Do you think Watch Dogs 2 will be an improvement over the first game?

It has actual dogs in it, so yes. Definitively.

I'm hoping they make good on their promises this time. I hope that claims of being able to use stealth more, and complete the game without killing anyone are true. I hope this game is good!

Everything I've heard about it makes it seem like it will be better so I'm hopeful.

Fuck San Francisco.

Well it wouldn't take much to improve on my least favorite game of the generation.

Better? Yes. Good/Great? I doubt it.

Started playing the first one yesterday and I'm not in love with it but I don't hate it. There's a lot of room for improvement. I hope it's good..

Sure, if they tighten it up it could be an Assassin's Creed to Assassin's Creed II jump. Meaning, probably better but still not for me.

Of course. Ubisoft has a track record of making a new game that is ambitious but falls short, and then killing it with the sequel. I can imagine this game being really fantastic.

I already hate this fucking game:

I dunno, maybe it'll be alright, but I'm skeptical. The Bay Area is in theory a great setting for this kind of game, but I just don't trust the writers to restrain themselves. I expect it to be an extended commentary on the collision of tech and urban culture and issues of race, class and gentrification — because how do you set a game like Watch Dogs in San Francisco and avoid that stuff — but judging by the first game it'll almost certainly be handled in the most ham-fisted, stereotypical way imaginable. But, hey, at least the protagonist looks cool, so maybe it won't be all bad.

I treat this the same way I did post Unity AC. It's a game they really have to bring it on and I think they'll probably do just fine.

I mean, the first game is very bad.

Sure, granted that my expectations for the first game were somewhat high when it was announced, higher than GTAV at the moment because I really didn't like GTAIV, and tapered off over the years because of the lukewarm word of mouth, GTAV being way better than I expected, and Saints Row 4. I doubt that Watch Dogs 2 will be my new go to sandbox, but I'm hoping that it'll be good, not that I'm anti Aiden though he's kinda just 'yeah, okay, sure' to me.

I might actually like the whole Project Mayhem/ Mr. Robot thing they're going for.

How would we know if no one has played it yet?

@rongalaxy: Of course, I'm waiting for the game to come out before they get my money. I still cannot trust Ubisoft after I was stupid enough to pre-purchase AC:Unity.

Yeah. That was a fantastic idea.

I am hoping that they at least get close to the AC 1 to AC 2 jump. It seems they are saying the right things and moving in a good direction, let's see if they can stick the landing and deliver, I will for sure keep an eye out for it now.

I was pretty certain you couldn't top the Part 4 Jotaro Kujo caps/coat combo from Watch_Dogs 1. But then this game turns out to have balls on strings like Part 2 Joseph Joestar as your melee weapon, so yes, absolutely.

I mean, it can't not be, right?

I am pretty cynical about the game, but they would have to have really screwed up for it not to be at least a moderate improvement over the first game. It can't really be any worse as far as I'm concerned.

It would be hard for it not to improve on. The previews look pretty interesting but I said the same thing about the original.

I didn't play WD1, but the fact that you're playing a terrorist seems intriguing. Especially since (assuming a no-kill mode is possible), that most people will create legions of corpses on their way to breaking down the surveillance society of WD.

If they make a no-kill story possible, then they should modify the protagonist's personality as such. For example, if the protagonist isn't killing anyone, then his attitude towards Dedsec should be "I know we're terrorists, but lets try to do this without any causalities". I would argue that in this mode, the conclusion should be failing to accomplish their goals (probably usurping current society), since trying to avoid causalities is too idealistic considering their goals.

Obviously the protagonist's personality can shift to be more remorseless depending on how many people you kill (maybe other factors too). AKA, there should be story implications based on playstyle. Is this also cheesy and hamfisted? Probably. But also kind of interesting imo.

I don't know. I liked the first well enough; haven't seen enough of two to really say.

An improvement, sure. A game I will buy and play? Doubtful.

we have to start being cynical real early for this one.

I hope so.

Well Ubisoft did do a fantastic job of creating a much better sequel to Assassin's Creed. So they have the potential to make a great follow up game. Unlike AC I didn't have much interest in Watch Dogs though. Still I'll give them a chance and say that it will be a better game than the first one.

It's hard to know until it actually comes out and we get the straight dope on it. Judging from what I've seen it definitely seems more interesting and even though I may not be completely sold on it yet, going hard into the "haaaaaaaaaaack the plaaaaaaaaaanet!" type of hacker attitude. I would still prefer that level of pure cheese over the gritty revenge story we got for Aiden. I just wonder if the other shoe is gonna drop and the entire stupid hacker hi-jinks gets side lined with fighting against the "system" and gets way too serious for its own good. With that said, I'm still interested coming from someone who did enjoy his time with the first game, even with all it's faults.

The main characters melee weapon of choice is pretty damned awesome though.

Will it be an improvement? Yes.
Will I want to play it? No.

Yes I'm actually excited for it.

I wasn't a big fan of the game, kinda of hated it a ton by the end (fuck some of those missions man) BUT I thought there was some potential there to be a great game. And like Ubisoft over the past decade or so, the first game is rough with interesting ideas and the second game usually nails it. Fall doesn't have a ton of games I'm looking forward too (thanks P5 for 2017 date...) so I'm debating on getting this because I weirdly believe in them to do well.

EDIT: And you know Aiden will make an appearance in some way, just don't bring back the worst character of the year in that jackass, tattoo, annoying asshole hacker guy that ruined the back half of the game most for me.

100%. I didn't hate the first game like many others, and this one looks like a major improvement. Reading forums is making me hate this community (gaming, not Giant Bomb) yet again. People can't ever be satisfied. Cynicism is just always so cool.

It can't be much worse.

I didn't hate the first game but I didn't really like much about it either. It was just a bland game. It would've been a cool game if other open world games didn't do so much other stuff better.

So far the stuff I've seen from the presentation seemed fine, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a good game.

Is the first watchdogs worth playing if I can get it for cheap (10 bucks or under)?

Same question. That Steam deal shouldn't be so alluring.

@strife777: I wouldn't call it cynicism. More like holding huge companies and their equally huge games to a higher standard. When they've got upwards of a thousand people working on a game and it comes out feeling bland and uninspired, how can you not be jaded? Not saying all of ubisoft games are, but it couldn't hurt if they had a more cohesive vision. Even the good ones feel directionless.

Pretty much my thoughts. I'm so done with the Ubisoft-style open world template in a way that would require Watch_Dogs 2 to be either dramatically different from the game it's a sequel to (unlikely) or some sort of paradigm shifting masterwork (just as unlikely) for me to care at this point. I could also speculate about how the "anonymous hacker gangs doing it for the lulz and also hey the government is spying on you something something" stuff will probably be handled with about as much tact and nuance as a blunt object to the skull, but it mostly just turns out that I don't really want to play a game that requires me to do the equivalent of climbing a tower to reveal parts of my map and the dozens of icons therein.

Well the Steam user tags right now are "Illuminati, Anime, Dating Sim, Nudity, and Hacking" so it seems to be on the right track so far.

I wanted to like Watch Dogs, press X to hack...

Ten bucks isn't a lot for a video game, so there's that. I played the game once and I've never wanted to touch it again. In my opinion the protagonist is a nobody (really bland personality, and frankly the game mechanics of stealing random innocent people's info and money through their phones is a pretty shitty thing to do), the game has no comment to the crimes of the protagonist and he doesn't reflect on it himself either, the 'supporting' characters were all meh borderline cringe, the story predictable, repetitive gameplay, the AI terrible, the graphics was clearly a downgrade when it came out and it is safe to say it hasn't aged well.

Watch Dogs 2? At least from what I've heard they've evolved beyond the 'climb this tower and do something' to unlock the map; it only took like 10 games.

When I saw that first trailer, I was so intrigued. It looked so dope but then he pulled out a gun. Just something about that immediately turned me off ever playing the first game. This time around the game looks even more like a GTA rip off.

Everything they've shown already looks better than the first game. Unlike most people I didn't hate the first one. It was a mediocre game but I thought the gameplay besides the driving felt nice and the hacking was cool. This looks to be fixing what was wrong and building on what was good.

I can't wait to hear what the Giant Bomb guys think of this. They're gonna hate it so fucking much lol

here is the real question mafia 3 or watch dogs 2?

Well the trailer does seem to show a slightly more upbeat tone to the story soooo for that alone I'm going to say yes.

First off, I am appalled at the lack of underscores in this thread.

No writer came up with Protagonist Aiden Pearce, Wearer of Hats. He shows ever sign of being formulated by committee, and the end result reeked of "average demographic we're selling to + hack wizard." Don't hold the first game's flaws against its writers--there's a barely visible glimmer of creativity underneath all its also-ran dross.

It makes sense as a setting. If they're going to lean into the technology side of things, what better place to cause digital chaos among the insufferable nouveau riche?

While I don't understand this thing where people equate "not amazing" with "terrible," I agree that its mediocrity isn't a selling point. They took a risk on a new IP and, while they failed in some aspects, my hope is that the second try will be better. All the nonsensical camera hacking puzzles and invasion of privacy stuff really worked for me on a gameplay and philosophical level, and they were clearly going for some House of Cards-esque drama.

We've lost the delicate art of the techno-thriller. They tread a fine line with it, but I hope W_D2 will be good if they lean into that stuff.

@williamflattener: It totally makes sense. I just cannot stand that culture or city.

If there's one thing Ubi gets right, it's the second installment in a franchise.

Honestly no. I did this recently and it's just completely underwhelming in every single regard. Combat isn't great (guns or melee), drivings bad, story is predictable and uninteresting, and the hacking (the damn thing that makes this game semi different) is kinda wasted. It's all just you pressing X to do whatever, which I know sounds redundant but it's really not well implemented.

Do I think it's going to be an improvement over the first game? Yes.

Do I think it's going to be a good game. No.

From all I've seen from it so far, it could be a really cool game if they were a little bit more self-aware and leaned it more on the absurd and the comedy, like a smaller Saints Row with hackers. But instead everything about it looks extremely edgy in the most cringe-inducing aways with the whole atitude of "let's hack because the Man is bad and our society is corrupted, write "fuck" everywhere, yeah that will send them a message to not mess with me". Stuff like this.

Don't know if it's going to be a great game but I imagine the leap in quality to be similar to Assassin's Creed 1 to 2.

@rongalaxy said:

I say go for it. $10 is such a low barrier to entry that you might as well find out for yourself how the game is.

I did not find the game nearly as disgustingly the most appalling thing ever as everyone else seems to. In fact I really enjoyed it (as did all of my friends who played it), but bear in mind I have not played a whole lot of Ubisoft open world games, so there's probably a tolerance-for-Ubisoft thing other people are experiencing. edit: I also had the driving controls "click" after an hour of play time and then quite liked it. Ubisoft has their own driving feel that is not for everyone.

As a fan of the first game the more advertising I see for Watch Dogs 2 the more I think the serious tone of the original was a better choice.

Wouldn' take much for me, really. The gameplay was just about the only good thing the first one had going and even that wasn't anything special, everything else was was bland as hell. Didn't help that inFamous Second Son was released before it and made the game world seem graphically kinda bad...and GTA V already had a and more impressive city running on PS3 the year before, so...

I haven't followed this one closely, so I don't really have an opinion yet, except maybe with the off-putting "LULSEC RULZ!" attitude they are going for.