Watch_Dogs downgradeaton confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feel free to download the trailer here and judge for yourself: http://www.gamersyde.com/download_watch_dogs_story_trailer-31653_en.html

I have already downloaded the trailer.. actually i also downloaded the italian preview. The footage does feel different and downgraded. It isn't newsworthy. Because there are not enough facts. period. The shown footage contains roughly only 3 minutes gameplay and it isn't comparable to previous footage because the conditions (weather time of the day, location) are completely different.
 
Yes he can and his boss does a good job too. Totilo acted the same way with regards to Doritosgate. "Why do you all have to be so mad, what's the big deal, this is normal" All the typical apologist shit.

Jason is doing one man wagon circle with regards to game journalism and the people who pay him. He's downplaying legitimate concerns while playing up the "nerd rage" element. It all adds up to one big eye roll. It's crazy how pretty much Jim Sterling is the only person falling on the right side of the consumer anymore.
This reductionist "you're either with us or against us" attitude serves nobody, and let's not pretend that "a video game's graphics seem to have gotten worse" is a critical consumer issue along the lines of unethical microtransactions or online-only DRM. Some nuance, please.
 
I have already downloaded the trailer.. actually i also downloaded the italian preview. The footage does feel different and downgraded. It isn't newsworthy. Because there are not enough facts. period. The shown footage contains roughly only 3 minutes gameplay and it isn't comparable to previous footage because the conditions (weather time of the day, location) are completely different.

It isn't, huh?
watch_dogs_e3_2012_vs_march_2014_by_endless_1-d795oxr.gif
 
I don't quite get your notion this "OMG Watch Dogs downgraded" anger hate rage is an isolated GAF thing, Jason.
80-90% of the conversations in the Kotaku comment section are about how the graphics look downgraded compared to previous footage of the game. Even when the original story doesn't have anything to do with the graphics, people noticed and people talk about it extensively. If you disregard this as a "GAF thing", fine, you shouldn't disregard your reader's opinions though.
I didn't see those comments before, thanks. This just adds to the idea in my mind that there's a story here in how people have reacted to this. "Trailer F looks worse than Trailer A" is not an interesting story to me, but it's certainly worth talking about how and why this trailer has triggered such passionate reactions.
 
This reductionist "you're either with us or against us" attitude serves nobody, and let's not pretend that "a video game's graphics seem to have gotten worse" is a critical consumer issue along the lines of unethical microtransactions or online-only DRM. Some nuance, please.

I feel like builds getting worse over time and Ubisoft getting caught being dishonest yet again is worth writing about. But hey, maybe that's not sexy enough for primetime.

We'd rather have those dead-on-arrival wacky Japan stories, right?
 
This reductionist "you're either with us or against us" attitude serves nobody, and let's not pretend that "a video game's graphics seem to have gotten worse" is a critical consumer issue along the lines of unethical microtransactions or online-only DRM. Some nuance, please.

who have your posts in this thread served?

again, I do not think you are here shilling for Ubisoft, but your haste to defend your own website whenever you see broad criticism of game journalism is hardly nuanced, and it continually puts you on the opposite side of these issues to gamers. nuance would be acknowledging our grounds for annoyance, even as you counter them, rather than thinking we are the problem.

telling us that the real story here isn't that a company tried to sidestep criticism over showing off misleading footage advertising their product in 2012, it's actually that we got way too upset about it.

things you did in this thread:
tell us to visit websites like yours to read reviews instead of getting mad at marketing materials.
tell us that your website's readership is increasing.
ask us if we're really upset about something we clearly are.
link an article on your website telling us to stop pre-ordering games.

such nuance.
 
who have your posts in this thread served?

again, I do not think you are here shilling for Ubisoft, but your haste to defend your own website whenever you see broad criticism of game journalism is hardly nuanced, and it continually puts you on the opposite side of these issues to gamers. nuance would be acknowledging our grounds for annoyance, even as you counter them, rather than thinking we are the problem.

telling us that the real story here isn't that a company tried to sidestep criticism over showing off misleading footage advertising their product in 2012, it's actually that we got way too upset about it.

things you did in this thread:
tell us to visit websites like yours to read reviews instead of getting mad at marketing materials.
tell us that your website's readership is increasing.
ask us if we're really upset about something we clearly are.
link an article on your website telling us to stop pre-ordering games.

such nuance.

Like I mentioned, this is pretty much the same behavior both Jason and Stephen exhibited during the Doritiosgate/cozy PR relationships/payola scandals. Downplaying, trivializing and talking around the actual issues while childishly navelgazing on what makes all these people so mad. Kotaku focuses on burying the lead somewhere near the Earth's core for whatever reason.
 
Video Game Journalism

Where lying about one of the products that people are most looking forward too is less important then complaints about video game boobs
 
the weather in those is different.

A few hours ago, someone told me it's not the same bridge either, thus it's "not a fair comparison."

Yes, go on and ruin your reputation as a journalist. This GIF is basically comparing a demo from a high end PC to a PS4 version. We already had this discussion.

Well, you said:

The shown footage contains roughly only 3 minutes gameplay and it isn't comparable to previous footage because the conditions (weather time of the day, location) are completely different.

Which is clearly wrong. But keep twisting your way out of it.
 
I didn't see those comments before, thanks. This just adds to the idea in my mind that there's a story here in how people have reacted to this. "Trailer F looks worse than Trailer A" is not an interesting story to me, but it's certainly worth talking about how and why this trailer has triggered such passionate reactions.

let me be more constructive. it's getting late and I feel like we've done this dance enough times for one night.

since the reaction to the new trailer seems to be so common, perhaps the story is that Ubisoft didn't realize what it was about the 2012 footage (and the 2013 footage that didn't provoke this reaction) that impressed people in the first place. perhaps they really have just accidentally cut together a trailer that coincidentally leaves out all the little touches that made the environment feel so alive.

they are ultimately responsible for the marketing materials they put out, and if they unwittingly gain such a widespread negative reaction, maybe there's a story there along the lines of the New Coke fiasco.

the 'why' of this trailer provoking the reactions it has, is because it looks substantially worse than previous footage. it's not a mystery. the 'how did this trailer come to look the way it looks' is the story that people want told, be it one of failing to understand what people liked about the game and cutting a trailer that missed all that stuff, or be it one of a game having to make sacrifices to certain effects in order to attain broader design goals.

that's what people are asking. that's the story that will get you the most hits because that's the story people want to read.

check your comments section. 'what happened?' is something you're going to see a lot.
 
Video Game Journalism

Where lying about one of the products that people are most looking forward too is less important then complaints about video game boobs

Video game boobs are bound to give you some unique clicks, unless Nick Denton has changed the way his employees get their checks from the Caymans for the umpteenth time.
 
I'd like to see all the media outlets who gave Watch Dogs "best of" awards at E3 2012 revoke said awards, because the game they awarded and gave loads of undue hype to is not the game that exists now. This practice from Ubisoft needs to stop because it's become clear that this is not an isolated incident. They shouldn't be able to get press exposure and adoration and then when they switch the bait with the actual game have any criticism of the practice swept under the rug.
 
I feel like builds getting worse over time and Ubisoft getting caught being dishonest yet again is worth writing about. But hey, maybe that's not sexy enough for primetime.

We'd rather have those dead-on-arrival wacky Japan stories, right?
Is it dishonest that Rockstar announced Agent and never talked about it again? Is it dishonest that Sony won't discuss The Last Guardian, which some people still have on preorder? Is it dishonest that hundreds of other announced games have been rebranded or redesigned or rebooted or just cancelled entirely?

As someone who follows the video game industry closely, I do wish that publishers didn't operate under CIA-level standards of secrecy, but I also understand that game development is a fluid, iterative process in which things change. Maybe nothing about those E3 trailers was ever real in the first place. Maybe some massive gameplay changes required a total graphical overhaul. Maybe this footage is from the current-gen version. Maybe it was just shot poorly.

No matter the explanation, it is unfair for anyone to say that Ubisoft is being dishonest about this until we have played the game that will be sold to customers. And I'm not even talking about being unfair to Ubisoft -- I don't care all that much about people being unfair to a corporation -- I think it's unfair to people who want to play this game, and who might succumb to the outrage when for all we know that footage might be from a vertical slice made six months ago.

If the game does look significantly worse than the E3 trailers when we actually play it, and if Ubisoft won't offer an explanation, then that is certainly worth a story about the company's dishonesty. But that hasn't happened. This is an 88-page thread full of anger and outrage and accusations about a game that won't be out for two and a half months, based on footage that for all we know might not even look like what we play in May. I get that Aliens: Colonial Marines burned a lot of people. I really do. I'm the one who wrote the story about how it happened. And I think skepticism is always warranted. But I just can't muster up outrage for something like this when we don't have the full picture yet.

So get mad at Ubisoft, get mad at Watch Dogs, get mad at me for not jumping to conclusions - whatever you'd like. I believe in holding off judgement on a game until I've played it. If any of you think that makes me a corporate shill, well, have fun with that.
 
This reductionist "you're either with us or against us" attitude serves nobody, and let's not pretend that "a video game's graphics seem to have gotten worse" is a critical consumer issue along the lines of unethical microtransactions or online-only DRM. Some nuance, please.
Indeed.

It is indicative of a pattern of behavior that's been with gaming for far too long though. Selling people on impossible to meet standards of visual excellence and performance, only to launch with much weaker, much more down to Earth and flattened results. Its a bait and switch, and its done because whether the end product meets up with those lofty expectations or not, it works. It engenders hype and early press, and hey, maybe people who only saw the reveal and early footage (actually not footage but tech demos, vertical slices, or straight up false-mock demos) don't follow up with the game all the way up to release and end up pre-ordering or buying things they decided on long ago. Or hey, maybe people bought into next gen entirely based upon the promise of those target visuals and gameplay, to come "soon".

For me that's where the disappointment comes. From an understanding that publishers or devs are going to try to pull the wool over our eyes until we see actual final master release footage. Its to be expected, and that's a sad state of affairs to find yourself in. Now to be sure, that's disappointment, not rage, because I *do* follow games throughout their development, and try to keep up to date on this stuff, but I know customers are being fooled, even if those customers don't realize it themselves.

So, no, I won't tell you how to do your job or whats worthy of an article, but if you ask me - that fucked up status quo with early footage is the crux of the disconnect here, that leads to the disappointment and threads and backlash.
 
It isn't, huh?
watch_dogs_e3_2012_vs_march_2014_by_endless_1-d795oxr.gif

That second half honestly looks like its having a texture glitch. Like whenever the helicopter's spot light hits the road texture, it lights up the whole thing instead of just a circle. I have no idea what I'm talking about, t just looks like its glitching to me.
 
I don't think Ubisoft lied to us back in 2012. I think they hoped to hit that target. What I don't like is their refusal to address everyone's reaction to this trailer. If you couldn't hit that target, get in front of the story and admit it. Dodging the question just makes them look worse.

I think we can all understand that they didn't have final dev kits or locked down specs for the new consoles in 2012. I think we can see the ambition of the project (so many platforms). We all can see that it got delayed. That the Wii U version got delayed even further so that staff could work on the other versions.

Come out and say 'unfortunately we had to make cuts'. Man up. It's not like such things aren't common.

I can think of numerous cases where developers openly talked about having to make downgrades BEFORE a game released. Remedy with Alan Wake which took a resolution drop not long before launch. Bungie with Halo 2 losing it's real time shadows. Non-denials and diversion as we've seen here... it's a terrible reaction to this and it's only stoked the fires.
 
That second half honestly looks like its having a texture glitch. Like whenever the helicopter's spot light hits the road texture, it lights up the whole thing instead of just a circle. I have no idea what I'm talking about, t just looks like its glitching to me.

It's supposed to indicate the bridge is "hackable". But yeah, it looks like a lighting glitch of some sorts.
 
Is it dishonest that Rockstar announced Agent and never talked about it again? Is it dishonest that Sony won't discuss The Last Guardian, which some people still have on preorder? Is it dishonest that hundreds of other announced games have been rebranded or redesigned or rebooted or just cancelled entirely?

As someone who follows the video game industry closely, I do wish that publishers didn't operate under CIA-level standards of secrecy, but I also understand that game development is a fluid, iterative process in which things change. Maybe nothing about those E3 trailers was ever real in the first place. Maybe some massive gameplay changes required a total graphical overhaul. Maybe this footage is from the current-gen version. Maybe it was just shot poorly.

No matter the explanation, it is unfair for anyone to say that Ubisoft is being dishonest about this until we have played the game that will be sold to customers. And I'm not even talking about being unfair to Ubisoft -- I don't care all that much about people being unfair to a corporation -- I think it's unfair to people who want to play this game, and who might succumb to the outrage when for all we know that footage might be from a vertical slice made six months ago.

If the game does look significantly worse than the E3 trailers when we actually play it, and if Ubisoft won't offer an explanation, then that is certainly worth a story about the company's dishonesty. But that hasn't happened. This is an 88-page thread full of anger and outrage and accusations about a game that won't be out for two and a half months, based on footage that for all we know might not even look like what we play in May. I get that Aliens: Colonial Marines burned a lot of people. I really do. I'm the one who wrote the story about how it happened. And I think skepticism is always warranted. But I just can't muster up outrage for something like this when we don't have the full picture yet.

So get mad at Ubisoft, get mad at Watch Dogs, get mad at me for not jumping to conclusions - whatever you'd like. I believe in holding off judgement on a game until I've played it. If any of you think that makes me a corporate shill, well, have fun with that.

So we should wait to buy the game and play it before we can tell if it's a sham.

Let's ignore the evidence the company gave to us! Because we should all preorder the MLG™ Edition™ only at Gamestop™ POWER TO THE PLAYERS™ Only then can we bash the game for looking like ass.
 
I gotta agree with the sentiment of wanting the truth. If Ubi straight up came out and said "We tried and couldn't" I would not hold it against them. We can handle the truth.
 
No matter the explanation, it is unfair for anyone to say that Ubisoft is being dishonest about this until we have played the game that will be sold to customers.
I think you meant to say 'I think it would be unfair for me to say Ubisoft is being dishonest about this until I have played the game', because you don't tell other people what to do. right?
 
No matter the explanation, it is unfair for anyone to say that Ubisoft is being dishonest about this until we have played the game that will be sold to customers. And I'm not even talking about being unfair to Ubisoft -- I don't care all that much about people being unfair to a corporation -- I think it's unfair to people who want to play this game, and who might succumb to the outrage when for all we know that footage might be from a vertical slice made six months ago.

Your certainty that that will be the story, if it truly is the case, is not something I share. I remember the absolute pass GTA4 got, while sites couldn't keeps themselves from gushing or trying to be the first to claim it 10/10 GOTY the second the embargo lifted. They absolutely gave it a huge pass on technical and performance issues that effected gameplay quite a bit.

I hope you're right, but a long history of how these things shake out in reality betrays you. Especially with tentpole IP's from big publishers.
 
So we should wait to buy the game and play it before we can tell if it's a sham.

Let's ignore the evidence the company gave to us! Because we should all preorder the MLG™ Edition™ only at Gamestop™ POWER TO THE PLAYERS™ Only then can we bash the game for looking like ass.
Yes, I'm sure it's quite fun to act like I'm pro-big publisher, but I'm pretty sure I already posted here recommending that people not preorder any games. You should wait for reviews, or, better yet, wait until after day one, so you can get a sense of the general consensus. There really aren't a lot of compelling reasons to buy a game the day it comes out.
 
Your certainty that that will be the story, if it truly is the case, is not something I share. I remember the absolute pass GTA4 got, while sites couldn't keeps themselves from gushing or trying to be the first to claim it 10/10 GOTY the second the embargo lifted. They absolutely gave it a huge pass on technical and performance issues that effected gameplay quite a bit.

I hope you're right, but a long history of how these things shake out in reality betrays you. Especially with tentpole IP's from big publishers.
I am not in a position to make that call one way or the other. I'm not saying the game won't look like it does in that B-roll footage. I'm telling you that I don't know the truth - and neither does anyone in this thread, except for maybe Sean Noonan. That's why I'm not jumping to conclusions or hammering on the "Ubisoft lies!" button just yet.
 
The longer this game is in development the worse it looks yet we're to believe that in a bit more than two months it's suddenly going to look closer to the reveal trailers?

I seriously doubt that Ubisoft would release footage for one of their games that was this unflattering (at least compared to what it used to look like) if they believed that they'd get it looking dramatically better closer to launch. The purpose of releasing these trailers now was to try to use the next couple months to lower people's expectations and clearly they hoped somehow that few would notice the dramatic change in fidelity from what was shown previously.

The strange way that the game completely disappeared off of every website's hype machine after the November delay suddenly makes a lot more sense.
 
That second half honestly looks like its having a texture glitch. Like whenever the helicopter's spot light hits the road texture, it lights up the whole thing instead of just a circle. I have no idea what I'm talking about, t just looks like its glitching to me.

Even if that were true, you would still have to completely ignore everything else that is different in the environments. There's so much right in one and so much missing in the other.
 
Yes, I'm sure it's quite fun to act like I'm pro-big publisher, but I'm pretty sure I already posted here recommending that people not preorder any games. You should wait for reviews, or, better yet, wait until after day one, so you can get a sense of the general consensus. There really aren't a lot of compelling reasons to buy a game the day it comes out.

It's totally my fault for wanting a game badly and then getting lied to. I should've waited to make sure that the game I was sold on was actually the game that was advertised.

Hmmm, I sure wish there was a media outlet that would report on these things. I sure wish that I was a better informed consumer, maybe a journalist could tell me about these things to make sure I don't get screwed over.

But, rats, it seems the journalists are too busy warning people about virtual tits in games. Silly me
 
Indeed.

It is indicative of a pattern of behavior that's been with gaming for far too long though. Selling people on impossible to meet standards of visual excellence and performance, only to launch with much weaker, much more down to Earth and flattened results. Its a bait and switch, and its done because whether the end product meets up with those lofty expectations or not, it works. It engenders hype and early press, and hey, maybe people who only saw the reveal and early footage (actually not footage but tech demos, vertical slices, or straight up false-mock demos) don't follow up with the game all the way up to release and end up pre-ordering or buying things they decided on long ago. Or hey, maybe people bought into next gen entirely based upon the promise of those target visuals and gameplay, to come "soon".

For me that's where the disappointment comes. From an understanding that publishers or devs are going to try to pull the wool over our eyes until we see actual final master release footage. Its to be expected, and that's a sad state of affairs to find yourself in. Now to be sure, that's disappointment, not rage, because I *do* follow games throughout their development, and try to keep up to date on this stuff, but I know customers are being fooled, even if those customers don't realize it themselves.

So, no, I won't tell you how to do your job or whats worthy of an article, but if you ask me - that fucked up status quo with early footage is the crux of the disconnect here, that leads to the disappointment and threads and backlash.
Well said.
 
I gotta agree with the sentiment of wanting the truth. If Ubi straight up came out and said "We tried and couldn't" I would not hold it against them. We can handle the truth.

I want them to acknowledge this method of putting out misleading material of your games that won't match the finished product will stop, too. It happened before with Far Cry 3, albeit on an arguably less extreme level, but I now have to assume this is some kind of trend at Ubisoft.

I'd give them a free pass if FC3 were a next-gen title, like Forza 5 was. Targeting a platform that's not fully nailed down at the time the development starts is likely difficult but FC3 was a plain old PC/360/PS3 game.
 
I am not in a position to make that call one way or the other. I'm not saying the game won't look like it does in that B-roll footage. I'm telling you that I don't know the truth - and neither does anyone in this thread, except for maybe Sean Noonan. That's why I'm not jumping to conclusions or hammering on the "Ubisoft lies!" button just yet.

The only reason I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt is because they've done this before, just not to the same extent. They did it with AC3 (showing maxed out PC version and saying it was PS3) and Far Cry 3 (making a demo that even the maxed PC version couldn't reach). Neither of those are as outright deceptive as the Watch_Dogs reveal but it does seem to be a pattern with them. I also have looked at last year's E3 2013's footage quite a bit and thought it looked considerably better than what we saw in this trailer. I figured that would have been the base line to expect, especially since it was shown so closely to the original release date.

While I disagree with the tone and level of discourse a lot of people are taking over this, I'm glad it's getting a strong reaction before Ubi or anyone else does it any more. I'm looking forward to the game but I also like transparency and honesty when it comes to marketing games, especially when it comes to tech related issues.
 
I am not in a position to make that call one way or the other. I'm not saying the game won't look like it does in that B-roll footage. I'm telling you that I don't know the truth - and neither does anyone in this thread, except for maybe Sean Noonan. That's why I'm not jumping to conclusions or hammering on the "Ubisoft lies!" button just yet.

You do understand why it's frustrating for those of us that want to know the truth to see you saying this, when you're in a much better position than us to try to find out the truth than we are.

No one in this thread knows the truth, but we are not all equally positioned to get to the bottom of it. I don't see why Ubisoft should get a complete pass on the marketing materials they release, whether they make the game look substantially better than it really is or substantially worse.

Kotaku do post such trailers, and they do use such trailers and b roll footage as partial basis for articles they write. Kotaku do cover games that haven't release yet and talk about whether they're showing potential or not.

We can only complain, and hope our complaints get loud enough for Ubisoft to respond. It's not futile. Just this week, our active discussions and complaints of Shadow Fall's MP rendering tricks led to a pretty informative interview with the developers discussing the technique. It's all we can do to find out this information ahead of playing the game for ourselves... and why shouldn't we try?

The only reason I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt is because they've done this before, just not to the same extent. They did it with AC3 (showing maxed out PC version and saying it was PS3) and Far Cry 3 (making a demo that even the maxed PC version couldn't reach). Neither of those are as outright deceptive as the Watch_Dogs reveal but it does seem to be a pattern with them. While I disagree with the tone and level of discourse a lot of people are taking over this, I'm glad it's getting a strong reaction before Ubi or anyone else does it any more. I'm looking forward to the game but I also like transparency and honesty when it comes to marketing games, especially when it comes to tech related issues.
And we've been seeing more transparency of late from developers, and it's genuinely a good thing. These heated discussions about such matters has encouraged transparency, and I haven't seen any evidence that developers which have been transparent about this stuff have suffered for it. Ubisoft could have squashed all this today during their live streamed interview. They didn't. Their actions dumped gasoline on the fire THAT THEY STARTED. Whether they started it by accident or not, they're actively choosing to ignore it now, and that's absolutely on them.
 
Is it dishonest that Rockstar announced Agent and never talked about it again? Is it dishonest that Sony won't discuss The Last Guardian, which some people still have on preorder? Is it dishonest that hundreds of other announced games have been rebranded or redesigned or rebooted or just cancelled entirely?

Flatly dishonest? In the service of knowingly deceiving customers? Well no I guess. That's obviously a grey area that is meant to, again, talk around the issue as you have done constantly. Let's stick to Watch_Dogs and Ubisoft. You could try that much.

As someone who follows the video game industry closely, I do wish that publishers didn't operate under CIA-level standards of secrecy, but I also understand that game development is a fluid, iterative process in which things change. Maybe nothing about those E3 trailers was ever real in the first place. Maybe some massive gameplay changes required a total graphical overhaul. Maybe this footage is from the current-gen version. Maybe it was just shot poorly.

You don't have to do the apologizing for Ubisoft's ineptness to do their own marketing materials properly. A simple "Target render" text thing on the initial reveal would have been nice, but that doesn't exactly inspire confidence during your big reveal moment. I understand they have to generate hype and all but now it's biting them in the ass.

No matter the explanation, it is unfair for anyone to say that Ubisoft is being dishonest about this until we have played the game that will be sold to customers. And I'm not even talking about being unfair to Ubisoft -- I don't care all that much about people being unfair to a corporation -- I think it's unfair to people who want to play this game, and who might succumb to the outrage when for all we know that footage might be from a vertical slice made six months ago.

That's true of course: Only journalists and people in the various games-related industries have played the game. But calling Ubisoft dishonest is totally fair. They flatly downplayed the controversy by giving non-answers and banning people in the Twitch stream that asked about it. Your own site included them on a callout list of infamous bullshotters. And while a lot of publishers do bullshots, Ubisoft is easily the king, if not them they're at least in the royal court. Remember that Assassins Creed: Liberation "screenshot" that looked like a fucking oil painting on Vita? Remember Red Steel?

If the game does look significantly worse than the E3 trailers when we actually play it, and if Ubisoft won't offer an explanation, then that is certainly worth a story about the company's dishonesty. But that hasn't happened. This is an 88-page thread full of anger and outrage and accusations about a game that won't be out for two and a half months, based on footage that for all we know might not even look like what we play in May. I get that Aliens: Colonial Marines burned a lot of people. I really do. I'm the one who wrote the story about how it happened. And I think skepticism is always warranted. But I just can't muster up outrage for something like this when we don't have the full picture yet.

I feel you on waiting for the big picture. It's your job after all, regardless of how scummy I believe the environment you're in is. That's all anyone can do on this matter. However, Ubisoft has done quite a job killing hype and creating a toxic situation for their own game by not straightly addressing their customers on the many obvious issues Watch_Dogs has presented.
 
That second half honestly looks like its having a texture glitch. Like whenever the helicopter's spot light hits the road texture, it lights up the whole thing instead of just a circle. I have no idea what I'm talking about, t just looks like its glitching to me.
The fact that there's no volumetric lighting for the spotlight anymore means that it's probably more than just a glitch.
 
Watch Dogs has had easily the worst hype cycle Ive ever seen.....It was INSANE when it was first announced with no rumors or leaks before hand, honestly it was probably one of the best E3 gaming reveals ever, and from there to where we are today.Its just tanked....bad. I am convinced GTA5 had everything to do with it being delayed and reworked, but really you cant reinvent an already made game, only try and fix whats there.
 
Watch Dogs has had easily the worst hype cycle Ive ever seen.....It was INSANE when it was first announced with no rumors or leaks before hand, honestly it was probably one of the best E3 gaming reveals ever, and from there to where we are today.Its just tanked....bad. I am convinced GTA5 had everything to do with it being delayed and reworked, but really you cant reinvent an already made game, only try and fix whats there.

That advert referencing GTA5 they put out, is probably the most harmful advert to a game since Daikatana's infamous 'John Romero is about to make you his bitch' advert. I'm sure they deeply regret it now... but yes. The messaging has gone from incredible to terrible. Today we saw them just putting their fingers in their ears and refusing to address the negativity. That they can't see how poisonous such actions are to their games image, highlights the problems.
 
I am not in a position to make that call one way or the other. I'm not saying the game won't look like it does in that B-roll footage. I'm telling you that I don't know the truth - and neither does anyone in this thread, except for maybe Sean Noonan. That's why I'm not jumping to conclusions or hammering on the "Ubisoft lies!" button just yet.

This whole thread is based around the hype the original E3 2012 footage because of it's aesthetic, technical and visual marvel that caught everyone by surprise that it even won over 90 awards for the E3 nominations. This isn't just some ragtag game, it was the first-look of what next-gen release titles are supposed to be and I believe you are underplaying the hype - otherwise you wouldn't be so surprised why it can actually hit over 80 pages in this thread.

2 years since it's initial reveal and instead of seeing improvements, we have more hands-off, behind-the-scenes scenarios where the game is hyped up from it's own self-contained bubble. And now you're telling us that 2 months would make up the full difference? They've had practically as much dev time as most AAA games could be made in that period and there has been nothing but compromises, delays and now we're observing presentation that does not match up to the trailer 2 years ago. This isn't just another A:CM situation it's also Bioshock: Infinite one. Now it all boils down to impressions that either call them out or sweep it under the table to focus on the "gameplay" aspects ignoring the concerns of the consumers dowsing the fire in the process.

Even if you play the neutral card, this event will now affect future, similar hyped titles as well and the crosshair is on The Division. A game that is now under the same publisher with very similar hype. You can't expect us to now sit and give leeway to publisher presenting misleading bulltrailers or bullplay while pre-orders are being secured based on said presentation. You sell as product that is not just different but presentably inferior is the worst kind of bait-and-switch you can pull off to the consumer. And this is just another growing trend of already problematic DRM, DLC and micro-transactions debacle this generation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom