Support NeoGAF

[Hugbot]

Why are those cop out criticisms? They had a deadline, okay, fine. I get it. So they put a lot of work in to up the frame rate and add four player co-op. That doesn't change the fact that the game didn't really do anything new compared to the first one besides the two things I mentioned.

What features haven't I discovered in the game that evolved in this sequel? It really feels like the same game, with a few zombies added in. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't feel like a sequel to me. I'm not attacking your enjoyment of it, so how are my criticisms invalid?

They're the same phrases that have been bandied about since before the game even shipped, and don't really say anything meaningful. You don't like that the customization hasn't improved and that's a fine point, but those two criticisms are fluff that have been done to death and don't spark any relevant conversation.

Why is short developer time an excuse?

Not an excuse for the quality of the game (which I maintain is extremely high, but it's not an argument I'd use to defend the game's quality to anyone.) It is an argument against "Lazy Devs."

 

[Why For?]

After reading these impressions, it looks like I won't be getting this.

There's a free demo which is the full game capped at half an hour man

 

[see5harp]

Surprised no one has commented on the Freak Shoe avatar award.

 

[RoninChaos]

They're the same phrases that have been bandied about since before the game even shipped, and don't really say anything meaningful. You don't like that the customization hasn't improved and that's a fine point, but those two criticisms are fluff that have been done to death and don't spark any relevant conversation.

So because other people have stated the same things I have, they aren't valid any more? What kind of sense does that make? I wanted to throw in my two cents, just like everybody else. I know it's not some mind altering critique of the game. You obviously find value in things that I do not, like the development cycle. Props to them for x-copying the game, fixing some stuff, and not fixing a bunch of things, on a tight ass schedule. Doesn't change how I feel though.

I hope that all the crunching they did on this game will make CD3 a much better game.

 

[Hugbot]

So because other people have stated the same things I have, they aren't valid any more? What kind of sense does that make? I wanted to throw in my two cents, just like everybody else. I know it's not some mind altering critique of the game. You obviously find value in things that I do not, like the development cycle. Props to them for x-copying the game, fixing some stuff, and not fixing a bunch of things, on a tight ass schedule. Doesn't change how I feel though.

I hope that all the crunching they did on this game will make CD3 a much better game.

They were lazy, meaningless criticisms before they were repeated to death. I'm not looking to change how you feel about the game, I just think you could have made your points better without those crutches.

 

[SapientWolf]

Off-topic, but this is one of the few game's I've seen with hype, backlash, and LTTP all on the first page.

 

[blame space]

I'm not a fan of games where they expect you to care about the "experience" when not offering you actual gameplay that is fun. " But look at the effort!".........NO!

can i get an AMEN

 

[RoninChaos]

They were lazy, meaningless criticisms before they were repeated to death. I'm not looking to change how you feel about the game, I just think you could have made your points better without those crutches.

They're not meaningless. How has the game changed? I asked that in a previous post. What features are new or have evolved that makes this a sequel besides the frame rate, 4 player co-op and PVP? They reused a ton of the assets. I know to you it isn't lazy because apparently they did a great job x-copying a game in a short amount of time and then packaged it as a successor.

CD2 does the same thing that Capcom has done with the Street Fighter series; tweaks and fixes released with a new name before or after the title. I.E. Street Fighter II Turbo, Street Fighter III: Third Strike, Super Street Fighter IV. Crackdown 2, with the lack of changes seems like it would qualify as Super Crackdown, rather than crackdown 2.

The differences between SF II, III, and IV, are largely apparent. The differences between CD1 and CD2 are not.

 

[Gileadxv]

Why is short developer time an excuse?

Maybe it's an excuse for why the game shouldn't be a negative point on the developer's records when they make future games, but it certainly isn't an excuse for the game called "Crackdown 2"

Crackdown 2 is a full $60 game marketed as the sequel to Crackdown. Whatever the developer history behind it doesn't make the slightest difference. You judge a game on its quality.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly what my line of thinking has been regarding the developer's time table.

 

[Vustadumas]

I agree with most here, it's the same game I played 3 years ago. Well, almost the same. I think the original is still superior in many ways. Once I hit level 3 skills, it really started to feel like Crackdown again, which is good. I've also run into a few bugs, that have required me to quit out and restart.

One of my biggest complaints is that the freaks are beyond annoying. Not a fan of that type of enemy in a game like this.

 

[DrBo42]

I agree with most here, it's the same game I played 3 years ago. Well, almost the same. I think the original is still superior in many ways. Once I hit level 3 skills, it really started to feel like Crackdown again, which is good. I've also run into a few bugs, that have required me to quit out and restart.

One of my biggest complaints is that the freaks are beyond annoying. Not a fan of that type of enemy in a game like this.

But the greatest weapon in the game is due to their presence. UV shotgun man. If fighting them still isn't fun while using that and melee items then wtf.

 

[Ding]

Hey all,

It is a mixed picture to me. Some bits of CD2 disappoint me, but I can hardly wait to get back to it, so it is obviously doing some things right.

I'm surprised to find that I kinda miss the gangs and bosses. Surprised, because I think many felt that they were one of the weak points of the original game.

"You call that a plot? Go kill a dude in an aloha shirt, and then go kill another one? Really?"

But now they are gone, and in their place is nothing much more than a series of parking lots that need to be cleared of generic soldier dudes. That doesn't seem like a big improvement, frankly.

But, I have only played for a few hours, and it was fun. It was just kind of... sterile.

Question: (my apologies if this was discussed to death already) Is there a fairly game-breaking bug in the early game where visiting the map/menu results in you not being able to move your character once you return to the action? It seems to have cleared up once I unlocked a few things, but I was wondering if it was just my copy that did that.

 

[GhaleonEB]

RE: Activating beacons

I did the first intro one this morning, so I now have the map populated with other objectives. Obviously, I'm just at the start of the game. But it sounds like the other beacon activation sequences are similar to the first, so I thought I'd post my thoughts on it.

Short version: Killing bosses > activating a beacon

Long version:

Reading the MTV article about how the missions were arrived at reductively makes sense; Ruffian had to settle on something that 1) had no failure state, and 2) a co-op buddy couldn't screw up (other than by killing you, the jerk). The first game handled this by giving us a list of fixed targets to kill; the only way to fail it was to die. The sequel has a list of fixed switches to flip; only, it takes a while to flip the switch. Again, the only way to fail it is to die.

On the basis of the one I played, the activation mission is founded upon a poor design choice, which Ruffian tried to mitigate through other design choices, but which actually compound the original problem.

Once a decision was made to make the main missions the defense of a stationary object, they had to decide on the enemy you're defending from. In this case, the freaks. The problem is none of the freaks are very difficult to deal with, so they have to toss hoards of freaks at me to make it challenging. That presents another problem, though: Even with my beefed up arsenal (thanks to my trips to the furthest reaches of the map for more powerful guns and grenades), I'm not equipped to deal with mass throngs in small spaces for extended periods, yet. I need a weapon capable of dealing with the situation. So, there's a drop box with a respawning UV Shotgun placed at the objective.

Right there the game undermined what Crackdown was about, which is taking on challenges in your own way. The game was telling me, "take this gun, it's how you beat this part". I think the mission should have been aborted and redesigned at this point, but it wasn't.

My initial plan was to use grenades to bomb the beacon and keep the freaks away from it long enough for it to fire. Ruffian thought through this work around, and added in acid spitting freaks that stand outside the max radius of a grenade explosion. That way the freaks which are a threat to the beacon do not cluster up, and I have no choice but to use a weapon to kill them; more specifically, I have to use the weapon they provided (the UV shotgun).

This meant there are two kinds of freaks: ones that are a threat to me, and ones which are a threat to the beacon. I can run fast enough to avoid the ones that are after me, and jump over groups which I can't run through. Between that and the odd grenade, the freaks are not a threat to me. The spitting freaks ignore me completely to attack the beacon. The only problem is I need to somehow distinguish them from the throngs that are spawning into the room and chasing after me. To help address that problem, only the spitting freaks (and the few others that directly attack the beacon) show up on the radar as a red dot.

This is the design element that really breaks the mission. At the end, the entire mission came down to: check my radar for red dots, weave through the throngs of other freaks, and kill the dots if there are any, using the (respawning) tool provided me. I felt a bit like Pac-Man, running through a maze of otherwise harmless enemies to take out the dots in the way. It took the open-ended nature of Crackdown's gameplay and distilled it into the simplest, narrow task, and then protracts that task well beyond its welcome. For that reason, it simply wasn't any fun.

The concept in the first Crackdown of killing bosses was vastly superior to Crackdown 2's beacon defense. Placing a boss in a stronghold that can be approached from multiple directions using multiple tactics and strategies - and that's before you apply the strategy of which sub-bosses to take out in order to peel away their defenses - was a stroke of simple genius. It leveraged Crackdown's gameplay design into the goals. The beacon mission I did this morning had the opposite effect.

I know a lot of the guys from Real Time Worlds moved to Ruffian to make the sequel, but I don't think they really understood what made Crackdown what it was. Or at least, they did, but didn't know what else to do with it that Crackdown didn't already do.

I hope the other beacon missions are very different. The first one was a terrible piece of game design.

 

[Owzers]

"I hope the other beacon missions are very different. The first one was a terrible piece of game design."

The next two are the same thing, have fun :lol

 

[goldenpp72]

I thought the beacon missions were fine, not really the best in gaming but fun diversions when I feel like going wild with my uv shotgun and rockets.

 

[Why For?]

Ghal, they're all the same.

 

[NullPointer]

This entire thread has brought me nothing but sadness...

... until I remembered that I still have the original unspoiled Crackdown + DLC just sitting there, waiting for another playthrough.

I'll pick up the remix once it's downloadable on the marketplace for ~$30, and hold on to hope that some day we'll see a full fledged sequel.

 

[DrBo42]

This entire thread has brought me nothing but sadness...

... until I remembered that I still have the original unspoiled Crackdown + DLC just sitting there, waiting for another playthrough.

I'll pick up the remix once it's downloadable on the marketplace for ~$30, and hold on to hope that some day we'll see a full fledged sequel.

On paper it's one thing. When you actually play it, it's great fun.

 

[hamchan]

Do people really feel the need to shit on other games so they can feel better about crackdown 2?

Comparing crackdown 2 to Galaxy 2 is one if the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

I think I even saw people crapping on the original Crackdown's missions to make this one's seem better. People calling the original repetitive and not having much variety, I think you were missing the point about the missions then. The fun and challenge of the missions was the platforming and gunplay required to even get to boss, not killing the boss themselves. The game provided many different obstacles and locations to traverse, in this way it really was like a platforming game. From what I've read CD2 is the same mission I did in the demo repeated over and over again until the game is finished. That's just dissappointing.

 

[daycru]

RE: Activating beacons

This was a great post. Perfect illustration of how Ruffian tried to turn something unique into a D-grade last gen shooter.

 

[Neuromancer]

This entire thread has brought me nothing but sadness...

... until I remembered that I still have the original unspoiled Crackdown + DLC just sitting there, waiting for another playthrough.

I'll pick up the remix once it's downloadable on the marketplace for ~$30, and hold on to hope that some day we'll see a full fledged sequel.

This is exactly what I did. :lol

That game will never get old for me. And it holds up.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

nm

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Yes typically when I buy a sequel, it's because I want more of what was in the original. It's why I bought resident evil 5, devil may cry 4, halo 3, soon halo reach, mario galaxy 2, smash brothers, and a shit load of other sequels.

Crackdown is a unique game against all others, flawed as it was, the sequel fixes MANY of the problems I had with the original, perhaps I notice because I went for ALL of what crackdown 1 offered.

Stunt rings, orb hunting, orb variety, objectives, weapons, all of it is vastly improved over the original. Want all 500 orbs in the original? Good luck, it's a BITCH and a pain to do, in the sequel? challenging, but they don't leave you in the dark. Get annoyed finding those invisible trigger points for stunt rings? No problem here now. Almost every aspect for the individual facets of the original have been improved, and plenty of stuff has been added.

Now, if you don't want more crackdown, do not buy crackdown 2. I kinda figured this was a given for any sequel, I didn't like littlebigplanet much, and i'm not dying for the sequel.

I don't think you'd like any of those games you mentioned if they were simply re-skinned maps from the previous versions with different enemies and new powerups. But that's what you're defending here. Imagine Super Mario Galaxy 2's levels being identical to #1 but the enemies look different. Thrilling, yes?

 

[JambiBum]

Do people really feel the need to shit on other games so they can feel better about crackdown 2?

Comparing crackdown 2 to Galaxy 2 is one if the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

I think I even saw people crapping on the original Crackdown's missions to make this one's seem better. People calling the original repetitive and not having much variety, I think you were missing the point about the missions then. The fun and challenge of the missions was the platforming and gunplay required to even get to boss, not killing the boss themselves. The game provided many different obstacles and locations to traverse, in this way it really was like a platforming game. From what I've read CD2 is the same mission I did in the demo repeated over and over again until the game is finished. That's just dissappointing.

They aren't shitting on Galaxy 2. They are arguing the point that other sequels get a pass for not adding a whole lot of new shit and for some reason CD2 doesn't. I honestly think that if they would have used a new city this sequel discussion wouldn't even be happening.

As for the people worrying about the beacon missions, they do change a little once you get to the later parts of the game. It's still the same overall structure but the enemy types you have to fight in the lairs change pretty drastically.

I love the game. Haven't really stopped playing it. Just wish I could figure out how in the hell to finish the rooftop race called "agility refined". I get to the very last checkpoint but can't figure out how to reach the damn thing.

 

[RoninChaos]

Here's some reading for you:

Ruffian's Hell & High Times With Crackdown 2
Eight months to make a AAA title? Ruffian did it; here's its tale.

Tech Interview: Crackdown 2

Now, how were they lazy again? Remember, they didn't self-publish this game.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1104477p1.html

Since you posted up something from IGN, I'll do the same. The people they talked to, with the exception of a few, have said the same thing that most posters here have; disappointment. It really does feel like crackdown 1.5. I know the other gentleman I was speaking with said that point wasn't valid, but it really is. I do believe if this was a new city then people wouldn't be complaining. It's not out of the question for people to expect refinement, and a step forward in terms of gameplay. Crackdown 2's mission structure is actually a step back. It's disappointing. The game is fun, but it's definitely not a AAA.

 

[goldenpp72]

I don't think you'd like any of those games you mentioned if they were simply re-skinned maps from the previous versions with different enemies and new powerups. But that's what you're defending here. Imagine Super Mario Galaxy 2's levels being identical to #1 but the enemies look different. Thrilling, yes?

Idiotic statement, it would be more akin to saying they took all the levels from mario galaxy and remixed it, crackdown is NOT the same as crackdown 2 layout wise, it's different to navigate entirely and looks different enough.

I'm not saying I hope they take this approach for a new third entry or anything, but for a one time gig I can accept it, while I 100 percent get the people who can't for full price, to totally write off the game entirely yet claim to be fans of the original just screams strange to me.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Do people really feel the need to shit on other games so they can feel better about crackdown 2?

Comparing crackdown 2 to Galaxy 2 is one if the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

I'm not shitting on crackdown 2 or mario galaxy 2, and for you to think that even comparing the too games together is shitting on one, you obviously need to cut loose some of your fanaticism for a specific game. I'm merely comparing the titles and the advances those titles made to their predecessor and the extreme variation that the games received in their score. (no where did I say that one game was better then the other, nor did I even mention gameplay, controls, graphics etc)

Both games, when compared to their former titles feature roughly the same amount of progress and new content, yet one game is at 98 on metacritic and the other 72. My comments are towards reviews, and reviewers and their strict double standards they have.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

All I know is that I love four-player co-op with friends in CD2 on the second highest difficulty (psychotic?).

Repetitive or simple in objectives? Sure. Same as before, really, but I was expecting as much. In fact, if no one else has managed to make a more fun and engaging balls-to-the-wall two-player co-op sandbox experience that CD1 offered, I wanted the sequel to remain as simple to be, at least, as effective for enabling a good time that is free of too much constraint for four players so that the only moments of failure would be simple and fair ones that involve dying and not because someone forgot to throw a switch somewhere or something possibly esoteric and/or easily missed. I think it works fine as 'Keep It Simple, Stupid', especially when there are more people involved and you don't want players to feel crowded by rules of engagement that feel suffocating. Not blowing up other Agents or Peacekeepers as well as civilians is difficult enough when the rockets and exploding cars start flying.

The more structured goals might be more imposing compared to the first game's open bounty on a group of bosses, but they focus a group of three or four in a way that keeps that mission simple enough but also broad enough with enough different targets to fire at and fight at all times and at all stages of a given assault. If it was like the first game, it could probably easily devolve into rinse 'n repeat of everyone simply targeting the one criminal leader and his small group at the top until dead, with precious little mixing it up at the end, and all of the variety being front-loaded with differences in initial approach to the different fortresses and locales. Given the new drop in/drop out style of co-op, I also think that first game's more open approach would have been easily broken and probably made a bit boring by making it a pure Sven Co-op-style of grind simply because of the addition of two other players to the attack would mean having to make it still challenging enough to withstand their combined force, but possibly too much for a group of less players. Certainly, it doesn't mean you couldn't do more with a greater number and range of goals for more than two players, but it would be pretty tough to balance, I imagine, and had it offered custom tailored balances for more players with concurrent mission objectives that form a chain of dependencies to push through to reach the final parts, it might easily break once a player drops out of a game or more jump in.

More variety in goals, so far, would be nice, but the challenge is constant and more than enough for four roughly halfway-leveled agents running around with flocket launchers and mag grenades. Five hours straight last night and it was fun all around with plenty of laughs to be had. Thank goodness for the addition of the revive option for keeping things interesting in a tug 'o war-style challenge of keeping a strategic point assault missions active and alive.

My only real complaint is with the weirdly indiscriminate lock-on filter and a lack of user-created waypoint marking. For people not into big co-op, I can easily see why it would be a disappointment. I would not be nearly as into this for single player, but then I thought the first game wasn't a very good game for one player...aside from orb hunting. The CD games live and die by co-op, just like the L4D games, IMO. Play them by yourself or with too few people, and it's very likely to lose a lot of its value by exposing how simple they are at their core. I'll argue that it's precisely that simplicity that is there by necessity to enable their particular brand of sandbox action gaming. That's not an excuse for a having a poorer single-player experience, but it is damned near fact that team sports aren't much fun without a team to play. Crackdown 2, like L4D, is a team sport.

 

[Hugbot]

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1104477p1.html

Since you posted up something from IGN, I'll do the same. The people they talked to, with the exception of a few, have said the same thing that most posters here have; disappointment. It really does feel like crackdown 1.5. I know the other gentleman I was speaking with said that point wasn't valid, but it really is. I do believe if this was a new city then people wouldn't be complaining. It's not out of the question for people to expect refinement, and a step forward in terms of gameplay. Crackdown 2's mission structure is actually a step back. It's disappointing. The game is fun, but it's definitely not a AAA.

You've brought up plenty of valid points and I stayed on your ass way more than I should have about it. (Original Game) 1.5 gets thrown around alot for sequels without justification that once you started to back it up with other criticism I was kind of blind to it, sorry.

Anyway, while I'm thinking I prefer the mission structure of the first, I feel that the sequel is offering me plenty to do. Maybe I just was on the hunt for more of the same after last year's Crackdown-esque games offered too different an experience to satisfy my itch, but between the new orbs, exploring the remixed city, and working towards the wingsuit I'm enjoying it fully. I definitely wouldn't argue that it's a AAA title, but some of my favorite games of this generation have just been really solid B games, and CD2 is pretty much spot-on to what I wanted.

 

[outunderthestars]

LOVED the first. Played twenty minutes of the demo, deleted it from, and will now hope to have its existence fade from memory.

MS can go fuck themselves for shipping this game for $60.

 

[RoninChaos]

You've brought up plenty of valid points and I stayed on your ass way more than I should have about it. (Original Game) 1.5 gets thrown around alot for sequels without justification that once you started to back it up with other criticism I was kind of blind to it, sorry.

Anyway, while I'm thinking I prefer the mission structure of the first, I feel that the sequel is offering me plenty to do. Maybe I just was on the hunt for more of the same after last year's Crackdown-esque games offered too different an experience to satisfy my itch, but between the new orbs, exploring the remixed city, and working towards the wingsuit I'm enjoying it fully. I definitely wouldn't argue that it's a AAA title, but some of my favorite games of this generation have just been really solid B games, and CD2 is pretty much spot-on to what I wanted.

It's all good. I hear you about the solid B games too. There's definitely fun to be had in this game, but I think the reason it's been a let down is because people were expecting more, and Ruffian apparently got put in a bad place with it's scheduling.

I'm about to go play my copy in about 20 minutes with some friends. Really, my complaints boil down to this feeling like a missed opportunity. It's definitely fun, but I can't say I'm not disappointed and that sucks because I really enjoyed the first one. Being able to go after those gang lords made the first a lot of fun, and really emphasized the open world mechanics and the ability to do whatever you wanted. The beacon stuff takes away from that.

Either way, this game really does have me hoping that Crackdown 3 knocks the fucking doors off.

 

[goldenpp72]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zrwTKbUDyA&feature=player_embedded

So awesome, where do you pick up the ducky grenades in the game?

Video is about the wing suit achievement btw, looks like mario worlds cape.

 

[Owzers]

LOVED the first. Played twenty minutes of the demo, deleted it from, and will now hope to have its existence fade from memory.

MS can go fuck themselves for shipping this game for $60.

Microsoft is really doing nothing to change my mind from the opinion that they no longer care about games.

 

[MrDaravon]

For those that have beaten the game, does that mostly/completely clear out the city of all enemies, or at least does clearing out all the cell locations/freak breaches do so? At this point we're just bumrushing all that and ignoring orbs and everything else, because it's so much of a pain in the ass to get around, particularly at night with the freaks. At about 10 hours in we're just getting more and more annoyed with the freaks; they're just annoying and make it difficult to get around. They add absolutely nothing, or at least not how they were actually implemented.

 

[JambiBum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zrwTKbUDyA&feature=player_embedded

So awesome, where do you pick up the ducky grenades in the game?

Video is about the wing suit achievement btw, looks like mario worlds cape.

You have to go to chucks ducks and link your gamertag. Then play the little game a bit and they will be available in the game. To find them you have to go to the amusement park area, clear out the stronghold, and then find the booth that says chucks ducks. They are inside.

 

[theultimo]

What is with the

WHAT A TERRIBLE NIGHT TO HAVE A CURSE?


I loved crackdown 1, but this IS crackdown 1 with day/night cycle and horrible becon missions :\

 

[SapientWolf]

What is with the

WHAT A TERRIBLE NIGHT TO HAVE A CURSE?


I loved crackdown 1, but this IS crackdown 1 with day/night cycle and horrible becon missions :\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania_II:_Simon's_Quest

 

[soldat7]

I hope the other beacon missions are very different. The first one was a terrible piece of game design.

I disagree. Sure, doing it 9 times will wear thin, but it was certainly a lot of fun the first time.

LOVED the first. Played twenty minutes of the demo, deleted it from, and will now hope to have its existence fade from memory.

MS can go fuck themselves for shipping this game for $60.

Your loss. You should at least pick it out of the bargain bin if you 'LOVED the first,' as you claim.

You have to go to chucks ducks and link your gamertag. Then play the little game a bit and they will be available in the game. To find them you have to go to the amusement park area, clear out the stronghold, and then find the booth that says chucks ducks. They are inside.

Facebook? Now that's some bull crap.

 

[GhaleonEB]

This was a great post. Perfect illustration of how Ruffian tried to turn something unique into a D-grade last gen shooter.

Fortunately, those are a small part of the game. I'm just running around territory way too dangerous for me trying to get weapons and being opportunistic about about snagging the minor objectives.

Just finished a 45-minute battle for a rocket launcher. Playing in the hardest area of the game on Psychotic while under-leveled and under-armed is actually quite satisfying. I had to infiltrate a sniper-laden area by doing a lot of sniping myself, scouring the rooftops until I had a rocket launcher dude pinned down. (Or rather, we had each other pinned down.) Lots of deaths, but some fantastic shootouts. I'm sort of making the game be what I want it to be, and it's working pretty well.

One comment touching on what I said earlier, about the developers not quite getting what made Crackdown, well, Crackdown. I'm in this territory, and the announcer keeps telling me what I can't access. He tells me when an orb is too fast for my current level. When one of those energy beam stations is too high for me to get to (he let me know I'd need to be level 4). And so on.

In Crackdown, when I look at the city, I see possibilities. Can I get up there? I wonder if I can make this jump....and so on. In Crackdown 2, the announcer is shutting those down without my having to experiment to find out. Trying, failing, and later succeeding is a big part of the joy of the game. Why on earth would you discourage someone from trying to reach something in Crackdown?

 

[theultimo]

Your loss. You should at least pick it out of the bargain bin if you 'LOVED the first,' as you claim.

I do not mind the price so much, it just they made so silver members and people who can't be arsed to go online not able to get everything. Its like what they did with crackdown 1 and the DLC. However, I do admit I am having a blast playing it.

 

[hamchan]

I'm not shitting on crackdown 2 or mario galaxy 2, and for you to think that even comparing the too games together is shitting on one, you obviously need to cut loose some of your fanaticism for a specific game. I'm merely comparing the titles and the advances those titles made to their predecessor and the extreme variation that the games received in their score. (no where did I say that one game was better then the other, nor did I even mention gameplay, controls, graphics etc)

Both games, when compared to their former titles feature roughly the same amount of progress and new content, yet one game is at 98 on metacritic and the other 72. My comments are towards reviews, and reviewers and their strict double standards they have.

My post about shitting on games wasn't directly aimed at the galaxy 2 comparison but I see how it can be construed that way. Let's just move on from that comment.

However your Galaxy 2 comparison, I really disagree with you here. Even if you see the same amount of growth you really have to compare the prequels to get the bigger picture on what people find acceptable.

Galaxy is considered the game of the generation by many. The basic mechanics and levels in that game are already considered near perfect, so to add so much variety in the levels the way Galaxy 2 has done, that is just applause worthy.

Crackdown 1 was a flawed gem. I and many people enjoyed it and everyone could see it had a lot of potential as a big series. There were a lot issues but everyone got past it because the base game was so fun and it seemed the series had a lot of room to keep improving. To see that Crackdown 2 hasn't fulfilled this potential, to see that they've recycled so much of Crackdown 1, to see that the mission structure and variety is even worse than Crackdown 1, that's just a real shame.

 

[VALIS]

LOVED the first. Played twenty minutes of the demo, deleted it from, and will now hope to have its existence fade from memory.

MS can go fuck themselves for shipping this game for $60.

That doesn't even make any sense. You "LOVED" the first one, Crackdown 2 is more of the same, and yet you deleted it after 20 minutes and hope to wipe it from memory. Jesus, that's a dumb troll attempt. :lol

 

[TimeLike]

If you could take the wingsuit and add it to the original Crackdown, you'd have the perfect game.

 

[Owzers]

If you could take the wingsuit and add it to the original Crackdown, you'd have the perfect game.

And added the freaks and made it so the Gangs had to try to keep their operations up inspite of the rising freak opposition along side the Agency. Think of how epic the battles could be if you were trying to storm a Gang stronghold only to have a freak outbreak happen at the same time. I'd also like some type of ability to be able to level up your Agency back-up troops, decide where to station them and what weapons to give them to better compliment your play style.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Crackdown 1 was a flawed gem. I and many people enjoyed it and everyone could see it had a lot of potential as a big series. There were a lot issues but everyone got past it because the base game was so fun and it seemed the series had a lot of room to keep improving. To see that Crackdown 2 hasn't fulfilled this potential, to see that they've recycled so much of Crackdown 1, to see that the mission structure and variety is even worse than Crackdown 1, that's just a real shame.

This is the best summary of Crackdown 2's situation in this thread.

My own real point of contention with the Crackdown 2 reviews is that many of the negative ones refuse to recognize that while Crackdown 2 is a shame in comparison to what it might have been, it's still a very good game. Giving it 6's and the like are just pettiness and sour grapes.

My own analogy tho for people who don't "get" why Crackdown 2 is a bitter pill in the /big/ picture is simply this:

Imagine you've waited 3 years for Halo: Reach, and in the end, you get Halo 3: ODST.

'Nuff said.

 

[NullPointer]

There is still an opportunity here. Part of me wants to think that Ruffian spent a good amount of time just refactoring and repairing some of the things that may have been a mess under the hood. Engine plumbing, hacks, etc.

Now, maybe, with a more solid foundation to the game, they can surprise us with some quality DLC that shows us that they still know what puts the Crack in Crackdown.

If I see some quality DLC, and fixes to some of the aiming and platforming issues I'll bite. Especially if its available as digital download.

But as for right now its impossible for me to justify the full price.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

There is still an opportunity here. Part of me wants to think that Ruffian spent a good amount of time just refactoring and repairing some of the things that may have been a mess under the hood. Engine plumbing, hacks, etc.

Now, maybe, with a more solid foundation to the game, they can surprise us with some quality DLC that shows us that they still know what puts the Crack in Crackdown.

If I see some quality DLC, and fixes to some of the aiming and platforming issues I'll bite. Especially if its available as digital download.

But as for right now its impossible for me to justify the full price.

I'll show you some quality DLC, Horse Armor style:

http://kotaku.com/5581890/crackdown-2-to-get-more-colorful-with-dlc

smh

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

After finally completing it (both Alone and Co-op), I'm very satisfied with my choice. CD2 is a solid rental. It's like a nostalgic trip down a fairly different memory lane. It was fun but nothing worth reliving. Honestly, it felt as if I were doing exactly that. Just reliving experiences from CD1 but not as fresh or new. The (side)missions were boring, utterly unimaginative. Some narrative please? ...the plot is barely existent, granted it's not the driving force. A more realized plot would have helped. And WTF at the ending...really?

Completely derivative experience, offering only enough to satisfy the hunger it's current audience while failing to expand it. It's seriously a glorified, overpriced expansion pack.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

My own real point of contention with the Crackdown 2 reviews is that many of the negative ones refuse to recognize that while Crackdown 2 is a shame in comparison to what it might have been, it's still a very good game. Giving it 6's and the like are just pettiness and sour grapes.

I'm not one who likes to think in scores, but six is a good score. It says that a game is fun and has some merit to it, but it's incredibly unambitious, trite, and flawed to earn more of a recommendation unless you're a fiend for the series/type of game/element of the game.

Sounds like Crackdown 2 to me.

 

[Why For?]

This is the best summary of Crackdown 2's situation in this thread.

My own real point of contention with the Crackdown 2 reviews is that many of the negative ones refuse to recognize that while Crackdown 2 is a shame in comparison to what it might have been, it's still a very good game. Giving it 6's and the like are just pettiness and sour grapes.

My own analogy tho for people who don't "get" why Crackdown 2 is a bitter pill in the /big/ picture is simply this:

Imagine you've waited 3 years for Halo: Reach, and in the end, you get Halo 3: ODST.

'Nuff said.

One problem with your analogy.

Imagine you had 8 months and a broken engine to make Crackdown 2, and still managed to get 4 player co-op and 16 player deathmatch in an open world sanbox game.

Why do people still talk like Ruffian have spent the last 3 and a half years sitting on their asses doing nothing?

Realtime wanted to make Crackdown 2, but MS didn't take the option. Realtime moved on to APB, and the Crackdown IP went into hibernation. Only last year did MS decide they wanted a sequel, and put Ruffian together to make it, and gave them less than a year to do so off the existing Realtime engine.

Fuck me.