Crackdown 2
Rating: M
Score: 6.5/10
One day, it'd be nice to count how many video games on these "seventh generation" systems are using the core storyline about one lone (or a team of lone), battlesuit-wearing, "last hope(s) for mankind" warrior/s battling multiple armies because he/she is the only living being powerful enough to do so. This story never seems to make sense, because why would it be about one single person (or one small team) and not an army of battlesuit-wearing individuals? The only explanation for that is your battlesuit is a one-of-a-kind, but then why would you (or your team) be the only one(s) allowed to use them, and stop the suits from being mass-produced for the military? It would make your success rate skyrocket, which is kind of the point. For some reason, this core storyline is abused, and here's yet another. This game is an Xbox 360 exclusive title.
So what's the rest of the story? You are an agency officer named "Agent"; you're given your suit and trained to take down a rebel division called "the cell" and an infection of zombie freaks named "the freaks". ...Don't expect much more, because that's just about it. You take over cell strongholds and blow up freak strongholds, and that's the story. Normally I would overlook it just because it's just an excuse to blow stuff up (as if you need a reason), but these really are the lamest naming jobs in the world. An agent named Agent fighting a rebel division cell called "the cell" whilst fighting zombie freaks called "the freaks". It's comparable to something a six-year-old writes on a test when he doesn't know the answer.
Along with the story strongholds, you can do races and collect orbs to increase your super-human ability. It seems uncanny to release a half-finished prototype of a battlesuit and spread the upgrades for it around a huge city, but maybe people thought it'd be a fun way to kill time on breaks.
For those who played Crackdown 1, they'll be surprised to see the lack of rebel bosses and multiple rebel groups to take down. Instead, there's only one rebel group and lots of bad guys instead of bosses. An obvious budget cut, which seems odd considering how well Crackdown sold.
Crackdown 2 uses the same city as its predecessor, but the city seems noticeably darker in color. Perhaps paralleling the city in poor condition, or just another game getting dark and gritty like every other shooter seems to be doing?
The gameplay is a simple, straightforward third-person shooter with lots of things to shoot, jump off of, and plenty of mayhem. You can strive to protect the city and help out (like you were trained to do) or destroy it, get growled by your superior, and when your superior gets angry enough to send the police after you, destroy them too. It probably wasn't too bright to create a military-trained war machine without any failsafe or shut-off button for the suit.
It actually seems way too easy to get your superior angry by harming citizens, mainly because they're always in the way. A car going 200 miles to a stronghold you're told to blow up will probably result in the loss of at least 30 jay-walkers. Five seems to be the cut-off for you to get the police after you, which makes things annoying. It may seem like a small complaint, but it's one that haunts just about you every mission you take on.
Compare the original to this game and you'll see that, although it doesn't look like it, one is quite a bit more advanced than the other. The first actually has more gameplay and story than this game, which is depressing. So what does this game bring to the table that the first doesn't? Four-Person multiplayer. Didn't you know? Having multiplayer allows you to cut on story, gameplay, and overall thought!
It's like it's trying to copy Left for Dead, in the sense Left for Dead is lacking in story and content but gets away with it because of its strong four-person multiplayer. What Crackdown doesn't understand is why this is. Left for Dead is parodying horror films, and exploiting their cliché. It starts with the movie poster with "Zoey as [Player's name], Bill as [Player's name]", has a trailer for itself, and has proper horror-film pacing (high-stress battles between quiet, relaxed moments and finally a big climax battle at the end, then the credits roll). Crackdown lacks this excuse, and can't be granted a free pass without the thoughtful thinking behind why it all works.
It's certainly not a horrible game, but it is a step down from its own predecessor. The battles are fun, the controls and camera are a little iffy sometimes but work most of the time, and it does an amazing job of getting gamers to explore because of its orb-exploration (points for knowing your target audience will work for shiny orbs). Nonetheless, unneeded multiplayer can't ever hold a half-finished game up. When it falls under its own shadow, you know there's a problem somewhere.