Except that the first Crackdown was nothing short of amazing, orb hunting was a fantastic meta game. If you don't class Crackdown as AAA then nothing will please you.
Right, and we can also look back and say that Rare produced some of the best games ever made, in the 90s.
But this cherry picking doesn't seem likely to be predictive of future success.
Crack Down 3's development has been outsourced to Sumo Digital. A studio whose last 3 titles (ports and dlc excluded) average 77 on metacritic. What reason do we have to believe that Crack Down 3 will buck the trend, and be a standout title from the studio?
Not to say that 77 is a bad score, but it doesn't stand out. Every year we see abundance of titles released at a better quality, and if we consider attach rates, then the average consumer doesn't buy more than 2 games per year for their platform. So the bottomline is, if your game is below an 8, when consumers have 20 'better' games competing for their attention and cash, then you can't hope to sell systems with a 79.
As a game, Crackdown 2 was good enough, as a first party title, intended add value to the platform, it's not good enough and games like this, in the 70-80 quality range are simply not good enough when competing alongside multiple other titles considered to be better games.
Microsoft need some really stand-out games to make a difference, and no disrespect to Sumo Digital, but based on their previous software output, we don't have much to suggest that Crackdown will be that title. I'm not saying it won't be, or can't be, but I feel that a fair evaluation of their announced lineup doesn't put them anywhere close to delivering what the platform needs right now.
AAA is defined by budget and scope, not metacritic score.
Yes, but in order to mediate the risk that comes with producing games with that cost, games produced with AAA budgets are expected to meet a certain quality standard. I was those expectations of quality, when I said 'AAA standard', I should have been clearer.