Pointing out Jeff's lack of enthusiasm about Watch Dogs brings up an interesting point, actually.
They've gone away from Gamespot's "we must review every game that comes out" strategy of old - so if that's the case, they maybe should've just ignored Watch Dogs altogether? There's definitely an element of going through the motions in their coverage of the game. It's the thing to do as a gaming outlet in May 2014, you cover Watch Dogs. It has a huge marketing campaign, it is Ubisoft's big game for the summer. You talk about that big game that Ubisoft is pushing out now with this big marketing campaign, because.... well, why, exactly?
Is it because you think that's what your audience wants to see? everyone's talking about Watch Dogs this week... there are features going up on every big site. IGN's covering it, Gamespot has made videos about it, Polygon wrote theirs... just, why? Because it's an amazing game? Or because Ubisoft is talking about it and pushing it, and so must everyone else?
It raises some interesting questions for sure. I'm looking forward to the day that an outlet just flat-out ignores a mediocre game (or only mention it in passing as not worth our time) even though it's been shoved down our throat by its mega- publisher as "the big thing".
In the end, I guess it's not riveting content to see Jeff driving around unenthusiastically in a mediocre open world game for 90 minutes, showing off a game he doesn't really like. Not bad enough to make fun of, not good enough to get excited about. A worthless QL.