Watch Dogs

[chatD4VIS-360]

 

 

 

 

 

Surely there's a simple explanation as to why I'm spending 5 f*cking hours on the mission Breakable Things....

How is it taking you that long?

F*ck do I know. But I know for sure this game is steaming pile of utter sh*t. Why? Longetivity in missions; like constant detections by enemies. It kills the game for me. Not hype. I was never hyped for this.

 

I only bought this game because it's open world. If I knew the missions were VERY difficult & long, I wouldn't spend $95 on a POS.

I'm only asking because it only took me maybe 20 mins to do that mission and that's because I prefer stealth and hacking to handle enemies. Try all different entry points and look or cameras so you can cam hop. It marks enemies and it will show you vulnerabilities

Exactly. Love being able to hack a ctOS center without even entering the complex.

[SoftTouch]

but the game's tone looks horribily blank (unlike the tone you saw at E3)

Lol, please tell me what you saw at E3 ? Aiden entering a club, speaking to some dude, then hacking a light, and thats it ?

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

I think he's referring to the graphics of E3 2012. Otherwise every other E3 that showed Watch Dogs looks as it is now.

[Lil ski]

I gotta say...blowing up steam pipes is f*cking BAWSS!! Also blowing up gas stations too.

[SteXmaN]

Like what? Elaborate.

I had same experience(maybe even better bc it was fresh) with first two games and for me Prototype(2009) is a better game.If some game gives you the feel of being a OP super hero that is Prototype and the amount of badassery you can do in that title SS looks bland (except for the visuals of course,that is more important ).

 

Any future game that has the same concept it needs to offer something new for me.For instance,i want to see those buildings crumble.If i use some kind of force on them i want to see the damage.I want everything to be destructible in those kind of games.Someone said in this topic that Infamous SS has destructible objects and my response was how a Red Faction Guerrilla(2009) sh*ts on them.

[esmittystud101]

Some E3 12' comparison videos, maybe someone already posted. Just don't have that much time to look through all the pages.

 

 

 

To me, I think the trailers they had months ago, did this game no justice, which I think we already knew. Me myself, think E'3 is nothing more than it is today on next gen or high end pc for that matter. I think the versions now has more reflections on cars and such just as an example. I think E3 12' doens't look as good as next gen or high end pc. The game looks great. I'm pleased.

Edited May 29, 2014 by esmittystud101

[hungrywhiteboy]

I can't believe people are blaming Ubisoft for overhyping this game... Like are you dumb? What did you expect them to do? Did you actually expect them to say "Yeah dis game look good but beware it's gonna look sh*t on ps3 and 360 lmao also ur gonna need a proper gaming rig to play it on ultra..... bye haters"

 

They're a company, of course they're going to overhype their game and make you think it's the best thing since sliced bread, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. R* did it in the first GTA V trailer, Ubisoft just did it better.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

You can either see this as a wall of text, or understand what makes this game and Ubisoft themselves a huge disappointment.

 

First and foremost I've had history with Ubisoft's games. Especially during the heights of the Assassin's Creed franchise. I consider Assassin's Creed II a straight up masterpiece.

After I noticed that Assassin's Creed started to tumble into a repetitive formula, my love for the series started to diminish, slowly but surely. The same formula can be seen throughout Watch Dogs. When you break Watch Dogs down and if you played the previous Assassin's Creed games, you'll start to notice this formula and why this game is nowhere remotely close to being next gen or even it's own game. Animations alone have been lazily copied out of Assassin's Creed III and slapped onto Watch Dogs? You would've thought with it being a new IP, that Ubisoft would have took the time to create new animations specifically for Watch Dogs, but no they resort to sheer laziness.

In terms of the games hacking mechanics, if you can even call it that without noting it's merely a simple button prompt like their previous open world games, for i.e. press square to assassinate, press to dodge, well you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. Anyway, moving on to the games physics. It's okay for people to not care whether a game has good physics or not. However it's not okay for the developers to mislead people in saying that their physics were next gen or nothing that has been seen before. That's called hyperbole and does not leave a good impression on a game developer overall. In terms of it having glitches, I think people are in the right to complain about this. This game from the beginning was herald as the next GTA.

Now it would've been okay if Ubisoft assured people that they weren't going to go against GTA. Sadly however, this was not the case as they released an image promoting Watch Dogs with the following... "Two months is enough time to visit Los Santos", followed by "come to Chicago on 13th November!?" Then a few months later they make an announcement stating how they need more time to POLISH the game and that Watch Dogs would now be delayed until 2014. The proof is in the videos showcasing the problems and the game itself. Ubisoft didn't delay the game because they wanted to polish it, they just wanted to escape competition with GTA V. That's a fact! Ubisoft are now nothing but cheap, arrogant, talentless show offs who just want to rip you off instead of committing to their product anymore.

Watch Dogs summed up would be that it is merely another generically uninspired third person shooter/adventure game with button prompts, AKA, Assassin's Creed with modern day setting. Therefore it's nothing special or anything to be proud of. It's a cheap cash in on the open world genre and the fact that they said valid reviews of the game would only appear on their say proves it.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ROCKGTASTAR

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

inFamous isn't like prototype. Prototype 1 and 2 were both games that I previously owned, and admittedly, they were awesome games. But the reason it has more destruction in it was because it fit the theme of the game, especially when the population got infected, but you couldn't fully destory buildings either. It's more of an evil approach rather than a hero approach because technically, your character as a human is dead. You are not a hero in that game, but an evil bad ass.

 

inFamous is a game which still allows you to create havok, but not on Prototype's level because that's how it was designed, this doesn't mean it's bland. That's like saying GTA doesn't have destructible environements which makes it a less fun game.

Edited May 29, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Geralt of Rivia]

You can either see this as a wall of text, or understand what makes this game and Ubisoft themselves a huge disappointment.

 

First and foremost I've had history with Ubisoft's games. Especially during the heights of the Assassin's Creed franchise. I consider Assassin's Creed II a straight up masterpiece.

 

After I noticed that Assassin's Creed started to tumble into a repetitive formula, my love for the series started to diminish, slowly but surely. The same formula can be seen throughout Watch Dogs. When you break Watch Dogs down and if you played the previous Assassin's Creed games, you'll start to notice this formula and why this game is nowhere remotely close to being next gen or even it's own game. Animations alone have been lazily copied out of Assassin's Creed III and slapped onto Watch Dogs? You would've thought with it being a new IP, that Ubisoft would have took the time to create new animations specifically for Watch Dogs, but no they resort to sheer laziness.

 

In terms of the games hacking mechanics, if you can even call it that without noting it's merely a simple button prompt like their previous open world games, for i.e. press square to assassinate, press to dodge, well you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. Anyway, moving on to the games physics. It's okay for people to not care whether a game has good physics or not. However it's not okay for the developers to mislead people in saying that their physics were next gen or nothing that has been seen before. That's called hyperbole and does not leave a good impression on a game developer overall. In terms of it having glitches, I think people are in the right to complain about this. This game from the beginning was herald as the next GTA.

 

Now it would've been okay if Ubisoft assured people that they weren't going to go against GTA. Sadly however, this was not the case as they released an image promoting Watch Dogs with the following... "Two months is enough time to visit Los Santos", followed by "come to Chicago on 13th November!?" Then a few months later they make an announcement stating how they need more time to POLISH the game and that Watch Dogs would now be delayed until 2014. The proof is in the videos showcasing the problems and the game itself. Ubisoft didn't delay the game because they wanted to polish it, they just wanted to escape competition with GTA V. That's a fact! Ubisoft are now nothing but cheap, arrogant, talentless show offs who just want to rip you off instead of committing to their product anymore.

 

Watch Dogs summed up would be that it is merely another generically uninspired third person shooter/adventure game with button prompts? AKA, Assassin's Creed with modern day setting. Therefore it's nothing special or anything to be proud of. It's a cheap cash in on the open world genre and the fact that they said valid reviews of the game would only appear on their say proves it.

Wow, what a sh*tty and mostly untrue comment. That's a fact? Lol.

 

Seriously, I don't think I have seen hate on this game that has been legitimate and backed up.

[SteXmaN]

inFamous isn't like prototype. Prototype 1 and 2 were both games that I previously owned, and admittedly, they were awesome games. But the reason it has more destruction in it was because it fit the theme of the game, especially when the population got infected, but you couldn't fully destory buildings either. It's more of an evil approach rather than a hero approach because technically, your character as a human is dead. You are not a hero in that game, but an evil bad ass.

 

inFamous is a game which still allows you to create havok, but not on Prototype's level because that's how it was designed, this doesn't mean it's bland. That's like saying GTA doesn't have destructible environements which makes it a less fun game.

Sure,the themes of these 2 games are not the same but basically it revolves on the same concept.

 

First SS footage was showing those destructible objects and i expected more of them and those were the only destructible objects in the game.

 

Nevertheless,it didn't offer anything new.I had fun with it but i just didn't have the same experience as when i played inFamous 1/2 or Prototype.

Edited May 29, 2014 by SteXmaN

[tymaster50]

just beat the game, it was awesome.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

You can either see this as a wall of text, or understand what makes this game and Ubisoft themselves a huge disappointment.

 

First and foremost I've had history with Ubisoft's games. Especially during the heights of the Assassin's Creed franchise. I consider Assassin's Creed II a straight up masterpiece.

 

After I noticed that Assassin's Creed started to tumble into a repetitive formula, my love for the series started to diminish, slowly but surely. The same formula can be seen throughout Watch Dogs. When you break Watch Dogs down and if you played the previous Assassin's Creed games, you'll start to notice this formula and why this game is nowhere remotely close to being next gen or even it's own game. Animations alone have been lazily copied out of Assassin's Creed III and slapped onto Watch Dogs? You would've thought with it being a new IP, that Ubisoft would have took the time to create new animations specifically for Watch Dogs, but no they resort to sheer laziness.

 

In terms of the games hacking mechanics, if you can even call it that without noting it's merely a simple button prompt like their previous open world games, for i.e. press square to assassinate, press to dodge, well you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. Anyway, moving on to the games physics. It's okay for people to not care whether a game has good physics or not. However it's not okay for the developers to mislead people in saying that their physics were next gen or nothing that has been seen before. That's called hyperbole and does not leave a good impression on a game developer overall. In terms of it having glitches, I think people are in the right to complain about this. This game from the beginning was herald as the next GTA.

 

Now it would've been okay if Ubisoft assured people that they weren't going to go against GTA. Sadly however, this was not the case as they released an image promoting Watch Dogs with the following... "Two months is enough time to visit Los Santos", followed by "come to Chicago on 13th November!?" Then a few months later they make an announcement stating how they need more time to POLISH the game and that Watch Dogs would now be delayed until 2014. The proof is in the videos showcasing the problems and the game itself. Ubisoft didn't delay the game because they wanted to polish it, they just wanted to escape competition with GTA V. That's a fact! Ubisoft are now nothing but cheap, arrogant, talentless show offs who just want to rip you off instead of committing to their product anymore.

 

Watch Dogs summed up would be that it is merely another generically uninspired third person shooter/adventure game with button prompts? AKA, Assassin's Creed with modern day setting. Therefore it's nothing special or anything to be proud of. It's a cheap cash in on the open world genre and the fact that they said valid reviews of the game would only appear on their say proves it.

Wow, what a sh*tty and mostly untrue comment. That's a fact? Lol.

 

Seriously, I don't think I have seen hate on this game that has been legitimate and backed up.

 

Instead of using small talk, how about you prove what I am saying is false? Like I have said I've played all Assassin's Creed to AC3, I know how the game in general plays out. Watch Dogs is modern day Assassin's Creed with the same formulaic button prompts and linear features. Look it's O.K if you enjoy it, that's great but I am just voicing why Ubisoft as a company just stinks in general and that they are no good as Activision or EA.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ROCKGTASTAR

[chatD4VIS-360]

All I'm saying is spider tank y'all.

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

 

You can either see this as a wall of text, or understand what makes this game and Ubisoft themselves a huge disappointment.

 

First and foremost I've had history with Ubisoft's games. Especially during the heights of the Assassin's Creed franchise. I consider Assassin's Creed II a straight up masterpiece.

 

After I noticed that Assassin's Creed started to tumble into a repetitive formula, my love for the series started to diminish, slowly but surely. The same formula can be seen throughout Watch Dogs. When you break Watch Dogs down and if you played the previous Assassin's Creed games, you'll start to notice this formula and why this game is nowhere remotely close to being next gen or even it's own game. Animations alone have been lazily copied out of Assassin's Creed III and slapped onto Watch Dogs? You would've thought with it being a new IP, that Ubisoft would have took the time to create new animations specifically for Watch Dogs, but no they resort to sheer laziness.

 

In terms of the games hacking mechanics, if you can even call it that without noting it's merely a simple button prompt like their previous open world games, for i.e. press square to assassinate, press to dodge, well you get what I mean, or maybe you don't. Anyway, moving on to the games physics. It's okay for people to not care whether a game has good physics or not. However it's not okay for the developers to mislead people in saying that their physics were next gen or nothing that has been seen before. That's called hyperbole and does not leave a good impression on a game developer overall. In terms of it having glitches, I think people are in the right to complain about this. This game from the beginning was herald as the next GTA.

 

Now it would've been okay if Ubisoft assured people that they weren't going to go against GTA. Sadly however, this was not the case as they released an image promoting Watch Dogs with the following... "Two months is enough time to visit Los Santos", followed by "come to Chicago on 13th November!?" Then a few months later they make an announcement stating how they need more time to POLISH the game and that Watch Dogs would now be delayed until 2014. The proof is in the videos showcasing the problems and the game itself. Ubisoft didn't delay the game because they wanted to polish it, they just wanted to escape competition with GTA V. That's a fact! Ubisoft are now nothing but cheap, arrogant, talentless show offs who just want to rip you off instead of committing to their product anymore.

 

Watch Dogs summed up would be that it is merely another generically uninspired third person shooter/adventure game with button prompts? AKA, Assassin's Creed with modern day setting. Therefore it's nothing special or anything to be proud of. It's a cheap cash in on the open world genre and the fact that they said valid reviews of the game would only appear on their say proves it.

Wow, what a sh*tty and mostly untrue comment. That's a fact? Lol.

 

Seriously, I don't think I have seen hate on this game that has been legitimate and backed up.

 

Instead of using small talk, how about you prove what I am saying is false? Like I have said I've played all Assassin's Creed to AC3, I know how the game in general plays out. Watch Dogs is modern day Assassin's Creed with the same formulaic button prompts and linear features. Look it's O.K if you enjoy it, that's great but I am just voicing why Ubisoft as a company just stinks in general and that they are no good as Activision or EA.

Can't right now. On my phone. I'll do it later.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

Can't right now. On my phone. I'll do it later.

 

 

That meant be a joke? Not a very good one if it is.

 

It's a modern day Ass Creed, nothing more. I should know since I am familiar with how the gameplay works in Assassin's Creed.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Vercetti42]

Seriously, I don't think I have seen hate on this game that has been legitimate and backed up.

Because the people who hate the game are GTA fanboys.

 

People do like the game but they just think it is a major disappointment. Somehwat like the same situation GTA IV had but that is slightly different

Edited May 29, 2014 by Vercetti42

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

Seriously, I don't think I have seen hate on this game that has been legitimate and backed up.

Because the people who hate the game are GTA fanboys.

 

People do like the game but they just think it is a major disappointment. Somehwat like the same situation GTA IV had but that is slightly different

 

 

I hate it when people generalise others just for forming an opinion. I also find it stupid that someone is talking about GTA fanboys on a GTA forum. Where's the logic in that? Watch Dogs could have been a lot better than it was, Ubisoft had a great idea, they just failed in terms of it's execution and ended up turning it into a modern Assassin's Creed with the same button prompts. (I fail to see how that is not what happened here?)

 

I'm more disappointed in Ubisoft than anybody. Assassin's Creed II as I've already said was a masterpiece, so I am not bashing Ubisoft for everything, I am just disappointed to see how far they have fell in the last six years. Especially, considering that they said it's okay to turn everything into a franchise and have games released for said franchise annually!? The only thing on Ubisoft's mind anymore is pounds, dollars and euros.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Xerukal]

 

 

Can't right now. On my phone. I'll do it later.

 

 

That meant be a joke? Not a very good one if it is.

 

It's a modern day Ass Creed, nothing more. I should know since I am familiar with how the gameplay works in Assassin's Creed.

 

You should familiarize yourself some more, then.

 

Ubisoft's games have always consisted of nods to mechanics in their other games. Far Cry 3's "outposts"? The idea of those pretty much started with Borgia Towers in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. Contextual stealth systems, or rather, "social stealth" as seen in Watch_Dogs? Assassin's Creed's original vision (which everyone misinterprets to this day), again.

 

I'm not doing much to prove your point false. In fact, I'm not going to. I'm going to prove it right but voice the opinion that the fact that Watch_Dogs is a modern day Assassin's Creed is a good thing.

 

With Assassin's Creed, Ubisoft is pretty much bound to the Animus. Because that's what the fans want. Historical periods and assassins getting involved with historical events. They can't tread too far away from that or else everyone loses their minds.

 

I see Watch_Dogs as a means to follow other commentaries on the way things work/are going to work in the real world. You'd have to be a blind, deaf, comatose lobotomy patient not to notice all the Illuminati symbolism throughout Assassin's Creed, and now Watch_Dogs.

 

Ubisoft couldn't take it to modern day for too long with Assassin's Creed, because people f*cking despised Desmond. Even though his sections in AC III were quite fun and the "horribleness" of his character was extremely exaggerated. But hey, opinions.

 

Anyway, in terms of gameplay, which is what we're all here for anyway, WD seems like a combination of everything Ubisoft has done so far. Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and a bit of Far Cry.

 

Is this a bad thing? Or a good thing? It depends.

 

I don't see it as lazy (you might see it differently, however). In fact, I see it as a long homage and almost generation send-off to everything Ubisoft has done. Bits and pieces of other games slapped onto a new engine. But with a bit of a more unique concept, with all the hacking.

 

Speaking of hacking. That button prompts argument of yours is weak as sh*t. Anyone can just press buttons when the contextual prompt comes up and just wait and see what happens, but not everyone can combine and time these "prompts" to create a unique chain of events that are either satisfying to behold, or just really f*cking fun.

 

It's the same deal as with Assassin's Creed. People say sh*t like; "OH ALL U HAVE 2 DO IS COUNTER AND U WIN, NO CHALLENGE, NO FUN" all the time. But they disregard the potential depth just because it isn't forced onto them as a form of challenge.

 

Have you tried chaining tool kills and kill-chain takedowns in AC III and AC IV? Have you tried setting obstacles and unique challenges for yourself by limiting your arsenal or enforcing certain conditions onto your playstyle?

 

People lack creativity these days. Even when tools are given to encourage their creativity, there are complaints and groans of all kinds because not enough structured, "challenging" (because fun = challenge and nothing else is enjoyable in virtual pixelated life) activity is enforced. And this is coming from someone who is a raging PC fanboy of Dark Souls. I love the difficulty because it has a purpose to the story and setting. Not because it's a f*cking advertising gimmick or because people just want challenge for the sake of it.

 

What was I saying again?

 

EDIT: For the record, my little rant about difficulty there has nothing to do with Watch_Dogs. Mostly Assassin's Creed-related.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Xerukal

[sivispacem]

Are people genuinely complaining about how difficult the game is because the missions are too long and they can't deal with having to start from the beginning when they arse it up?

 

Not played many games from the mid-late 90s have we?

[Mr Rabbit]

Are people genuinely complaining about how difficult the game is because the missions are too long and they can't deal with having to start from the beginning.

 

Not played many games from the mid-late 90s have we?

Given the age of many members here I'm gonna say no they haven't unless they were gaming at a very early age like myself.

 

i love the fact the missions are lengthy and the game is somewhat difficult, even more so given how it is difficulty coming from decent AI and design and not sh*t mechanics.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Flynny

[SteXmaN]

Some people just don't know how to enjoy games anymore. WD disappointed me in so many aspects but I'm having a blast with it.I just took it for what it is,a solid OWG.

[Jvaz615]

It's pretty clear that whatever that guys name is obviously hates any company not named Rockstar. Every game company takes parts from their different games and uses them in others, even Rockstar. Just look at RDR and GTAV. He had his mind made up that Ubisoft butt raped him somehow so WD was gonna be a sh*t game. If you hate the game, don't be in this thread where people who enjoy the game are trying to converse

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

You should familiarize yourself some more, then.

 

 

 

Ubisoft's games have always consisted of nods to mechanics in their other games. Far Cry 3's "outposts"? The idea of those pretty much started with Borgia Towers in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. Contextual stealth systems, or rather, "social stealth" as seen in Watch_Dogs? Assassin's Creed's original vision (which everyone misinterprets to this day), again.

 

I'm not doing much to prove your point false. In fact, I'm not going to. I'm going to prove it right but voice the opinion that the fact that Watch_Dogs is a modern day Assassin's Creed is a good thing.

 

With Assassin's Creed, Ubisoft is pretty much bound to the Animus. Because that's what the fans want. Historical periods and assassins getting involved with historical events. They can't tread too far away from that or else everyone loses their minds.

 

I see Watch_Dogs as a means to follow other commentaries on the way things work/are going to work in the real world. You'd have to be a blind, deaf, comatose lobotomy patient not to notice all the Illuminati symbolism throughout Assassin's Creed, and now Watch_Dogs.

 

Ubisoft couldn't take it to modern day for too long with Assassin's Creed, because people f*cking despised Desmond. Even though his sections in AC III were quite fun and the "horribleness" of his character was extremely exaggerated. But hey, opinions.

 

Anyway, in terms of gameplay, which is what we're all here for anyway, WD seems like a combination of everything Ubisoft has done so far. Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and a bit of Far Cry.

 

Is this a bad thing? Or a good thing? It depends.

 

I don't see it as lazy (you might see it differently, however). In fact, I see it as a long homage and almost generation send-off to everything Ubisoft has done. Bits and pieces of other games slapped onto a new engine. But with a bit of a more unique concept, with all the hacking.

 

Speaking of hacking. That button prompts argument of yours is weak as sh*t. Anyone can just press buttons when the contextual prompt comes up and just wait and see what happens, but not everyone can combine and time these "prompts" to create a unique chain of events that are either satisfying to behold, or just really f*cking fun.

 

It's the same deal as with Assassin's Creed. People say sh*t like; "OH ALL U HAVE 2 DO IS COUNTER AND U WIN, NO CHALLENGE, NO FUN" all the time. But they disregard the potential depth just because it isn't forced onto them as a form of challenge.

 

Have you tried chaining tool kills and kill-chain takedowns in AC III and AC IV? Have you tried setting obstacles and unique challenges for yourself by limiting your arsenal or enforcing certain conditions onto your playstyle?

 

People lack creativity these days. Even when tools are given to encourage their creativity, there are complaints and groans of all kinds because not enough structured, "challenging" (because fun = challenge and nothing else is enjoyable in virtual pixelated life) activity is enforced. And this is coming from someone who is a raging PC fanboy of Dark Souls. I love the difficulty because it has a purpose to the story and setting. Not because it's a f*cking advertising gimmick or because people just want challenge for the sake of it.

 

What was I saying again?

 

EDIT: For the record, my little rant about difficulty there has nothing to do with Watch_Dogs. Mostly Assassin's Creed-related.

 

 

I would've agreed about a modern day Assassin's Creed being a good thing, however as you've said they've simply used features from previous games in order to create this one. The sad part about it is that though the idea is relatively great, the final execution of the idea ended up a repetitively mediocre result. In terms of Assassin's Creed they alienated virtually anyone who respected Assassin's Creed II when they released Assassin's Creed III in it's poor state. Not only was it the first Assassin's Creed game to be notoriously glitchy and broken at launch but it also simplified and removed a lot of features that made the series stand out. Plus with that, it became clear why Patrice Desilets tried to leave. Ubisoft have turned to the milking attitude unfortunately. Far Cry 3 was decent but again suffered issues.

 

I don't know, Ubisoft just seem to keep getting lazier and lazier with each they release on the market.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Xerukal]

I don't know, Ubisoft just seem to keep getting lazier and lazier with each they release on the market.

But there are still good developers working on these games. It's just that they're being pushed by people who want sh*t done faster no matter the costs or effort.

 

You can tell they're desperately trying to steer into fresh directions with Black Flag. And I honestly think it worked, as it's my third most favorite AC next to AC II and Brotherhood. But it isn't what Assassin's Creed is about. I appreciate AC IV as a game, and it has its "Assassin's Creed-like" moments. But the series needs to go back to it's roots.

 

From what I know, Montreal is working on AC Unity. And Unity is set in good ol' Europe again. France, to be exact. So I'm kind of hoping they can recreate the spark that happened with AC II. Get Jesper Kyd on the job as the composer again, damn it. Shouldn't have left him in the first place, you fools.

 

Alright, but no, seriously. Apologies for the off-topic there.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Xerukal

[ROCKGTASTAR]

It's pretty clear that whatever that guys name is obviously hates any company not named Rockstar. Every game company takes parts from their different games and uses them in others, even Rockstar. Just look at RDR and GTAV. He had his mind made up that Ubisoft butt raped him somehow so WD was gonna be a sh*t game. If you hate the game, don't be in this thread where people who enjoy the game are trying to converse

 

This has got to be the most dumbest response I've seen in my life... Again simple generalising when they don't know jack about what a person likes or dislikes. I like all kinds of developers for your information you clown. I like Santa Monica, Gearbox only for Borderlands, VALVe which is relatively a good innovative company in general, Eidos, it's clear when they want to, they can make a really good game. Others include Ubisoft, before Ass Creed III, Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, Rocksteady, Naughty Dog, the list could go on. Yeah, I only like Rockstar aright... Stop generalising and people may show you more respect.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

I don't know, Ubisoft just seem to keep getting lazier and lazier with each they release on the market.

But there are still good developers working on these games. It's just that they're being pushed by people who want sh*t done faster no matter the costs or effort.

 

You can tell they're desperately trying to steer into fresh directions with Black Flag. And I honestly think it worked, as it's my third most favorite AC next to AC II and Brotherhood. But it isn't what Assassin's Creed is about. I appreciate AC IV as a game, and it has its "Assassin's Creed-like" moments. But the series needs to go back to it's roots.

 

From what I know, Montreal is working on AC Unity. And Unity is set in good ol' Europe again. France, to be exact. So I'm kind of hoping they can recreate the spark that happened with AC II. Get Jesper Kyd on the job as the composer again, damn it. Shouldn't have left him in the first place, you fools.

 

Alright, but no, seriously. Apologies for the off-topic there.

 

 

Assassin's Creed is dead to me unfortunately, they never surpassed Assassin's Creed II, and with each game it got worse and worse. Black Flag is decent as it added back some of stealthy elements that were severely lacking in ACIII, however the game overall didn't feel like an Assassin's Creed game. It's all well and good that the franchise is being carried on, however with what Ubisoft did to it's creator it'll unfortunately remain a shadow of it's former self. AC is Ubisoft's cash cow now and I feel sorry for the developers at Ubisoft who do want to bring back the magic Assassin's Creed once had, it's just not going to happen as long as Ubi$oft sees profit in it's name alone.

 

 

 

This was the magic Ubisoft once had.

 

 

Sorry about the double post, I tried removing. Apology for off topic.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Sean O'God]

Did the developers of WD get a 3 year old to name the cars in their game? There are cars named the "Vespid 5.2," "Bogen 200," "Zusume," "Kigan AWD," and freaking "Papavero." Other names that are really boring and unimaginative include, "Rotor," "Crosscountry Series," "Chopper," "550S," and who could forget, the "Fasto?" I'm surprised there wasn't a bike called the "2 Wheeled Not-Car."

Edited May 29, 2014 by Inbred Walrus

[SteXmaN]

 

 

I don't know, Ubisoft just seem to keep getting lazier and lazier with each they release on the market.

 

Numbers are telling a different story.They're still producing and publishing high/mid-quality titles that are approved by critics(scores) and users(sales). People are enjoying their games

 

2013:Blood Dragon good game CoJ Gunslinger good game,Blacklist good game, AC4 good game,Rayman legends good game.

 

2014: South Park good game,Child of Light good game,Trials Fusion good game,Watch Dogs good game. AC and FC4 will be released in 2014.

 

What other company produces and publishes this amount of solid/good/great titles per year?

 

 

With WD they did a solid job.If you remember how AC2 was improved after AC1 i wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with WD.People and game critics will give their opinion and feedback and they'll try to improve everything that was wrong in the first installment.

 

I don't approve how they operate(Uplay is POS,Pre-order DLC bs,milking the franchises etc) but they're still producing some great games and I've been enjoying their titles for almost 14 years now. They are not my favorite company/developer/studio,far from that. Sometimes they fail,sometimes they deliver but overall they are making games that are fun to play and that's the most important thing for me.

 

Just how many people are excited for Division.

Edited May 29, 2014 by SteXmaN

[ROCKGTASTAR]

 

I don't know, Ubisoft just seem to keep getting lazier and lazier with each they release on the market.

 

Numbers are telling a different story.They're still producing and publishing high/mid-quality titles that are approved by critics(scores) and users(sales). People are enjoying their games

 

2013:Blood Dragon good game CoJ Gunslinger good game,Blacklist good game, AC4 good game,Rayman legends good game.

 

2014: South Park good game,Child of Light good game,Trials Fusion good game,Watch Dogs good game. AC and FC4 will be released in 2014.

 

What other company produces and publishes this amount of solid/good/great titles per year?

 

 

With WD they did a solid job.If you remember how AC2 was improved after AC1 i wouldn't be surprised if they did the same with WD.People and game critics will give their opinion and feedback and they'll try to improve everything that was wrong in the first installment.

 

I don't approve how they operate(Uplay is POS,Pre-order DLC bs,milking the franchises etc) but they're still producing some great games and I've been enjoying their titles for almost 14 years now. They are not my favorite company/developer/studio,far from that. Sometimes they fail,sometimes they deliver but overall they are making games that are fun to play and that's the most important thing for me.

 

Just how many people are excited for Division.

 

 

Difference between now and then is that Ubisoft what to turn everything into a franchise. Yeah, Rayman Legends was good, but it's unfortunate that Ubisoft's own mascot has been swept under the rug like this. Rayman was a big thing back in the day. Division, I can't make a judgment on, but from what I've seen it has potential but I just don't get the slow motion effect, I fear it will make it nauseating to sit through.