Gaming Watch_Dogs - Launch Trailer Released

[T-hug]

​

​

Just in case you haven't seen enough of the game already, Ubisoft have just released the Watch_Dogs launch trailer.

 

[kristianity77]

Im just trying this now on the 360 and to say its disappointing is an understatement . Thats not to say the PS4/Xbox One versions will suck, but the previous generation version certainly does! I've only played about 3 hours or so but its vastly overrated.

 

[T-hug]

I was watching someone stream it live on my PS4 this morning. There was over 800 viewers and most of the comments weren't praising it at all.
I wonder if putting it back 6 months whilst still releasing tons of promo has killed the interest in the game?

 

[kristianity77]

I dont think the delay has helped, and like I said it could turn out to be better on next gen. But I'd imagine the core of the game would be the same. Its just...well.....so boring and generic! Its problem I suspect is GTAV. Its impossible to not make comparisons right off the bat and its in second place in pretty much all areas. If it didn't have hype it did and was just released to little or no fanfare, this is a 6 or 7 out of 10 game at best.

 

[naxil]

Im just trying this now on the 360 and to say its disappointing is an understatement . Thats not to say the PS4/Xbox One versions will suck, but the previous generation version certainly does! I've only played about 3 hours or so but its vastly overrated.

what is wrong with the game? i have 360 and i can't find a specific review (damn megazing write all console on title and i can't understand what platform review is...)
becaues i have try spiderman2 yesterday on my 360.. and BLEAH!!! is very orrible and ripetitive games! the previous one isn't a super games but is ten time better!!! the second is shit.. i have see lot of horrible games this year for 360 (only good is darksoul2 and gtaV)

 

[Nathan Drake]

This game is going to fall into the hype trap. Ubisoft has pushed the game way, way too hard on everybody. There's hyping your title, and then there's what Ubisoft did with Watchdogs. There is no way in hell the game will be able to meet the exceptionally high expectations set. Good job on shooting yourselves in the foot, Ubisoft.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Watched the car gameplay and it was pretty disappointing and lame, it felt like an RC car game, and also, what the hell is up with the metal posts not doing any damage to the car?

Even the shitty (because it's too glitchy) Sleeping Dogs has better car gameplay than Watch Dogs.

 

[hhs]

I watched two different streams and they pushed me further away from buying the game. 360 was a mess. PS4 the guy refused to do anything other than spidertank.

It really does just look like brown GTA with really bad writing. Now I have nothing to look forward to until E3...

 

[nando]

i've seen so much. i don't even want it anymore.

 

[Joe88]

I saw the gamestop commercial and it was pushing its self as a poor mans gtav

 

[Mario92]

Green Man Gaming dropped the bomb here: 37% off the price of Watch Dogs. With Deluxe Edition that means it costs 45€, meanwhile on playstation store price is 80€.
http://www.greenmangaming.com/s/fi/en/pc/games/action/watch-dogs-deluxe-edition/?gmgr=lugupure and use code GMG025-MAYBHW-SOSAVE on checkout.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I've seen some videos/gifs of it and it's just embarrassing. Looks like blunder of the year right here, I'm glad I kinda fell off the hype wagon shortly after E3.

 

[Gahars]

EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED

 

[Deleted-188346]

Guys, guys, guys...remember...graphics don't matter, unless it's Watchdogs. Oh, people are hating because Ubisoft misrepresented the graphics? Don't worry that it's standard industry practice, and, for example, Far Cry 3 did the exact same thing and nobody cared.

I'll just wait for the reviews and see what the game is actually like. That said, the PC version actually looks pretty decent visually.

 

[Gahars]

Guys, guys, guys...remember...graphics don't matter, unless it's Watchdogs. Oh, people are hating because Ubisoft misrepresented the graphics? Don't worry that it's standard industry practice, and, for example, Far Cry 3 did the exact same thing and nobody cared.

I'll just wait for the reviews and see what the game is actually like. That said, the PC version actually looks pretty decent visually.

Sure they do. They're not the be-all, end-all or anything, but graphics matter, especially for a game like Watch_Dogs, where the graphics are (or were supposed) a rather big selling point. (Not to mention that the physics on the thing are also visibly broken.)

The problem is the gulf between what was originally shown and what seems to be the final product. A slight difference is understandable; a gap like this makes you wonder what the hell happened or if they were just lying the whole damn time. You mention Far Cry 3, but the gap was nowhere near as severe as this and that game still looked very good, even on consoles.

This isn't quite up there with Aliens: Colonial Marines, but it isn't all that far removed either.

Couple that with the gameplay, which is supposed to be rather lackluster and repetitive, and this really doesn't seem like it'll be worth anyone's time. I hope Ubisoft has some sort of Day One patch or there's just been some problem with the texture models or something, but... well, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Sure they do. They're not the be-all, end-all or anything, but graphics matter, especially for a game like Watch_Dogs, where the graphics are (or were supposed) a rather big selling point. (Not to mention that the physics on the thing are also visibly broken.)

I saw your isolated video of the train. That's not indicative of overall poor physics however. Look at the GTAIV Swing Glitch.
My original quote about graphics not mattering is mocking the mentality of "when it comes to X game, graphics don't matter, gameplay does!" and then, when the HateTrain is in full force, the mentality switches to "graphics matter! You need both gameplay and graphics!". Very hypocritical. If anyone here has ever defended the Nintendo Wii based on "gameplay over graphics" and are also mocking Watchdogs, you are a hypocrite.

The problem is the gulf between what was originally shown and what seems to be the final product.

I think the problem is that there is any misrepresentation of the final product at all, not how wide the gap is. With other games, either the gap is indeed smaller, or perhaps they timed the marketing better so that people would not notice the difference so easily. But it doesn't matter. Some games will take a larger graphical hit in post-announcement development than others. The problem, in my opinion, lies with the fact that companies are misrepresenting their games at all. Watchdogs just ended up with a lesser product at the end of their development cycle than the other hyped AAA games.

A slight difference is understandable; a gap like this makes you wonder what the hell happened or if they were just lying the whole damn time.

I severely doubt it. Ubisoft would realise that although they might get some easy pre-order sales or day 1 purchases, they'll take an irreversible PR hit from intentionally misleading customers, and a severe drop in post-release sales. I'm betting that the game absolutely looked like the E3 presentation initially, and as time went on, they needed to scale down the visuals for a more practical rate of development/performance reasons/synchronised development across platforms.

You mention Far Cry 3, but the gap was nowhere near as severe as this and that game still looked very good, even on consoles.

Maybe their development cycle just turned out better. Maybe they spent more money. Maybe the Gods favored them. Who knows. It doesn't matter, they also misrepresented their visuals and it could have turned out like Watchdogs.

Couple that with the gameplay, which is supposed to be rather lackluster and repetitive, and this really doesn't seem like it'll be worth anyone's time. I hope Ubisoft has some sort of Day One patch or there's just been some problem with the texture models or something, but... well, I'm not holding my breath.

I've actually heard good things about the gameplay. I still haven't bought it though, as I'm waiting on less biased/extreme opinions. The PC version actually does seem to have some rather nice visuals.

http://imgur.com/a/BnyE7 - Actual screenshots of PC version on ultra settings.

 

[Gahars]

I saw your isolated video of the train. That's not indicative of overall poor physics however. Look at the GTAIV Swing Glitch.

Sure, it's one video, but the video itself is not isolated. There's been playthroughs/streams and the issues are rather consistent - the sometimes wonky physics, the poor textures, the lackluster cars, etc. A little bit of that is understandable, but when the problems are so numerous, especially when the game was largely hyped around its visual prowess, well... it's quite a bit embarrassing.

My original quote about graphics not mattering is mocking the mentality of "when it comes to X game, graphics don't matter, gameplay does!" and then, when the HateTrain is in full force, the mentality switches to "graphics matter! You need both gameplay and graphics!". Very hypocritical. If anyone here has ever defended the Nintendo Wii based on "gameplay over graphics" and are also mocking Watchdogs, you are a hypocrite.

Good thing that's not me, then. :^)

Though to be fair, you can still make a good-looking game with poor graphics as long as you have an interesting aesthetic style. Watch_Dogs... doesn't. It's just, sort of... bland and generic.

I think the problem is that there is any misrepresentation of the final product at all, not how wide the gap is. With other games, either the gap is indeed smaller, or perhaps they timed the marketing better so that people would not notice the difference so easily. But it doesn't matter. Some games will take a larger graphical hit in post-announcement development than others. The problem, in my opinion, lies with the fact that companies are misrepresenting their games at all. Watchdogs just ended up with a lesser product at the end of their development cycle than the other hyped AAA games.

Games take a long time to develop and builds change; it's unreasonable to expect that what was shown years (or even a year) ago will be exactly representative of the final product. It's a silly standard, and one almost no developer could meet.

There's always going to be some difference between what was initially shown and what we finally get. It only becomes a problem when the gap between the two is beyond reasonable and when companies still use that original version to try and promote/sell the new one.

I severely doubt it. Ubisoft would realise that although they might get some easy pre-order sales or day 1 purchases, they'll take an irreversible PR hit from intentionally misleading customers, and a severe drop in post-release sales. I'm betting that the game absolutely looked like the E3 presentation initially, and as time went on, they needed to scale down the visuals for a more practical rate of development/performance reasons/synchronised development across platforms.

That didn't stop Gearbox.

It's worth pointing out that I never said they were lying - only that the gap is severe enough that people might wonder that.

Maybe their development cycle just turned out better. Maybe they spent more money. Maybe the Gods favored them. Who knows. It doesn't matter, they also misrepresented their visuals and it could have turned out like Watchdogs.

But it didn't, so all those maybes are irrelevant.

The gap was minimal and reasonable, and the final product was still a good-looking game. If Watch_Dogs still looked good despite the downgrades, there'd be a whole lot less complaining.

I've actually heard good things about the gameplay.

I... haven't, even from people on this forum, but to each his own.

I still haven't bought it though, as I'm waiting on less biased/extreme opinions. The PC version actually does seem to have some rather nice visuals.

http://imgur.com/a/BnyE7 - Actual screenshots of PC version on ultra settings.

Half of those are from cutscenes, and the gameplay ones... still look pretty bad. Granted, the game's night lighting is better, but the textures are still pretty poor.

It's worth pointing out that the video I posted is also (obviously) from the PC version on Ultra.

 

[Deleted_171835]

~snip

Except. (all in-game PC screenshots)

It.

Actually.

Looks.

Good.

I mean sure if you're going to cherry-pick the worst shot you can find, the game won't look so good but overall, it's hardly a downgrade from the E3 footage. The game still looks really fucking good on the PS4/One/PC.

And impressions have been pretty positive.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Sure, it's one video, but the video itself is not isolated. There's been playthroughs/streams and the issues are rather consistent - the sometimes wonky physics, the poor textures, the lackluster cars, etc. A little bit of that is understandable, but when the problems are so numerous, especially when the game was largely hyped around its visual prowess, well... it's quite a bit embarrassing.

The game has quirks, glitches, and oddities, but so did Sleeping Dogs, GTAIV/V, and many other sandbox games. People are on a rampage of "omg, did u see that glitch lawl" and "omgz, those graphics", and I think they're being unfair. There is a crusade being launched against this game and I think it's unwarranted. This isn't the repeat of Colonial Marines that people are looking for in my opinion.

Though to be fair, you can still make a good-looking game with poor graphics as long as you have an interesting aesthetic style. Watch_Dogs... doesn't. It's just, sort of... bland and generic.

The Wii was nothing but poor graphics. Sure, some games made up for it with art style, but nobody can escape that it was an underpowered machine, and the majority of games didn't look very good. That didn't stop people from saying "but gameplay". Now that the Wii U isn't a popular cause to rally behind, nobody is using that logic, at least in this case. How convenient.

Games take a long time to develop and builds change; it's unreasonable to expect that what was shown years (or even a year) ago will be exactly representative of the final product. It's a silly standard, and one almost no developer could meet.

I admit it, I made a mistake here. I thought you were much like the rest of the crusaders implying that Ubisoft should be specially hung for using the same "impressive tech-demo, lesser final product" strategy as every other company.

There's always going to be some difference between what was initially shown and what we finally get. It only becomes a problem when the gap between the two is beyond reasonable and when companies still use that original version to try and promote/sell the new one.

This is news to me. Can you provide a source that Ubisoft is still using the original pre-finalised version of the game to promote the current version?

That didn't stop Gearbox.

Gearbox aren't Ubisoft, and Colonial Marines isn't Watch_Dogs. Watch_Dogs is a game that was genuinely developed, but the console version is of lesser quality than expected. Gearbox intentionally screwed people over by collecting funds from Sega intended for CM, allocating them to BL2, hiring an ill-fitting studio to do the work for them, having inadequate communication with the studio during the process, and hyped the resulting abomination up as the next coming of Christ.

The only thing that those two games have in common is that they aren't what people expected, and they used the same tech-demo practice as everyone else does.

It's worth pointing out that I never said they were lying - only that the gap is severe enough that people might wonder that.

When a game turns out disappointing, my first suspicion isn't "they must have done this on purpose".

But it didn't, so all those maybes are irrelevant.

The gap was minimal and reasonable, and the final product was still a good-looking game. If Watch_Dogs still looked good despite the downgrades, there'd be a whole lot less complaining.

My point is, the end doesn't justify the means. The industry practice of misleading the public is what we should be shaking sticks at in my opinion. Would anybody complain if Watch_Dogs was, when we first saw "gameplay", shown honestly? I doubt it. Just because some AAA titles turn out acceptable, doesn't mean that the practice is acceptable. If Gearbox actually showed a realistic build of CM, everyone would have laughed at them instead of slapping down thousands of preorders.

I... haven't, even from people on this forum, but to each his own.

http://www.reddit.com/r/watch_dogs
I don't see a whole lot of complaining. In fact, I see a lot of people discussing the game and seemingly having fun.

Half of those are from cutscenes, and the gameplay ones... still look pretty bad. Granted, the game's night lighting is better, but the textures are still pretty poor.

It's worth pointing out that the video I posted is also (obviously) from the PC version on Ultra.

Some of them are bad. Most of them are good. Here's a bad screenshot from GTA V. Surely people will go crazy abo...oh right, there's no crusade against that game. Also, in your video, I personally didn't find the graphics as offensive as some people do. Actually doesn't look half bad for a sandbox game.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Wow holy shit people are so desperately clinging on to this game even though it's just pre-order fodder. You hype the shit out of it, make it shit, and then get all that tasty preorder money.

There's tons of videos, gifs, and webms of the glitches, terrible physics, and awful graphics. You can't go "oh w-well that doesn't matter I care about gameplay!" when these things are inexcusable for a game this hyped and this big.

I have a feeling the buyer's regret is so large that you're just going "n-no it's good!"