Quick Look: Watch Dogs

Watch Jeff, Vinny, and Brad join the dark world of Internet Hacker Gangs in their quest to... uh...

Embed
Play
Please use a flash or html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to Giant Bomb's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Giant Bomb Review

371 Comments

Watch Dogs Review

3
  • XONE
  • PS4

Watch Dogs is a solid open-world game that doesn't do enough to set itself apart from the pack.

You can close doors on the cops, but they seem to open them really quickly.

For better or worse, Watch Dogs has been propped up by many as one of the new generation of consoles' first "big" games. But instead of feeling like the future, Watch Dogs reminds me of the past. I'm reminded of the time when developers were ardently chasing after that Grand Theft Auto gold, resulting in a menagerie of takes on the GTA formula, each with their own little hook. Some worked out really well, others floundered and vanished. Watch Dogs' spin on the genre gives you limited control over some of the city's features, letting you toggle the state of various objects both on foot or in a vehicle. For the most part, these interactions are there to eliminate or block your enemies so you have more time to escape. Even with that as one of its unique twists on the genre, Watch Dogs is little clunky in spots and it starts very slowly. Luckily, that bad first impression lets up as you get into more interesting missions and become more comfortable with the game's abilities and options.

In a lot of ways, Watch Dogs falls into the same routine as most other mission-based open-world games. There's a main narrative of missions that progress in order, with side missions that back them up and give you a little something to do if you're looking for a change. The mission design is really standard for this sort of game--you'll hunt people down and shoot them, you'll get away from the cops, and the missions where you're asked to tail someone discreetly continue to suck. I don't necessarily view all this as a bad thing, but at this point in life you've probably already determined whether or not you like this sort of game. Not to get overly reflexive on you, but if you have the hunger for this type of open-world game, it's a solid entry. The things designed to set Watch Dogs apart, though, don't make that big of an impact.

The first differentiator is that you're a hacker set loose in a city that's been overrun by surveillance and connected "smart" technologies that are designed to make life easier (while simultaneously setting up the game's slightly hamfisted approach to the issues of government surveillance and the potential nightmares that come from relying on one big system with a single point of failure). For the most part, this boils down to pushing the square button to incapacitate police cars. Sometimes that square button raises blockers out of the street, sometimes it causes steam pipes to explode, but generally, you're waiting for a "neutralize" prompt to appear on-screen while you're driving, indicating that you're a button press away from having one less hassle on your tail. You also use that square button (X on the Xbox, naturally) to hack the planet.

A few characters drop in to help or hurt your cause.

When pressed, that square button sends you into profiler mode, allowing you to view names and details of any of the game's NPCs. Some of them have bank accounts you can hack, letting you get access to funds that are useful for buying a few weapons, but generally useless unless you're into cosmetic stuff like costumes or unlocking additional cars. Others have songs you can hack out of their phones, adding them to the game's disjointed and disappointing playlist. You hit this button when you walk up to terminals or see junction boxes on the street, and you can also use it to tap into security camera feeds. It's a one-size-fits-all approach to hacking, which makes the way the game occasionally and arbitrarily sticks in a dull hacking minigame feel that much more puzzling. A big part of the game involves hacking into a camera, then using that to hack into another camera, and so on and so on until you get to an otherwise-unreachable hacking point. You can also tag enemies with the profiler or security cameras, letting you see silhouettes behind walls and setting up the game's various stealth takedowns.

Interestingly, the game has no "real" melee combat system. Rather than giving you a punch button, the game simply has a takedown button, and it works whether you're sneaking up from behind or running up in plain sight. You also have weapons, including a perfectly accurate and silenced pistol that, except in cases where you're severely outnumbered and forced into open combat, makes most of the combat and stealth situations feel completely trivial, assuming you're even slightly skilled at lining up headshots. When taking on scads of enemies, the assault rifles work just fine and, as long as you patiently use cover and don't expose yourself for too long, the combat is quite easy.

The other thing that sets Watch Dogs apart from the typical open-world game is the way its online action is structured. While it still has the same boring online race mode that every open-world game seems to have these days (does anyone actually still want to engage in an open-world race in a game that wasn't built for racing?), it also has a handful of cat-and-mouse-like modes where one player has to get close to another player to steal something from them. These online invasions pop up against your will, forcing you to deal with another player before you can proceed. The rewards for succeeding in this mode are minimal and they seem to always pop up when you're trying to start another mission, making them feel like a hassle that's preventing you from doing the thing you actually want to be doing. It seems like a bad implementation of a decent idea. If you like, you can disable the online invasion aspect of the game, but doing so prevents you from earning a handful of bonus perks, like making your bullets do more damage to vehicles. Disabling invasions mid-game actually resets any online points you've earned back to zero, too. This would be a little more outrageous if the perks you got for playing online were of any real value, but many of them pertain solely to the multiplayer mode that you're trying to avoid and the game is already quite easy, so it's not that big of a deal. There are a handful of different modes that you can engage from a separate menu, and the game will constantly remind you that various online opportunities exist via the same system it uses to notify you about nearby side missions.

One of the side missions has you profiling potential criminals and stopping altercations before they can get started.

The story puts you in the shoes of a thief-turned-vigilante who sees the light in the game's opening moments, after a cyber-caper goes cyber-sideways resulting in some decidedly non-cyber-retaliation that ends with your all-the-way-not-cyber niece dead. Watch Dogs is a revenge tale, as Aiden Pearce attempts to find out who ordered the hit on him that left his niece dead while also hooking up with some other shady hackers and fighting crime. With his gruff voice and serious demeanor, you almost half-expect a mid-game twist where Pearce just shouts "I'm cyber-Batman." Instead, he's out there using his real name--which, considering most of the game's other hackers appear with embarrassing monikers like Badboy17 or Defalt, might be the smartest thing Pearce does in the entire game. Or maybe "Aiden Pearce" is just as embarrassing of a name. Anyway, the story is all over the place and is full of characters that sort of cruise into and out of the story, which makes it hard to care about any of them. Also, the main missions have huge sidetracks that occasionally feel like they came from another game--a couple of times I completely forgot why I was even doing what I was doing and how my current mission tied into the overall picture of getting revenge for my dead niece.

I found myself avoiding the soundtrack in Watch Dogs, instead going for the sounds of Chicago's streets and the occasional forced, in-mission music. The licensed music appears in a playlist format that you can configure to your liking. This makes sense, as this is how people actually listen to music these days, but losing the radio format that many other open-world games use makes the city feel a little more lifeless. It attempts to inject some of your exploits into the audio by forcing the occasional news report on you, but this makes even less sense... is the news so important that it's breaking into whatever playlist I keep on my phone to tell me about it or something? Also, having playlist controls in a game only to occasionally force you into specific songs for missions and also not allowing custom soundtracks seems kind of lame. Are we supposed to believe that Aiden Pearce actually likes all of the music on his playlists? Sorry, this is actually a super minor point, but one I became sort of obsessed with every time I tried to change the music only to have it say "media player unavailable." What, does Aiden's phone detect when he's on an important mission and play appropriate music instead of whatever cheaply licensed pop-punk Ubisoft decided to cram onto the soundtrack? When used wisely, a licensed soundtrack can be an almost living part of your story. Here it feels like something thrown in as an obligation.

Visually, Watch Dogs looks good on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, with a usually stable frame rate, a good draw distance, and all that. No one part of it stands out as amazing or revolutionary (though the water looks pretty nice). Instead it's merely higher fidelity than the games and consoles that came before it. The visual implementation of hacking is pretty good at making the HUD and information you learn about nearby civilians seem like it's coming in via some kind of augmented reality setup--which actually makes the whole game feel weirdly dated, since Pearce spends much of the game staring down at his phone like a bored kid trying to ignore his parents. Given that we live in an era where people are out there paying way-too-much money for Google Glass and anticipating other head-mounted setups, going phone-only (and all the hilarious animations that come along with a man holding a pistol in one hand and a phone in the other) seems out of touch for a game that's trying to represent the dark future of technology. That dark future is already here, and Watch Dogs gets that wrong.

Even though I feel its story is often weak and its action isn't that different from other games in the genre, I still enjoyed my time with Watch Dogs. It turns out that the old stuff still works, and the strong-but-standard mission design kept me entertained, most of the time. It's rough around the edges, though, so if you don't settle for anything less than the best, you'll probably be disappointed.

But hey, Watch Dogs 2? That'll probably be pretty cool.

Jeff Gerstmann on Google+
381 Comments
Edited by Jrinswand

How can you talk about a second Watch_Dogs and not call it "2.0?"

Posted by Phoenix87

After all those months and months of anticipation, Watch dogs is just good enough to get a 3 out of 5.

Can't say I didn't see it coming.

Edited by CaLe

It's like Ubisoft has made the worlds biggest toilet and has their employees all sit around the edge of this massive porcelain toilet bowl somewhere out in the wild plains of French Canadia. Hundreds of people at a time just releasing their pent-up turds into this pristine white bowl. Then, at the end of it, when all the shit has condensed at the bottom it gets processed and given the name Watch_Dogs, and now they're selling it to us. That's what I got from this review. Thanks Jeff!

Edited by James_Hayward

I've read enough of Jeff's stuff, and I've listened to him describe his experiences with enough games to know that they rarely align exactly with mine. My gaming taste is probably something along the lines of an amalgam of Vinny and Brad. I still enjoy hearing Jeff's perspective though because he absolutely knows what he is talking about. Beyond question.

This review reads like the kind of thorough but appropriate examination that should be expected from journalists in response to the hype level that has been generated for this product by Ubisoft. If it had promised less then it might have had a gentler examination.

Perhaps many people will have a 4/5 experience with this game... but 3/5 sounds appropriate to Jeff's description of his experience.

Posted by BoneChompski

@somejerk said:

Reminder: 3/5 is half, 50%, an average grade, and that giantbomb doesn't use the dumbest review scale where below 80 means a game is a pile of shit.

Suggestion: Reinstall GTA4, Sleeping Dogs, remind yourself of what has been and you will be surprised.

Opinion: Steps taken forward by Ubi, looking forward to what they do next.

Crunched some numbers here, ran it through the Gibson, had the dean give it a lookover, conclusion is indicating half = 50% and 3/5 = 60%.

Posted by graf1k

Nice informative review. Yeah, Jeff isn't over the moon for it like a lot of the reviews but reading the text, I don't see much that's going to bother me much. The online stuff sounds like it could get annoying but I guess I'll just turn it off if I get 'invaded' too much. Kind of wish Watch Dogs wanted to be it's own thing more than tangentially going after the GTA market as well. I just hope it turns out more like an AC2 than an AC1 and that Watch Dogs 2.0 will be the one that gets it all right, like an AC: Brotherhood. Luckily, none of the reviews I've read so far are calling the game out for super repetitive mission types, so hopefully that's the case and not that the missions are repetitive but everybody is glossing it over.

Posted by Robo

Just played it for a few hours. I'm actually enjoying it so far. It's no GTA V but it's a solid open world game. Beats any Assasin's Creed game I've played, in my opinion.

Also, I watched a few streams of the console versions before my download finished. I can safely say the PC version looks fantastic in comparison. There are plenty of glistening wet roads to ogle. The visual boost with resolution, lighting, and texture fidelity maxed out is pretty significant and goes a surprisingly long way towards putting you into this world.

The car handling feels janky as hell sometimes though. And the physics - specifically of crashes - feel way off in a jarringly unrealistic way.

Edited by vhold

I think this review is incomplete without considering how GTA V's unexpected goodness cast a long shadow over this game.

Posted by Synergy863

I'm not really surprised. To be honest, from a game-play and narrative standpoint, this does not look appealing. When I saw the protagonist use his phone to make some panel on some rooftop flip up so he could use as cover, I thought that look really contrived and dumb.

Posted by Hiver

I can't wait to find out whether or not I agree with this well written review.

Posted by HS_Alpha_Wolf

@hayt said:

Interesting review. A bit disappointing that might not (according to Jeff anyway) be a big blockbuster next-gen thing.

Sorry to be a tosser but maybe "Luckily, that bad first impression lets up as you get into more interested missions and become more comfortable with the game's abilities and options" should be interesting and that's a typo. Also the review is tagged for the PS3 / XONE but the final paragraph mentions PS4/XONE.

Cool stuff!

To be fair, it isn't a typo that comes up in spell check, and in checking over the story with the knowledge of what it should say is easily missed. The review itself is well-written and expressive, and reaffirms my thoughts that this was not the groundbreaking title everyone hoped for. Oh well, at least it will give me something to play on my PS4 when it arrives from Gamefly.

Edited by altairre

@bradleyg said:

@zgoon: I think a bunch of grown men who have all their friends in the industry(mostly indies) are bound to have deep prejudices as what is and is not good for the industry.

Ubi-Soft is not 'cool' in the "gaming community". This is less a critical assessment as a political statement.

If Ubi-Soft wasn't making free to play games this would be a 8/10

At this point it's hard to tell if you're serious or not. Firstly there is not 8/10 on Giantbomb so stop comparing it to other review scales.

Secondly if you think that Jeff's opinion on what Ubisoft does or does not do for the industry influences his view on Watchdogs so strongly that he rates it lower you probably shouldn't be reading his reviews in the first place.

Lastly I think his review nails what is wrong with most open world games at the moment. They're kind of all the same, lack focus and are stuck in the past which makes the whole formula less appealing every time you go back to it. The mission design in open world games is generally mediocre at best and in the case of let's say the last two Assassin's Creed more often terrible than not. Storytelling is for the most part restricted to cutscenes that lead into said missions and in my experience story and gameplay often feel disjointed because to matter what the setup is it all boils down to doing the same stuff over and over again. GTAV got away with it because of the insane amount of polish and detail it has and due to a couple of great characters (unlike the bland, generic tragic antihero that Aiden Pearce seems to be, knock off Batman voice included) but even GTAV suffered from that problem which is why I didn't finish it.

Open world games have to do everything, that's the expectation tied to them. The result is that they all have a lot of systems and content crammed into them but nothing is really great. In Assassin's Creed you are supposed to have the freedom to chose if you want to be stealthy or not but the stealth is garbage and the combat lacks depth. From what I've seen of Watchdogs and looking at how the review states it the stealth boils down to watching the same takedown animations a lot and lining up easy headshots while being mostly ignored by the AI.That's not good gameplay. And hacking, the big theme of the game? Well it seems like it comes down to pressing a button to take out enemies. It's a nice gimmick but not nearly as intersting as it could have been. Combine that with a less than stellar story and you still get a decent game that checks all the boxes but is nothing to get excited about.

Open world games need to move on and a shinier package just isn't enough for me anymore. Reading Jeff's review, it seems like I'm not the only one. Witcher 3 you are my best hope.

Posted by SupberUber

From what I've seen of it, GTA clone with "hacking", sans a soundtrack worth a damn, is an appropriate way to describe it.

Nicely written review.

Posted by MindBullet

Pretty much what I expected. The comments about the playlist and the weird 'player invasion' system are a bit disappointing though. Still, as long as it's a solid open world game I'll probably find some enjoyment in it.

Online
Posted by bradleyg

@altairre: All reviews are out of ten, that's the way they are averaged on meta critic, thats the way they are. 3/5 is 6/10.

Posted by impartialgecko

The majority of reviewers have been more positive about it so I'll be giving it a try anyway. I don't think that one negative review should completely stop people from considering it.

Except when you're like me and your tastes mirror Jeff's almost exactly. It's why came to GB. Once you find a critic that speaks to you never let them go.

Posted by adamacuo

@mb: likewise.

This is my go-to site for reviews and it is largely consistent with the leaked reviews that Ubisoft slammed. Thanks for getting this out early. I decided not to pre-order based on the leaked reviews and it looks like I saved myself $60. I was very doubtful because of the delay, the downgraded graphics and then the fervor they created via marketing, the dozen or so pre-order bundles and the embargo on reviews. This will go into the backlog until the inevitable Steam sale or it goes PS+ or Live with Gold.

Posted by Sammo21

I don't really care about licensed music in a serious game. If this were GTA or Saints Row I would care a bit more. I played about 1.5-2 hours of the game last night. I enjoyed what little I played.

Edited by SlashDance

I like what I've played of it, but I hope the sequel is amazing and not just "kinda okay".

Posted by Veektarius

I don't know, I thought this review wasn't very well written; it's pretty disjointed. Has nothing to do with the game, I just think you've done better from a writing perspective.

Posted by Hilts

Sounds about right Jeff. I wasn't expecting too much from this new franchise from Ubisoft. Like many have pointed out before me, if it goes the way of the Assassins Creed franchise, Watch Dogs 2 will be better. Still no reason for me to buy a PS4 then. Lets see what E3 has in store!

Posted by baka_shinji17

Looks like this dog was all bark and no bite. *bows*

Posted by Splodge

Well I have my pre-order, and I will play this anyway. Great review though Jeff! Looks like true next gen is still a ways off.

Posted by hwy_61

That last bit about how using a phone instead of something way more high tech like Google glass is EXACTLY how I've felt about this game ever since they unveiled it. I always thought using a phone to be the worlds most bad ass hacker was a bit silly.

Posted by Ett

I think Skin Game will be the only Chicago set media ill be consuming today .

Posted by buzz_clik

Crunched some numbers here, ran it through the Gibson, had the dean give it a lookover, conclusion is indicating half = 50% and 3/5 = 60%.

Except Giant Bomb don't have a zero-star score.

@bradleyg said:

@altairre: All reviews are out of ten, that's the way they are averaged on meta critic, thats the way they are. 3/5 is 6/10.

Aren't all professional reviews out of 100 on Metacritic?

That said, Jeff has been on record as saying that (for better or worse) the way Metacritic converts a Giant Bomb score is pretty analogous. But I still don't like the comparison, despite any tacit endorsement from Jeff. Giant Bomb has a streamlined, no nonsense, from-the-gut scoring system which works way better for me than anything more granular.

Now that said, I always read the accompanying text for a review.

I've gotta say, though, I do like that some people are all "Jeff's opinion never matches mine, so I might like this." That's totally cool, and is a completely valid way to use a reviewer while informing your purchasing decisions. I'd much rather have people say that than have a knee-jerk rage fit over a contrary opinion. Well done to those peeps! (Because you live for my approval, right?)

Moderator
Edited by Snail
@mb said:

It's the Assassin's Creed 1 of the Watch Dogs franchise.

The best in the series? I hope not.

Edited by Wes899

It's an ubisoft game, of course it doesn't do anything different or new. It can't. Hundreds of people and millions of dollars went into this game so it has to be generic enough to sell a ton.

Posted by Jeffsekai

Not surprised.

Edited by Demoskinos

Yep I'll play this once its $30 later this year during Black Friday or on a PS+ sale. Cause man everything about that quick look looked average as fuck.

Posted by Zevvion

@leebmx said:

Starting to wonder why the fuck I bought this now doorstop of a PS4. Seems like all the big companies have forgotten how make top-quality AAA games. When was the last truly acclaimed big game which came out - GTA5?

Not sure what you're talking about. This is a new generation. Whether easy to code for or not, it will take some time for devs to get used to the new hardware and their capabilities. The first year of games will most likely all be unrealized potential.

Also, since when are games on the scale of GTAV the norm? That was a single case. As far as traditional AAA games go, there have been many great ones since GTAV. I also want to point out that just because a game has a high budget, doesn't mean everyone likes it. I wouldn't put GTAV in my top 10 games on that year for instance.

Posted by Fram

@altairre said:

@bradleyg said:

@zgoon: I think a bunch of grown men who have all their friends in the industry(mostly indies) are bound to have deep prejudices as what is and is not good for the industry.

Ubi-Soft is not 'cool' in the "gaming community". This is less a critical assessment as a political statement.

If Ubi-Soft wasn't making free to play games this would be a 8/10

At this point it's hard to tell if you're serious or not. Firstly there is not 8/10 on Giantbomb so stop comparing it to other review scales.

Secondly if you think that Jeff's opinion on what Ubisoft does or does not do for the industry influences his view on Watchdogs so strongly that he rates it lower you probably shouldn't be reading his reviews in the first place.

Lastly I think his review nails what is wrong with most open world games at the moment. They're kind of all the same, lack focus and are stuck in the past which makes the whole formula less appealing every time you go back to it. The mission design in open world games is generally mediocre at best and in the case of let's say the last two Assassin's Creed more often terrible than not. Storytelling is for the most part restricted to cutscenes that lead into said missions and in my experience story and gameplay often feel disjointed because to matter what the setup is it all boils down to doing the same stuff over and over again. GTAV got away with it because of the insane amount of polish and detail it has and due to a couple of great characters (unlike the bland, generic tragic antihero that Aiden Pearce seems to be, knock off Batman voice included) but even GTAV suffered from that problem which is why I didn't finish it.

Open world games have to do everything, that's the expectation tied to them. The result is that they all have a lot of systems and content crammed into them but nothing is really great. In Assassin's Creed you are supposed to have the freedom to chose if you want to be stealthy or not but the stealth is garbage and the combat lacks depth. From what I've seen of Watchdogs and looking at how the review states it the stealth boils down to watching the same takedown animations a lot and lining up easy headshots while being mostly ignored by the AI.That's not good gameplay. And hacking, the big theme of the game? Well it seems like it comes down to pressing a button to take out enemies. It's a nice gimmick but not nearly as intersting as it could have been. Combine that with a less than stellar story and you still get a decent game that checks all the boxes but is nothing to get excited about.

Open world games need to move on and a shinier package just isn't enough for me anymore. Reading Jeff's review, it seems like I'm not the only one. Witcher 3 you are my best hope.

Ubisoft's big AAA properties are slowly being homogenised. The latest Far Cry and Assassin's Creed games both feature an open world map littered with icons and quest markers, elevated viewpoints which unlock nearby side activities, skinnable animals, a large skill tree, mini economies with various currencies, too many weapons...

In amongst all that bloat is a narrative you're meant to care about. And if the story is notable enough to still mean something despite all these diversions, the game also has to be 20 hours long so any sense of tension / pace / character is slowly drained away as the completion percentage ticks up.

At one point in time Watch Dogs felt like it was promising something new, particularly with the hacking systems. But in the end, that's just a button you press while your gravelly voiced male lead drives around, performing side missions, one-button-takedowning thugs, cover shooting, unlocking your skill tree, slowly drowning your map with icons and quest markers...

If at some point in Watch Dogs you were prompted to air-hack an ocelot I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Edited by Incapability

I agree with Jeff's review - there are so few things that set this apart from being a 4 or even 5 star game, it's such a good idea, and there are a lot of things worth liking about this game. It's just unfortunate that there are also a lot of things that really hold it back, even obvious things, or things that would be easy to implement.

Posted by Lorefyr

Really good review that gets straight to the point.

Posted by big_jon

I never got how people expected this to blow everything away...

Posted by big_jon

I never got how people expected this to blow everything away...

Edited by AlexanderSheen

Fuck video games!

Edited by fots
Posted by kennybaese

@koolaid: This made me LOL.

I'm generally always down for a good open world game, even if it isn't especially unique. I'll definitely still play this at some point, but it is definitely no longer at the top of my priority list.

Edited by TheSouthernDandy

Thanks for the review Jeff. I'm still interested in checking this out, Jeff an I differ on games enough and he seems to be on the lower end of the scale of reviews that I think I still might be into the game. Kinda wonder if Ubi aren't victims of their own hype. Shooting for the stars is great an all but when you present that to the public and you don't nail it, it isn't gonna help your case.

Posted by bassman2112

Thank you for the review, @jeff. As someone who makes games, even just reading this I can really see the 'gaminess' of it. Systems that were made to work, not necessarily made to feel natural (examples being the soundtrack, the way you use the environment, et cetera). Though it's easy to look past systems that feel like a game, it is way harder when you encounter a game like this whose story feels haphazardly thrown together. Stories are generally the main reason for which I play games these days (except Dota), and it's a bummer to hear this story & its characters are underwhelming. I think that's mainly what has me unsold on Watch Dogs (Watch_Dogs? Whatever).

Again, thanks for the review.

Edited by graboids

Hmm... this game turned out to be a lot more GTA than I was expecting for some reason... think I'll finish up ACIV & Wolfenstien first and pick this up later maybe... or wait for GTAV on Xbone if that happens.

unless they do some cool DLC....

Posted by SpaceCouncil

Jeff, sometimes you sound tired and cynical but not inaccurate. Then again maybe the industry needs a bigger push to actually innovate.

Posted by crcruz3

Jeff got it right. Ubisoft seems to think that doing a lot of things with a few button presses is OK. It's not. It's boring, and easy and for little kids. I like my games to be challenging.

Posted by Giefcookie

Good read! So far I'm really enjoying my time with the game not having played an open-world-type-thing since Sleeping Dogs.

Posted by benu302000

Watched the quicklook for this. Man... this is just another one of those games, isn't it? Not even a particularly inspired one.

Posted by mrfluke

fuckk, like its not the score thats bothering me, is the fact that the story is junk.

Posted by Solh0und

Guess I'll wait for this to hit around $35-40 then. Was hoping this was really good.

Then again, I could just rent it...

Posted by heatDrive88

So is this game anything other than a relatively mediocre game that is also a deeply inaccurate texting and driving simulation?

Posted by Ltwood12

Wow, that music thing is REALLY going to bug me. Either give full control to the player or don't. Going halfway definitely breaks the immersion. Anyway, I sort of expected this.