Top
1010°

Watch_Dogs: First Legit Review Gives it a 19 out of 20; Calls it "Almost Perfect," Criticizes Story

Ubisoft warned about fake reviews of Watch_Dogs before the embargo on the 27th, but that normally doesn’t apply to the printed press, that has to deal with its own dates. One of the biggest French magazines, JeuxVidéo, has the first exclusive on the review of the game, and it's definitely positive.

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Robochobo1191d ago

Still laughing at the fact a review of something can be considered fake.

rodiabloalmeida1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Not to mention the fact about people not getting a nerdy joke about hacking at ubisoft's twitter. stupid people.

Maybe the reason is the fact that wccftech is not a All-about-PS4 site, but dualshockers is.

Again: stupid people *sigh

PLASTICA-MAN1191d ago

NEVER TRUST OR READ ANYTHING from Jeuxvideo magazine or .fr or com), they are the laughingstock of all gaming journalism. I remember them playing MGS4 in very easy mode and saying that the game AI sucks, just to sabotage it because it was a PS3 exclusive (try to play the game in normal mode, to see how the AI is tough, let alone hard modes). In their Heavy Rain test A FRENCH GAME, they gave it a very bad score with a pretxt that the game has no replay values (while the game has around 60 different endings), just because it was a PS3 exclusive. Now I remember clearly, after just posting my news in N4G about Deep Down being a PS4 exclusive: http://n4g.com/news/1286463... Few ours later, they stole MY NEWS, and pereverted it luring people into thinking that the game will be on Xbox One too thus changing the whole content of the news (from PS4 exclusivity confirmation to Xbox One possible version), just to get hits: http://www.jeuxvideo.com/ne...

And very known to be the most corrupted magazines ever.

Wait for more reviews to see the real deal. Just don't trust this one.

aCasualGamer1191d ago

This is the beauty of the embargo system, we won't know for sure before the rest of the lot reviews the game. When i go to metacritic i can get a better overall picture of how good the game is.

randomass1711191d ago

@PLASTICA-MAN I thought Kotaku was the joke of all gaming journalism.

Aloren1191d ago

@PLASTICA-MAN The funny thing is that jeuxvideo magazine, jeuxvideo.com, and jeuxvideo.fr are completely unrelated.
Another funny thing is that none of them gave Heavy Rain a bad score...

Also, no offense, but considering the size of jeuxvideo.com, I seriously doubt they need your news to get hits.

PLASTICA-MAN1191d ago

@Aloren: You call this NOT A BAD SCORE? http://www.jeuxvideo.com/ar...

I hope you understand french when they said the game has no replay value. You cna aslo check video review of MGS4.

Also, just FEW HOURS after that my news got published, they copied it, while the tweet itself is very old, but only after I published it, they decided to make a news about it and pervert it: WHAT A CONCIDENCE!!! Also juexVideo.com and Fr and magazine share the same editors and they have many things in common, if not they are the same. Sorry NO OFFENSE, but you realy don't know them well or ever followed them. Even metascore sometimes use their reviews but most of the times they don't, because they don't consider them professional.

Gaming1011191d ago

You've obviously never heard of troll reviews, sites that put out negative reviews of extremely popular games to get more hits. They know that nerds will flock to their sites to fill up the comments with hate, that's what the site wanted! They get a ton of money with ad revenue doing that, and all your nerds out there who buy into it and fall into their trap are just sheep!

Dee_911191d ago

@PLASTICA-MAN
no. thats not a bad review.. and this one doesn't give me any reason not to trust them..

Aloren1190d ago

@PLASTICA-MAN Well, I don't know where you come from, but in France, 15/20 is a good score, it's not considered "bad" like a 7.5 would be on ign. Typically, here, a good game gets about 7, a very good game gets about 8, an awesome one gets about 9; and basically none ever get 10.

Also, do you read french ? Cause if you do, check this: "Durée de vie 16/20 Fort d'une soixantaine de chapitres, Heavy Rain remplit son office en termes de durée de vie s'étalant sur une dizaine d'heures environ. De plus, les quelques embranchements liés aux choix moraux vous permettront de reprendre l'aventure par ailleurs chapitrée et ainsi obtenir une bonne vingtaine de fins. " You know that praises the replay value, right ?

Also, jeuxvideo.com don't make video reviews. Just what they call "gaming live", which is basically a let's play.

And finally, jeuxvideo.fr belongs to M6 groups (tv channel), they're based in Lyon. Jeuxvideo.com belong to L'odyssée interactive, and are based in Aurillac, and Jeux Video Magazine belong to Link Digital Spirit and are based in Paris. So they don't share anything at all.

As for metacritic, well, if you read French, you probably know gameblog, and you know they're not exactly seen as uber professionnal and yet they're on metacritic. So, sorry, but being on metacritic isn't the ultimate proof of professionalism.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1190d ago
Dudebro901191d ago

It can be called fake if the "reviewer" is lying about what they reviewed.

Considering that first reviewer refused to show his copy of the game he claimed he bought/obtained on Xbox One, says a lot. If he has a legit copy and isn't afraid to post his review weeks before it ships, then why doesn't he shut up all the haters and post a picture. Takes 3 seconds.

thorstein1191d ago

He also claimed to have been "playing it for a week" when the game hadn't even gone gold.

Syntax-Error1190d ago

Game has been gold over a week. They are playing a live stream tomorrow, so people actually do have the game. Stop drinking the kool aid

Abriael1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

When you review the multiplayer beta and call it a review of the game, it can definitely be considered false.

SlapHappyJesus1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

To be fair, if they did review the single-player and then use what was seen in the beta as the reference for multiplayer, I don't fault the author too much. It's unprofessional, yes. But I I am not surprised anyone with access to the vast majority of the content over a week before others would try and put out a review first. Not to mention, multiplayer betas are almost always what you can expect the multiplayer to actually be on day one.

@Abriael

Fair enough.

Abriael1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

@:SlapHappyJesus: the references to the single player were generic and very vague.

On the other hand the NDA of the multiplayer beta said clearly that the assets were downgraded to keep the download size down, and the "review" went on bashing the graphics.

That is not kosher, and is, IMHO, plenty to define it a "false" review.

mhunterjr1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I guess it could be fake if the 'reviewer' didn't actually play the game... Or at least play something that accurately represents the final product.

kurruptor1191d ago

What is so hard to understand about this?

You and I have never played the game.

If we were to create and publish a review... doesn't that make it fake?

PraxxtorCruel1191d ago

Still not convinced that this game will be the next-gen big hit until embargo day lifts. Awaiting release day!

GarrusVakarian1191d ago

It was fake, the dude was playing the beta and was looking at the ground while it was was raining and saying something along the lines of "look at the water tessellation and procedural textures", lmao.

It was just a guy, playing a beta, making stuff up off the top of his head.

starchild1191d ago

Exactly. Didn't even know what he was talking about. Water tessellation and procedural textures?...pfft what a noob.

XiSasukeUchiha1191d ago

I'm Laughing like Sasuke when he met up with Kakashi, and Sakura at these reviews were quote on quote considered fake.

NexGen1191d ago

It's quote/unquote....not quote on quote. It's also something that is done verbally (not in writing) to indicate something that was directly said, or to imply sarcasm.

When using written words, we use the quotation marks.

Ex: The forum post was "amazing."

oof461191d ago

(Your comment)

My head.

DrJones1191d ago

What's wrong with you.

TooHigh2Die1191d ago

First review posted a few days ago was 7.2 this review is like a 9.5. I believe it will be in between with an average of 8 to 9. I'm not basing my purchase on these "reviews" I knew I wanted the game 2 years ago when it was shown at E3. In 7 days when I'm playing the game the last thing I'll be thinking is what some french magazine said or some other site.

Magicite1191d ago

I think this game is mostly all about gameplay, if it has nearly flawless gameplay, then its a must.

BongSmack1191d ago

It could be considered fake if the person "reviewing" hasn't played the game or hasn't played the completed gold version of the game. To be clear, I have no idea what the story is here.

admiralvic1190d ago

"To be clear, I have no idea what the story is here."

A few days ago WCCTech posted a review for Watch Dogs and it was met with a lot of criticism. This includes things like an oddly vague and generic approach to single player, most of the review focused on previously known things (not unheard of, but it was closer to an assets preview, which is basically a preview done by looking at trailers / videos / screenshots and little to no first hand experience) , the site having almost no game reviews, a distinct lack of unique content despite "owning" the game, many people noted the gameplay came from the beta and the reviewer digging a hole for himself. A lot of this could have been avoided by the guy simply posting a picture of the game, his achievements or something tangible that disproves others, but he instead simply claimed to beat the game and I heard others mentioned he had it for at least a week / had a retail version, despite the game went gold 3 days prior and while having a test sample is possible, he would 99.99% be under an NDA.

Old McGroin1191d ago

Thought Ubisoft made an official statement saying that all reviews before the embargo on release day were not legit?

gear1190d ago (Edited 1190d ago )

Can we go to an evil route in this game like instead of helping a npc we kill them after full fill there quest or before

Flamingweazel1190d ago

Umm they lied, never played the game HERP DERP>

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1190d ago
MattE1191d ago

If the bad early reveiews are being dismissed then so should this right? Embargo not lifted until 27th.

Cant be considered im afraid..

SlapHappyJesus1191d ago

"Real Review" means good score, apparently. Considering Ubisoft is so quick to claim that the "Real" reviews, no matter the source or platform, will be released on the 27th.

LazyMinion1191d ago

Print media may have a different embargo then websites. I really dont know.

hellzsupernova1191d ago

You could be right because they have to finish the magazine before going to print so they would need to have there score down before printing not sure what kind of lead time they would need

Stapleface1191d ago

Helps if the reviewer actually has a copy of the game to review as well. That one review had no copy to show. They could upload videos and write a review but couldn't take a picture of their copy of the game? That's what makes people skeptical about it. There is zero proof the guy played the final version of the game.

SlapHappyJesus1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I was talking more the "Real Review" statement than the review put up by WCCF itself. I have no reason to confirm nor deny whether that review was genuine. I am only backing the statement that Ubisoft themselves said that, without pointing out a difference between print or video-based reviews, any proper review will only be available on the 27th.
A shining review for the game comes out, yet again before the 27th, and now it is the first "Real" review.

Abriael1191d ago

It's a worldwide exclusive, and it's official, so yes, it's the first "legit review" :D

You could bring up the usual tinfoil-hattish argument that a reviewer that gets a worldwide exclusive will be nicer with the game, but at least in my experience (I did work on print a few years before moving to the web), that's a very slim possibility.

Abriael1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Nope, "Real Review" means made with an actual final copy of the game, with all the assets in place and the features unlocked.

CrashJones1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Nope. A real review is once the definitive edition with all the DLC etc is out to be reviewed.

:P

I'm kidding...kind of. Real reviews are reviews based off a completed game. So, as Abriael said.

I'm still feeling really positive about this game. I think Ubisoft wants to hide as much as possible for story purposes, and to surprise the public with some innovative "next-gen", in game feelings/features.
NOT because they are trying to hide a glitch fest.

cyguration1191d ago

Not according to Ubisoft.

Anything published before the 27th is "FALSE!"

mrpsychoticstalker1191d ago

Real or not Im getting this game. Reviews is the last thing I follow before making a purchase.

aliengmr1191d ago

Don't know about most gamers, but I prefer reviews from a reviewer that:

A. Knows how to review an actual game.

B. Has at least some credentials.

C. Oh, and can prove without a doubt they actually have the game.

That review was unprofessional at best and at worst just trolling.

beerzombie1191d ago

None of this exist today. Everything is bias look at the u
way the gaming media acted with the x1 even using xbone i just watch twitch now and the player questions.

CrashJones1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

I agree with you 100% aliengmr.

Also, it would be nice for them to have completed the main story at the least... and a majority of the rest..if not all.

Hard to do in some cases I know, but obviously someone who has experienced something is in a better position to discuss/review it then someone who has not experienced something.

Jimi Hendrix said it best...

Are you experienced?

admiralvic1190d ago

"no matter the source or platform, will be released on the 27th."

Two things you have to keep in mind. The first is that print is different and that a tweet is limited to 140 characters.

So why is print different you ask? Ignoring the obvious stuff like they get games earlier / print has more demands than a site, a magazine is a physical product. This is very important, since the review is already done (embargo or not, it's already printed), so all it takes is for someone to snap a picture and post it online. This is EXTREMELY common with magazines like Shonen Jump (really any manga magazine), Famitsu and the like. So while SJ might release on Monday, you can typically find next weeks chapter online by Wednesday. The point of this? Even with the embargo it's possible for these things to get out early due to the aforementioned stuff. Please note though, I have no clue what conditions this magazine has, their print schedule or that they even existed prior to today. I just know that things get leaked and Ubisoft is going to go for a simple message (especially since the warning was just a tweet, so it was limited to 140 characters by default), than say "No valid review will be posted before May 27, 2014, unless a magazine gets leaked early or a site accidentally publishes early and the following publications will be printed prior..." See what I mean? It's just a lot of needless words when a simple statement will do.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1190d ago
Stapleface1191d ago

Ha, yeah lost in translation I guess. Wish I knew what BOF meant. lol

King_of_Nothing1191d ago

bof means "ok", "blah", "whatever", etc depending on the context

Abriael1191d ago (Edited 1191d ago )

Should have translated with "blah" I guess, it's a very french expression that means "blah" :D

Edited for clarity.

danowat1191d ago

Worked in France for a while, never heard "bof", heard "oof" alot, which generally meant either "meh" or "oh good, do I really have to do that"

Palitera1191d ago

Scenário translates to "story"?!

Aloren1191d ago

In this context, it means the story is average.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1191d ago