• 49 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Zevvion (1874 posts) -

Let me start off by saying I do like the game and I largely have the Quick Look and TotalBiscuit to thank for that. They made me manage my expectations before I got the game.

That said, even with my expectation significantly downgraded to what they showed before, I still am a little disappointed. For starters, there is almost no real hacking that you're doing. Next, the hacking that you can do is extremely simplistic and often not required. Not to mention, nothing about it is new. Almost everything you've seen done in games before. The camera hacking that allows you to hack another camera and move through several until you can hack the spot you're supposed to hack; I've seen that in a bunch of games. I believe the last I played that had it was Arkham Origins.

Lastly, they go for such a serious tone with a focus on hacking which implies that you need to use that stuff to get by. Meanwhile, I'm playing on Hard and I can just shoot my way out of everything. You're carrying like 20 guns in your trench coat. Going about sneaking is often more hassle that takes more time than just gunning everyone down.

I still enjoy playing the game though. I'm trying to 'role-play' it a bit. Pretending like I'm not a one-man army that can blast his way through anything. Pretending like I need to use the hacking skills. It's a fun game to play it like that. Still, when I look back at what they showed it looked so much better and so much more interesting than what it actually turned out to be.

#2 Posted by IIGrayFoxII (304 posts) -

I was going to write about this myself. How to manage expectations and hype of a particular game. The funny thing is, everything you can do in that original reveal (aside from the visuals) is in this game. I wonder why I set such unreal expectations.

I look back at it and laugh because what did I think an open world modern game would be from Ubisoft? Exactly this. Obviously.

The more I play it, the more I like it. I am not very far into the main story but I do enjoy an open world game that gives you stealth options in almost every scenario. Customization is limited, driving is stiff, and story... well we will see. Like you, I am turning around on the game and yes roleplaying as a hacker and not a gunman makes it much more enjoyable.

#3 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

@zevvion said:

I still enjoy playing the game though. I'm trying to 'role-play' it a bit. Pretending like I'm not a one-man army that can blast his way through anything. Pretending like I need to use the hacking skills. It's a fun game to play it like that. Still, when I look back at what they showed it looked so much better and so much more interesting than what it actually turned out to be.

See I don't know about this. In my experience (especially when you start running into elites), no you really cant just run in and gun everyone done. You can be killed yourself very very fast if an enemy just gets a few seconds of clean shots off. I have died numerous times in "knock down" scenarios where the guy I have to knock out wont leave cover and has a higher power automatic shotgun. If I have to run through an open area and hop their cover to get at them there is a very good window where they could potentially kill me before I get the takedown off. You aren't as bad ass as you make it sound.

That said the game also feels way more rewarding if you play it stealthier, it seems like Aiden is the type of guy who would be more cautious and on the down low, and it is also more fun playing that way too. That said many "canned" encounters I still go in with my trusty silenced 1911 and I will slowly pick people off where possible. However my most proud moment by far was when I snuck my way onto a roof, saw a transformer, threw a lure onto it and triggered it, then when all but two elite guard were inspecting the area blew the transformer killing them all.

That is also pretty much what the demo's looked like too. People need to just manage expectations.

#4 Posted by IIGrayFoxII (304 posts) -

Plus, can we start a movement to reduce the number of collectibles and side content in a game? This game is ridiculous. Mini-games, investigations, contracts, locations, crime, cTos towers and so much more. The map is incredibly cluttered. I think is very easy to loose focus and not enjoy the game as much as the story missions are better, structured and more confined.

#5 Posted by UlquioKani (1059 posts) -

I went back and watched the 2012 reveal trailer and everything apart from the graphics from the trailer is implemented in pretty much the same way here. Which lead me to wonder why I was so blown away by it? I'm loving the game so far because all the hacking stuff you can do makes what would have been a generic third person shooter way more fun. The third person shooter mechanics are much better than a game like GTAV. Even with the improvements to GTAV, this plays much better than it does and has a more flexible cover system to boot. The game plays more like one of the modern splinter cell games. That cover system is lifted straight from it. I didn't find the stealth to be stuff to be a hassle.

For me it was exactly the game they showed but I'm wondering why I thought it was so revolutionary back then. I'm loving what the final product is though.

#6 Edited by CorruptedEvil (3408 posts) -

I have no clue why anyone had such high expectations for this game, it's a perfectly good open world game with a cool set of tools, and you could tell that from the original reveal trailer.

#8 Edited by IIGrayFoxII (304 posts) -

@corruptedevil: Well remember this game was announced before the Xbox One and PS4 were announced. I think the visuals alone set unreal expectations for this game and the next generation of consoles (for now anyways). I think expectations became more tempered when they announced the last gen versions and the more recent trailers showing a less visual stunning game.

Plus we hype everything. Titanfall being the most recent example. It is not the next coming of first person shooters, it was just a good shooter. Same applies here.

#9 Posted by TooWalrus (13206 posts) -

I've been doing all sorts of hacking. I usually hack access into a dudes brains with my assault rifle.

#10 Posted by Sanious (793 posts) -

I thought the game looked good and fun in beginning, but this is why I don't buy into hype. You set yourself up for disappointment because whatever you're hyping up will almost never reach the expectations you're setting. The hacking was pretty much the only thing that set itself apart from any other open world game and the rest should have been expected, typical open world game fair. The hacking was the gimmick of the game, which is not a bad thing considering it is something new to propose in a "fucking with the environment" kind of game.

I am more interested in it now than pre-release. After watching some people play it I think it looks like a lot of fun.

#11 Posted by Humanity (9283 posts) -

@zevvion: What did you think it was going to be? All I remember was that the initial video at E3 was walking around some coffee shop, hacking a phone, then a shootout with the cops, running away and hiding in a garage.

For better or worse, that is the game basically. I think when we all first saw that demo everyone got some sort of romanticized notion of how those mechanics would actually play out for real. Everyone should have expected that hacking would just be pressing a button, but for some reason people started visualizing that it will be something grand.

The final game is quite literally the sum of all those little gameplay videos we've seen up until now. Some of it was a bit touched up, like cops holding you at gunpoint so you can dramatically initiate a power outage - while in reality they just gun you down on the spot. That said I don't think the footage up till now was egregiously misleading in any way.

I'm simply confused about what game everyone expected. Watch_Dogs is a fun game, not amazing but pretty good. The few things that "let me down" if that term even applies are just small nuisances - I think the cars drive a bit heavy, taking cover is a bit weird, cop evasion can be a real pain, pulling up the weapon wheel should stop time or slow it down at least etc.. I just don't think at any point I thought to myself "wow I thought this game would be totally different!" I expected pretty much what I got, maybe a bit more, but not much more.

#12 Posted by notnert427 (229 posts) -

Personally, my hype over this game hit every mark on the spectrum at some point, from "holy shit" at E3, to "aw man, it's delayed", to "WTF is going on with the visuals; do I even want this?". By the time it was actually released, I was at a level of cautious optimism with reasonable expectations, and I'm glad to say the game met them. I think the delay definitely did some good. Had they dropped a less-polished version of the game in November alongside the other launch titles, this game would have been a MASSIVE letdown. With the hype tempered a bit over time and it releasing in a bit of a dry spot for games for the new consoles, it did itself some favors. Visually, it was pretty unrealistic to expect devs to have mastered optimization this early in the console lives, though that's what we all hoped for after the '12 E3. Still, the game looks good and plays well for the most part, and I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I'm going to try to stay more realistic about The Division.

#13 Posted by Dixavd (1358 posts) -

I remember finding the original reveal to be quite disappointing, and I was actually surprised how many people loved it. The game they've released seems to be exactly what I was expecting.

It doesn't even seem interesting like the original Assassin's Creed was.

#14 Edited by BisonHero (6540 posts) -

I think it would've been interesting if they'd taken the "Aiden wants to stay low profile" thing more seriously, instead of simply having the part where he has his mouth bandana thing.

Like, imagine he actually had to conceal weapons, so he can only carry pistols in his coat around. If you pick up anything bigger like a rifle, you can't just magically put it in your coat. So if you wanna take a rifle off an enemy or from a gunshop, you better keep it in your trunk or something until you need it, otherwise the cops and civilians will freak out.

Maybe not the most fun thing in the world to do, but it would fit the tone of that E3 reveal trailer much better than GTA with hacking. Remember how that trailer was like, 4 minutes of cybersleuthing around a night club, and then like a brief 1 minute firefight and driving sequence? I guess I was hoping it would be more like L.A. Noire with you following leads on who the criminals are that you want revenge on, but instead of an arrest it would culminate in brief, almost Hitman-like encounters/ambushes where you get access to this well protected dude and kill him. It turns out the game is GTA with hacking, but that the Ubisoft employee playing the game for the E3 trailer was just roleplaying super hard, and there is no reason in the finished product to not just play it like a GTA game.

#15 Posted by Rafaelfc (1348 posts) -

It plays exactly like I anticipated since the initial reveal, like every other modern city criminally focused open world game.

They just added a few tools to the sandbox.

#16 Posted by Irvandus (2879 posts) -

I would argue it's just a graphical downgrade of what they showed. There wasn't anything that special to begin with. Too large a hype was created by that original reveal. It's really strange.

#17 Posted by Nasar7 (2687 posts) -

Plus, can we start a movement to reduce the number of collectibles and side content in a game? This game is ridiculous. Mini-games, investigations, contracts, locations, crime, cTos towers and so much more. The map is incredibly cluttered. I think is very easy to loose focus and not enjoy the game as much as the story missions are better, structured and more confined.

I feel like that's a Ubisoft thing. They always go overboard on the dumb, pointless collectibles.

#18 Posted by Nals (77 posts) -

@irvandus:

Hey man, my game looks exactly the same as those old trailers.

Then again I'm playing on PC Ultra, so of course it does, that's what those old trailers were.

As for the hacking, I use it constantly. I use camera jump/lures to clear missions, and managed to get every ctOS Base/Tower unlocked without ever even entering the restricted areas. My favorite was the one in Pawnee, since I had to plan out the guard with the personal cameras routine, then wander over nonchalantly on the sidewalk to throw a lure into the restricted zone to pull him closer to the objective. The only time I've ever really been forced into firefights is the Club/Criminal Convoy missions, and even then I usually abuse Blackouts/Explosions to clear a path to the guy I need to take out, who I then melee.

Those hacking options are still in place and work fine. Not sure if it's a games failing if you see a wealth of options and then just choose use gun on man.

#19 Posted by pyrodactyl (2050 posts) -

I wasn't into it for the first few hours but it really clicked in the mission after ''open your world''. Cought in an ambush, blowing up cars left and right with IEDs I got in a side mission, jumping between security cameras to get an angle on snipers and overload electric counters near them. Shoot a few dudes, blow up some gas vent, blow up another set of reinforcements that takes out a few electric poles and there's a spontaneous regional blackout. I cease the occasion to make my escape, the power comes back online, dudes start shooting, bullets everywhere, I get into a car and speed away. It was amazing.

#20 Posted by A_E_Martin (223 posts) -

Have you watched the initial E3 reveal recently? I have, and it's pretty much what we got. Hell, Digital Foundry compared the final game to the 2012 reveal, and it came out favourably.

Here's a refresher:

#21 Posted by Steadying (1250 posts) -

Checklist open world games seriously need to die off already. They haven't even been around for that long and I'm already completely sick of them.

#22 Posted by xyzygy (9997 posts) -

Plus, can we start a movement to reduce the number of collectibles and side content in a game? This game is ridiculous. Mini-games, investigations, contracts, locations, crime, cTos towers and so much more. The map is incredibly cluttered. I think is very easy to loose focus and not enjoy the game as much as the story missions are better, structured and more confined.

Why? There are many people out there who love collectables, myself included. Why hinder others enjoyment of them? Just ignore them if you don't want to go after them.

#23 Posted by leebmx (2244 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@iigrayfoxii said:

Plus, can we start a movement to reduce the number of collectibles and side content in a game? This game is ridiculous. Mini-games, investigations, contracts, locations, crime, cTos towers and so much more. The map is incredibly cluttered. I think is very easy to loose focus and not enjoy the game as much as the story missions are better, structured and more confined.

Why? There are many people out there who love collectables, myself included. Why hinder others enjoyment of them? Just ignore them if you don't want to go after them.

I think for me its that I would rather have most of the game focused on providing a coherent experience which all feels as if it is part of the same story.

The growing problem with Ubi's games is that they seem to think that providing a huge play area with tons of different things to do and collect is a way to make a great game - I don't think so.

I haven't played Watch Dogs yet (but I will give it a go and some point) but I played the newest Assassins Creed (Black Flag) and stopped after about 10 hours. The game is packed with things to do, but none of them are really that fun (apart from maybe the ship combat). They are just a collection of lots of different shallow experiences which do not add up to a deep whole. I think for Ubi this is an economical way to design games and provides a straightforward content pipeline for their many teams of developers, however it is moving towards creative bankruptcy and is the opposite of fun.

AC:BF felt like a mini game collection set in a very beautiful open world, not a deep, immersive open world experience.

#24 Edited by spraynardtatum (2977 posts) -

I think it's pretty similar to what they showed before the game came out.

Just dumber.

#25 Posted by IIGrayFoxII (304 posts) -

@xyzygy: Well first off I said reduce, not get rid of completely (you can argue with the person who posted above you about that). As someone who has collected all 282 Riddler trophies in Arkham City twice, I like them as well. Watch Dogs has over 300 collectibles / side quests not including the mini games and the random crimes that occur (seriously look at the progression checklist, it is pretty wild). I mean where do you draw the line? I like collecting things too, but when it feels like a slog or just padding the game, it only detracts.

#26 Edited by DeeGee (2126 posts) -

@nals: There are literally videos out there of a side-by-side comparison of PC Ultra and the old demos. They look nothing like each other. PC Ultra is pretty, sure, but it seriously downgraded in comparison to what they said it would look like.

#27 Edited by xyzygy (9997 posts) -

@deegee: Could you perhaps link one of these videos? I'd be really interested to see it. Can't find it on youtube when i search things like "watch dogs pc vs demo"

EDIT: NM Found it :P

EDIT 2: Errr... actually that isn't it. This is comparing to a demo they showed off in March/February. Not PC Ultra.

EDIT 3: This one. Right? The difference is almost generational. I can't believe how much they scaled the game back.

@iigrayfoxii: I know you said reduce. I never said that you said get rid of completely. And I still am against that. Because I, along with others, like these games with tons of collectibles. In fact the Ubisoft open world games are where I go to for those. That's one of the main reasons why I like them. I wouldn't want them to reduce the amount of collectibles at all. It's rare that other games have as much collectibles and it's one of the reasons I like Ubisoft open worlds. You still have the option to not go after them. If they reduce or take away the amount of collectibles, people like me don't have the option to go after collectibles that aren't there.

Also this doesn't even come close to the collectibles that were in AC1.

#28 Posted by Whitestripes09 (409 posts) -

I like the fact that you can unlock stuff with the side missions and collectibles, but the amount you have to do is quite ridiculous... at least the Destroyer sniper rifle was worth getting.

I think the key to having good side mission is making them feel more like actual missions instead of a side activity.Obviously they can't over shadow the main plot... but some sort of mini story line to keep players interested or variety to the gameplay is a lot better than having 40 missions that all involve roughly the same thing over and over.

#29 Posted by Giantstalker (1656 posts) -

It looks like they adopted a completely different, and visually inferior, lighting model for the release.

I wonder if/when this game gets modded, we'll see something like that brought back. I'm waiting until this thing is at least 30% off before I consider buying it, but still that sucks.

#30 Posted by Bollard (5565 posts) -

I'm pretty sure it's exactly what they showed with regards to gameplay. Your expectations probably changed.

Online
#31 Edited by SASnake (339 posts) -

@zevvion said:

Let me start off by saying I do like the game and I largely have the Quick Look and TotalBiscuit to thank for that. They made me manage my expectations before I got the game.

That said, even with my expectation significantly downgraded to what they showed before, I still am a little disappointed. For starters, there is almost no real hacking that you're doing. Next, the hacking that you can do is extremely simplistic and often not required. Not to mention, nothing about it is new. Almost everything you've seen done in games before. The camera hacking that allows you to hack another camera and move through several until you can hack the spot you're supposed to hack; I've seen that in a bunch of games. I believe the last I played that had it was Arkham Origins.

Lastly, they go for such a serious tone with a focus on hacking which implies that you need to use that stuff to get by. Meanwhile, I'm playing on Hard and I can just shoot my way out of everything. You're carrying like 20 guns in your trench coat. Going about sneaking is often more hassle that takes more time than just gunning everyone down.

I still enjoy playing the game though. I'm trying to 'role-play' it a bit. Pretending like I'm not a one-man army that can blast his way through anything. Pretending like I need to use the hacking skills. It's a fun game to play it like that. Still, when I look back at what they showed it looked so much better and so much more interesting than what it actually turned out to be.

My one point, just because its faster to gun everyone down, dosent mean its the funnest thing to do. If everybody played games the "faster" way instead of the way they enjoy most, then that kinda defeats the purpose of a videogame. Some people like the sneaking more than the blasting.

#32 Posted by StarvingGamer (8254 posts) -

Dunno, maybe it's because I've seen absolutely nothing having to do with the game since it was first announced at whatever it was, but it's been pretty much exactly what I expected.

#33 Posted by DystopiaX (5310 posts) -

idk I feel like I was the only one who saw the hacking in the demo and assumed it'd be select from menu and press button shit, which is exactly what it turned out to be. Maybe it was just me but I didn't get the sense that the hacking was going to be innovative at all.

As for the shooting bit, I don't know if that's true but I find stealthing my way through all the encounters to be really satisfying. Hacking things to distract dudes while I sneak past them or take down random dudes is so satisfying when you can pull it off.

#34 Posted by me3639 (1760 posts) -

Seeing as this, like most games begin pre production 5-6 years before release, what the heck did you all expect? At the time it was conceived, to its first showing it was at that moment fresh, not so much now.

#35 Posted by zombie2011 (4973 posts) -

The only video i saw of this game before watching the QL was the one they showed 2 years ago i think. It's was a club scene where the guy killed someone went outside and had a shootout with the cops, then avoided them by turning the lights red and green when needed.

Watching the QL the game doesn't seem as awesome as that demo made it look, it just looks like a open world game to me.

#36 Edited by Jimbo (9815 posts) -

@iigrayfoxii: Couldn't agree more. Ubisoft games need to come with a 'Turn Off Padding' option at this point.

#37 Edited by Splodge (1621 posts) -

If you play the game stealthily and try to stay in the shadows, it is way more fun. I spend about 20 mins planning out each combat scenario, setting up traps and deciding which order to deal with the goons in. I distract the guys who can't call reinforcements to sneak by and plant c4 near those who can. I then lie in wait until everyone lines up and BOOM the c4 goes off and dudes go down. I then jump from cMera to camera tripping as many grenades as I can and causing general mayhem and confusion. All this is done from the safety of a discreet corner somewhere in range of the cameras but out of sight. In the end I storm the area picking off the last few remaining chumps without them ever spotting me.

This is an immensely satisfying way to play the game. Yes, I could probably just go in guns blazing with a full focus meted, but I think there has been a little bit lf exaggerating when it comes to how easy that is. You are not a bullet sponge. I find that three or four shots is enough to take me out, even with the defence upgrade.

#38 Posted by TheMasterDS (2066 posts) -

Everyone was hoping for Assassin's Creed with Guns and Hacking Magic. Instead it's a GTA game with dumb mechanics added in. I wish they'd looked for alternative ways to do guns than pull left trigger pull right. There are enough games where you pull left trigger pull right trigger and if you kill too much cops come and you either have to run away or hide because you will never beat them. I wish it was more like Assassin's Creed. I love roaming around and murdering any guard I come across in Assassin's Creed. If only that was this with phone magic.

I'd say maybe next time but I don't think it's possible from this IP. It's too GTA to become Modern Assassin's Creed. Shame.

Also does Chicago really not have any 3 lane roads, Targets/Best Buys/Bed Bath & Beyonds/Similarly Sized Stores, large parking lots or car dealerships? I'm glad I don't like in populous cities if so, I'm glad I've always live in the cities that orbit them.

#39 Posted by LiquidPrince (15952 posts) -

Everything they ever showed in the game is essentially in the game one way or another. Some of the scenarios they demoed are even in the game in pretty much exactly the same sequence... The only real change is the downgrade in visuals, and even still it looks pretty damn great for the most part. I honestly don't understand what people are talking about when they complain about this stuff. For the record I found some of the scenarios way easier to handle if you use the stealth and hacking techniques at your command. Sure you can gun your way through scenarios, but hacking is often faster then dealing with the huge wave of soldiers that come after you. Also it would be annoying if you COULDN'T fight back if your hacking attempts failed. They pretty much did everything right in my opinion.

#40 Posted by cikame (1002 posts) -

Demonstrations of games are always scripted and delivered in a way which polishes up the truth, you can still take your time and do a moody cool scene like the e3 demo, but since you're controlling the game now and have played through similar scenarios hundreds of times before in other games, you're more likely to just hold up and the sprint button.

For the most part, the way we play these games is dictated by our lives, i want to do all the side stuff but have real life commitments so i have to get it all done quickly and efficiently, also it only takes a couple hours before i learn the game enough for it to become routine.
1. Start objective, kill guys.
2. Interact with objective.
3. Kill guys.
4. Drive to another objective.
5. Find next mission, go back to 1.
It becomes harder for a game to impress once you slip into this mode, unless it's tight enough to keep you guessing.

#41 Posted by ripelivejam (3986 posts) -

I've been doing all sorts of hacking. I usually hack access into a dudes brains with my assault rifle.

genuine lel

#42 Edited by Rowr (5668 posts) -

@cikame said:

Demonstrations of games are always scripted and delivered in a way which polishes up the truth, you can still take your time and do a moody cool scene like the e3 demo, but since you're controlling the game now and have played through similar scenarios hundreds of times before in other games, you're more likely to just hold up and the sprint button.

For the most part, the way we play these games is dictated by our lives, i want to do all the side stuff but have real life commitments so i have to get it all done quickly and efficiently, also it only takes a couple hours before i learn the game enough for it to become routine.

1. Start objective, kill guys.

2. Interact with objective.

3. Kill guys.

4. Drive to another objective.

5. Find next mission, go back to 1.

It becomes harder for a game to impress once you slip into this mode, unless it's tight enough to keep you guessing.

A lean towards randomness and "emergent gameplay" also help to alleviate this issue. I think that's why GTA games tend to excel (among other techniques) at keeping their games feeling fresher.

I feel like a multitude of collectibles also kind of lends to this slipping into this passive mode. Unfortunately the hacking turns out to be such a simple mechanic (hold the button down to win), that it really adds nothing compelling enough to allow some creativity.

Take something like bioshock infinite though, i feel like its super easy for someone to play through it in the most basic and efficient way using straight weapons with gunplay being kind of unrewaring on its own, yet the game is at its best when you are throwing a bunch of unnecessary creative combination of the powers available.

I guess you can role play or something and impose your own imaginary limitations for combat, but this rarely works for most people and there is already too much of an issue with this game of suspending belief regarding the narrative, characters and frivolous gun play.

Online
#43 Posted by Fearbeard (831 posts) -

Graphics wise, sure.

Gameplay wise it seems pretty much exactly like what we saw.

I haven't delved into the online multiplayer missions much so I'm not sure how that part holds up with what they originally showed.

#44 Posted by TheMasterDS (2066 posts) -

I wish this was an Assassin's Creed clone rather than a GTA clone. As a result of that decision the game is mediocre.

#45 Posted by Glottery (1280 posts) -

Watched the E3 2012 gameplay video now, after having only watched it the first time it came out, and....what? Unless you exclude impressive graphics, I really didn't see anything that different to the game I'm currently playing. I didn't see any "real" hacking happening in that video, that would've made me expect it to be any deeper in the final game. Different tedious minigames for each hackable system/writing 10 lines of code in the middle of firefight would've been the way to go with it then?

#46 Posted by MiniPato (2741 posts) -

@themasterds:

Have you played Watch Dogs? Cops have not been an issue at all and it's not like GTA where cops know your every move, even when you shoot a gun in the middle of nowhere or punch a man at the top of a mountain. You can see who is calling the police and stop them by either shooting them, pointing your gun at them, driving close to them to make them stumble, walking up to them to take their phone out of their hands, or use a communications jammer. You only get cops chasing you if there are witnesses to report your crime in time. And you're pretty much rich enough to always have communication jammers on you at all times.

I don't see how it could be an AC clone if it's set in modern day where you have freaking guns and skyscrapers. The only thing you said you liked about the AC games is that you can murder any guard you wanted. So you just want a modern day murder simulator without consequences?

#47 Edited by TheMasterDS (2066 posts) -

@minipato: I have. Yes, its issues are more complex than that but I feel none of them matter because they all can be traced back to the key issue, that not trying to be a game about a parkour wizard but its trying to be a game where you run from cops, shoot people and have a little cyber magic.

I can't say I find it that easy to keep the cops down. Maybe it's my fault for being a little psychopathic when I first started playing the game (for instance I thought it would be funny to see what happened if I murdered the pottential victim myself, see if Aiden had lines for that possibility. He didn't, he started saying 'oh if only I had been faster.' And of course when I drive places I have to go into sidewalks or opposite lanes to pass people because apparently Boston was made before the advent of roads with multiple lanes) and as a result sometimes people call 911 just for seeing my dumb ass. However I think it's pretty shitty to punish the player for being a psychopath because that's what GTA games are for. If they had been more Assassin's Creedy they could've just said when you killed someone "Aiden does not kill civilians. Kill another and you will be disconnected." Instead they went for a GTA route of "Kill civilians? Well the cops are on it" and added an element of "and fuck you for doing that, what game do you think this is? We're going to make your experience shittier because fuck you. Asshole."

There's also the pretty terrible aspect of autosaving which is shit because there's no manual save and when you die or quit there's no way to prevent yourself from losing data. I can not tell you how annoying it is to spend points, fail a cop chase after a news report causes a scene and I'm unable to shoot all the 911 callers due to some being outside line of sight, and finding the point that I spent was unspent in the middle of another chase after I got bored and murdered some people is a rude surprise.

Also re murder simulator yes. If the game had clusters of cops wandering around acting in a generally totalitarian way that'd be really nice. Or like gangs or something that are walking around everywhere in gang colors with guns, whatever, just give me someone to shoot. Also the game should have a melee system. It needs a melee system. Having to shoot civilians as your only option for dispatching them other than unreliable magic is stupid.

The perfect game I think would've been about a parkour martial arts hacker in a totalitarian state where the police aren't morally white. Cut back on civilians too. Why are they in the game wandering the streets? So you can run into them or find out minor things about them? To do the totalitarian thing you'd think they'd be in their homes since there are government mandated curfews or something of the sort. Also it needs a traversal element and less driving. Less guns would also be a plus. There are enough games where you shoot people.

#48 Edited by MiniPato (2741 posts) -

@themasterds:

I don't understand your complaint. It's shitty to punish a player for being a psychopath? That's what they do in GTA! Except it's way easier to lose the cops in Watch Dogs and even prevent the cops from ever showing up than it is in GTAV. In GTAV you get wanted even if there are no witness in a 50 mile radius in the middle of a desert. I don't see how Watch Dogs "added an element to punish you" when GTA already had a wanted system to punish you from even the first game.

It's not Assassin's Creed and it's not GTA. That's not a key issue. Why does it have to be either or? GTA and AC aren't the end all be all of open world games. It wants to be Watch Dogs. And even then, compared to GTA, it's way easier to get away with being a psychopath in Watch Dogs because it's easier to escape and even prevent cops from showing up. If people call the cops on you just from seeing your face, it's cause you garnered a low reputation for being a psychopath. I've killed enough gang members and prevented enough crimes to the point where people only call the cops on me if I steal their car. And as I said, there are more ways to prevent people from calling the cops than shooting them or using jammers. You can't always prevent it, but you could never prevent the cops from showing up in GTA either. So Watch Dogs actually improved on it by adding a mechanic where you could do it in the first place.

You want a murder simulator where you have more people to shoot. And then you complain that you want less guns cause there are enough shooting games out there. And then complain that you can't be a psycho like in GTA, which is supposedly more lenient even though you get wanted for punching someone out in the middle of a desert. At the same time you complain about not being able to call off the cops, but complain that there aren't enough cops around to shoot.

Also the "Ezio did not kill civilians." is probably my least favorite part of the Assassin's Creed games. It might make sense in the animus, but it should never be a solution in any videogame. It's honestly a worse punishment than calling the cops. If you want to be a psychopath and kill civilians, the desynchronization mechanic is not a solution if it just game overs you.

And outside of sleeping, there are no manual saves in Assassin's Creed or GTA. That doesn't mean it's okay for Watch Dogs not to have any, but to act like Watch Dogs is the only offender of this is absurd. Almost as absurd as saying that Watch Dogs is the only game to add a "wanted" mechanic as some sort of punishment for killing civilians.

#49 Edited by TheMasterDS (2066 posts) -

@minipato: That's another thing. Really stupid there's not a quick way to stop someone whose car you stole from calling the police. You gotta make sure to run them down before they think about it.

You don't lose progress in Assassin's Creed or GTA when you die because both autosave properly whenever you do anything of value.

The thing is it doesn't just punish you for murder you just did, it punishes you for murder you did days ago.

Here's the thing I like about not killing civilians in Assassin's Creed: It doesn't matter that you don't kill them because they give you people you'd rather kill. Guys with swords marching around like they own the place, demanding you get down off the roof and also that you not enter certain areas. If this game had, say for example, an authoritarian police force or bunches of criminals hanging out like this basically everywhere then it'd be perfectly reasonable to not have civilian murder. Instead the police force is busy presumably writing speeding tickets until they're called in and criminals hang out in cars and act like cops in that they trigger car chases. You can find murderers to kill as side missions but they take more time that it's worth to kill one guy.

#50 Edited by MiniPato (2741 posts) -

@themasterds:

The game autosaves after every mission, side mission, crime prevention, and collectible. Those are the only things that give you experience and skill points. As far as I've noticed, there is no penalty for dying in the open world. During missions you get reset to a checkpoint. But in the world, I haven't lost any money or skill points or experience from dying to the cops. The game doesn't even reload a previous state, it just respawns you somewhere else, but with your progress in tact. Even if you don't have your crafted items, you still have all your materials you used to craft that item.

There's an easy way to prevent someone from calling the cops after stealing their car. Just drive close enough and they will stumble to get out of the way. That interrupts their call and they won't try calling again.

If you want people to kill, then cause a ruckus till the cops show up and kill them. That's how I did it in the past GTAs. I'd cause a ruckus and then hole up in an Ammunation store or something. Watch Dogs has so many interior areas for you to start police shootouts and hold outs. The gang hideouts and convoy side missions also offer plenty of thugs to kill, especially when they call for backup. I've had plenty of intense street shootouts from those. If you want your mayhem, then go out and get it. It's not different than any other open world game at all. It literally takes no effort. If you choose to ignore what the game has to offer, then it's not the game's fault that you can't find enemies to kill.