So Crackdown 2 is generally getting lower scores than the original Crackdown, and I get the impression from a lot of the reviews that it's because there's very little change from the original formula. What I want to know is, does the game actually deserve the lower scores, or is it just being punished for not being innovative? 
 
Basically, if I'd never played Crackdown, would I enjoy Crackdown 2 just as much as I would have enjoyed the original?

As far as I see it, it looks EXACTLY the same but with 4 player co-op.

After beating the second game, I prefer the first game.  The first seemed to just have a better flow and plot.  I really dislike how the second game's streets are so barron and the whole freak thing is just filler.

First day I got the game, turned on the xbox, played, set the online joinable thing to "anyone can join" and after 3 hours of playing, I had 2 players randomly join my game. While I was building up my stats, they conquered beacons and freak lairs for me and then for the end level, I just sorta did stuff while they killed everything. Game beat with a very disappointing ending video. 
 
It's the same game + 4-player co-op, that's it... Oh, and rogue orbs. They could have at least made the jumping more fluid... I really hate the static feeling of jumping ledges and just sorta "free-falling" or lingering until I grab onto a ledge... Assasin's Creed's gotta right but that's a whole other topic.

I wouldn't say worse but just more of the same.

it's the best game where you turn off your brain and collect green shinies
 
while waiting for a better game to come.
 
really.

I would say it is far worse. I really enjoyed the first Crackdown, with the different gangs and tactical locations and everything. The zombie approach was a bad move. It definitely kills the style of the original game, and really makes it seem boring and cliche. The game also isn't as structured as the original. So much of it just feels and looks messy. Returning to the same city was kind of a drag too, especially considering so many orbs were in the same places. I can't really think of any way that the game is an improvement over the original.
 
If you're interested in Crackdown, play the first one instead. I found the sequel to be incredibly boring, uninspired, and basically a waste of my time.

And the worst part is there are no generals or lieutenants or bosses really... Just those stupid freak things that disappear. Yeah, "repetitive" is an understatement.

Four player co-op makes it tolerable. Playing by yourself is the worst thing you can do because it removes the fun from the actual game. Not playing with other people and taking the game seriously are the most likely reasons for the low scores.
 
Also: From what I've played this year, it might be one of the worst games so far.

I tried the demo of Crackdown 2 and I don't like how it feels less floaty and more grounded. I think the floatiness matched the superhero style of Crackdown much better. And for some reason, the lock-on feels worse. I think it is less likely to accidentally target a random car in Crackdown 1.
 
Also, defending beacons seems boring. Can't imagine doing that for essentially the entirety of the game.
 
These are just my initial impressions from the demo, and arguably minor nitpicks, but that's just my personal preference. I'll still pick up Crackdown 2 at bargain bin prices.
 
Speaking of prices, Crackdown 1 is sometimes available for under $10 new (I got it for about $8; bundled with Dark Sector and a play and charge battery for $16 total).

The story was shit, and the missions were boring. Yeah, I think it deserves those low scores.

I thought it was funny when Jeff made fun of "Starcraft 1.5 derhur" people when he did the exact same thing in the Crackdown 2 QL. No self awareness. 

" Also, defending beacons seems boring. Can't imagine doing that for essentially the entirety of the game.