Crackdown 3 Review Thread

Jun 4, 2007
13,390
175
63
#1

Oh my gollys:eek:. I am shocked. I wasn't expecting GOTY material but the low 60's, Phil? I'm really shocked. I thought it would average around 75 at least. Phil's dream of sitting this title next to Gears, Forza and Halo are crushed.

Metascore: 60

Windows Central 3/5
Crackdown 3 just doesn't meet contemporary standards as a premium $60 title, with dated visuals, thin gameplay features, and an under-delivered story. There are too many open world superhero-style games that simply do it better. That said, it's not a bad game, by any means. To enjoy Crackdown 3, you probably need to be the type of person who really likes basic sandbox mayhem, because that's effectively all Crackdown 3 has (and wants) to offer.
Vendal 75
Crackdown is back with a fun game that ends up being quite repetitive. Sumo Digital has done a great job finishing this title, but we expected a more evolved concept after so many years. The Wrecking Zone, at the moment, is pretty much a proof of concept, and we hope this multiplayer mode grows with future updates.
MondoXbox 70
Crackdown 3 nails the increased sense of power while evolving our agents and it's got satisfying combat and platforming, but it feels too outdated, or maybe underdeveloped, in many areas. Its forgettable multiplayer component doesn't help either.
Telegraph 3/5
Just don’t expect to come away with any fond memories or exciting stories to tell. You jump around collecting orbs, you shoot things and they blow up. And that’s it. But sometimes, that’s enough.
Attack Of The Fanboy 3/5
Short and not very good, Crackdown 3 has few things to point to as reasons to exist. Sumo Digital did very little with the 2007 formula to usher the series into 2019. While it’s hard to recommend anyone taking the plunge for the full, new game price, the fact that the game will launch into Xbox Game Pass is going to make it tolerable and accessible for most. As something that comes free with your subscription to the service, it might be worth seeing the short campaign, but there just doesn’t seem to be enough game and good enough content to warrant experiencing this release any other way.
Screen Rant 50
Crackdown 3 is an Xbox 360 game pretending to belong in the current console generation.
Jeuxvideo.com 50
Unfortunately, Sumo Digital's game suffers from many technical weaknesses that betray its origins, and a game-design that's too limited, which struggles to captivate past the first hours of discovery.

Posted before the excuses starts flying
 
Last edited:
Likes: DarkNemesis

Lethal

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 14, 2007
14,948
312
83
39
#2
I am not expecting much from this game. But it is free since I do have the game pass. So I will give it a go and see if I enjoy it.
 
Jun 4, 2007
13,390
175
63
#4
It's going to fail with sales. It'll have a high gamepass count. That's why MS will announce how many people played the game instead of sales. Gamepass is on sale currently. You get 2 months for $2.

The next big exclusive outside of Halo, forza and Gears will have a lot of pressure on its shoulders. It has to score very well or the image of MS's exclusives won't change.

Titles like Crackdown 3 is why the xbox is only moving 6 million consoles a year.
 
Last edited:
Likes: DarkNemesis

Christopher

Community and Technical Manager
Staff member
Jun 1, 2007
11,930
101
63
48
Newnan, GA
#5
I've played it a bit this morning. It isn't a bad game. Certainly not great. Just some mindless fun. I'd give it a 7 so far. Having said that.....I don't think it is worth $60 but a good deal on Game Pass.
 

Lethal

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 14, 2007
14,948
312
83
39
#6
I am actually enjoying this game a lot more than I thought I would. I also LOVED the beginning intro to the game. I am uploading some of my game play to YouTube right now.


 
Last edited:
May 20, 2008
10,817
86
48
#8
Game is a ton of fun! I am about 2/3 of the way through. It’s so addictive. I haven’t had this much fun in ages.
It starts out slow but gets better when you start leveling up. Im enjoying the campaign. It's not great but definitely not a bad game. If you liked the original Crackdown you will probably enjoy this one. I liked that intro too. I haven't tried the multiplayer yet. I'm probably about the midway point in the campaign. If I had to score it I would give it a 7.5 . My gamepass subscription is paying off big time.
 
Likes: Hedon

Lethal

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 14, 2007
14,948
312
83
39
#9
I beat the main campaign and now I am doing some clean up. I missed the survive the final lockdown achievement unfortunately. The game absolutely gets better the more you play. I can triple jump and do 2 air bursts. Got gold on all the rooftop races.

I absolutely love the gun you get at the end of the game. Shoots a portal that sucks everything in to an abyss. There is a grenade that also does this.

The controls sometimes piss me off to no end though. Precision platform jumping with these floaty controls make for some really pissed off moments.
 
Likes: Hedon

Hedon

Active member
Jan 19, 2018
256
25
28
#10
It starts out slow but gets better when you start leveling up. Im enjoying the campaign. It's not great but definitely not a bad game. If you liked the original Crackdown you will probably enjoy this one. I liked that intro too. I haven't tried the multiplayer yet. I'm probably about the midway point in the campaign. If I had to score it I would give it a 7.5 . My gamepass subscription is paying off big time.
I am stuck on one of the bosses right now :(
 
Jun 4, 2007
13,390
175
63
#13
Finished the game. Loved it. Looking forward to CD4.
You can look forward to it all you want. It'd be very foolish to expect it to happen. Sales are very bad world wide. Less than 500k(I'm being generous) sold bad.
 
Last edited:

Hedon

Active member
Jan 19, 2018
256
25
28
#14
You can look forward to it all you want. It'd be very foolish to expect it to happen. Sales are very bad world wide. Less than 500k(I'm being generous) sold bad.
I don't care about sales. I assume you finished the game? There is a CD4 tease at the end. Pretty pumped, hope they can make it happen.
 
Jun 4, 2007
13,390
175
63
#15
I don't care about sales.
To NOT care about sales and hope for a sequel is pretty silly.

Your best hope is for MS to not determine what gets a sequels based on individual game sales anymore. Otherwise this ends up being another Ryse, Alan Wake, Sunset Overdrive, ect. situation.
 
Last edited:

AttackTitan

Superior Member
Oct 29, 2013
817
5
18
#16
What happened to the power of the cloud?

I mean most people realized it was over hyped, but man it was complete BS... They first told us that your xbox dont have to be upgraded as often because of cloud. Then, told us that you can do amazing stuff with games. Those were complete lies...
 
Likes: DarkNemesis

Lethal

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 14, 2007
14,948
312
83
39
#17
I enjoyed the game but it felt absolutely unfinished. The world seemed so robotic and lifeless. It was so close to being a great game but it seems like the dev team just gave up and released the game with about 60% of the content they were hoping for.

With all that said I still enjoyed the game.
 
Dec 16, 2006
12,491
87
48
In your urinary tract
#19
What happened to the power of the cloud?

I mean most people realized it was over hyped, but man it was complete BS... They first told us that your xbox dont have to be upgraded as often because of cloud. Then, told us that you can do amazing stuff with games. Those were complete lies...
Yup.....except haven't Google just promised the same with Stadia? But, yeah, I agree with you to be honest.
 
May 20, 2008
10,817
86
48
#20
It's yet to be seen what this cloud tech can really do. As for the streaming services it seems like Google may be a serious competitor to the Xcloud. I stated a few years ago that Microsoft' is competing with Amazon and Google because they are on a similar level when it comes to this sort of technology.

This area is not a strength of Sony. They bought Gaikai and haven't really done much with it. Perhaps they don't have the billions to invest as much as the other 3, but they do have a advantage when it comes to one of the most important things, which are the IPs that will help sell these services. This is one of the reasons Microsoft recently bought those studios. If sony can't match google and Microsoft it's possible they could get some help from Amazon by using their cloud services. It's too early to tell where all this stuff goes but Sony is definitely playing catch-up in this area. Then again, I could be totally wrong and Sony could be hiding something we don't know about. Its unlikely though because like I said before, it's not something Sony does as well as the others.
 

Lethal

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 14, 2007
14,948
312
83
39
#21
Game streaming has proven to be pointless. Sony has found success with PS Now because it actually works pretty good. But you will never get perfect latency or perfect pixel count. This is why Googles console will fail. You can not have a streaming only console and expect it to succeed. Past has proven that this is not what consumers want. OnLive failed immediately and I predict Googles console will as well.

As far as "cloud powered" goes. Microsoft has yet to prove this is even a thing. Might as well call it "blast processing"
 
May 20, 2008
10,817
86
48
#22
Game streaming has proven to be pointless. Sony has found success with PS Now because it actually works pretty good. But you will never get perfect latency or perfect pixel count. This is why Googles console will fail. You can not have a streaming only console and expect it to succeed. Past has proven that this is not what consumers want. OnLive failed immediately and I predict Googles console will as well.
dont be so quick to predict failure. Google isn't OnLive or Sony and it's not pointless if it's done the right way. People like you and I aren't who they're going after. It's those casuals who don't want to pay $500 for a console but still want to play games. If you haven't noticed gaming consoles, especially premium ones, aren't getting any cheaper.

I don't see any other way for google to get a foot in the industry. You don't make much money on selling hardware anyway. People said nobody wantted to play games on smart phones too but look what happened there. I prefer traditional gaming, but if done right this thing could be successful. And when I say done right, I mean around the world. They have already cleared one obstacle by not having to sell any hardware. Of course the die hard Xbox and PlayStation fans still want their shiny new console but there are those that just want to play games. The right content and price could entice many people including some core gamers who normally wouldn't go for this type of thing. If VR can be mildly successful which IMO can be a bit of a nuisance then this surely has a chance.
As far as "cloud powered" goes. Microsoft has yet to prove this is even a thing. Might as well call it "blast processing"
Cloud computing is a thing. Google, Microsoft and Amazon have some of the best cloud servers out there. I've heard from people who tried Stadia and they said it wasnt perfect but far from a bad experience. Of course we will have to wait until those servers have millions of people on them to see how they really hold up. But like all technology it will get better with time. That is if you invest in it to make it better. There really should be no surprises. I expect xcloud and stadia to be better than Sony's effort with Gaikai because as I said before it's not something Sony is a leader in.
 
Last edited:
May 20, 2008
10,817
86
48
#24
lol it will fail just like OnLive. Nobody wants cloud gaming.
lol...you don't make sense. You say Sony found success with PSnow which is a cloud gaming service that uses the infrastructure of Gaikai which was also a cloud gaming service and a competitor to Onlive. Iirc, that same Sony bought all of Onlive patents too. I think people do want cloud gaming. They just want it done right. OnLive's downfall wasn't just because no one wanted cloud gaming. It was mostly because they were up against Microsoft , Sony, Nintendo and the PC which had exclusive content that people wanted. Onlive didn't.
 
Last edited:
Dec 16, 2006
12,491
87
48
In your urinary tract
#25
lol it will fail just like OnLive. Nobody wants cloud gaming.
I usually agree with your points, but not this one.

It's only a few short years ago that people in this very forum told me that downloaded games would never take off in the next gen due to people wanting physical copies, data caps, internet unreliability, inability to share games, etc, etc - and yet here we are. Most people download their games today. Streaming has come on leaps and bounds over the last 3-5 years, and tech will continue to innovate and grow in this area.

The majority of people do not care about whether they game from a cloud, or from a dedicated device under their tv. They care about cost and ease of access. If Google can get today's tech to a level that streaming top games on high settings with low latency - then this will be successful. That's a big if and we'll have to see.

The companies who truly innovate are those who seemingly tackle what the rest of us believe is impossible. Nobody believed that Google Maps could realistically map every road in the US, Europe and let's face it, most of the planet - let alone do street view which required sending a fleet of vehicles with cameras down every road! Nobody believed that it was possible to make a pure touch screen interface to a glass fronted phone - no flip down keyboard, buttons for menus, etc - until Apple blew the world away in 2007.

And of course that famous quote attributed to Henry Ford

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses'"
 

Lethal

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 14, 2007
14,948
312
83
39
#26
lol...you don't make sense. You say Sony found success with PSnow which is a cloud gaming service that uses the infrastructure of Gaikai which was also a cloud gaming service and a competitor to Onlive. Iirc, that same Sony bought all of Onlive patents too. I think people do want cloud gaming. They just want it done right. OnLive's downfall wasn't just because no one wanted cloud gaming. It was mostly because they were up against Microsoft , Sony, Nintendo and the PC which had exclusive content that people wanted. Onlive didn't.
Sony found some success because the console is not a cloud based console. Their service is just an add-on that provides a quick jump in to an old game. Sony realized that the cloud service was not providing people with the quality people expect out of their games and have started offering PS Now users the ability to download the games like the Xbox Game Pass.

Everything I have said makes perfect sense. If Sony released a PS Now console it would have tanked. It needed the PS4 to have any sort of relevance.

The Nintendo Switch cloud service is a great example as well. The service makes the quality of the game drop and latency becomes an issue. Online shooters will NEVER make it in the cloud gaming world. Anything that requires precision and quick timing will work well.
 
May 20, 2008
10,817
86
48
#27
Sony found some success because the console is not a cloud based console.
Lol... I'm sure games played a role in there too, Lethal.

Sony realized that the cloud service was not providing people with the quality people expect out of their games and have started offering PS Now users the ability to download the games like the Xbox Game Pass.
That's true Lethal. It wasn't providing people the experience they wanted. It wasn't because people don't want cloud gaming. That's what I mean by doing it the right way.


Everything I have said makes perfect sense. If Sony released a PS Now console it would have tanked. It needed the PS4 to have any sort of relevance.
lol... You still don't make any sense. They could of still released the console and called it what they want and make it cloud capable. People are still gonna play games
on it whether it was cloud capable or not.
Google on the other hand, would struggle to get a share of the market. They don't have well established 1st party studios, still have to build relationships with publishers , and judging by the specs of the hardware of Stadia,this thing was going to be expensive. So that's why I said this was probably the best option for them.

The Nintendo Switch cloud service is a great example as well. The service makes the quality of the game drop and latency becomes an issue. Online shooters will NEVER make it in the cloud gaming world. Anything that requires precision and quick timing will work well.
Nintendo, like Sony don't have huge investments in that sort of stuff so what do you expect? Sony bought(not created)Gaikai and basically just changed the name and didn't invest much into making the service better. The game experiences we have today have lag. It's just not that noticeable to most people. We will probably never have cloud gaming without any lag, but it doesn't mean the experience can't be enjoyed.

Sony isn't a leader it this stuff and just because Sony couldn't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Forum Sage
Jun 16, 2006
8,693
76
48
33
www.hussainraja.com
#29
It's only a few short years ago that people in this very forum told me that downloaded games would never take off in the next gen due to people wanting physical copies, data caps, internet unreliability, inability to share games, etc, etc - and yet here we are. Most people download their games today. Streaming has come on leaps and bounds over the last 3-5 years, and tech will continue to innovate and grow in this area.
That was true when it was being said, even if they didn't acknowledge they were saying that based on how things were at that moment in time.

The majority of people do not care about whether they game from a cloud, or from a dedicated device under their tv. They care about cost and ease of access. If Google can get today's tech to a level that streaming top games on high settings with low latency - then this will be successful. That's a big if and we'll have to see.
Well, I don't disagree here. Initially both physical and streaming options will be available and I don't know if streaming will ever completely replace physical/digital downloads, at-least I hope not.

---

@Substance - many companies purchase technologies that they don't pioneer or didn't start, even yours truly: Microsoft. Regardless, your opinion on Sony always has a negative tilt so not at all surprising.....even if Sony didn't find success in streaming initially they definitely paved the way for everyone else to follow. Lessons learned, and all that.
 
Last edited:
May 20, 2008
10,817
86
48
#30
@Substance many companies purchase technologies that they don't pioneer or didn't start, even yours truly: Microsoft.
I don't think I ever said Sony was the only one who bought technology. I said they aren't the leaders in it. It's not their strength.
Regardless, your opinion on Sony always has a negative tilt so not at all surprising.....even if Sony didn't find success in streaming initially they definitely paved the way for everyone else to follow. Lessons learned, and all that.
By buying the technology which is what happened, right? They may have introduced this to the home console but i wouldn't say they paved the way because that means making something easier or making a way for it to happen. It was going to happen regardless. This what MS was talking about when they launched Xbox one but the industry wasn't ready for it.
 
Likes: Hedon