Crackdown 3: Why a Good Deal Doesn't Make a Game Score Better

To say that Crackdown 3 is “a good Crackdown game” and should be scored as such is to pretend every series exists in a universe by itself, wherein only games with the same name may set the standards by which a new one can be judged. The reality is that we all live and play games in a universe where that’s not true, and countless other games are out there to compare it against. So yes, Crackdown 3 is in some ways an improvement over the original, but if that same original game were to have come out today, it would likely fare poorly by modern standards.

The story is too old to be commented.
25d ago
AspiringProGenji25d ago

As low as $2 a month sounds, it shouldn’t excuse mediocrity. The damage control for this game is just weird. Nobody is telling you to not have fun with it but don’t pretend like MS didn’t lie about the cloud and that the game is mediocre. “it’s $2 a month” is not setting a good standard for the studios MS just acquired

Hardiman25d ago

Yeah it doesn't matter how talented a studio has been if they are gonna be micro managed and have games come to the service day one! Deals are great but I'll pay for quality experiences any day.

fiveby925d ago

What is troublesome about services like Gamepass to me is that you are at the mercy of MS for the cost of the subscription. So sure it's $10 today but who's to say 3 years from now it couldn't be double or triple that? Look what Amazon used to charge for Prime? Used to be ~$60. It's easily double that now. GaaS and subscription services are not the panacea for consumers some would think it is. It is attractive to people who only consider monthly payments for things versus what the item actually costs. It sure does seem like MS Studios will be tasked with pumping out a bunch of AA games to support Gamepass. Will they be producing AAA high-quality games? We shall see but I have my doubts.

Hardiman25d ago

That's why I'm not all excited about these cheap subscription services because you don't get games like Metro, Breadth of the Wild, GoW, HZD, Uncharted, TLOU2, Days Gone, Persona 5. No you get games like Sea of Theives, State of Decay 2 and Crackdown 3!

25d ago
gamer780425d ago (Edited 25d ago )

It absolutely can make a game better at launch, and heres why. It's much easier to find a friend to play coop with if a game costs 2$ or you already have a gamespass subscription. That said MS can't rely Only on mediocre games to sell consoles. They will have to do better.

Razzer25d ago

In no way should Game Pass be a crutch for sub-par games. If reviewers were to account the value of a service into the review of the game then the integrity of the entire review is just null. A game should stand on its own merit and the price of a game can be a factor in that. A $10 indie game shouldn't be held to the same standard as a $60 AAA game. But there is a difference in the value of a purchase price and that of a subscription. Game Pass is month to month. If all I want to do is play Crackdown 3 for the next year then I'm better off buying it outright. So if value is going to be taken into account when reviewing then it should be based on the value to buy not to rent.

Atom66625d ago

Exactly. I can't really figure out if IGN is arguing against the overall use of value as part of a review or not, but it's absolutely part of the equation. Just look at the 8/10 they gave Tetris 99 (a brilliant and simple game btw)

My review of C3 would be different if it was at a different price point. Unless it is exclusively to GP, you can't give it that kind of adjustment though.

As a $60 game, I'd say C3 is about a 6/10. As a $40 game? Maybe a 7/10. $20? Now we're in 8 range. But MS chose to launch as a $60 game, and that's how it should be judged imo.

Games are unique in that regard. I personally rate games like that when making a purchase. Reviewers should too.

Show all comments (11)