@ Danja
I'm not basing my decision on a meaningless score, I read the article. And the reviews of the sites I trust. "IGN Second Opinions" are scoreless and as such, carry more weight IMO. Reading things like:

"Crackdown 2 should not have been a $60 retail game. This should have been an expansion for the first game or simply a standalone download title on Xbox Live. There's just not enough value here with the sequel to warrant that price point."

OR

"This is basically the same game that was released in 2007. To be fair, the original Crackdown was something of a pleasant surprise. The world was definitely open, and the online play was a bit of a thrill. Fast forward three years, and it's basically a repeat experience. If you would have hidden Crackdown 2's existence from me and then suddenly shown me its introductory half hour, I would have assumed it was some sort of add-on content for the original game. And I would have politely declined to pay for it."

OR

"While Crackdown 2 made its way around the office, many over-the-shoulder observers noted the same deficiencies: it's identical to the first game and terrifically ugly. I would add "too many freaking orbs" to my early assessment of it as well. Yet after a weekend with the game I count myself among the game's tentative defenders. I'm exactly 200 Agility Orbs in and the Tick-like bounding around Pacific City is still decently entertaining -- or just addictive, I can hardly tell the difference anymore."

I don't think a score matters when the resounding consensus is this game is shit. Is it worth seeing for yourself? Sure, but I'll decline. Here, rentals are 9.99 for 5 days. I'll add $5 and just buy Joe Danger instead. Or wait and get Limbo the 21st.

Microsoft shouldn't of let a good game like crackdown down the toilet. Now a crackdown 3 will be unheard of if this game doesn't sell.

The first game wasn't as great as people make it to be. I liked it, but comparing games now 2010, to games then early 2007, and you'll end up with the same result for almost every game.

Things have changed. Games have gotten better in every way, so when you put out a game that's almost identical to the original that came out in 2007 then you're not going to get a lot of praise.

A meta of 72 isn't any kind of disaser but, imo, it's a bit generous. Face it, Crackdown2 would struggle to be actually rubbish purely because it's virtually the same game as the first and that game was refreshing(for a time) and always pretty good fun.

The mistakes with the sequel are simply not trying hard enough, not giving Ruffian enough space, money or time to craft something of their own onto RTW blueprint and, worst for me, setting it in the same bloody place! It means that all the exploration is gone for anyone who played the first game and for a sandbox effort that's a bad, bad error and one I'm shocked they made-unless, again, it was just a time/money issue.

I admit to not having finished the SP(I doubt I will as it's just not as much fun this time round) since getting it off my mate yesterday(he'd already reviewed it)and agree wth a lot of the criticisms I've seen in reviews and can only put some of the glowing ones down to those reviewers never having played a lot of the original(maybe they cut straight to Hal3 beta and never came back, who knows?). Whatever, this shouls have been a big old expansion pack because it's not added a great deal of depth, has takjen away some with silly design choices and even less story than we might have expected and being set in the same city doesn't FEEL like enough value for a full retail release.

As a result(before I'd played any of it I'd thought around the 7/10 mark was about right going by comments)I'd say the Meta for C2 is a bit on the generous side at 72% and would put it, myself a tad lower around 65. It isn't bad quality as such but just doesn't offer us much and is in many ways the lesser game of the two and fails, totally to build anything on the foundations of a potentially excellent game first time out. It's a bit of a disappointment that after rabidly wanting to find EVERY orb in the first game the second one just doesn't inspire me to do likewise-and that's probably the most telling thing I have to say about Crackdown2.

BTW, while a lot of people have knocked the gfx and presentation of this sequel Im thought because of the way you play it you rarely notice a graphical shortfall and spending too much time on the pretty stuff would be pointless. It's a sandbox game that you basically blow up(the worst things to look at are prolly the explosions, in fairness to the haters but that;'s abut it for actual low points)everything, shoot everything else and hurtle about 90% of the time it looks just fine. I'd hoped it would set the bar for next years inFAMOUS2 but, sadly, I can't even say it's better than it's dad at anything. SP should have the exclusive sandbox game crown sewn up and will have unless there's a new contender out there or they drop the ball even more dramatically than Ruffian did on this one. As I said, this is just a bit of a shame as at a budget pprice or as an expansion this could have been amazing AND would have set up a third game to really blow us away. As it is it runs the risk of killing a promising series by being a little half arsed for a retail release. Yep, 65/100 for me-thogh I AM a tight marker and would have most average games getting between 50 and 60 but for an ezxpected to be great exclusive like this 65 is what it sounds like- a bit of a disappointing end result which could have been a lot better.

Crackdown 3 was a fun game. Cool bandwagon mentality.