Support NeoGAF

[SirNinja]

What good does a game getting 9.5 do you when you can't even purchase it?

...A lot of good? Reviews let you know that a game likely is or isn't bad ahead of time, so that you can make a more informed decision as to whether to buy it.

Embargoes have been explained on GAF numerous times now, both by people abiding to them and people setting them. They're for out benefit and not just for us, but for developers and writers, too.

And we're still not buying it, at least not entirely. Do developers/publishers benefit from embargoes? Sure, in some cases. Consumers? No. Release-day embargoes do not do the consumer any good at all. If the game ends up being shit, everyone who preordered gets screwed, while the publisher laughs all the way to the bank.

Then they shouldn't preorder!

Irrelevant. People do preorder, and they will always, if they're interested enough in something. Of course, they become less likely to do so if they end up getting a stinker, but it's never going to go away completely.

 

[danthefan]

I'll wait for more reviews but there's a theme in the ones up in the OP so far of poor AI and the campaign not being great, both of which would concern me. The AI in particular.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Any mentions of oscar worthy plot?

 

[Stealthcobra]

This game has these flaws - 9/10!
Again, I don't care for reviews (and I laugh at the fact that CeX think they can review) but this is why.



Outside of Rayman, Ubisoft have actually yet to publish anything good.

Wow.. Nothing good? Let me make a note of your name cause your views on gaming is absolute shit

 

[Timu]

I'll wait for more reviews but there's a theme in the ones up in the OP so far of poor AI and the campaign not being great, both of which would concern me. The AI in particular.

The AI gets really bad at times, sometimes they forget how to shoot me.

 

[HowZatOZ]

Sounds boring as shit

And it's replies like these that aren't needed because it adds nothing to the discussion. Why do you think it sounds "boring as shit"?

 

[PranooY]

When is the embargo for IGN, Gamespot and others?
Why is there seperate embargo, since these are posted early.

 

[Shinjica]

Dont believe early review

 

[M.W.]

And it's replies like these that aren't needed because it adds nothing to the discussion. Why do you think it sounds "boring as shit"?

Because GAF.

 

[madmackem]

I honestly feel this game has been given an unfair shake. Downgrade or not, and shitty tech here and there or not, the amount of vitriol and hate towards it has been unreal. Some of it so nonsensical and nitpicky that I've not even been sure if it's been real or satirical. If this game reviews really well, or even moderately well, I can't deny that I won't get some satisfaction in seeing those that have been consistently overtly negative towards it come up with more outlandish negatives and reasons why the reviews are all wrong, or why the game is still so inherently terrible.

Nailed it, its the way gaf is now. The wolfie thread just before launched was filled with the same shit, people saying the game sucks preorder binned etc was unreal, and yet it turns out to be a very good game. Gaf is becoming extreme in every thread these days.

 

[HowZatOZ]

As someone who has been playing the game for about 6 hours on PC i can confirm that these negatives are true and that these scores are waaaaaay to high. One of the most horribly optimized ports for pc in years.

Going by the performance thread that doesn't seem to be the general consensus.

Also to the person saying that these reviews don't "count" because they aren't Polygon or Destructoid is rather selfish. Are we suddenly only suppose to take opinions from the big dogs?

 

[Crossing Eden]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

.

 

[Katze mit Hut]

Sorry, but who cares for those early reviews... Always feels like "Yeah, u may publish it first, but it has to be ... well ... u feel me ?*swink*"

But i really hope its gonna be fun.

 

[BigDug13]

Nailed it, its the way gaf is now. The wolfie thread just before launched was filled with the same shit, people saying the game sucks preorder binned etc was unreal, and yet it turns out to be a very good game. Gaf is becoming extreme in every thread these days.

I think the more a game's marketing is thrown in a gamer's face, the more skeptical they become. It's like for most games, greater marketing equals greater chance at the game being homogenized "paint-by-focus-group" crap.

If this turns out to be excellent, then fantastic. I look forward to it. But I think some people are just tired of hearing about the hype train for certain AAA releases and fully feel like there's something nefarious about it all and that the game won't be deserving of the accolades.

I don't care really one way or the other. Ubisoft (as well as any other AAA multiplatform developer) is hit or miss on this type of stuff so I remain skeptical. And any company that likes to hand an IP to various companies to release iterations in a 1-2 year cycle means even the franchises individually aren't free from becoming shit since not all developers are created equal.

This game seems very similar to AC but set in a city with hacking and that is also a franchise that has had its share of ups and downs. And the standard bar-filling, open-world, collect-a-thon nature of Ubisoft games coupled with the ludicrousness of the whole spreadsheet to figure out what exclusive content can be found where on this release that already has "Collector's Editions" for a completely unproven franchise, means some people are going to hate on it. With some shred of validity.

 

[Crossing Eden]

This game has these flaws - 9/10!
Outside of Rayman, Ubisoft have actually yet to publish anything good.

Yea poor gamers, silly sheep having fun with their ACs, Child of Lights, Far Crys, and Splinter Cells. I'm very happy to see yet another Ubisoft published new IP reviewing well so far. Can't wait for the "official" reviews. Two days left.

 

[Dartastic]

No they shouldn't. Not at all.

Agreed. Everyone has launch day embargos. Urgh.

 

[danthefan]

The AI gets really bad at times, sometimes they forget how to shoot me.

Ugh. Could it be fixed with a patch possibly?

 

[Raxus]

Ugh. Could it be fixed with a patch possibly?

There just was a patch so I wouldn't expect one at launch.

 

[madmackem]

I think the more a game's marketing is thrown in a gamer's face, the more skeptical they become. It's like for most games, greater marketing equals greater chance at the game being homogenized "paint-by-focus-group" crap.

If this turns out to be excellent, then fantastic. I look forward to it. But I think some people are just tired of hearing about the hype train for certain AAA releases and fully feel like there's something nefarious about it all and that the game won't be deserving of the accolades.

I don't care really one way or the other. Ubisoft (as well as any other AAA multiplatform developer) is hit or miss on this type of stuff so I remain skeptical. And any company that likes to hand an IP to various companies to release iterations in a 1-2 year cycle means even the franchises individually aren't free from becoming shit since not all developers are created equal.

This game seems very similar to AC but set in a city with hacking and that is also a franchise that has had its share of ups and downs. And the standard bar-filling, open-world, collect-a-thon nature of Ubisoft games coupled with the ludicrousness of the whole spreadsheet to figure out what exclusive content can be found where on this release that already has "Collector's Editions" for a completely unproven franchise, means some people are going to hate on it. With some shred of validity.

Its pretty easy to ignore the marketing, ive watched alot of videos on it and i have some worries due to my total fatigue of ass creed and how similar they seem. However some of the stuff you read on here and the internet is totally extreme in the reaction to every little thing weve seen of this game.

 

[Katze mit Hut]

This game has these flaws - 9/10!
Outside of Rayman, Ubisoft have actually yet to publish anything good.

/rolleyes

 

[Shinjica]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

You say this because you've read the early review who are not under embargo, right?

You know if you have the right to write a review before the embargo, 99% there is something not quite right there?

 

[Timu]

Ugh. Could it be fixed with a patch possibly?

I hope so. I've also seen them take cover in the worst possible spots to get shot at, lol.

 

[Billen]

Is the AI similar to GTA V? Better, worse?

 

[BigDug13]

Its pretty easy to ignore the marketing, ive watched alot of videos on it and i have some worries due to my total fatigue of ass creed and how similar they seem. However some of the stuff you read on here and the internet is totally extreme in the reaction to every little thing weve seen of this game.

Sure, that happens. Extremism is everywhere and there's no real place that is free of it. People overreact to things they see in a preview or demo build.

However, game companies don't do themselves any favors when they have reveals that won't be anywhere close to actual graphics or they pull a Gearbox and completely lie about their product in their demo builds. In a way, the industry is creating the skeptics on their own.

I don't give this review any more credibility than any other, and like I said, I'll wait for user impressions because even industry reviews can't truly be trusted. Hopefully it turns out good.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

Too true.

 

[Boss Mog]

After shitting all over this game for months it looks like a lot of GAF will be dining on crow tomorrow.

 

[Bruticuz]

Nailed it, its the way gaf is now. The wolfie thread just before launched was filled with the same shit, people saying the game sucks preorder binned etc was unreal, and yet it turns out to be a very good game. Gaf is becoming extreme in every thread these days.

I dont agree at all. There is always someone with a negative opinion, but then GAF jumps on that someone and try to convince that his opinion is invalid. If we just dont respond to these stupid extremes and just discus games this forum will be fine.
Just ignore the drive by trolls and comments without any constructieve critisisme.

 

[BouncyFrag]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

This is one upcoming review thread that won't disappoint.
*rubs hands together*

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

I know a lot of people who like GTA but couldn't care less about the story

*Raises hand*

Honestly it's the gameplay and well designed worlds that keep me coming back to these games. This is one of if not my favourite genre but there aren't many open world games where I can honestly say I liked the story. GTA game stories tend to start strong but then go to shit. Sleeping Dogs is just about the only open world game I can think of where I actually cared for the story throughout.

 

[Bar81]

Those shit reviews where the negatives outweigh the positives and yet the game gets a nearly perfect or perfect score is why review scores should be banned. More and more it seems like reviewers just have a lotto generator with ping pong balls between 6 and 10 and they just pull something out and attach that number to the review.

 

[KaiserBecks]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

My negative preconceptions were that Watch_Dogs is just like every other open world game made by Ubisoft, just with a different scenario.
Looking at the typical giveaways (hack/climb tower X to get signal in radius Y, collect shit to craft shit etc etc), I wasn't wrong. But other people enjoy the shit out of their Assassin's Creed and Far Cry, so this will probably just as "good" to them.

I honestly feel this game has been given an unfair shake. Downgrade or not, and shitty tech here and there or not, the amount of vitriol and hate towards it has been unreal. Some of it so nonsensical and nitpicky that I've not even been sure if it's been real or satirical. If this game reviews really well, or even moderately well, I can't deny that I won't get some satisfaction in seeing those that have been consistently overtly negative towards it come up with more outlandish negatives and reasons why the reviews are all wrong, or why the game is still so inherently terrible.

That argument works both ways though. Why should a game receive praise and hype beforehand? Because it did, back in 2012. Imagine the outrage once we'll see that we can't actually close car doors in "The Division" (please let me be wrong about this!).

 

[Bar81]

After shitting all over this game for months it looks like a lot of GAF will be dining on crow tomorrow.

Not based on those reviews. For crow to be on the dinner table, all those negatives regarding storyline and AI better be positives tomorrow.

 

[hohoXD123]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

There are also people in this thread in denial that their positive preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws with a few reviews out of dozens to confirm their bias. Either way, how about just waiting for more reviews?

 

[Katze mit Hut]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

And thats a sad thing about NeoGaf recently. Sometimes i think some people on this forum want a game to fail. Are those gamers? I dunno, but if someone asked me how to define a gamer i wouldn´t say it is a person who hopes for the least amount of good games possible.

 

[Bar81]

My negative preconceptions were that Watch_Dogs is just like every other open world game made by Ubisoft, just with a different scenario.
Looking at the typical giveaways (hack/climb tower X to get signal in radius Y, collect shit to craft shit etc etc), I wasn't wrong. But other people enjoy the shit out of their Assassin's Creed and Far Cry, so this will probably just as "good" to them.

Are you sure that's the game you meant to reference or are you talking about the sequels (which I haven't played)?

 

[Bar81]

And thats a sad thing about NeoGaf recently. Sometimes i think some people on this forum want a game to fail. Are those gamers? I dunno, but if someone asked me how to define a gamer i wouldn´t say it is a person who hopes for the least amount of good games possible.

Speaking for myself, I do want shit games to fail so more of them aren't made and developers can focus on making good games. Hoping that a game is good does not make it good.

 

[EL CUCO]

Are these the score of the game, or of their new tablets courtesy of Ubi?

 

[nib95]

My negative preconceptions were that Watch_Dogs is just like every other open world game made by Ubisoft, just with a different scenario.
Looking at the typical giveaways (hack/climb tower X to get signal in radius Y, collect shit to craft shit etc etc), I wasn't wrong. But other people enjoy the shit out of their Assassin's Creed and Far Cry, so this will probably just as "good" to them.

I honestly feel this game has been given an unfair shake. Downgrade or not, and shitty tech here and there or not, the amount of vitriol and hate towards it has been unreal. Some of it so nonsensical and nitpicky that I've not even been sure if it's been real or satirical. If this game reviews really well, or even moderately well, I can't deny that I won't get some satisfaction in seeing those that have been consistently overtly negative towards it come up with more outlandish negatives and reasons why the reviews are all wrong, or why the game is still so inherently terrible.

That argument works both ways though. Why should a game receive praise and hype beforehand? Because it did, back in 2012. Imagine the outrage once we'll see that we can't actually close car doors in "The Division" (please let me be wrong about this!).

This summation is as ridiculous as saying all Mario games are just about jumping from one point to another to collect something or another, or all shooters are just about shooting one thing or another to get to one point or another, and people for some reason enjoy doing those things en masse. Such a summary is over simplistic and woefully inadequate.

And it received hype back then mainly for it's visuals and premise. Just because the visuals dropped off the pedestal Ubisoft prepared for it, doesn't mean the core game itself can't be fun. To me it certainly still looks fun, and it's a cop out to say it's just Assassin's Creed re-skinned.

 

[hohoXD123]

Those shit reviews where the negatives outweigh the positives and yet the game gets a nearly perfect or perfect score is why review scores should be banned. More and more it seems like reviewers just have a lotto generator with ping pong balls between 6 and 10 and they just pull something out and attach that number to the review.

Although I agree that review scores should be banned, it doesn't really matter if the amount of cons outweighs the amount of pros, the reviewer probably placed different weightings on the pros and cons

 

[Statue of Limitation]

inb4 IGN, Polygon and others get labelled as shills when they give Watch_Dogs that 9+

 

[Fried Food]

what reviews are people reading? the reviews listed on the first page don't have cons that outweigh the pros. "Lackluster scenario" you mean the story is average at best? ok that's like ur opinion bro. IMO even the best open world games had stories that were only good enough for me to feel indifferent on

 

[Bar81]

Although I agree that review scores should be banned, it doesn't really matter if the amount of cons outweighs the amount of pros, the reviewer probably placed different weightings on the pros and cons

Which is exactly why review scores should be banned. Just set out the positives and the negatives and every person can "score" it based upon what is important to them in a game.

 

[slapnuts]

It looks like a lot of people in this thread are in denial that their negative preconceptions may not be true and are grasping at straws to confirm their bias.

From all the posts i've read about this game in Gaf ..including this thread it seems some people are really "wanting" this game to be bad. Maybe im being delusional though lol..but i dont think so. Is there some secret hate towards this game?

 

[Bar81]

what reviews are people reading? the reviews listed on the first page don't have cons that outweigh the pros. "Lackluster scenario" you mean the story is average at best? ok that's like ur opinion bro. IMO even the best open world games had stories that were only good enough for me to feel indifferent on

And the AI?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Speaking for myself, I do want shit games to fail so more of them aren't made and developers can focus on making good games. Hoping that a game is good does not make it good.

It's good thing Ubisoft makes good games I usually enjoy then. And millions of millions of people agree with me.

Also, I've heard numerous reviewers basically say, they don't care a bit about what they put in the pro/con section, it's something they have to do and they usually 'have' to throw a few pros and cons, it can't be all the way one or the other.

 

[Statue of Limitation]

what reviews are people reading? the reviews listed on the first page don't have cons that outweigh the pros. "Lackluster scenario" you mean the story is average at best? ok that's like ur opinion bro. IMO even the best open world games had stories that were only good enough for me to feel indifferent on

I get the feeling that lackluster scenario means the story is grounded and personal instead of "destroy the evil ctos corporation and free Chicago" scenario which has been done to death (poorly)

And the AI?

There are plenty of gameplay videos up, the AI look like the standard affair and we've got a patch coming as well, if you're genuinely interested in the game then it shouldn't be a cause for concern.

 

[ValfarHL]

Didn't Ubi just release a 90MB patch that supposedly fixed the AI somewhat? Have reviewers and the peeps here played with or without that patch?

 

[Bar81]

It's good thing Ubisoft makes good games I usually enjoy then. And millions of millions of people agree with me.

Also, I've heard numerous reviewers basically say, they don't care a bit about what they put in the pro/con section, it's something they have to do and they usually 'have' to throw a few pros and cons, it can't be all the way one or the other.

Yes, millions upon millions of people must mean things are good.

I present a shining example of the genius logic of the foregoing statement:

The Ford Pinto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

 

[Bar81]

There are plenty of gameplay videos up, the AI look like the standard affair and we've got a patch coming as well, if you're genuinely interested in the game then it shouldn't be a cause for concern.

So you're good with *at best* an average storyline and AI.

I guess some people have low expectations.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Yes, millions upon millions of people must mean things are good.

I present a shining example of the genius logic of the foregoing statement:

The Ford Pinto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Yes, yes, I know, anything popular and with a marketing budget is horrible because it doesn't only appeal to people with 50 hours to kill before they can be moderately good at a game. I have a job. I have a social life. Make me awesome from the start and make it look pretty. I'll pull up Football Manager or Europa Universalis if I want something complicated to play.

And we're still not buying it, at least not entirely. Do developers/publishers benefit from embargoes? Sure, in some cases. Consumers? No. Release-day embargoes do not do the consumer any good at all. If the game ends up being shit, everyone who preordered gets screwed, while the publisher laughs all the way to the bank.

Anybody who preorders a game and ends up with a shitty game should learn not to preorder games. If they do it twice, then it's their own damn fault. Embargoes are fine and normal in every type of reviewing. It's the reason why movie critics can see X-Men three weeks early. Because they won't blab about it, good or bad, 'til the right time. Having any pre-release access to a game is a privilege.