Support NeoGAF

[Fried Food]

And the AI?

from what I've seen (in leaked footage) the AI is average, I even saw enemies seek out cover, that makes it average at worst. Even bad AI in an open world game wouldn't outweigh the pros that were listed.

Maybe I just need to read the complete text for all the reviews that were listed. People must have done that and that's how they were able to find cons that outweigh the pros.

 

[kiaaa]

I'm not gonna assume the game is bad before it I see more, but I do think putting faith in early reviews is incredibly naive, especially when it comes to smaller websites.

 

[Bar81]

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.

Sales does not equal quality, that is all.

 

[ZehDon]

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

C'mon man, opinions - you know how they work.

I'm actually glad this might turn out better than I had feared. Normally I'd just wait for the reviews, but that's becoming less helpful as time rolls on. I'll wait for the word of mouth for this one.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I thought there was a release day embargo in place?

Anyway, are the complaints about the AI pre or post patch that claimed to improve those issues?

 

[Boss Mog]

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

The scores are what matter, it's what people will look at.


To me GTA V's story was laughable, and playing as three low-lives with almost no redeeming qualities did not do much for me. The AI was nothing to write home about either. That being said I still had a lot of fun with the game and that's what matters. These are games not movies. Stories should always play second fiddle to gameplay in games. Just the premise alone is infinitely better than GTA V's to me. Playing a vigilante taking out criminals is a lot better sounding to me than playing criminals taking out cops. Plus you have to do it while not killing any civilians or cops (if you want to be seen as good anyway); it seems way more interesting and challenging. From what I gather the game functions a lot like FarCry3 which was another great game that didn't have an oscar-worthy plot, but it was quite fun to play nevertheless.

 

[Bar81]

I'll wait for the word of mouth for this one.

Given the quality of reviews these days, that's probably always the best call.

 

[jiiikoo]

Sales does not equal quality, that is all.

But if one enjoys a game, no matter the consensus, why would that be a bad thing? If someone enjoys their Ford Pinto, how is that bad? Even though someone might think it's a crap car, to someone it's a good car.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

I'm not gonna assume the game is bad before it I see more, but I do think putting faith in early reviews is incredibly naive, especially when it comes to smaller websites.

I dunnno about that, these reviews aren't 'early exclusives' or anything, right? I'm assuming they just don't follow the NDA - in which case there's no reason to assume they're fluffed up, the scores would be the same whenever they released.

 

[braves01]

Lackluster scenario and underwhelming AI are disturbing bullet points, but ones I'd say are par for the course when it comes to Ubisoft open world games. I bet people who like Assassin's Creed or Farcry will enjoy it, but it's not gonna convert anyone.

 

[The perfect Dark]

This game will get lots of 9's

 

[Katze mit Hut]

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.

Surely you played those games before u wish them hell, didn´t you? And i really dont think anyone should wish a game the pest, because if you or me think a game is shit someone else is having a really good time with it and is hoping for a sequel.

And i dont see a way to justify the negativity about games that aren´t published yet by saying "shitty games should fail". By that you say the game is bad without any experience with the game. Perhaps its bad, perhaps good or anythin in between but shouldn´t we, the members of this forum, wait, PLAY the game an judge then?

I can understand everyone who says "i don´t like this kind of game", but thats no justification to say a game is bad, before its released, as it its no justification to say is awesome just this kind of game is your "thing".

 

[Bar81]

But if one enjoys a game, no matter the consensus, why would that be a bad thing? If someone enjoys their Ford Pinto, how is that bad? Even though someone might think it's a crap car, to someone it's a good car.

Please don't read into the statement more than what was said - simply that sales have no correlation to quality. A good thing can have big sales and crap sales and a bad thing can have the same.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Just reading the OP... are there any reviews yet from more reputable sources?

 

[ValeYard]

We should start a prediction thread for the scores. 7.5 metacritic, any takers?

If these embargo breaking reviews are anything to go by, it looks like the game has a lot of promise and the concerns were for naught. That would be nice, since I'm looking for a bit of single player action due to all my Xbox friends not being online enough for Titanfall.

I don't have a ps4 or pc right now, so any terrible performance issues on x1 would be nice to know. Such a shame the embargo isn't up today, I could get straight on the preorder.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Just reading the OP... are there any reviews yet from more reputable sources?

JeuxVideo is pretty reliable, no?

CeX review being linked is pretty hilarious though.

 

[Drakeon]

Just reading the OP... are there any reviews yet from more reputable sources?

There's an embargo, so all the reputable websites are waiting until Tuesday to post there reviews.

 

[Bar81]

Surely you played those games before u wish them hell, didn´t you? And i really dont think anyone should wish a game the pest, because if you or me think a game is shit someone else is having a really good time with it and is hoping for a sequel.

And i dont see a way to justify the negativity about games that aren´t published yet by saying "shitty games should fail". By that you say the game is bad without any experience with the game. Perhaps its bad, perhaps good or anythin in between but shouldn´t we, the members of this forum, wait, PLAY the game an judge then?

I can understand everyone who says "i don´t like this kind of game", but thats no justification to say a game is bad, before its released, as it is no justification to say is awesome just this kind of game is your "thing".

Well, when it's pretty much nothing better than average storyline or AI, that is a game I don't want to sell well and set a standard as to what is acceptable. The fact that others have low expectations doesn't mean that I should support the game. And no, you don't have to play every game to know it's crap. When the paid off cheerleading review crew can't even muster up enough delusion to praise the storyline and AI, you know it can't be good.

 

[Katze mit Hut]

We should start a prediction thread for the scores. 7.5 metacritic, any takers?

If these embargo breaking reviews are anything to go by, it looks like the game has a lot of promise and the concerns were for naught. That would be nice, since I'm looking for a bit of single player action due to all my Xbox friends not being online enough for Titanfall.

I don't have a ps4 or pc right now, so any terrible performance issues on x1 would be nice to know. Such a shame the embargo isn't up today, I could get straight on the preorder.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=823870

 

[dab0ne]

I don't see why there's so much speculation on the reviews. Ubi does open world pretty well and keeps getting better. It even seemed like the people experiencing franchise fatigue with Ass Creed still enjoyed 4. Rent the game or wait for GAF impressions if you're not sure, but I don't see any reason to discredit these reviewers. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not hyped for this game but that doesn't mean it won't be fun or possibly even great.

 

[DerZuhälter]

This game will get a lot of

Spoiler

Nexus

7s.

 

[SoulUnison]

The single player story doesn't have to be amazing, for me.

I'm buying it for the unique "drop in unannounced/secretly" multiplayer.

The whole "hiding as an NPC/digital spycraft" concept is the reason I bought Ass Creed: BroHood and Revelations Day 1 even having no interest in their stories or single player, really.

I wish more games would start experimenting with this sort of "natural" multiplayer.

 

[Statue of Limitation]

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

I guess some people have low expectations.

To be perfectly frank you, GTAV is seen as some sort of messiah-game given to us by the gods according to critical review and general user review.

And yet the story is a poorly crafted mess, the shooting controls are average (and that's being generous), the environment is pointless to explore, both enemy and civi AI are stupid a lot of the time and finally - while the euphoria engine makes shooting and collision reaction entertaining - it makes traversal on foot a chore and often leads to things like face planting walls for no good reason.

And that's the pinnacle of the open world genre, apparently.

If thats the best I don't really see why my expectation have to be high.

Watch_Dogs shouldn't be labelled as poor for something it does average. GTA's being doing that for decades and is Game Of All Time.

 

[Katze mit Hut]

Well, when it's pretty much nothing better than average storyline or AI, that is a game I don't want to sell well and set a standard as to what is acceptable. The fact that others have low expectations doesn't mean that I should support the game. And no, you don't have to play every game to know it's crap. When the paid off cheerleading review crew can't even muster up enough delusion to praise the storyline and AI, you know it can't be good.

Well i guess simply not buying a game you don´t like is not enough. Better get a bat and club everyone with a copy in hand come tommorrow

 

[KaiserBecks]

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

I'm talking about the ones made by Ubisoft, FC3 in particular. FC2 had different problems.

 

[Seanspeed]

I don't see any reason to discredit these reviewers.

History man. Super positive early reviews from unknown sites are not uncommon for a game that goes onto get mediocre/disappointing reviews overall.

 

[PuppetMaster]

Fine I will buy this!

 

[Markitron]

I don't know why people are getting bent outta shape about apparently weak AI and story, open world games never do these well. AC2 was the only open world game I have played with a good story and I have never played one with good AI.

 

[kiaaa]

To be perfectly frank you, GTAV is seen as some sort of messiah-game given to us by the gods according to critical review and general user review.

And yet the story is a poorly crafted mess, the shooting controls are average (and that's being generous), the environment is pointless to explore, both enemy and civi AI are stupid a lot of the time and finally - while the euphoria engine makes shooting and collision reaction entertaining - it makes traversal on foot a chore and often leads to things like face planting walls for no good reason.

And that's the pinnacle of the open world genre, apparently.

If thats the best I don't really see when my expectation have to be high.

Watch_Dogs shouldn't be labelled as poor for something it does average. GTA's being doing that for decades and is Game Of All Time.

I think you're just pointing out the problem with reviews in general these days. GTAV did not deserve the ratings it got, especially when they released a barely done multiplayer after promising so much.

 

[ComputerMKII]

History man. Super positive early reviews from unknown sites are not uncommon for a game that goes onto get mediocre/disappointing reviews overall.

Gameblog is not unknown.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

The most memorable digital trip I played was called Madness, and placed Aiden behind the wheel in a mini-game that looked quite a bit like Carmageddon, but with added demons to squash!

First I'm hearing of this. Is there any footage of this side mission in action?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

The good:

The density and content of Chicago
Online play in the solo campaign
The progression in Aiden's skills
The fine blend of hacking, infiltration and action
Original online play...


The bad:

...but not deep enough
Lackluster scenario
Underdeveloped enemy AI
Music and sounds are somewhat generic
Playing rough sometimes seems to pay better than infiltration and hacking
Aiden and his lack of charisma

This doesn't sound like a 4/5 to me. At all

Bad AI, boring main character, bland music, boring scenario. 4/5

 

[Zakalwe]

This doesn't sound like a 4/5 to me. At all

Bad AI, boring main character, bland music, boring scenario. 4/5

That's a lot of negatives, and still 4/5?

I hate reviewers that do that.

There's a little phrase that applies here "more than the sum of its parts".

A game can have obvious negatives, but still be a great experience. Many users on Gaf love Neir, for example, despite its obvious shortcomings.

It looks like WD is a bit generic and unimaginative at times, but that the core gameplay offers enough to override it. If we take what's been said so far as gospel, then the game will be good and could have been great if the devs had applied a little more imagination.

Of course, there are trends with early reviews like these as Seanspeed points out... I really want to play this myself, I've managed to avoid getting hyped but I'm still curious.

 

[HaterIsHating]

I don't know. The scores seem overwhelming, but the actual reviews make me kinda suspicous.

Jeux Video: "with a slight disappointment on the story"
CeX: "pouring hours upon hours into"
T4Mag: "sinlge-player campaign running anywhere between 30-35 hours"
Gameblog: "a scenario we wish was more engaging, or a repetitive aspect for the rougher players"

Seems to be a typical ubisoft game. About three different types of missions (See Assassin's Creed: Kill guy x, eavesdrop y, tail z, ...) repeated over and over again, just to generate additional "content", or "value" as it is oft called those days. I really don't like that, because it's super boring after the fifth repetition. Reading about "disappointing story" abd "a scenario we wish was more engaging" I'm deeply worried that this game is boring as hell.

However, "Open World", huge media coverage and the possibility to spend hundreds of hours by completing simple and repetitive tasks (called "value") is always a guaranteed hit saleswise.

For me, that's Titanfall all over again.

 

[ComputerMKII]

I don't know. The scores seem overwhelming, but the actual reviews make me kinda suspicous.

Jeux Video: "with a slight disappointment on the story"
CeX: "pouring hours upon hours into"
T4Mag: "sinlge-player campaign running anywhere between 30-35 hours"
Gameblog: "a scenario we wish was more engaging, or a repetitive aspect for the rougher players"

Seems to be a typical ubisoft game. About three different types of missions (See Assassin's Creed: Kill guy x, eavesdrop y, tail z, ...) repeated over and over again, just to generate additional "content", or "value" as it is oft called those days. I really don't like that, because it's super boring after the fifth repetition. Reading about "disappointing story" abd "a scenario we wish was more engaging" I'm deeply worried that this game is boring as hell.

However, "Open World", huge media coverage and the possibility to spend hundreds of hours by completing simple and repetitive tasks (called "value") is always a guaranteed hit saleswise.

For me, that's Titanfall all over again.

HaterIsHating
Junior Member
(Today, 11:46 AM)

 

[Fantastapotamus]

There's a little phrase that applies here "more than the sum of its parts".

A game can have obvious negatives, but still be a great experience. Many users on Gaf love Neir, for example, despite its obvious shortcomings.

It looks like WD is a bit generic and unimaginative at times, but that the core gameplay offers enough to override it. If we take what's been said so far as gospel, then the game will be good and could have been great if the devs had applied a little more imagination.

Of course, there are trends with early reviews like these as Seanspeed points out... I really want to play this myself, I've managed to avoid getting hyped but I'm still curious.

Fair point. And obviously just looking at the score and the "the good/bad" points is not the best way to form a valid opinion. But it just looks pretty weird.

 

[kiaaa]

HaterIsHating
Junior Member
(Today, 11:46 AM)

ComputerMKII
Member
(Today, 04:47 AM)

What are we doing here besides implying his post is meaningless based on his name and post count?

 

[GHG]

I don't know. The scores seem overwhelming, but the actual reviews make me kinda suspicous.

Jeux Video: "with a slight disappointment on the story"
CeX: "pouring hours upon hours into"
T4Mag: "sinlge-player campaign running anywhere between 30-35 hours"
Gameblog: "a scenario we wish was more engaging, or a repetitive aspect for the rougher players"

Seems to be a typical ubisoft game. About three different types of missions (See Assassin's Creed: Kill guy x, eavesdrop y, tail z, ...) repeated over and over again, just to generate additional "content", or "value" as it is oft called those days. I really don't like that, because it's super boring after the fifth repetition. Reading about "disappointing story" abd "a scenario we wish was more engaging" I'm deeply worried that this game is boring as hell.

However, "Open World", huge media coverage and the possibility to spend hundreds of hours by completing simple and repetitive tasks (called "value") is always a guaranteed hit saleswise.

For me, that's Titanfall all over again.

Ok, so since your the expert, whats your review on the game?

 

[tuna_love]

This doesn't sound like a 4/5 to me. At all

Bad AI, boring main character, bland music, boring scenario. 4/5

Did you read the review or just that summary?

 

[Raist]

Broken embargo? This site is asking to be put on the blacklist of no review copies.


Edit:

Spoiler

holy shit, I can finally post, randomly tried and it went thru. Sorry if off topic, been waiting for this day for a while

So, to summarize their editorial, they find the "day of release" embargos completely unnaceptable, thus when such a thing is required, they'll just get the game themselves, which means that in some cases they'll have a review game early, in other cases they'll be late.

 

[KaiserBecks]

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.

It isn't, because I'm not saying that open world games are supposed to be like that. In Mario games you jump and run, in shooters you shoot, in open world games you....collect stuff and climb up towers? The point is that those sort of "activities" are consistent amongst all Ubisoft open world games. And it's tiring.

You want to hack phones in this radius? Well, hack the mainframe over there first.
You want to synchronize your map in this radius? Well, climb that tower over there first.
You want new weapons and events in this radius? Well, there's that radio tower over there, climb it and turn on the power.

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.

I don't see how this is a cop out, you are putting words in my mouth. I never liked Assassin's Creed and at this point, I don't trust them with doing distinguishable open world games for said reasons. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game for what it is. It's just that I expect something different from different IPs.

 

[spekkeh]

I don't know. The scores seem overwhelming, but the actual reviews make me kinda suspicous.

Jeux Video: "with a slight disappointment on the story"
CeX: "pouring hours upon hours into"
T4Mag: "sinlge-player campaign running anywhere between 30-35 hours"
Gameblog: "a scenario we wish was more engaging, or a repetitive aspect for the rougher players"

Seems to be a typical ubisoft game. About three different types of missions (See Assassin's Creed: Kill guy x, eavesdrop y, tail z, ...) repeated over and over again, just to generate additional "content", or "value" as it is oft called those days. I really don't like that, because it's super boring after the fifth repetition. Reading about "disappointing story" abd "a scenario we wish was more engaging" I'm deeply worried that this game is boring as hell.

However, "Open World", huge media coverage and the possibility to spend hundreds of hours by completing simple and repetitive tasks (called "value") is always a guaranteed hit saleswise.

For me, that's Titanfall all over again.

Agreed, this has Ubisoft open world game written all over it. Even the reviews and scores are very reminiscent of Far Cry 3 (AC games are too frequent, so you see reviewers finally dare being critical of the tedium). I'm going to stay far away from this until the dust settles. I want to love Ubisoft games, but the padding they have is unbearable at this point. I think I'm never going to finish AC4.

 

[Statue of Limitation]

I think you're just pointing out the problem with reviews in general these days. GTAV did not deserve the ratings it got, especially when they released a barely done multiplayer after promising so much.

Not really, because despite the IGN 10/10's and other hype - everyone buys into it for GTA. Almost everyone loves the game.

Everyone deserves an opinion, but I just don't get it. Truthfully - I think the only reason it passes user reaction nowadays is three reasons: scale, production value and dat name. Grand Theft Auto. No way that's a bad game.

And yet I see people in these threads saying WatchDogs shooting looks so poor. Kind of looks similar to GTA to me - except it has no childish auto aim and probably no janky-ass animation when indoors.

The streets look so lifeless. Looks the same as GTA to me. The people aren't real and aren't going anywhere, and interaction is limited to a line of generic dialogue and a punch in the face. Speaking of which:

Game of da mother****** year!!!

If a similar gif of Watch_Dogs had been posted in the lead-up to to release the only reaction to it would be "what is up with that road texture"

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Did you read the review or just that summary?

I'm just gonna quote me from above.

Fair point. And obviously just looking at the score and the "the good/bad" points is not the best way to form a valid opinion. But it just looks pretty weird.

I didn't read it and I didn't meant to say anything more than "This looks weird" which it does. I didn't do a good job making that clear though, sorry. Obviously one shouldn't comment on the quality of a review or a game without reading the entire text.

 

[HaterIsHating]

Ok, so since your the expert, whats your review on the game?

I don't have a copy yet, unfortunately. Pre-ordered it, but cancelled my preorder due to all the confusion about graphical downgrades and the like.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

CeX[/URL]: 5/5

Overall Watch Dogs is a fantastic start to an exciting franchise. From it's beautifully designed city that is a true joy to simply stroll around, to the epic hacking gameplay mechanic put in place, Watch Dogs has delivered on the promises it made during E3 2012. While the game isn't earth shattering, it's something that you'll end up pouring hours upon hours into. Whether it's reading the profiles of the countless inhabitants of Chicago, stopping crimes before they happen, jerking around with traffic lights, stealing money right from someone’s bank account, or cruising through the many city districts on offer, Watch Dogs is your home for the next few months.

Watch Dogs delivers on high expectations and gets a 5/5.

I don't want to click the link; who are these guys?

"Delivered on E3 2012"

"your home for the next few months"



Really? Really?

 

[GlamFM]

ComputerMKII
Member
(Today, 04:47 AM)

What are we doing here besides implying his post is meaningless based on his name and post count?

ComputerMKII is not implying anything based on his post count. He even bolded his name.

Hater is hating.

It´s funny - that´s all.

 

[IcyEyes]

Tens of people worked really hard to bring us a videogame and there are some people that just want this game to fail hard ?

Embarrassing.

 

[kiaaa]

Not really, because despite the IGN 10/10's and other hype - everyone buys into it for GTA. Almost everyone loves the game.

Everyone deserves an opinion, but I just don't get it. Truthfully - I think the only reason it passes user reaction nowadays is three reasons: scale, production value and dat name. Grand Theft Auto. No way that's a bad game.

And yet I see people in these threads saying WatchDogs shooting looks so poor. Kind of looks similar to GTA to me - except it has no childish auto aim and probably no janky-ass animation when indoors.

The streets look so lifeless. Looks the same as GTA to me. The people aren't real and aren't going anywhere, and interaction is limited to a line of generic dialogue and a punch in the face. Speaking of which:

Game of da mother****** year!!!

Well, I have two hangups here. One, I saw plenty of disappointment when GTAV came out. This was before the recent "downgrade" blowup, so it wasn't as loud, but the game definitely got its share of hate for falling short on a lot of promises.

Two, it's entirely possible to enjoy shitty media. I love the Transformers and Fast and Furious series, but they don't even approach "good" relative to other movies. I'd never give them a 7+ out of 10 because they entertain me.

 

[GHG]

I don't have a copy yet, unfortunately. Pre-ordered it, but cancelled my preorder due to all the confusion about graphical downgrades and the like.

Ok cool. So you've never played it but you're attempting to discredit a review by using assumptions and guesswork?