got to the stage where you can experience the verticality properly?
That explains it.
Yep, the game couldn't make a compelling case for me to stick with it.
I keep reading and hearing the game gets better but I have too many legitimate good games to play to slog through hours of tedium and mediocrity.
I loved the first one but things have changed drastically in ten years.
Fair enough, if you didn't like the game that's perfectly fine.
However, you're making claims with no basis. You can't go arguing against CD3's verticality when you haven't even experienced a fraction of what the game has to offer in that regard.
What I played didn't impress me and what I've seen from videos of people who went much further in the game most assuredly didn't compel me either.
I've certainly seen enough to make an informed opinion even if I haven't bothered to waste my time actually leveling up.
And again, the verticality in the game is probably the thing it does best.