Official Thread Crackdown 3

Rate this Game

  • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • ☆☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
You love the game and that's great, but let's be real you probably were going to like it a lot no matter what happened right? We all go into sequels of games we enjoyed being a bit more forgiving than people who were lukewarm on the previous game or maybe never played them before. That's not a knock on you, we all are guilty of that at some point myself included.

I'm not saying there isn't fun to be had with SoD2 but honestly I haven't found much depth at all so far. The lack of any story to speak of is really hurting my experience with this game, the first one didn't have much of one but at least it had something, this one is just constantly doing the same few things over and over again. While that can be said for most games they at least tend to have a story or defined objective that gives you a reason to do these things, so far all I've gotten with this game is random people I never meet talking about stuff on the radio or people who call out for help and then get pissed off if you don't show up in time.

I went back and played it again last night after not touching it for about a week, I wanted to see if that huge 20GB patch did much and while the game seems to look a little cleaner and sharper when it's not moving I still see way too much blur and the framerate was clearly going below 30fps while just driving around in a field or sprinting. I'm glad they say they've fixed that disappearing HUD bug though but I have to say the game as released and the shape it was in at the time of reviews was getting fair treatment.
Actually wrong, cause in my opinion if the game sucked I'd say so. Some of your arguments are so nit picky I'm surprised you get any enjoyment out of any game.
 
Actually wrong, cause in my opinion if the game sucked I'd say so. Some of your arguments are so nit picky I'm surprised you get any enjoyment out of any game.

LOL You are so damned sensitive if someone doesn't love the game it's hilarious. Sorry but a game with subpar graphics, bugs and no story deserves to be scored by how the reviewers see it not how you do. I agree with those reviews, you clearly don't and that's fine but that doesn't mean people who aren't willing to look past it's many flaws are wrong, you may choose to ignore them but that's on you.

Also the whole point of what I said was that you aren't going to think the game sucks because you were already predisposed to like it. The game doesn't suck it's just not great or even very good either, it's scoring just above average and that's clearly what most reviewers thought it deserved and I agree.
 
LOL You are so damned sensitive if someone doesn't love the game it's hilarious. Sorry but a game with subpar graphics, bugs and no story deserves to be scored by how the reviewers see it not how you do. I agree with those reviews, you clearly don't and that's fine but that doesn't mean people who aren't willing to look past it's many flaws are wrong, you may choose to ignore them but that's on you.

Also the whole point of what I said was that you aren't going to think the game sucks because you were already predisposed to like it. The game doesn't suck it's just not great or even very good either, it's scoring just above average and that's clearly what most reviewers thought it deserved and I agree.
Sensitive? Really? I don't care if you don't like the game or not. If reviewers went in thinking there was a story to this then they're f***ing idiots. As far as graphics go, everyone should've known what we were getting.
 
LOL You are so damned sensitive if someone doesn't love the game it's hilarious. Sorry but a game with subpar graphics, bugs and no story deserves to be scored by how the reviewers see it not how you do. I agree with those reviews, you clearly don't and that's fine but that doesn't mean people who aren't willing to look past it's many flaws are wrong, you may choose to ignore them but that's on you.

Also the whole point of what I said was that you aren't going to think the game sucks because you were already predisposed to like it. The game doesn't suck it's just not great or even very good either, it's scoring just above average and that's clearly what most reviewers thought it deserved and I agree.
On another note, if I based my purchases on reviews then I would've missed out on some pretty decent games.

Now since this is a crackdown thread I'll say this, i hope they make significant changes from last E3 cause I was not impressed with what I saw last year. Or MS is looking at more subpar scores on one of their games.
 
LOL You are so damned sensitive if someone doesn't love the game it's hilarious. Sorry but a game with subpar graphics, bugs and no story deserves to be scored by how the reviewers see it not how you do. I agree with those reviews, you clearly don't and that's fine but that doesn't mean people who aren't willing to look past it's many flaws are wrong, you may choose to ignore them but that's on you.

Also the whole point of what I said was that you aren't going to think the game sucks because you were already predisposed to like it. The game doesn't suck it's just not great or even very good either, it's scoring just above average and that's clearly what most reviewers thought it deserved and I agree.
But... .how in the hell are gamers playing 30, 45, 60, 77+ hours of this game and its mediocre, or not very good? Who fuking plays a game for the got damn long and still call the game mediocre? That's a LONG got damn time! Lol

Mediocre games get mediocre play time, at least in my world. I'm not saying you, Jinca. I don't know how long you've played it
But I know others who've been rocking this game for days and days, and theyre still racking up hours. That doesn't sound "mediocre" to me.
 
But... .how in the hell are gamers playing 30, 45, 60, 77+ hours of this game and its mediocre, or not very good? Who fuking plays a game for the got damn long and still call the game mediocre? That's a LONG got damn time! Lol

Mediocre games get mediocre play time, at least in my world. I'm not saying you, Jinca. I don't know how long you've played it
But I know others who've been rocking this game for days and days, and theyre still racking up hours. That doesn't sound "mediocre" to me.
This game is every bit better than the first one yet scores lower. That's so confusing to me.
 
But... .how in the hell are gamers playing 30, 45, 60, 77+ hours of this game and its mediocre, or not very good? Who fuking plays a game for the got damn long and still call the game mediocre? That's a LONG got damn time! Lol

Mediocre games get mediocre play time, at least in my world. I'm not saying you, Jinca. I don't know how long you've played it
But I know others who've been rocking this game for days and days, and theyre still racking up hours. That doesn't sound "mediocre" to me.

Plenty of games with so called mediocre scores are very popular. 7/10 doesn't mean s***. It just means there are serious flaws.
 
Hopefully they turn it around, the first one was fun and there is potential for something good here if they are able to do things like tighten the controls, make the melee more than just spin kicks, have different throwing animations based on what you picking up, add a cohesive story and just get the graphics/performance up to snuff.

I don't believe it was ever going to be released in November of last year, the fact that it was delayed until spring and we are now just over two weeks away from Summer without a peep tells me they still had/have significant work to do and the November date was just a PR move to get them out of E3 without having to talk about how long the game was in development. Hell it got a crappy short trailer instead of a gameplay demo, how often do you see that happen at 1st party E3 shows with games that are coming that same year?
The lack of animation variety is frankly mind boggling this day and age. Hopefully they got the memo.
 
But... .how in the hell are gamers playing 30, 45, 60, 77+ hours of this game and its mediocre, or not very good? Who fuking plays a game for the got damn long and still call the game mediocre? That's a LONG got damn time! Lol

Mediocre games get mediocre play time, at least in my world. I'm not saying you, Jinca. I don't know how long you've played it
But I know others who've been rocking this game for days and days, and theyre still racking up hours. That doesn't sound "mediocre" to me.

When you have virtually no other new games than Sea of Thieves coming out in the last long while yeah you would play it, it's not an awful game either but it's not all that good, it's average and that's what the scores reflect. It's the newest first party game, of course it's going to have people spending time on it regardless of quality. Sea of Thieves had a decent early amount of players too but it sunk quickly because MS pushed that out before it was ready for prime time and it lacked enough content to keep people interested. If they make the mistake with CD3 that they have with their last two games and it gets low scores because it was pushed out before it was ready it's not the reviewers being jerks it's MS not caring enough about quality.
 
This game is every bit better than the first one yet scores lower. That's so confusing to me.

Because the first one was "new" at the time and there weren't many other games like it, this one just seems like more of the same but in a bigger map. They took out any real story but made the gameplay a little tighter, the fact that it's come out on newer more powerful hardware and looks as rough as it does and has the bugs that it does (well did at launch) is MS's fault not the reviewers. You can't expect everyone to be as forgiving as you are, some people want a finished product when they buy it, not something that needs a 20GB patch weeks after release and still needs more work. Again it's not awful but quality is also subjective and just because you like it a lot doesn't mean it's a great game to everyone else.
 
Sensitive? Really? I don't care if you don't like the game or not. If reviewers went in thinking there was a story to this then they're f***ing idiots. As far as graphics go, everyone should've known what we were getting.

You are sensitive about it, you got upset the first post I made about it and kept talking about how I better treat RDR2 the same way lol. Also knowing it looks bad before you review it doesn't excuse it looking bad.
 
Because the first one was "new" at the time and there weren't many other games like it, this one just seems like more of the same but in a bigger map. They took out any real story but made the gameplay a little tighter, the fact that it's come out on newer more powerful hardware and looks as rough as it does and has the bugs that it does (well did at launch) is MS's fault not the reviewers. You can't expect everyone to be as forgiving as you are, some people want a finished product when they buy it, not something that needs a 20GB patch weeks after release and still needs more work. Again it's not awful but quality is also subjective and just because you like it a lot doesn't mean it's a great game to everyone else.
It may have been new but it sure was buggie. I'm not saying it's a "great" game as it has some faults but it sure is a fun game. I guess I'm not as uptight when it comes to games. I just like to have fun and in the case of SOD2, sure it has bugs but it sure is fun. But what is affecting you with this game i haven't really ran into yet.
 
You are sensitive about it, you got upset the first post I made about it and kept talking about how I better treat RDR2 the same way lol. Also knowing it looks bad before you review it doesn't excuse it looking bad.
I'll give you that. Just wanna make sure you're consistent with your critique on games.:wink:
 
  • Like
Reactions: JinCA
When you have virtually no other new games than Sea of Thieves coming out in the last long while yeah you would play it, it's not an awful game either but it's not all that good, it's average and that's what the scores reflect. It's the newest first party game, of course it's going to have people spending time on it regardless of quality. Sea of Thieves had a decent early amount of players too but it sunk quickly because MS pushed that out before it was ready for prime time and it lacked enough content to keep people interested. If they make the mistake with CD3 that they have with their last two games and it gets low scores because it was pushed out before it was ready it's not the reviewers being jerks it's MS not caring enough about quality.
Because you think a game isn't very good doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. I've read numerous (meaning too maylny to count) responses and threads on people who absolutely love the game! And I'm betting it sells more than the first, because, let's face it, it's everything the first was and more. Has nothing to do about Xbox gamers having nothing to play. That's been a BS statement from the start. There's plenty. Hell! More than plenty. I'm sure you yourself have a pretty big backlog of Xbox games you haven't even touched yet. I sure do!
 
When you have virtually no other new games than Sea of Thieves coming out in the last long while yeah you would play it, it's not an awful game either but it's not all that good, it's average and that's what the scores reflect. It's the newest first party game, of course it's going to have people spending time on it regardless of quality. Sea of Thieves had a decent early amount of players too but it sunk quickly because MS pushed that out before it was ready for prime time and it lacked enough content to keep people interested. If they make the mistake with CD3 that they have with their last two games and it gets low scores because it was pushed out before it was ready it's not the reviewers being jerks it's MS not caring enough about quality.

This conversation is just being repeated over and over, and it gets irritating. Any time someone tries to get a little positive, we get pages of "This is MS's last Chance", and "they need to show new IPs and not existing ones". I think we all get it, and this tract is sucking all of the enjoyment some of us come to forums to engage in.

No problem talking about it, but it is kinda all that's being said. Over and over.
 
Because you think a game isn't very good doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. I've read numerous (meaning too maylny to count) responses and threads on people who absolutely love the game! And I'm betting it sells more than the first, because, let's face it, it's everything the first was and more. Has nothing to do about Xbox gamers having nothing to play. That's been a BS statement from the start. There's plenty. Hell! More than plenty. I'm sure you yourself have a pretty big backlog of Xbox games you haven't even touched yet. I sure do!

Any backlog is 3rd party stuff and honestly I really don't have much of one, there is stuff I have yet to finish but that's because some of the games like Shadow of War just haven't grabbed me the way I had hoped. I've already tried all of the exclusives from this gen that MS has put out that I had even the slightest interest in.

I don't think SoD2 will sell more than the first because gamepass wasn't an option back then, that's going to eat into sales but that's fine because all the money still goes to the same place. As far as the game it's not quite everything the first one was and more, there are many things it does better than the first one based mostly on refinements but it's also missing some things as well.

Also when saying a game is average I'm not saying it's bad but saying it deserves the reviews it's getting kind of means that at least some people agree with me because it has overwhelmingly average reviews both from critics and players who rated the game.

Of course these days if you don't say a game is a 9 or 10 you are somehow s***ting on it which is idiotic. A 6 is average and 7 would be considered above average but not great, that seems to be where most reviews for this game fall. That's not an insult that's just what most of the people who have taken the time to review the game say, you can disagree even though you likely haven't even played it and that's fine.

.
 
It may have been new but it sure was buggie. I'm not saying it's a "great" game as it has some faults but it sure is a fun game. I guess I'm not as uptight when it comes to games. I just like to have fun and in the case of SOD2, sure it has bugs but it sure is fun. But what is affecting you with this game i haven't really ran into yet.

Yeah and I'm sure if it had you'd have a different opinion and that's totally fine. I never said it wasn't a fun game btw, I've gone out of my way several times to say there is fun to be had with it.

As far as the first one being buggie you are right and that's what turned me off about it, I love the concept. I was hoping with this one they'd put more time and money into getting it out in a polished state because the first one had so much potential and Spencer even admitted back then that it could use some technical work. Well here we are now and they released another buggie game, maybe not as full of bugs as the first one was but still nowhere near the level of polish you'd expect from a first party title.

I really think they should have gone all in on this game, either bought the IP or at least gotten UDL to allow MS to make that studio bigger, this concept deserves the AAA treatment IMO. When you look at this and just think about how it could have looked with say weather effects, menacing thunder storms or thick fog where the zombies eyes glowed in it before you actually saw their full form that would have looked really cool.

Now back to CD3 lol
 
Anyone else think the game footage from last year would have stood out more had they put more life into the city? Even watching something like Blade Runner and seeing those videos on the sides of buildings etc, seeing that kind of thing with a lot of neon lights around in HDR would add a ton to the visual presentation of the game IMO.
 
If it needs more time than a delay is a good thing, take the time to get it right! Much better than pushing it out before it's ready.