Watch Dogs 2 has just been announced and looks great. The first game, although flawed is still one of my favourite games. here's why
The graphical Downgrade
get over it
Over what? The article is saying what made the game a flawed gen, I said the downgrade.
That's not all, though.
Didn't say it was
S you admit you picked that out of everything that was said?
Right or wrong, I tend to judge a game based on whether it kept me engaged long enough to finish it. I finished Watch Dogs in a week or so, and I don't remember having a bad time with it.
"I just wanted to put my thoughts on to paper about a game that didn’t really get a fair chance. The hype was something Watch Dogs could never live up to, and that’s a shame because it could put people off before they’ve given it a chance. and thus affect the interest people will have in the upcoming sequel" A fair chance? Really? They created the hype themselves by spouting how amazing it would be. Then the launch was rife with bugs, fps drops, graphics not working properly on systems that should clearly be able to handle it, poor driving mechanics, repetitive side-quests and other gimmicks, constant flickering elements in and out of the screen, and, in my personal opinion; horrible sounds (the car horns, Aiden's voice, car engines, bike engines, music). So, flawed gem, maybe, but to me it sits around a six or seven out of ten, and it looked like the makers were making us expect a nine or ten out of ten. So yeah.
Horrible CPU optimization, awful driving, wonky physics, boring missions and a world that feels dead and fake.
the only reason people hate on it is because its not a gta clone
Or because it was nothing like they said it was going to be. They marketed it as a GTA clone, that was supposed to be super immersive, all this customization, living breathing worlds, great protagonist, all this cyber crime stuff, and it turned out to be about the exact opposite of all of those. The only reason people like this game is because they have shit taste, and don't know the difference between a well made video game and a blatant sub par cash grab like this one. If someone tries to sell me a vacuum cleaner, and they tell me it's bagless, and automatically adjusts to clean any kind of flooring, and I purchase it and it doesn't do any of those, that doesn't make it great, that makes it shit. Why? Because it did not do what they said it was going to do. The reason these companies keep making these shit games, is because there will always be people like you to keep defending them by making excuses and conditions to make their game not as bad as it actually is.
I would say that, while flawed, it had potential. Much like Ubisofts 1st run IP. I could see where they were trying to go. They just didn't quite make it. It's the same way I felt with the first Assasins Creed. WD was hyped beyond imagination by the media, the devs, and gamers alike. But, being an early title for this gen, that was to be expected. But, there were some things to like. Aside from the driving, the fundamental mechanics were solid and worked well. In fact, the third person shooting was some of the best for open world games. (my opinion of course) The hideouts were like little mini-puzzles if you didn't want to must go all Rambo. I even enjoyed some of the street. hacking interactions. It reminded me of just listening to passersby in GTA. Even the AR mini-games were interesting to me at first. All in all, while flawed, I actually enjoyed the mechanics of the game enough to endure the lack of depth in Aiden (he just seemed flat) and the wonky driving mechanics. I didn't finish it. But, I had some fun while playing.
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.