CrossfireX launched on Xbox and Game Pass last week, and while plenty of impressions have been reported across the web so far (including our own of the campaign), the reviews with final scores have taken a lot longer to surface.
Low and behold though, we do now have some review scores to share, and... they're not great. The game currently holds a 43 rating on Metacritic (with a user score of 2.8), and you can see what the critics had to say in the roundup below:
COGconnected - 60/100
"Overall, it’s just hard to recall a less ambitious multiplayer shooter than CrossfireX. Its generic single player campaign fares much better than its multiplayer, which is simply lacking in everything we’ve come to expect from the genre. Smilegate’s previous shooters have obviously connected with millions in the Asian market, but it’s hard to imagine CrossfireX igniting anything near that kind of enthusiasm in the very competitive multiplayer scene."
ScreenRant - 2.5/5
"CrossfireX is fun to play casually, but it just doesn't measure up to modern FPS standards. The campaign stories are bland and aside from searching for a few collectibles, each mission is pretty much the same as the last one. Completing a few multiplayer matches can still be entertaining in CrossfireX, but it gets old quickly, and there isn't much of a difference between guns. Without the incentive to get new weapons, the Battle Pass and customization options aren't worth buying into, and the loadout doesn't really matter."
Windows Central - 2/5
"CrossfireX is the inevitable conclusion after months of sporadic communication, mystery-laden delays, and an eventual launch that arrived before anybody could review its merits. It meanders near the edge of "disastrous," but barely manages to salvage itself thanks to its decidedly average campaign and the allure of CS:GO-like multiplayer on Xbox consoles. CrossfireX is burdened by a myriad of flaws, ranging from the generic and poorly written narrative to fundamental flaws in the movement and aiming controls."
God Is A Geek - 4/10
"CrossfireX is a below-average game, all things considered. It feels about ten years late to the party, despite Remedy’s best efforts to make the campaign offerings in any way engaging. I was waiting for a flash of brilliance, even a brief moment of excitement to burst through the murky fog of mediocrity, but it never came. Perhaps the best thing about the campaigns is that they’re both mercifully short."
IGN (Campaign Review) - 3/10
"CrossfireX’s pair of campaigns are untidy, generic slogs with all the excitement and flavor of a communion wafer. Alarmingly little of Remedy’s signature weirdness and creativity is displayed, leaving me to wonder why this usually distinctively strange studio was chosen for such a by-the-numbers project at all.
There were some interesting ideas along the way where story is concerned and I fleetingly thought we might get an eccentric tale the likes of Control or Alan Wake, but those hopes were quickly dashed when both campaigns ended without even a cursory twist. Whether it’s the bland characters, braindead enemy AI, forgettable levels, or downright offensive controls for the gunplay, everything about these brief campaigns feels phoned in."
Ouch! It's really not been a good start at all for CrossfireX, which even led to the game's Executive Producer apologising for the state of the game at launch. Hopefully, Smilegate can find a way to turn its fortunes around ASAP.
Do you agree with these reviews for CrossfireX? Let us know down in the comments below.
Comments 10
Anyone played this ? Really as bad as the reviews suggest?
Well at least that's not a reflection on MS or Game Pass as that is developed and published by Remedy/Smilegate.
I can only assume that they hoped people would be OK with a generic, bland FPS game and if they got 'more' people playing via Game Pass, they could sell them more Missions, more MTX, Pay to Win BS knowing that initial 'sales' may well be poor.
Game Pass may 'help' some games reach players that they couldn't with the Paywall, but doesn't mean 'bad' games will still be played, just because they are 'free'. They may not be competing for your 'wallet', they are however competing for something more 'valuable', your TIME.
Why would someone waste their valuable leisure time playing a 'bad' game when they have countless great games from over 20yrs of gaming history to 'try' for Free too? As such, I am NOT wasting my time on CrossfireX, not adding my GT to their 'playerbase' numbers to give them any of my time (or Subscription money if they get 'paid' for every download) etc especially as I have 'countless' other great games all tempting me to spend my time with them instead...
@Chaudy I gave it 20 mins and gave up. Generic and janky.
It's currently the lowest rated game on XSX with a Metacritic of 43, even the much maligned Balan Wonderworld fared better.
Time is precious, this isn't, plenty of better things to play.
@BAMozzy It was originally going to be published by Xbox. At some point that changed, likely saw that it was hot garbage. I'm surprised they let it on Game Pass though, their curation is usually excellent and originally the campaign wasn't going to be included.
@Medic_Alert I'd agree but then this month is a very 'tough' month for MS to fill. Publishers aren't going to give up 'high' sales profits in the first month or two of release in favour of higher player numbers that readily unless it benefits them more - which Online MP games tend to need to be 'successful'.
Looking at February, both Elden Ring and Dying Light 2 have been 'eagerly' anticipated - probably 'decent' pre-orders too which they wouldn't want to lose by negotiating with MS to go into Game Pass on Day 1. That doesn't leave MS much choice as none of their own games are ready.
In theory, this had all the things in place to be a 'massive' release - Crossfire is the 'biggest' FPS in the world - bigger than CoD and BF combined and now getting a Campaign built by Remedy, who had great success with Control, Max Payne and Alan Wake so 'expectations' were high. Its not MS's fault that for whatever reason, Smilegate and Remedy thought these were 'acceptable'.
Blaming 'Game Pass' for the 'faults' of 3rd Party Publisher/developers is harsh. Its like blaming PS5/XSX for the state of CoD, BF2042, Cyberpunk etc at launch on 'their' platforms.
Game Pass is a 'platform' and, like physical hardware, will be dependent on its first party software. You buy an Xbox or Playstation based on its 'first' party software primarily as the 'rest' can often be played anywhere - even if you have to wait for some timed exclusivity deal to lapse.
The reason you subscribe to Game Pass is because of 'all' the great games in its Library and 'promise' that every Xbox game will be 'free' on Day 1. Its going to be the same for Spartacus, you'll subscribe for the 'first party' content (however they choose to offer it) and 'enjoy' (or not) whatever 3rd Party games come too.
Until MS can provide their 'own' big releases every month, they have to rely on 3rd Party publishers and only those who may think that 'player numbers' will be more 'beneficial' long term than 'sales'. If an MP game doesn't sell well initially, that has a massive detrimental effect to the game - matchmaking issues, ping issues, game modes being 'unplayable' etc so maybe more open to a Subscription based platform like Game Pass.
In reality, its no different from the Console Platform. If you 'don't' subscribe this month, you'll still have the same 'choices' of games to 'buy' this month (or not) but Game Pass still offered 'new' games to try - including Mass Effect: Legendary (Cloud version), Total War:Warhammer (PC), Madden NFL22 (Console, PC), Ark: Ultimate Survivor Edition (Cloud, Console, PC), Edge of Eternity (Console) etc as well as enabling you to 'keep' playing any games in your Backlog (like Hitman 3, FH5, Halo, Psychonauts 2 etc) so its still 'better' than 'cancelling'.
If you didn't Subscribe, you'd have far fewer 'new & old' games to try and if you can't buy Elden Ring, Dying Light 2 etc, you still have 'new' experiences available.
Of course some may look at 'each' month and only consider what 'big' new release that month offers, but the reality is you get more than 1 'release' every month, and even if they only offered 1 big game, regardless of how 'good' it is, not everyone will want to play it so those other releases are important. Its still giving you access to hundreds of great games every month for a 'small' fee.
They went easy on it, this is the worst fps I've ever played.
@Medic_Alert
Completely agree... I'd rather they added a good quality old game than something borderline unplayable like Crossfire X.
I'm been enjoying this game, feels really old school, as it is.
I only played it after they released the first patch, so I've not been soured on the issues that were present at launch.
@Chaudy It absolutely is not. They released a patch only a few days after release, MS must have rushed it through certification for them. I am really quite enjoying it. I've only played the multiplayer up to now though, I'll try one of the two campaigns soon.
It's def worth a download, the multiplayer is free to play and a really small file size.
Ok, I have put some time into the single-player.
The game isn't amazing, but not a bad game at all.
Those review scores are way too low. It is a competent good looking shooter. 5 & lower should be reserved for not functional or mechanically poorly executed games. So far I would grade it around a 6.8. Definitely worth a download. Depending on how the first campaign concludes I might pick up the second half.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...