Watch Dogs

C14N · 27-05-2014 10:30am

NORTH1 wrote: »

The reveiws are very mediocro

Hardly "mediocre".

NORTH1 · 27-05-2014 10:32am

C14N wrote: »

Hardly "mediocre".

Reviewed from a vist to the games company over sux months ago. Bought and paid for.......

Vinz Mesrine · 27-05-2014 10:34am

M!Ck^ wrote: »

As expected, fails to live up to hype. And the warning signs were clear as day. A poor man's gta it is. Review embargos do there job well though.
Disapointing but at least they gave a new IP a try.

A cheap filler when I pick this up in 6 months time.

So you haven't played it but can say it's a disappointing game? Very strange.

27-05-2014 10:38am

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

So you haven't played it but can say it's a disappointing game? Very strange.

I have given my reasons why multiple times on this thread if you want to read them. Nothing strange about it. Its a decision I'm making not to squander 70 on an product that didn't meet its expectations. Nothing stopping anybody else buying it.

tok9 · 27-05-2014 10:39am

NORTH1 wrote: »

The reveiws are very mediocro, I was hoping this would be the game I decide which console to go with. No real innovation, just more of the same slightly above average copy, and with a twenty euro premium on top for this.

It's been a bad six months for the games consumer and early adaptors in my opinion.

NORTH1 wrote: »

Reviewed from a vist to the games company over sux months ago. Bought and paid for.......

Hold on... you say the reviews are mediocre. When it's pointed out that is not true you say they have been paid for.

So what reviews were you waiting for exactly to see if the game was worth it?

Vinz Mesrine · 27-05-2014 10:46am

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I have given my reasons why multiple times on this thread if you want to read them. Nothing strange about it. Its a decision I'm making not to squander 70 on an product that didn't meet its expectations. Nothing stopping anybody else buying it.

But you haven't played the game, how do YOU know it didn't meet your expectations?

Posters like this are the problem with the spoiled gamers of this generation.

Will I Amnt · 27-05-2014 10:51am

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

Posters like this are the problem with the spoiled gamers of this generation.

The whole point of reviews, trailers and uploaded footage are to help you decide if it's worth handing over your hard earned money for. If he has come to the conclusion it's not from what he has seen and heard, how is that being a spoiled gamer?

C14N · 27-05-2014 10:51am

NORTH1 wrote: »

Reviewed from a vist to the games company over sux months ago. Bought and paid for.......

That's a pretty serious allegation to make against the 40 different critics who make up the number. Do you have evidence to support it or did you just decide it yourself? And how does this tie in with the idea of a review embargo to stop the bad reviews?

NORTH1 · 27-05-2014 10:52am

tok9 wrote: »

Hold on... you say the reviews are mediocre. When it's pointed out that is not true you say they have been paid for.

So what reviews were you waiting for exactly to see if the game was worth it?

I avoid the main stream ign and others. Seek out the the small reviewer, youtube commentator. I feel you get a more honest review. But to be fair this was coming down the line. Most of us are honest enough with ourselves to realise our fears.

27-05-2014 10:52am

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

But you haven't played the game, how do YOU know it didn't meet your expectations?

Posters like this are the problem with the spoiled gamers of this generation.

I told you go back and read the posts if your so concerned. Im playing video games long enough to know what I will enjoy and what I won't. The gameplay looks average and multiple sources and other people detailing it to me that are playing it is enough for me. There's nothing spoilt about it. I'm going to be careful about what I spend my limited expendable Income on.

Vinz Mesrine · 27-05-2014 10:53am

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The whole point of reviews, trailers and uploaded footage are to help you decide if it's worth handing over your hard earned money for. If he has come to the conclusion it's not from what he has seen and heard, how is that being a spoiled gamer?

How can anyone possibly say a game is disappointing or bad without playing it? Because another game didn't like it? Play the game and make your own decision, don't let someone on the Internet do it for you.

For example I bought Dark Souls 1 recently, it was absolute garbage IN MY OPINION.

miece16 · 27-05-2014 10:55am

i have it on pc. the graphics are great, albeit not necessarily next gen. The gameplay is good but when you break it down it plays just like any other sandbox city gta style game. Not in any way groundbreaking

gizmo · 27-05-2014 10:55am

Not had a chance to read it yet but the always interesting Digital Foundry has their take on some of the tech behind the game.

Does Watch Dogs deliver on its stunning E3 2012 reveal?

firestarter51 · 27-05-2014 10:55am

Multiplayer sounds fun, stumbled upon this review, spoiler free
http://youtu.be/i06vez2FgDI

Will I Amnt · 27-05-2014 10:57am

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

How can anyone possibly say a game is disappointing or bad without playing it? Because another game didn't like it? Play the game and make your own decision, don't let someone on the Internet do it for you.

For example I bought Dark Souls 1 recently, it was absolute garbage IN MY OPINION.

There's enough footage and commentary around for me to make a good judgement on the game. It's not going to be as good as I expected but it's still worth picking up, in fact I'm just on my way to get it in the next few minutes.
What would be the point of a review if everybody had to buy the game/movie or whatever to see for themselves?
I wish I'd checked out the Godzilla reviews before forking out to watch a CGI show with no storyline.

Vinz Mesrine · 27-05-2014 10:58am

Will I Amnt wrote: »

There's enough footage and commentary around for me to make a good judgement on the game. It's not going to be as good as I expected but it's still worth picking up, in fact I'm just on my way to get it in the next few minutes.
What would be the point of a review if everybody had to buy the game/movie or whatever to see for themselves.

A review is one persons opinion. I'd rather form my own, just like I always have. I'm playing games since the early 90s, I've seen plenty of so called "amazing" games be terrible and vice versa.

C14N · 27-05-2014 11:00am

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I wish I'd checked out the Godzilla reviews before forking out to watch a CGI show with no storyline.

But if you had done that then you would have been encouraged to see it

Will I Amnt · 27-05-2014 11:01am

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

A review is one persons opinion. I'd rather form my own, just like I always have. I'm playing games since the early 90s, I've seen plenty of so called "amazing" games be terrible and vice versa.

One bad review wouldn't be enough to put me off something but if every review I read was saying it doesn't live up to expectations then I'd be fairly confident that it doesn't live up to expectations or could be a lot better.

folan · 27-05-2014 11:02am

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I wish I'd checked out the Godzilla reviews before forking out to watch a CGI show with no storyline.

you were hoping for the older type, rubber suit show with no storyline?

Benzino · 27-05-2014 11:04am

One of the main criticisms gamers have of the likes of EA and Activision is their lack of new IP and their over-reliance on sequels. And yet when we do get a new IP, this is what happens.

I really don't think people understand how difficult it is to make these open-world type of games. The comparisons to GTA are fair enough since they are similar games, but GTA V was in development for over 4 years with a development staff of 1,000, was built off an engine that was designed for these games (see GTA IV and RDR) and was the most expensive game ever made at the time.

Sure, you can expect it to be as good as GTA, but the reality is it was never going to be, very few game companies can compete with Rockstar and GTA.

Will I Amnt · 27-05-2014 11:04am

C14N wrote: »

But if you had done that then you would have been encouraged to see it

Really? That got good reviews?
Just from a quick IMDB check it's clear to see there is zero plot to it.

Will I Amnt · 27-05-2014 11:08am

folan wrote: »

you were hoping for the older type, rubber suit show with no storyline?

I was hoping for a plot to go with it, nobody was holding a gun to their heads, telling them they can't be a bit creative...
It's off topic anyway.

27-05-2014 11:13am

Benzino wrote: »

One of the main criticisms gamers have of the likes of EA and Activision is their lack of new IP and their over-reliance on sequels. And yet when we do get a new IP, this is what happens.

I really don't think people understand how difficult it is to make these open-world type of games. The comparisons to GTA are fair enough since they are similar games, but GTA V was in development for over 4 years with a development staff of 1,000, was built off an engine that was designed for these games (see GTA IV and RDR) and was the most expensive game ever made at the time.

Sure, you can expect it to be as good as GTA, but the reality is it was never going to be, very few game companies can compete with Rockstar and GTA.

Watch dogs is in development since 2008 with a development staff of over 600.
The game was built on an engine that was created for a car game. I expected a High level of quality from the driving mechanic which your not getting even close to gta. Hell saints rows 2 car physics and driving is better than what I have seen.

Ubisoft has an article on there own website stating why watch dogs is truelly next gen. I'm sorry but just no Ubisoft it is clearly not.

miece16 · 27-05-2014 11:16am

the driving in it is horrible

Vinz Mesrine · 27-05-2014 11:17am

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Watch dogs is in development since 2008 with a development staff of over 600.
The game was built on an engine that was created for a car game. I expected a High level of quality from the driving mechanic which your not getting even close to gta. Hell saints rows 2 car physics and driving is better than what I have seen.

Ubisoft has an article on there own website stating why watch dogs is truelly next gen. I'm sorry but just no Ubisoft it is clearly not.

You haven't played the game. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

FAILSAFE 00 · 27-05-2014 11:17am

C14N wrote: »

That's a pretty serious allegation to make against the 40 different critics who make up the number. Do you have evidence to support it or did you just decide it yourself? And how does this tie in with the idea of a review embargo to stop the bad reviews?

The fact that they follow a review embargo like good little boys so they'll get invited to next years hyped PR game event.

It's obvious that it's getting very difficult to find genuine reviews these days that don't have some form of padding that keeps them just about in the good books with the game publisher.

The gaming media and game publishers relationships/how they conduct business needs to be reformed or have some form of regulation. There is millions of dollars at stake. We should be getting honest reviews 3-4 weeks before a title comes out. The quality of games would really improve if this was the case.

As for the game it's just average and will make a decent buy down the line when it's reduced in price. A bit of a poor mans GTA. It's a shame they couldn't use Rockstars engine to build it.

calex71 · 27-05-2014 11:21am

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

The fact that they follow a review embargo like good little boys so they'll get invited to next years hyped PR game event.

It's obvious that it's getting very difficult to find genuine reviews these days that don't have some form of padding that keeps them just about in the good books with the game publisher.

The gaming media and game publishers relationships/how they conduct business needs to be reformed or have some form of regulation. There is millions of dollars at stake. We should be getting honest reviews 3-4 weeks before a title comes out. The quality of games would really improve if this was the case.

As for the game it's just average and will make a decent buy down the line when it's reduced in price. A bit of a poor mans GTA. It's a shame they couldn't use Rockstars engine to build it.

Regards the embargo though its a catch 22 for reviewers credible or not, if they break the embargo they will not get review copies which means they won't be able to review until release then anyway.

gizmo · 27-05-2014 11:23am

Benzino wrote: »

One of the main criticisms gamers have of the likes of EA and Activision is their lack of new IP and their over-reliance on sequels. And yet when we do get a new IP, this is what happens.

I really don't think people understand how difficult it is to make these open-world type of games. The comparisons to GTA are fair enough since they are similar games, but GTA V was in development for over 4 years with a development staff of 1,000, was built off an engine that was designed for these games (see GTA IV and RDR) and was the most expensive game ever made at the time.

Sure, you can expect it to be as good as GTA, but the reality is it was never going to be, very few game companies can compete with Rockstar and GTA.

While I certainly agree with the above, you also have to realise that it means very little to the person who has just forked over the €70 Gamestop and the like were asking for.

That being said, on the subject of new IP, I think the responses here and elsewhere on the net are indicative of the problem publishers are faced with. Watch_Dogs seems to be reviewing alright, not spectacularly, but hovering around the 80 mark is far from average. However, for a number of reasons, people have no resigned it to the bargain bin or a second hand sale. Meanwhile the AC series continues to sell massive numbers despite having some iffy entries in the series. Is it any wonder the likes of Ubi will be reluctant to pump money into a new IP and when they do, they feel the need to throw as much money at the marketing department as they do at the dev team?

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

The fact that they follow a review embargo like good little boys so they'll get invited to next years hyped PR game event.

Actually you'll find that most publications will welcome a review embargo in general as it means they won't be beaten to the punch by a competitor who has decided to rush their review or paid for an exclusive.

A launch day embargo is a different thing entirely obviously.

Xenji · 27-05-2014 11:33am

So for the people who have the game, I assume those not complaining about reviews, how does it hold up gameplay wise and is the graphics downgrade noticeable, also is there any semblance of a good story to it.

FAILSAFE 00 · 27-05-2014 11:34am

calex71 wrote: »

Regards the embargo though its a catch 22 for reviewers credible or not, if they break the embargo they will not get review copies which means they won't be able to review until release then anyway.

That's what I mean. That should be highly illegal. Millions of dollars of consumer money on the line. It's becoming an alarming trend. If that continues you can bet games will get more **** rather than better.

The only way it can be sorted is if people vote with their €.

With the amount of money in the gaming media they should really have an alliance that can ensure they get X, Y and Z from the publishers.

Watch Dogs won't be hacking my wallet anytime soon.

speedboatchase · 27-05-2014 11:40am

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I have given my reasons why multiple times on this thread if you want to read them. Nothing strange about it. Its a decision I'm making not to squander 70 on an product that didn't meet its expectations. Nothing stopping anybody else buying it.

Its Metacritic is 82. What score 'should' it have been to have met expectations?

27-05-2014 11:45am

Vinz Mesrine wrote: »

You haven't played the game. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

No your ignoring posts or part of my posts.

Benzino · 27-05-2014 11:48am

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Watch dogs is in development since 2008 with a development staff of over 600.
The game was built on an engine that was created for a car game. I expected a High level of quality from the driving mechanic which your not getting even close to gta. Hell saints rows 2 car physics and driving is better than what I have seen.

Pretty sure work began in 2009, not 2008. 600 is still almost half the development team of GTA and is very unlikely to have near the budget GTA does.

A car game and an open-world sandbox are 2 different beasts entirely. GTA had an engine and 2 games which that supported an open-world environment (one set in a city, another in the west), with AI, physics, driving, shooting, cover-system etc all already implemented. Yet it still took them 4 years to create GTA V. Watch_Dogs had the same development time but with almost half the people, less money, more platforms to develop for (they also working on a Wii U version) and had to build everything from scratch almost.

I can't comment on the driving as the game is still downloading for me. If it's bad then that's a fair criticism. The game still doesn't deserve the hate it is getting.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Ubisoft has an article on there own website stating why watch dogs is truelly next gen. I'm sorry but just no Ubisoft it is clearly not.

And? It's marketing to help sell the game. What do you expect them to say? "It's actually not next-gen but instead a poor man's GTA".

DARK-KNIGHT · 27-05-2014 11:48am

Lads save your money tbh this game looks pants...

But heres a bargain for you... www.zavvi.com

Have rayman legends for xbox one for 19.99 euro #bargainbuycomparedtowatchdogs

RasTa · 27-05-2014 11:49am

Getting better scores then I imagined, Polygon rates it as better then the Last of Us

2Mad2BeMad · 27-05-2014 11:50am

speedboatchase wrote: »

Its Metacritic is 82. What score 'should' it have been to have met expectations?

What? He's saying it has not met his expectations. A number on metacritic won't change that. Because all it is, is a number from s person who has played it. And it has not made my expectations either, its an ok game from what I played but certainly not worth more then 50e imo.Il most likely trade eh in as soon as I finish eh to get some money back

DARK-KNIGHT · 27-05-2014 11:51am

Benzino wrote: »

Pretty sure work began in 2009, not 2008. 600 is still almost half the development team of GTA and is very unlikely to have near the budget GTA does.

A car game and an open-world sandbox are 2 different beasts entirely. GTA had an engine and 2 games which that supported an open-world environment (one set in a city, another in the west), with AI, physics, driving, shooting, cover-system etc all already implemented. Yet it still took them 4 years to create GTA V. Watch_Dogs had the same development time but with almost half the people, less money, more platforms to develop for (they also working on a Wii U version) and had to build everything from scratch almost.

I can't comment on the driving as the game is still downloading for me. If it's bad then that's a fair criticism. The game still doesn't deserve the hate it is getting.

And? It's marketing to help sell the game. What do you expect them to say? "It's actually not next-gen but instead a poor man's GTA".

ah here they had 5 or 6 years... and you are saying gta5 had twice the team and a bigger budget yes but why is watch dogs 65-70 euro then if they wanna provide a mediocre game dont charge the consumer more than what rockstar xharged for gta..

jaysus lads why so defensive about a game we are all consumers we all want good value

27-05-2014 11:53am

speedboatchase wrote: »

Its Metacritic is 82. What score 'should' it have been to have met expectations?

It hasn't met my expectations. Why is it such an issue for some posters to understand. Again stated in all my other posts I'm not willing to spend 70 on it. Enough of opinions from my freinds and the critics to give me correct guidance. Because it sounds like if you don't take the risk and buy the game and play it for yourself then you have no idea what your talking about. I will let other people and journalists take that risk for me and have no issue waiting until its 20 euros to give it a go on a dull weekend.

Randall Floyd · 27-05-2014 11:57am

70 euros is a lot for any game in my opinion.

RasTa · 27-05-2014 11:58am

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It hasn't met my expectations. Why is it such an issue for some posters to understand. Again stated in all my other posts I'm not willing to spend 70 on it. Enough of opinions from my freinds and the critics to give me correct guidance. Because it sounds like if you don't take the risk and buy the game and play it for yourself then you have no idea what your talking about. I will let other people and journalists take that risk for me and have no issue waiting until its 20 euros to give it a go on a dull weekend.

You'll be waiting awhile for it to reach €20. It's not €70 either

speedboatchase · 27-05-2014 11:59am

This game really has the angriest, strangest backlash I've seen for a while. On some forums people who haven't played it seem genuinely angry that it's receiving good reviews.

Penn · 27-05-2014 12:00pm

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

ah here they had 5 or 6 years... and you are saying gta5 had twice the team and a bigger budget yes but why is watch dogs 65-70 euro then if they wanna provide a mediocre game dont charge the consumer more than what rockstar xharged for gta..

Because GTAV was far more likely to make their money back in sales and make a huge profit. It was one of the most anticipated game releases ever. A new franchise like Watch Dogs, with the effort and money they're putting into marketing, special editions etc, it's largely because they are not as safe. Yes, they spent less than Rockstar did, and they had a smaller team, but it's also a game which won't appeal to as many people. it's a game which will never have the sales or profits of GTAV. For Ubisoft to make a profit, there's no way they could sell it for €50-60. If anything, that's a huge warning sign to any consumer that it's not a top game.

Comparing graphics/gameplay/driving with GTAV, that I can understand. Comparing price/budget/sales etc with GTAV is comparing apples and cheese.

Benzino · 27-05-2014 12:04pm

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

ah here they had 5 or 6 years... and you are saying gta5 had twice the team and a bigger budget yes but why is watch dogs 65-70 euro then if they wanna provide a mediocre game dont charge the consumer more than what rockstar xharged for gta..

jaysus lads why so defensive about a game we are all consumers we all want good value

They had 5 years. Most next-gen games are 65-70 in bricks and mortar. It's a ridiculous price and I haven't payed that for any next-gen game, you can get them cheaper if you look around. The PS3 version is the same price as GTAV

The same can be said about why there is so much hate. Somebody said it looked like GTA 3 on the PS2 ffs..

27-05-2014 12:04pm

Benzino wrote: »

Pretty sure work began in 2009, not 2008. 600 is still almost half the development team of GTA and is very unlikely to have near the budget GTA does.

A car game and an open-world sandbox are 2 different beasts entirely. GTA had an engine and 2 games which that supported an open-world environment (one set in a city, another in the west), with AI, physics, driving, shooting, cover-system etc all already implemented. Yet it still took them 4 years to create GTA V. Watch_Dogs had the same development time but with almost half the people, less money, more platforms to develop for (they also working on a Wii U version) and had to build everything from scratch almost.

I can't comment on the driving as the game is still downloading for me. If it's bad then that's a fair criticism. The game still doesn't deserve the hate it is getting.

And? It's marketing to help sell the game. What do you expect them to say? "It's actually not next-gen but instead a poor man's GTA".

Yes its terrible marketing lies that get consumers to get dupped into squandering 70 euros. Exactly my point.

No I'm 100% sure it started in 2008 pulled from source. Check Google. Six hundred is still a very large group of developers. Have a count of how many devs in Naughty Dog dev team for last of us. Numbers mean nothing when its quality that should be the key.

Nobody is hating on it. Speaking with there wallets isn't hating.

tok9 · 27-05-2014 12:09pm

NORTH1 wrote: »

I avoid the main stream ign and others. Seek out the the small reviewer, youtube commentator. I feel you get a more honest review. But to be fair this was coming down the line. Most of us are honest enough with ourselves to realise our fears.

Okay fair enough. Just curious what mediocre reviews have you viewed that you trust?

27-05-2014 12:10pm

RasTa wrote: »

You'll be waiting awhile for it to reach €20. It's not €70 either

Cool then 30 euro. Happy? Or il take on lone from someone else. No issue. Patience is a great thing to have.

DARK-KNIGHT · 27-05-2014 12:11pm

I dont understand some people defending a game that clearly isnt up to the hype that followed it. People that have raised concerns have been burnt before with bf4 and few other muck titles

Will I Amnt · 27-05-2014 12:23pm

Just had a quick blast of it on PS4 there, first impressions aren't great, barring the fps you wouldn't think it much better than a PS3 game.
The driving is bad, really bad and I've knocked a couple of cop cars into head on collisions and they seemed to just go through the oncoming car, barely slowing them down at all.
Basically, most of the stuff we've been hearing about is spot on but if the storyline is good enough I'll live with it.

Xenji · 27-05-2014 12:23pm

Watch Dogs: the Digital Foundry verdict

Watch Dogs meets most of our expectations of a next-gen title, but falls a little short on others. It's clear that the six-month delay has resulted in a significantly more polished title, but some parts of the visual presentation are still stronger than others. Night-time lighting counts as a huge high point, for example, delivering on the early promises made in its rain-soaked E3 2012 showcase. In concert with the Havok physics used for cloth simulation, ragdoll impacts and water, the world not only looks, but reacts in a way we hope future titles will expand upon.

But it's often the case that the game carries the distinct air of the 2013 launch window title it was originally meant to be. Technical aspects such as the weak texture filtering, pop-in and dithered shadows stand out in the face of an impressively constructed Chicago cityscape. Seamless online play adds an exciting dimension to the sandbox formula too, though not necessarily a brand new idea to the console scene itself; players are able to invade one another, complete missions in co-op, or compete in races. That said, the improved hardware makes delivery of this idea more tenable, where getting any frame-rate drop below the 30fps line in solo play requires some heavy stress-testing. The overall impression is that gameplay and frame-rate consistency are strong, on the tested PS4 version at least.

Does Watch Dogs truly deliver on the promise of its initial E3 2012 reveal? The short answer is yes. Cutting away the obviously pre-rendered CG inserts at E3 2012 leaves a slice of gameplay that is indeed a close match for the final game. In fact, the finished game comes out of the comparison very favourably, because that original demo only represented a tiny fraction of the overall offering; Watch Dogs as it ships is an ambitious project with a massive cityscape to explore and a vast array of tasks to carry out. The only downside is that, on a conceptual level, this still feels like a game that takes the template established by the last-gen Grand Theft Auto titles and merely embellishes it - often dramatically - as opposed to completely reinventing the genre in the way that many might have hoped. Whether it's the true next-gen experience you wanted is down your expectations, then, but on a technical level we do not feel duped by the original reveal.

Kaizersoze81 · 27-05-2014 12:28pm

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Just had a quick blast of it on PS4 there, first impressions aren't great, barring the fps you wouldn't think it much better than a PS3 game.
The driving is bad, really bad and I've knocked a couple of cop cars into head on collisions and they seemed to just go through the oncoming car, barely slowing them down at all.
Basically, most of the stuff we've been hearing about is spot on but if the storyline is good enough I'll live with it.

Heard the driving part of it is terrible alright. Such a crucial part of an open world game to mess up.

Watch Dogs

Comments