Watch Dogs 2

B

Blade-Runner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
4,366
http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/09/23/watch_dogs-2-promises-radical-changes/106917/

One of the biggest challenges Raynaud and company face with expanding the series will be not just “righting the perceived gameplay wrongs” of the original, but also living up to the lofty expectations generated by the E3 2012 premiere showing of the game, which is one of the biggest things that many argue the game in its completed state failed to live up to.

"Very often it’s a positioning issue… that the way in which we have introduced the game or what we have shown promised things players didn’t see in the final version, and that was the thing they were after so we have to deliver that now… More than the fact that [the E3 2012 demo] was running on PC, it’s the fact that the scope and the scale of the final game presented more possibilities but also more challenges than the vertical slice."
Click to expand...

Translation....even though we lied our fucking arses off, please maintain your blind faith in us and buy the sequel which will very definitely live up to the ill founded hype of the original....possibly....maybe....okay probably not.
 
least they're finally addressing the E3 graphics downgrade issue in a more truthful manner...but here they go again with building up hype on graphics expectations they cannot hope to meet...I was one of the 25 people who enjoyed Watch Dogs for what it was so I'm looking forward to Part 2
 
Graphics were overhyped big time. The game is pretty good. Sleeping Dogs and GTA 5 are both better.

They need to drop the hype RIGHT NOW on the graphics for part 2 and just concentrate on making an awesome game.
 
polonyc2 said:
least they're finally addressing the E3 graphics downgrade issue in a more truthful manner...
Click to expand...

Personally I find these explanations disingenuous, they must have known for a very long time that the E3 trailer was not representative of true gameplay, but yet they constantly lied about it right up until release.

Admitting the issue after they sold millions of copies is hardly being truthful, more like realizing they cannot perpetuate the lie any further without the internet collectively laughing at them and instead focusing on selling millions of the next game by trying to reassure everyone that they won't tell anymore fibs. Unfortunately people will continue to buy into the hype because...

ducttape345555.jpg
 
Blade-Runner said:
It sold a fuck ton because of marketing. As to whether its a good game....well the majority of gamers disagree with you.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/watch-dogs/user-reviews
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs/user-reviews
Click to expand...

obvious troll reviews are obvious.

The game didn't deliver on the graphics department. I will give you that. But really? 1's and zero's? Give me a break lol.

Ubisoft isn't the first game to lie about graphics nor will they be the last. Anything you see at E3 is a target render. Not final copy. This is why you don't get hyped for E3.
 
Dion said:
obvious troll reviews are obvious.

The game didn't deliver on the graphics department. I will give you that. But really? 1's and zero's? Give me a break lol.
Click to expand...

And then you have the other end of the spectrums with retards who give every game they like 10's, but the point is that metacritic gives you a pretty good overall consensus....the number of people who dislike it outnumber the people who like it, otherwise the overall scores would be slanted closer to 10.

Dion said:
Ubisoft isn't the first game to lie about graphics nor will they be the last. Anything you see at E3 is a target render. Not final copy. This is why you don't get hyped for E3.
Click to expand...

And why should that be condoned? And it ones thing to say assume that trailers shown at E3 to be target renders, but its quite another thing for devs to go out of their way and EXPLICITLY STATE, which Ubi staff consistently did on a number of occasions, that Watch Dogs would look the same if not better than the E3 2012 trailer. We know you are the local Ubi white knight, but you can't revise history when it comes to this particular game.

And apart from the graphics, everything else about Watch Dogs was lackluster, from the crappy story, terrible driving physics, gimmicky hacking, etc.
 
Last edited:
Blade-Runner said:
And then you have the other end of the spectrums with retards who give every game they like 10's, but the point is that metacritic gives you a pretty good overall consensus....the number of people who dislike it outnumber the people who like it, otherwise the overall scores would be slanted closer to 10
Click to expand...

you just hit on the issue but then your last sentence perpetuates it...no the overall scores would not be closer to 10...most people either hate a game or call it the greatest...there's no middle ground anymore...a game doesn't have to be the greatest of all time to be enjoyable...an 8 or even 7.5 is still a very good score but most people don't see it that way...they expect every game to be a 10 otherwise it sucks

expectations also play a part...Watch Dogs did not meet the hype in terms of graphics or gameplay but the game was solid overall...yes it had flaws but I still give it a B...the number of people who complain and bitch about a product will always outnumber the people who are happy...the game's sales figures show that a lot of people bought the game...and don't tell me all or even most of those sales were from pre-orders...people bought the game after all the hoopla, meaning they still wanted to play

price also plays a big role...I bought the game on Day 1 from an [H] member who was selling his Nvidia bundled code for $25...very good deal in my opinion...I don't think it would be worth full price but the game was a fun, solid experience
 
polonyc2 said:
you just hit on the issue but then your last sentence perpetuates it...no the overall scores would not be closer to 10...most people either hate a game or call it the greatest...there's no middle ground anymore...a game doesn't have to be the greatest of all time to be enjoyable...an 8 or even 7.5 is still a very good score but most people don't see it that way...they expect every game to be a 10 otherwise it sucks
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the score as being indicative of how good the game is, but rather that a metacritic score closer to 10 indicates that the majority of people like it, and a score closer to 0 indicates that the majority of people hate it. In other words, if the majority of people liked Watch Dogs the score would be closer to 10.
 
Game on its own merits was fairly good. Had a slow start but by the end of it I had some great time with it. Graphics were fixed by mods so I am not even sure why we are still debating this. Graphics done by mods and performance fixed by mods actually made the game playable and desirable. I give it a solid 8.5/10.
 
I actually liked Watch Dogs. As a first entry in a new IP I thought it did alot things good. I thought the combat and hacking was solid. I thought the story and mission design were ok. My only real complaint was the driving, I thought the driving mechanics was worst part of the game. The music selection was pretty weak. It was good enough to where I would buy the sequel.
 
"righting the perceived gameplay wrongs".

So I guess they're saying there were no actual gameplay problems to 'right'? Sheesh.
 
Watch Dogs as a franchise has a lot of potential I think. But I think if Ubi wants a sequel to be successful, they need to wise the fuck up and just be honest about what the game is and is not.

I think Watch Dogs is a fun game. Removing any preconceived notions about what it should have been, my only gripes would have been the technical problems on the PC side. But because they over promised and under delivered, now I'm left feeling not so great about the game. Peoples perceptions on a games quality can be vastly swayed based on what they expect going into it.
 
Q-BZ said:
Graphics were overhyped big time. The game is pretty good. Sleeping Dogs and GTA 5 are both better.

They need to drop the hype RIGHT NOW on the graphics for part 2 and just concentrate on making an awesome game.
Click to expand...

The fact that the game doesn't need to be backwards compatible with the 360/PS3 will help. Us PC gamers will still be limited by the consolization of the game for PS4/XB1, but it should be a better experience.

Graphics aside, the game was sorely lacking in polish.
 
noobman said:
The fact that the game doesn't need to be backwards compatible with the 360/PS3 will help. Us PC gamers will still be limited by the consolization of the game for PS4/XB1, but it should be a better experience.

Graphics aside, the game was sorely lacking in polish.
Click to expand...
That is such a perpetuated fallacy. x86 instruction processors alone doesn't mean anything about a game will be easy to port from console to PC, or vice-versa. One of the biggest problems PC gamers face this generation of consoles, as shown by Watch Dogs and Dead Rising 3 performance, is the unified memory architecture. Unfortunately developers are not going to spend the time and money to rewrite their engine just to properly utilize the separate memory landscape we still use on PCs, so this will be an ongoing problem this generation with console ports.
 
E3 press kits went out last week. New trailer today.
Should be releasing March 2017 if I remember right.

 
It was fun enough, nothing great and nothing horrible.

Graphics aside, I hated the fact that you can't go around and smack people with your stick unless you're already in combat or something.

I also chased someone to death, it was fairly hilarious. If you haven't done it, it's kind of fun. Get into one of those prevent a crime scenarios and give chase but don't do anything to stop them. I eventually chased the criminal to the river in which he jumped in and died.
 
Bought the first game for 6 bucks awhile back, with the worse mod the graphics actually look pretty good and the gameplay was pretty average but i got it cheap so can't complain.
 
Hopefully it will run better than the first. Watch Dogs blew GTA out of the water, which isn't a hard feat. Decently enjoyable game. Hopefully number two will be better.
 
I liked Watch Dogs...I played it with a SweetFX Enhanced graphics mod (which looked pretty amazing)...even the pvp aspect was pretty fun where you invade other people's games...
 
The whole downgrade never bothered me, it's common practice these days, what did bother me were the cut & paste Ubi game mechanics that they use for all their games. I haven't played WD since release but if I remember correctly the main quests were the same activities done in side quests, vice versa. I don't understand why they make these games open world with nothing to do in them. I'd easily take a linear game with some mission variety over a boring open world with lack of any persistence or repetition.
 
Ubisoft is an awful lot like Mel Gibson in Signs. You know, that scene where the family is all eating dinner? There comes a point where in slams his fist on the table and said, "Eat your god damn dinner!" That's what Ubisoft is like. Even if you don't want it, they'll slam their fist down and make you eat it.
 
I'm looking forward to playing WD2 but I'm cautious since WD1 didn't quite live up to my expectations. GTA5 gives me a lot more to do with the single player campaign than WD1 did. I do love the hacking aspects of the game though.
 
You should be cautious about everything Ubisoft releases, at the very least, the graphics they show.
 
Yeah, I don't get hyped up about graphics shown at trade shows. I'd rather wait to see what the "finished" product looks like when its released.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
Yeah, I don't get hyped up about graphics shown at trade shows. I'd rather wait to see what the "finished" product looks like when its released.
Click to expand...
Well, I get the "hype" I mean, when shown at E3 and other such shows, it's shown as an unfinished product. Which, technically should mean that it should be less than the finished product. Somehow, Ubisoft does the complete opposite.
 
That's the part I don't understand. How can Ubisoft show a more powerful engine with WD1 & The Division, but then change it by the time the games are released to a less powerful version.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
That's the part I don't understand. How can Ubisoft show a more powerful engine with WD1 & The Division, but then change it by the time the games are released to a less powerful version.
Click to expand...

Happened with The Witcher 3 as well. Its pretty simple, optimization. Some things look well in pre-rendered videos but don't work out well in real time. More than likely both games were just too demanding/buggy so many aspects of the graphics had to be redone. If I recall the Witcher 3 redid the lightening engine for release.
 
Ugh, don't remind me. An annoying mark on CDPR, that. At least, afaik, they haven't been consistently doing it, but still annoying nonetheless.
 
Even beyond the graphical changes (and engine quirks) for Watch_Dogs, I just could never get into it. I've tried to start it up 3-4 times and just can't be compelled to do anything.
It's one of those games where they try to throw too much at you at once without explaining any sort of priorities.
 
looks like the release date is November 15th 2016 according to a leaked Ubisoft report
 
As long as the game is fun, I couldn't give a fuck about the graphics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top