Top
90°
8.5

TheGameFanatics: Crackdown 2 Review

Chris B. of TGF writes:

"It has been three years since developer Real-time Worlds and Microsoft gave us their original IP Crackdown. Full of over the top action with players skills upgrading as they play. And let’s not forget the green orbs, which have become as addictive as the latest beta code for a new game to obtain."

Read Full Story >>
thegamefanatics.com
The story is too old to be commented.
chrisgay2950d ago

Never played the first, enjoyed the demo, probably gonna give it a rent.

spunnups2950d ago

my bro sold a bunch of games for this and he is already taking it back. renting it is a good idea.

HQLocated1112950d ago

good game for about a week, then you realize how shite it is.

Nykamari2950d ago

If you could enjoy it with friends then it's an good game.

mastiffchild2950d ago

Mosrtly I'd agree with you both. However, I think 85/100 is a bit too nice to Ruffian for C2.

As a game in it's own and if you never played the original Crackdown 2 is undeniably good fun and better with a coupla mates. Thing is I, and many other people, have been waiting for the sequel since finally getting a bit bored with the excellent first game and as that first effort is also fun which just also happens to be virtually the SAME fun (and with very few of the issues fixed either it felt a bit lazy)it doesn't make it very good value imho. You'd be paying what $60/£40 for a game that, imo, isn't quite as good as the first AND(VERY importantly imho)is set in the same damn city! For a sequel, sandbox game that's a real value issue, isn't it?

Had they given us this as premium DLC at around 2/3rds of the price it would be worth every penny AND be lauded by gamer and critic alike and like ODST(which suffers from similar value issues and ideas not fully looked through BECAUSE of it early days planned for DLC but never upgraded ENOUGH to really be worth a full price retail release despite the quality being good even if there wasn't enough of it)fell into, imo, the trap of publisher and developer being caught between two stools and taking the short term profit option rather than a longer term one with the DLC. Even if you hadn't bought the first by doing this people would have been able to get BOTH for the same price as C2 has sold for and I fully believe with the money saved by going to DD they would have made MORE profit and THEN been able to give us a full fat sequel that moved us geographically, got rid of the flaws the games have and have a bigger budget to do it with PLUS a shedload of goodwill from press and gamer alike.

I just think, for whatever reason, Ruffian weren't given enough time, money or other resources to sort this out this time round resulting in a game which doesn't even warrant a 1.5 sequel given how little was altered or fixed or added this time round. Yes, it remains good fun with mates but the exploration is a bust for those who played the first(and why buy the second at full retail now when the first is readily available for a fiver?)and it's still pretty much the exact same fun available the first time but not as fresh now, that's all.

AS a massive DLC it would've been near perfect and worthy of 9/10 scores but as a stand alone, full retail release? Nah, you're better off buying the first and then just playing the demo at these prices-then you get the best of the two games AND see the few improvements they made. You'd only miss out on a MP mode/tweak or two rather than doing what amounts top shelling out 40 quid for them. Why couldn't they have done as I suggest anyway? They(or nobody else in fairness-I'm not picking on MS or Ruffian here as plenty of sequels would have been better being DLC shipping gone, storage gone, production costs for discs and boxes gone and with sales figures, gamers and everyone benefiting from the savings being shared but it never happens while the industry just thinks "higher price, bigger profit" like it's set in stone as the ONLY way to make money. They haven't really TRIED it to say it wouldn't work but I really think it's the way forward if they want more profit from some franchises)could easily have tried but as it stands I fail to see any real value in buying Crackdown2 and as such think 85/100 is pretty generous. If the first didn't exist then YES but as it does AND it's cheap as chips and a bit better overall then NO it only feels worth 6/10 or 6.5/10 to me.

HolyOrangeCows2950d ago (Edited 2950d ago )

You specifically can have fun with it, but it doesn't change the fact that the game is a six hour repeated, under-developed mission over and over.

The first one is exponentially better than this one.

Gen0ne2950d ago (Edited 2950d ago )

... but the game is still fun. Flaws and all. I also have the advantage of never playing the 1st.

2950d ago
2950d ago
OutgoingSquall2950d ago

Game is not worth 60$ buy it used or rent. Game looks like it can be done on the ps2 first year.

mastiffchild2950d ago

BE fair fella. No, it's not the best looking game out there but as it's open world and has pretty fast gameplay would you expect a visual masterpiece-esp on such a short cycle? Plus PS2 year one games? WAY harsh dude.

I agree with you about renting or used but it IS still fun even if it represents pretty poor value. Budget title or premium DLC episode for the first game and then it'd be excellent for fans of the original and I wouldn't feel it was ripping off newcomers to the series at all. What there is IS still good fun but there isn't enough work done to make me feel it was ever a full price package yet the real tragedy is if the failure to make the game we all expected means the sales aren't enough for the money men to release funds for a true sequel next time round and we NEVER get to see what the series could, and with such a great premise and blueprint from the first games really SHOULD have become given the chance and the funds.

Show all comments (17)