Why Watch Dogs suggests that maybe we're too harsh on the games we play.
Mass effect 3 is amazing but everyone felt betrayed with that ending , and i am 100% that if gamers hasnt said it was a bad ending and destroyed the whole reputation of the game and damaged the image of bioware then EA would have charged us for the extended cut just like they did with Dead Space 3 ... watch dogs on the otherhand felt like a huge letdown because people expected it to be one of the best openworld games on the market because of the overhype it had and the devs lying about their being no downgrade to the graphics is really a stupid thing to say , and the driving mechanics were bad and Aiden was a really bland protagonist , believe me when i say those 2 games i really wanted to love , sigh .
Most of the time, yes.
"Are We Becoming Too Critical Of Video Games?" NO. I think most gamers and reviewers are exaggerating and overhyping games in their reviews, specially exclusives. In the old days a game that got a 10 had to be a near perfect game, a fabulous game, a instant classic. Today any piece of crap game released get at least a few 10's in their reviews. It's perfectly normal getting 10's in reviews today. Gaming journalist go after the mighty $$$ or are complete fanboys, no scrupulous.
We are too critical at videogames. When someone starts threatening etc at the developers then you know something is wrong. People forget that these are games and everything has flaws. People have flaws.
Mass Effect 3 was far from amazing, just making sure you realize that. I think people have been too blind (forgivng) for that game too.
It was great until those final 15 minutes , and i blame EA for that not bioware .
Overhype is a problem. I think we are to easy on games. When you think about who games seem to cater to now its the lowest common denominator.
No, I thought watchdogs really did suck.
I liked it
Watchdogs wasn't bad. It just wasn't as good as most people expected. Way way overhyped.
I really liked it. And I give zero fucks about what anybody else thinks.
When a studio hypes a game up and it doesn't meet the expectations set by the developer then yeah people can be critical. To be honest I feel with some games these days people are too easy on them. It's not until a year or so after the game comes out you can finally go "Well that game wasn't as good as I thought because...." and instead of bashing you most people will actually agree. The worst time that can happen is with franchises which have been around for years. The bigger and more respected the franchise, the less people will be critical of it.
Edit: Double Post
Downgrade aside, the graphics still had plenty of wow moments. The gun play and stealth was better than most open world games. The sound was well mixed and the city felt alive and immersive. The driving needed work (particularly rubber banding cop chases) but it was the disjointed storyline and constant barrage of of side missions, which exacerbated the disconnect from the story, that brought the game down. By the end of the game I didn't care or fully know any characters motivation for doing anything aside from the obvious revenge story. I think Ubisoft needs to hire new story writers, it seems they always have terrible or disjointed stories (AC, FC3, and now watchdogs) The game would have benefited from a new game plus mode where you can just replay the story and continue on with your progress. Maybe if I had found a few more audio recordings I would have appreciated the game more. It wasn't bad by any measure and there were plenty of great moment, largely owing to the effects and gunplay, but there were also an equal number of 'who cares' and annoying/boring moments too. I appreciated how the online tried to combine SP and MP into a cohesive experience and respect the innovation. Nothing was wrong with the online per se but if wasn't memorable either. Solid 8/10 game. IMO
i loved watchdogs, I thought it was a solid game. The bar has been raised so high plus the Hype Machine tends to create unrealistic expectations. I fear that No Man Sky may become a victim of this hype
I agree, everyone says that it was overhyped, but what did it do so horribly/not deliver on? Just finished it the other day, and this article's point just comes to mind. I thought it was really fun
No, the more you play or indulge in something, the more standards you build, the more critical overview you view it with. It doesn't go for just video games but any other field of hobby or field of study and jobs. If there is nobody to criticize something no matter how far the criticizing goes, there is no incentive to improve it and perfect it. If you can't take criticism as a tool to improve yourself, then you are taking it at face value and don't give a damn about your product or job or study and should just go find another thing to do. It has been the basic function of human advancement for centuries and it shouldn't stop.
Watchdogs was such an average game considering the amount of hype ubisoft gave it
"Why Watch Dogs suggests that maybe we're too harsh on the games we play." What ? it's the opposite , for a while , and still today , gamers were far too lenient and forgiving . And Watchdogs is good , just dissapointing , and not even because of the whole "Graphical downgrade or no downgrade" debate . The main character is a boring buzzkill in a setting that should feel exciting . And hacking the soul of the game was barely scratched yet . 7/10 I a way it feels like AC1 level of dissapointement . Her's to hoping the sequel will be it's AC2 .
If a game costs £50/$60, has loads of special editions, day one DLC and season passes, then it deserves to be criticised. Constructively, preferably. But even so, it's a good thing that more gamers are getting savvy about games, and I'd like to see it continue. That said, erm, I actually really liked Watch Dogs. Guess I avoided most of the hype and had measured expectations.
In Watch Dogs case no not really, the game is subpar and lacks the quality I have come to expect from a AAA title, IMO. Besides I like to see games get criticized (the actual game once they have played it), deserved criticism should always be given or you are bound to make the same mistake again.
Watchdogs didn't suck, it just didn't do anything new...at all. It was just another openworld game that didn't bring anything new to the table, and more importantly, didn't do anything better than what has come before it.
I dont remember any other game where you can take control of city systems like this, so its not really correct saying it doesn't do anything new.
I take it you never played Virtual City System Control?
HAHA Becoming? Every fanboy thinks they are a world class critic
No, and i don't think enough people are critical either. It's one of the reasons we're ending up with so much crap.
So much crap? Really?! Are you people for real? There are so many good games coming out in recent years it's impossible for me to keep up with knowing about all of them, let alone playing them all. A decade or two ago I fairly easily keep up with all the good games that interested me. Now it's literally impossible. And believe me, I try.
Yes most people are...I mean just by looking at game graphics. Many gamers think a game sucks if it has even only one bad looking rock on the ground.
Yes times 1000. It's probably having a worse impact on the industry then DRM would ever have. Gamers are a winey, emotional, short sighted group of people. I've said it many times before, we want everything now, we want it perfect, and you the company should,only make money if we say so. Otherwise don't you dare ask us to pay full price for a game. Most of us would rather give gamespot our money, then the people who pour their lives into these games. News flash: this industry is not robust, it's floundering. I read an article today about developers quitting their jobs because of death threats. What the F$&@ is wrong with you people it's just a game! Gamers are so judge mental and I hate to use this word but creepy...
If we are it's only because we are being lied to more & more by developers & publishers!
It's probably best to take any claims made about a game more than six months before release with a grain of salt. It's not that they are lying, they state what they intend to deliver. Unfortunately real-world constraints like time and technical issues force them to often not be able to deliver everything the way it was originally intended.
Yes i think we are! They are games plus with us being to critical i think it makes workers in the industry burn out because of the negativity!
We should be. Especially with devs / publishers releasing unfinished products for full price and omitting content to later sell as "DLC" ( disk locked content )
consumers have all the right for criticism with the products they purchase games are no different.
IMO gamers have every reason to be cynical. I never played that Aliens game and won't now. I thought the KZ2 trailer wasn't truly representing the game back in the day, but WD deserves all it gets. I'm cynical of games personally because of all the lies we are led to believe.... "There are quite a few [advantages], obviously there are the graphics but you don’t need me to tell you, but there’s also everything related to the dynamism of the city. For example, we’re able to simulate the water in full 3D, if you go on a boat the waves that form will affect other boats. We’re also able to spend more time giving brains to the other people on the streets so that they can basically be smarter, and there can be more of them. It’s what I call dynamism; basically, the way the city reacts to you, we are able to push further on the Xbox One." http://popwatch.ew.com/2012... http://m.techradar.com/news... http://www.craveonline.com/...
Yes, of course we are. A score of 8 is now too low, if a game stops being reported on, it's a bubble game that fails too early. and if you play on either a certain console or a PC, you are the devil and need to be stuck where you stand. Hyperbole rules the day now, Bad Gamers are everywhere!!!!!! (See what i did there.)
Yeah...you're a poet, you don't know it
I would say Yes and No. Yeah, way to get off of the fence. What I am saying is that, at times, we can be hypercritical. As a community, we can absolute destroy a game before we've even got a chance to play it. We base information of off short clips, videos, blogger descriptions, etc. and completely make up our collective minds that a game is doomed...and we haven't played it yet. That being said, I also believe that some of the criticism is highly warranted. Because of the history of publishers and developers pushing shoddy work out the door with the promise of a patch, we get a bit wary and cynical. Also, at times, popular franchises get HUGE passes that aren't given to others. Not picking on CoD or Battlefield, but I believe that they could literally release anything (quality-wise) and would receive stellar scores from the masses. We have every right to be critical. But, the criticism CAN become completely pedantic. We have the right to cynicism. But, we have to be open to the idea that there IS a middle ground between earth shattering good and failure...and that's where many games fall. They are just good.
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.