I played a few hours of Watch Dogs through a friend's shared Steam acct, it didn't keep my attention and based on the little experience I do have with the game I find myself totally agreeing with the review. Some bits I can't comment on (like complaints about the ending and certain plot twists) but in many respects I 100% agree with the Kotaku review and was pretty impressed with how well written it was.
That being said, games are art and art is always subjective, which means so are reviews. But I think Kirk makes *tons* of great points and find it disappointing to see people just responding to it with 'lol kotaku so bad'.
The problem isn't the critiques, the game isn't perfect. The problem is the antagonistic superior tone.
On the other hand, that review echoed similar feelings I've had playing lots of similar open world games, and let me know that the things that bothered me in those other games would bother me in Watch Dogs too! Plus, it let me know that shooting people is a big part of the game, which was disappointing as everything besides the shooting was what attracted me to the initial trailer.
So it looks like this review did its job! It had enough information to let me know I could skip it, and it had enough information to let you know you would disagree with the conclusion! Yay.
I don't like open world games.
I was extremely put off by the changes and downgrades.
I dislike Ubisoft collect-a-thons.
I agree with some of the points the Kotaku review makes...
Yet I still really enjoy playing Watchdogs.
It feels like a broken promise at times. Some parts feel undercooked. The story is hardly riveting.
Yet something about the sum of all of it is incredibly compelling. Jumping between main story, side missions, seamless online, and mini-games, the way everything fits just makes it flow really well,
So yeh, if I hadn't bought a cheap cd key for curiosity's sake I would probably think the Kotaku review was speaking to me too.
And I would have been wrong.