• 51 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by bigjeffrey (4778 posts) -

im Ready to see them reviews, still have not played it but will be playing it very soon. Im guessing 80 on metacritic.

Giant Bomb Quick Look (Score 3/5)

#2 Posted by shivermetimbers (763 posts) -

5.5/10 seems about right from the 2 1/2 hours I played.

#3 Posted by theveej (812 posts) -

very interest in these reveiws, have not heard great stories about the tail end of its development

#4 Posted by Prestige (84 posts) -

Do you really think it'll do that well on metacritic?

...or will it under score?

#5 Posted by SharkEthic (1004 posts) -
@prestige said:

Do you really think it'll do that well on metacritic?

...or will it under score?

Bahahaha!!

#6 Edited by kishinfoulux (2255 posts) -

I feel like I'm seeing a lot of "it's fine, just not this revolutionary thing" or things alone that line. I've always hated that. I don't feel like this game was touted as the next big thing. Seems like people expected too much.

#7 Edited by TruthTellah (8534 posts) -

Jeff gave the much-anticipated Watch_Dogs a 3 out of 5?!

No wonder Vinny is leaving this madhouse! A bunch of flip-flop and sandwich burger loving Hatsune Mikus!

*angrily burns Giant Bomb to the ground*

#8 Posted by HeyGuys (344 posts) -

@kishinfoulux: I'm kind of in agreement that it seems like people are reviewing the game off of unrealistic expectations. I mean GTA V didn't exactly reinvent the sandbox.

#9 Posted by joshwent (2112 posts) -

I don't feel like this game was touted as the next big thing. Seems like people expected too much.

I think that criticism flies when people dislike a game just because it's not what they expected. Like a lot of people were hard on Brütal Legend because they went in expecting a melee action game, and instead got a 3rd person RTS kind of thing. They weren't criticising the game itself, but rather that it was just different than what they thought it was.

But in this case, it's not at all that the game was different than people expected. It seems like it's just too much like people expected; an open world city game, pretty much like the recent GTAs, but with some hacking stuff. That concept alone is kind of meh, but if done interestingly, could also be amazing. It just seems like it basically fulfills that pitch, but adds little that makes it unique.

#10 Edited by xyzygy (9892 posts) -

These reviews remind me a lot of Assassin's Creed 1. Watch, WD2 will be an improvement on basically everything.

#11 Posted by BeachThunder (11695 posts) -
#12 Edited by Rowr (5478 posts) -

Thanks God E3 is around the corner. I think a lot of people will need something to get excited about for their new hardware now that this has finally burned up on entry.

#13 Edited by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

I have a feeling that Jeff will give one of the lower scores but several years from now he'll be vindicated when everyone else comes down from their high. I haven't played it yet but Eurogamer gave the most interesting review so far to me. They mentioned as many people are how much games like Uncharted and Assassin's Creed improved with their second entry, but then point out that the problems with the first games in those cases were largely issues of polish and lack of variety. Basically they had a really great core concept and just needed to expand upon it. Problem with Watch Dogs is that no one is complaining it doesn't do enough with a great set of mechanics. They are complaining that the hook of this game (the hacking) just isn't a very interesting mechanic to begin with.

Those are Eurogamer's words, not mine, but after watching the quick look and various video reviews I feel like they might have hit it on the nose.

#14 Edited by CorruptedEvil (1730 posts) -

Whatever, I never had high hopes for this game, I just wanted GTA with some AC parkour and some cool tools, And as soon as I saw the Second Son quick look I knew Watch Dogs couldn't measure up to that in graphics. Seems it delivered on what I thought it would.

#15 Posted by EuanDewar (4757 posts) -

Seems to be getting good reviews

#16 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

For those who have written the game off for getting "low scores," here's a thought that might blow your mind:

Watch Dogs and Transistor both currently have the same Metacritic score: 82

#17 Edited by Humanity (8809 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

Jeff gave the much-anticipated Watch_Dogs a 3 out of 5?!

No wonder Vinny is leaving this madhouse! A bunch of flip-flop and sandwich burger loving Hatsune Mikus!

*angrily burns Giant Bomb to the ground*

Ehh I think he kind of low balled it but hey whatever, Jeff do what Jeff does. Over time his taste in games has grown so all over the place that it's hard to really pinpoint when he'll like something and when he won't as the reasons for his criticisms seem to vary wildly - for that very reason I find his reviews an interesting read but not very useful when making a purchasing decision.

#18 Posted by billymagnum (719 posts) -

i will call it

"Meh_Dawgz"

#19 Edited by Mister_V (1193 posts) -

Not surprised by Jeff's score. He and I have very different ideas as to what makes a good open world game. I'm more interested in what Brad thinks as his views are more in line with mine (A shared love of red dead)

#20 Edited by SarcasticMudcrab (146 posts) -

@mister_v: Yes, this is why Giantbomb is so awesome, personally I'm hoping Vinny plays this as, just like with sleepy dawgs I tend to share his views on this kind of game.

Having said that I just bought it anyway so should prob stop tainting my opinion of the game with other peoples and go play it...ye imma gonna do that.

Soon as its installed, which will be sometime next week at this rate.

#21 Posted by Milkman (16526 posts) -

The Quick Look pretty much confirmed to me that I have zero interest in this game. Same open world gameplay, same lame ass story and it doesn't even seem to be too mind blowing technically.

Online
#22 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

@mister_v said:

Not surprised by Jeff's score. He and I have very different ideas as to what makes a good open world game. I'm more interested in what Brad thinks as his views are more in line with mine (A shared love of red dead)

Did you also feel that LA Noire was a five star game?

#23 Posted by SarcasticMudcrab (146 posts) -

@milkman said:

The Quick Look pretty much confirmed to me that I have zero interest in this game. Same open world gameplay, same lame ass story and it doesn't even seem to be too mind blowing technically.

Out of interest, what were you expecting?

Personally I have been hoping for an open world game but with cool ways to minipulate the world and the people in it, GTA5 seemed flat in this aspect, in fact all of them have since the ultimate fuck about value that San andreas had at the time. I liked those games but outside of the main story I have not felt compelled to sandbox-it-up for years. Maybe this will be the same.

Still installing >.<

#24 Edited by Dizzyhippos (1367 posts) -

Not super surprising but seems like a good enough time killer between now and when more stuff starts coming out. I am just glad that twitch can stop running those pre roll watchdog ads

#25 Posted by falserelic (5326 posts) -

I see...I see.

#26 Posted by bugbarbecue (46 posts) -

Man, I was itching to know what International Business Times thought.

I think in it's infancy they were kind of touting this game as open-worldy but without the knock-down, drag-out shooting that those games have, that game really interested me, a game where you're a hacker who doesn't run around with an AK-47 seemed way more interesting.

And I know you probably can do that in this game, but the fact that you don't have to makes it kind of meh to me.

#27 Edited by ozzler (2 posts) -

I've completed the game. I could forgive the tiring mechanics and repetitive formula of the game if the story was above average. Which is actually the weakest point of the entire game, cheesy, predictable, uninspired.

There are so many cool places a game with this setting could have gone. It chose none of them. It gets close to cool dark narratives but just goes the wrong way at every turn.

#28 Edited by Mister_V (1193 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: Yes I do!

It's funny you should mention L.A Noire as I was playing it this weekend.

Maybe I prefer my open world games more slow and methodical than Jeff.

#29 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

@mister_v said:

@spaceinsomniac: Yes I do!

It's funny you should mention L.A Noire as I was playing it this weekend.

Maybe I prefer my open world games more slow and methodical than Jeff.

LA Noire is the only game that I ever completed and immediately sold back, wishing to forget that I ever played it in the first place. I NEVER sell my games. I still own my copy of Bionic Commando 2009!

And believe me, I did not go into LA Noire expecting anything close to an action game.

#30 Edited by 49th (2691 posts) -

Pretty much what I expected at this point. An average open world game.

Online
#31 Posted by Mister_V (1193 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: I can totally see how someone could come to that conclusion about L.A Noire, and I'm

Not sure I would want to play a second one. But man I love that game.

#32 Posted by Humanity (8809 posts) -

@mister_v said:

Not surprised by Jeff's score. He and I have very different ideas as to what makes a good open world game. I'm more interested in what Brad thinks as his views are more in line with mine (A shared love of red dead)

Did you also feel that LA Noire was a five star game?

LA Noire is definitely a five star game.

#33 Posted by Blue_Cube (158 posts) -

So I don't know if this video has been posted in a lot of different boards but this is a pretty interesting comparison between GTA 4 on PC, a decidely last gen game and watch dogs.

If I'm honest in terms of eye candy and physics watch dogs seems like a real let down. That doesn't necessarily have to be a game breaker if the game play is solid but from what I've read in Jeff's review and seen in the quick look it doesn't look like watch dogs is living up to the hype that's been surrounding the game ever since E3 2012. I'm pretty lucky something went wrong with my preorder and the game hasn't been delivered yet which enabled me to cancel it and get a full refund. Based on different reviews around the web and footage I've seen this game is a real let down.

#34 Edited by Snail (8579 posts) -
@prestige said:

Do you really think it'll do that well on metacritic?

...or will it under score?

Pretty good.

#35 Edited by CorruptedEvil (1730 posts) -

@blue_cube: It's not a let down if you had reasonable expectations. The delay also really didn't help everyone's opinion of it, because they were expecting the entire game to be overhauled graphically, while I imagine the delay was to get the online stuff working.

#36 Edited by Mister_V (1193 posts) -

Not sure where people got the idea this game was going to be the second coming of open world Jesus? It always seemed like a pretty standard open world game with some new mechanics. That's probably why I'm more positive about some of these reviews than other people.

I guess I'll find out in a couple of hours when I get home.

#37 Posted by Damodar (1301 posts) -
@mister_v said:

Not sure where people got the idea this games was going to be the second coming of open world Jesus? It always seemed like a pretty standard open world game with some new mechanics. That's probably why I'm more positive about some of these reviews than other people.

I guess I'll find out in a couple of hours when I get home.

I think it was because Watch Dogs, along with Star Wars 1313, showed up at E3 two years ago, standing out above all by looking very much not built for the same hardware as everything else at the show. Even though they showed very little actual game, it was blazing a trail towards the next generation of consoles and more powerful PCs at a time when the fatigue for the old systems was really setting in. I think a lot of the residual excitement over that showing, even two years later, is probably a large part of why people had/have big expectations for it.

#38 Posted by Lysergica33 (517 posts) -

Looks fine if you're into open world games. Jeff thoughts seem to line-up with my own perceptions of the footage I've watched. Seems decent, totally functional, and probably has potential. Also seems kind of dull and lacking in vitality or soul.

I also don't see that it differs all that drastically from some other gaming pariahs in some senses. People hated DA2's button = awesome thing. Watch Dogs seems much the same in that a lot of the interaction is press square to make this thing happen. I guess the implication is that the things you can do with pressing square will have some kind of strategic application, which you could argue makes them less hollow as interactions, but the fact that these strategic applications will some way be tied to open world driving or third person cover shooting really, really fucking bores me.

But that's fine -shrug- I was never particularly interested in this game from the start, and I don't have to like it. I hope those who have been waiting for it DO enjoy it. Totally not my thing at all though. Kind of surprised to see the majority of scores at around 8-9 though. Considering how it looks and the way people have been talking about it I expected 7's, maybe even 6's across the board. Not that it matters, but yeah, interesting to see that GB is an outlier. I think I must share Jeff's jadedness.

#39 Edited by ProfessorEss (7280 posts) -

This is another one of those games where when I read the lower scoring reviews the game loses points for things that just don't bother me. Story issues, repetitiveness and "gameyness" exist in almost all my favourite games (FarCry, Just Cause, The Saboteur, all the Assassin Creed games, etc).

After the whole Sleeping Dogs thing I personally would be most interested in hearing what Vinny thinks of it. Guess I'll go peep that Quick Look now.

#40 Posted by Marcsman (3116 posts) -

I cannot wait to get done work and play some Watch Dogs

#41 Posted by Corvak (901 posts) -
#42 Posted by Nodima (1103 posts) -

@humanity said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@mister_v said:

Not surprised by Jeff's score. He and I have very different ideas as to what makes a good open world game. I'm more interested in what Brad thinks as his views are more in line with mine (A shared love of red dead)

Did you also feel that LA Noire was a five star game?

LA Noire is definitely a five star game.

It's a five star idea in a three star world. Solid four star experience.

#43 Posted by Humanity (8809 posts) -

@nodima: yah but when you factor in reviewers curve it's a 5!

#44 Edited by Blue_Cube (158 posts) -

@corruptedevil: I never imagined it would get a graphical overhaul because I didn't think it would need one. Ubisoft has been very strategic about what parts of the game they did and didn't show off during E3. The game is at its best at night or during heavy rain. It does not fair so well in a normal daylight setting which is probably why they avoided showing footage of that. This only became apparent however long after idiots like me preordered the game. Clever people at Ubisoft.

#45 Posted by notnert427 (221 posts) -

Well, I played for a few hours last night and I'll give my initial impressions.

It's a good game. Not a great game, but a good game. The mechanics are solid, it's a very pretty game for the most part (more on that in a bit), and the hacking/profiling stuff adds a layer of interesting to what would otherwise be your standard open-world game. Not that it's overly revolutionary or anything, but I'm pleased to say that the hacking/profiling appears to be more than just a gimmick and makes it feel a bit more fresh. That said, if you're expecting it to blow you away, it won't and you'll be disappointed. It's fundamentally not that different than GTA, but the overall quality/depth in the game makes it belong up there with the GTA series. Basically, if you're still into this kind of game, you'll enjoy Watch_Dogs, but if you're sick of games like this, you probably ought to skip it or wait.

Graphically, it's not E3 2012. (I'm playing the Xbox One version on a 55" 1080p Samsung, FYI.) However, it mostly looks like a next-gen game should. I say "mostly" because some parts of the game simply don't look as good as the rest. The daytime lighting tends to appear a bit washed out, and some of the car models have some flat-looking paint that's not as reflective as it should be. The good news is that the reason this stuff is apparent is that most of the rest of the game looks pretty excellent. I had moments where I was legitimately wowed by how slick it looked. As mentioned above, it really shines at night and when it's raining (I'd throw in some of the late-day and water effects as well). This isn't exactly the "showcase" game many hoped for, but it still looks damn good most of the time.

Gameplay-wise, your typical cover/climb mechanics work reasonably well. Pearce isn't Edward Kenway, for better and worse. He's more realistic in that he doesn't do the whole uber-parkour thing at all times (and it's honestly refreshing to not run up walls you aren't always even trying to), but he feels sluggish by comparison as a result. I'm not a huge fan of the controller layout, either. It's a bit awkward and will take some getting used to, because the game doesn't appear to offer button assignment, disappointingly. The driving mechanics are appropriate. It's still pretty arcade-y in terms of physics, but cars generally drive like they should and have enough variance in their speed/handling. Shooting is your standard fare and needs no real description.

Now I'll list a few random cool/weird/frustrating things I ran across. I was driving a motorcycle through this construction yard to play around with the physics a bit, and as I was motoring over this girder Trials-style, one of the guys on the construction crew deadpanned "that's not a road, jackass". It was funny and fitting. The NPC reactions/chatter seem pretty great so far. On the frustrating end, I rolled at 1 mph into a random gas canister while parking a motorcycle and got blown to hell. I went back and found that canister that I exploded upon touching it, and there happened to be two guys standing there shooting the shit by it. I couldn't help myself, so I pulled out my pistol and shot the thing. It started shooting out a cloud of flame, which precipitated an "oh SHIT!!" from the NPCs and an attempt to run away moments before they blew up. Notoriety down, but totally worth it. Later on, there was a series of explosions at a gas station nearby that I'm guessing I caused. I imagine that at some point I'll be in the middle of some mission and will explode by grazing some gas can, and that's gonna suck. That said, I'm digging the world so far. It's more interesting/chaotic than I expected, without being Saints Row batshit crazy.

One thing I don't like right now is the police. I'm really struggling to make getaways. I'm a GTA veteran and have played a ton of driving games. I can drive pretty damn well. That said, I just cannot shake the police straight-up. Not with darting between alleys, not with finding a spot and hiding, and not with trying to outrun them on the freeway in a Lamborghini. Even when they don't have a chopper, they seem to magically know where I am even if I should have given them the slip. I had one in particular where I made a few truly brilliant turns to open up a bit of space to where they were a few streets behind me, found a house with a gated, hackable entry, hacked the gate, closed it behind me, and parked in a suburbia driveway and activated the "hide in car" mechanic. There is no way the cops saw any of this, and I sat there "hiding" for about five seconds before they even caught up, yet somehow they stopped, got out right in front of the place, and started blasting away. This sequence should have been an awesome getaway, but it was bullshit instead. I've found two ways to evade police. One is to put up those barricade things, because the same cops who can weave effortlessly between oncoming traffic all day apparently get baffled by the idea of going around the barricade, and the other is to head for the water and get in a boat. Both are cheese strats I don't really want to use, and if I can't figure out a better way, that's going to take away from some enjoyment. Still, at least it's challenging.

Overall, Watch_Dogs is pretty much what I expected and reasonably hoped for. It's not a masterpiece, but it's worth owning unless you just hate open-world stuff. I haven't spent a great deal of time with the game yet, so this may be subject to change, but so far, I'm falling in line with most reviews and would put this somewhere between an 8-9. I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish the graphics were more consistent, and I wish the scattered gameplay issues had all been ironed out to put this in truly special territory, but this is still a good game. It's the kind of effort that makes me really excited for The Division, Watch_Dogs 2, et al. and the future of the latest-gen consoles, because while it's not quite all there, it's clearly a step in the right direction.

#46 Posted by mrfluke (5090 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

These reviews remind me a lot of Assassin's Creed 1. Watch, WD2 will be an improvement on basically everything.

exactly.

#47 Posted by Andorski (5190 posts) -

This game is so disappointing that I went on Steam and bought Transistor just so I could have something to play on my PC.

Online
#48 Posted by Intro (1206 posts) -

Honestly think many people's opinions of this game are based on huge expectations, I don't feel like I was tricked by purchasing this game. I think the game has done some interesting stuff and still looks great. Yes, you can compare certain physics with GTA 4, if you're the person who bases games on a comparisons, and see some are better. I don't think it's fair to ignore all the great looking parts and improvements. As for it not being polished, what the hell did anyone expect lol.

#49 Edited by James_Hayward (245 posts) -

Playing Watch Dogs felt very similar to playing Assasin's Creed 3; and I don't just mean in terms of overall design structure. There was a sinking feeling moment for me in both games where after around half a dozen hours of play, my internal optimism for enjoyment potential from the game was, in the first instance dulled by the mediocrity of the gameplay and then ultimately killed off completely by running into recurring examples of poor game design coupled with a weak narrative and bad characters.

I wasn't exactly on the hype train for this one before it released but I still made the stupid error of purchasing without reading reviews. I just traded it in for about 60% of purchase price and I think that was probably the best outcome possible at this point.

#50 Posted by Dussck (122 posts) -

I can see why people would rate this a 6 or lower (like Jeff did) when they compare it one to one with GTA(5). When you try to play this game like a GTA it will fall short on detail and fun, but here is the real shocker: it's not like GTA at all.

For me it's like a whole different genre. Sure the car physics are not that great, but it's not really about cars, they are just means to escape. I rarely use a gun (only when there's no escaping it anymore), I keep citizens out of the mayhem and even sometimes save one or two. I'm sneaking my way into things, I'm hacking and watching other players without them even knowing I was there. I'm having fun.

Sure; alot of things could and should be improved, but as their first attempt at a modern open world city I would say: well done. I also have a feeling the AI is pretty good sometimes. They are not constantly aware of where you are and when they lost you they are really searching around the area. They also constantly trap you coming from the other side.
I don't know. I got bored of the Assassin's Creed games quite easily, but this one still has enough cool things for me to keep on playing. Except for the thousands of silly side missions; they still feel utterly pointless.