Beijing, San Francisco Bay Area, London and more.
This game needs a long break .
Why? Look at the Assassin's creed series. The first was pretty bad but AC2 was a lot better and AC:B was, in my opinion was even better. They only need to take the opinion on board and improve With that said, this article is a joke. 15 pages? Come on. You could easily put 2 or 3 a page. Make it less click heavy
70 or 80 years should do it.
I say set it in Beijing 40-50 years into the future. Let's think more Ghost in the Shell, it's a game it doesn't have to be set in the real world. I would love it to get to the point where you're hacking androids and other things. Make the city bigger (way more districts), add more hacking options, real hand to hand combat (not the same boring, baton take downs) and more people (Chicago looked sooo sparse, hopefully the next game looks like a real living city). I think that was my biggest complaint about WD, the city was horribly populated. I thought I was in The Division and there was an outbreak.
London simple as that
London would be great but i doubt ubisoft would do it.
Considering the amount of effort they said they put into "knowing" the city of Chicago they will probably go with their hometown; the game will be set in Montreal. London would be better though :/ they want a fast sequel because it sold so well
That would be boring in my opinion, London doesn't feel very techie..
I'll tell you the location of watch dogs 2, the bargain bin.
I'm sorry I meant to agree.
Dear God. Please let the Watch Dogs series die a horrible fiery death.
FFS I'm sick of all the ignorant bandwagoners in gaming. It's so obvious what's happening. Watch Dogs has an 80 on metacritic and even the overwhelming majority of user reviews are positive, yet to hear these hipsters tell it you would think Watch Dogs is a horrible game. I liked Watch Dogs and the majority of reviewers and gamers did as well. You don't have to like it, but please quit acting like you guys are some kind of final authority on the game or that it's some kind of fact that Watch Dogs is no good. As with all games, opinions differ on Watch Dogs, but the majority are of the opinion that it is a good game. It was a good start for a franchise, both in terms of critical reception and sales. The vociferous minority of overeager hatemongers doesn't change that objective fact.
Here here. Some people have no idea how to enjoy a game that isn't a 10/10. They hype themselves up (sidenote: hype is always on you. It doesn't matter how many videos/marketing/screenshots/q uotes you see from a dev, you are the one that buys into it, and from there you get unrealistic expectations). Then the outcome is people needlessly bashing solid games. They are the kind of people that call games like Watch Dogs 'the worst game they have ever played' or 'biggest disappointment evar'. Why, because you put it on a pedestal in your head? They clearly don't play many games. If you actually take a step back and look at Watch Dogs it is a very very solid first entry for a new IP. Sure, it has issues, the story is all kinds of off, there are massive pacing issues, a horrible main character, not enough variety in how you can approach the story missions (they should look to Deus Ex for improvement) and the driving is far too light. However, to say the IP should die after one game is shameful, especially considering Ubi's track record with Assassin's Creed. 2 was far superior to the original.
15 locations, just say it may be set on earth.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.