Gaming Watch_Dogs - Launch Trailer Released

[GameWinner]

Welp. Looks like I'll be buying this for PS4 once it hits the $20 price tag. Which shouldn't take long since Watch_Dogs 2 will be out next year.

 

[Deleted-188346]

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!"

Or some people are looking at the game in a level headed manner. I haven't even bought it, but I'm not going to buy into the crusade of negative hyperbole against the game. Not everything is black and white.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Or some people are looking at the game in a level headed manner. I haven't even bought it, but I'm not going to buy into the crusade of negative hyperbole against the game. Not everything is black and white.

So denying all the persistent issues and just saying "Well graphics don't matter" or "it has its quirks" is "level headed"?

Man, call Merriam-Webster, the definition just changed.

If you like the game despite it being shit that's fine, but to just push issues under the carpet as "quirks" is just ignorance.

Thank god I left this hype train shortly after E3, I'll be glad I saved $60 to buy something worthwhile like a movie ticket or food.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED

Huh, I guess they should've delayed it to 2015 since it's still not ready.

Edit: This reminds me of the crap that I'd get in Sleeping Dogs. God damn devs can't even fix their games before the customers get ahold of it.

 

[Deleted-188346]

So denying all the persistent issues...

Like what? The console versions look lousy, but the PC version actually looks decent. The game has some wonky physics, but so do most sandbox games. These issues don't remove much quality from the core gameplay in my opinion. The game is actually fun, but you guys can't see past some sub-par physics and graphics. Your loss.

and just saying "Well graphics don't matter" or "it has its quirks" is "level headed"?

Actually, yeah. There is more to the game than physics, and graphics are a non-issue for the PC version. I'm looking at what the game does right, and, upon weighing up the negatives against the positives, I feel that it's actually still a decent game.

Man, call Merriam-Webster, the definition just changed.

lol. You might have a Chinese knockoff of Merriam-Webster if you think I'm not being level-headed. Knee-jerking as hard as you guys is the complete opposite of level-headed.

If you like the game despite it being shit that's fine, but to just push issues under the carpet as "quirks" is just ignorance.

The train example of the physics is isolated, and thus a quirk. Nothing else in the game suddenly stops/starts in that manner.

 

[T-hug]

So did anyone pick this up yet? It's getting 8.5-9/10 all over the place.
I decided to preorder Soul Suspect instead, the LE is only £40! Figured I'd get Watch Dogs later in the year when they release a complete/goty edition with all of the DLC/preorder bonus junk!

 

[Deleted-188346]

And the reviews are out. Oh wow, 8/10 average. It's almost as if people were overreacting about the game. I wonder if anybody was trying to tell people to keep a level-head and look past some of its superficial shortcomings.

I'll just wait for the excuse of "Ubisoft bribed all the websites".

 

[Gahars]

And the reviews are out. Oh wow, 8/10 average. It's almost as if people were overreacting about the game. I wonder if anybody was trying to tell people to keep a level-head and look past some of its superficial shortcomings.

Because video game reviews are proof of a game's quality, right? It's not like Ubisoft's has ever released a lackluster game that received quite good criti- oh, wait. Well, at least it's not like there's some questionable conflicts of interests revolving around the press events or any- oh. Oh. Ohhh.

If you have to turn to reviews (especially in the games industry, which is about as bad as it gets), things aren't looking too good for your side. Citing subreddits (especially ones created specifically for the game) just shows you're not interested in looking at the game as is - just drinking the Kool-Aid and denying the basic facts of the situation.

If you're that committed to buyer's remorse, well, go right ahead.

 

[gifi4]

Played about an hour. Definitely not something I'd ever recommend. The game plays like a piece of shit. The driving is back on par with the GTA San Andreas era...
I don't know, I guess coming from GTA, this ended up being over-hyped to the point that the devs got lazy and assumed the hype train would deliver their money regardless.

It reminds me of Saints Row, the story is good enough for a single playthrough but the overall gameplay isn't all that enticing.

 

[Deleted-188346]

Because video game reviews are proof of a game's quality, right?

Not proof, but when the majority of reviewers all generally enjoy a game, it's usually indicative that a game is doing something right.

Because video game reviews are proof of a game's quality, right?
It's not like Ubisoft's has ever released a lackluster game that received quite good criti- oh, wait.

Really? The user score is only 3 points below the metascore, and somehow this page is evidence of Assassins Creed being lackluster despite good critic response? Seems to me that the user response is very close to the critic response. Nice try though, better luck next time.

Well, at least it's not like there's some questionable conflicts of interests revolving around the press events or any- oh. Oh. Ohhh.

Because reviewers totally played the game, thought "I hate this, and so will my readers, but I better give this a 8/10 instead of a 2/10 because Ubisoft gave me a free tablet. I have no obligation to do actually carry this out, and I could technically give an honest review AND keep the tablet, but derp. Making my fanbase distrust me when they play this crap game that I recommended will be funny".

If you have to turn to reviews (especially in the games industry, which is about as bad as it gets), things aren't looking too good for your side.

i kno, u cant spel ign witout ignorant amirite. gaems journilists r al payed off. omg y my favorit gaem get low review from everione, must be corupt revewers

Citing subreddits (especially ones created specifically for the game) just shows you're not interested in looking at the game as is - just drinking the Kool-Aid and denying the basic facts of the situation.

You do realise that the Watch_Dogs subreddit also has negative opinions too, right? Also: Watch Dogs Review Thread.

If you're that committed to buyer's remorse, well, go right ahead.

Did I say I bought it? I don't think I did. I couldn't have possibly been playing the full-game "demo" that appeared a few days ago.

Seems like the lot of you judged something you haven't played, turns out that people are actually enjoying it and don't care about your minor complaints, and you're going down with your ship.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

And the reviews are out. Oh wow, 8/10 average. It's almost as if people were overreacting about the game. I wonder if anybody was trying to tell people to keep a level-head and look past some of its superficial shortcomings.

I'll just wait for the excuse of "Ubisoft bribed all the websites".

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs Gosh, that user score seems really really low compared to the official reviews, almost as if the game is actually shit despite what reviewers say! Pfft, maybe that's just the PC version! http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/watch-dogs Oh gosh, a 6.0...that's not good...maybe the PS4 version is bad, too? http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs Oh good golly gosh a 5.4. Man, all of these gamers obviously have no idea what they're talking about compared to reviewers!

The game is absolutely lacklaster, I'm about 75% done with it and the only reason I still bother is because the story is interesting enough to make me wade through repetitive and boring gameplay with shit driving physics/controls (which is sort of a shame when a lot of the game consists of car chases) and recycled gameplay mechanics (the ctOS towers and ctOS database things are just reskinned Far Cry 3 radio towers and enemy bases, respectively). It has a lot of promise, and the first half hour will make you think the game is good, but after that you'll essentially be replaying the first couple missions over and over and over again. Not really a good quality for an open-world game that promised diverse gameplay.

 

[Deleted-188346]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs Gosh, that user score seems really really low compared to the official reviews, almost as if the game is actually shit despite what reviewers say! Pfft, maybe that's just the PC version! http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/watch-dogs Oh gosh, a 6.0...that's not good...maybe the PS4 version is bad, too? http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs Oh good golly gosh a 5.4. Man, all of these gamers obviously have no idea what they're talking about compared to reviewers!

Or perhaps it's being review-bombed...? You know, that thing that happens when you let anybody submit a review, regardless of whether they own the product? This game is currently suffering a massive crusade against it, one that started before the game even launched. The user score here is reflective of that, in my opinion.

The game is absolutely lacklaster, I'm about 75% done with it and the only reason I still bother is because the story is interesting enough to make me wade through repetitive and boring gameplay with shit driving physics/controls (which is sort of a shame when a lot of the game consists of car chases) and recycled gameplay mechanics (the ctOS towers and ctOS database things are just reskinned Far Cry 3 radio towers and enemy bases, respectively). It has a lot of promise, and the first half hour will make you think the game is good, but after that you'll essentially be replaying the first couple missions over and over and over again. Not really a good quality for an open-world game that promised diverse gameplay.

See, this is good. You played it, you stated your reasons for not liking it, and you didn't just jump on the "lel watchdogs bad" train.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

Or perhaps it's being review-bombed...? You know, that thing that happens when you let anybody submit a review, regardless of whether they own the product? This game is currently suffering a massive crusade against it, one that started before the game even launched. The user score here is reflective of that, in my opinion.


See, this is good. You played it, you stated your reasons for not liking it, and you didn't just jump on the "lel watchdogs bad" train.

The problem with your whole "lel watchdogs bad" train argument is Watch Dogs supposedly beat some sort of first day of sales record for Ubisoft, meaning a majority of the people hating on it? Probably bought the game. You want reviews from people who played it? Go to the Steam page, skip over all the uPlay crying, and practically the first 100 or so "most helpful" reviews are going to be the same negative bullshit. The game is terribad, everyone knows it, what's done is done.

 

[Deleted-188346]

The problem with your whole "lel watchdogs bad" train argument is Watch Dogs supposedly beat some sort of first day of sales record for Ubisoft, meaning a majority of the people hating on it? Probably bought the game.

That makes no sense at all. Beating sales records doesn't mean that everybody bought it and thus most or all feedback is from product owners. That is a mind-melting logical error. And, you're just assuming this because it suits your opinion regardless of the fact that your assumption makes no sense. Come on, you can come up with a better argument than that.

You want reviews from people who played it? Go to the Steam page, skip over all the uPlay crying, and practically the first 100 or so "most helpful" reviews are going to be the same negative bullshit. The game is terribad, everyone knows it, what's done is done.

Those who are loudest don't necessarily represent the majority opinion. If you enjoyed a game, you aren't likely to go to the steam forums and proclaim that you loved it. You may not be aware of this, but the world isn't black and white...

The game is terribad, everyone knows it, what's done is done.

..sorry, you certainly aren't aware that the world isn't black and white.

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Angry Joe gave it a 7/10 for this game which is a fair score but his review felt rushed and incomplete unfortunately due to the demand he had to get it up.

He didn't even talk much about the shitty vehicle gameplay the game has.

 

[Hells Malice]

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!"

I pirated it and found it pretty fun.

Ubisoft did royally fuck up with the hype though. Idiots. The more hype, the more hate. Unless you deliver on every single promise, the hype just turns to hate and suddenly your game is getting shit on for the next several months even though it isn't actually bad.

If Watch Dogs is a 7/10 (average review i've seen), then GTAV is easily a 5/10. But it's really not hard to be better than GTAV. Saints Row 1 and 2 are STILL better than it in every aspect except graphics.