Saints Row: 2022 Reboot

[sabitsuki]

 the funniest comment Ive heard about the reboot was how they gentrified it since that was pretty much the plot of the first 2 games.

Edited September 13 by sabitsuki

[Jason]

9 hours ago, universetwisters said:

idk man I'd say that Watch Dogs and Mafia, despite their faults, were a good start. Ofc they weren't creator killers but had it not been for them being released, Rockstar would probably be even lazier than currently if they knew nobody was biting at their heels.

 

I've never played Mafia so I can't comment there but Watch Dogs isn't remotely close to anything on R*'s level, nothing Ubi is. Decent open urban open city games, sure, but not much more than that. WD1 was dreary, WD3 was terrible and WD2's world and characters are just a wee bit sh*te.

 

9 hours ago, universetwisters said:

RDR2 turned out to be a masterpiece at the cost of Red Dead Online. Conversely (depending on your opinion or bias) you could say that GTA Online turned out to be a masterpiece at the cost of GTA 5. The past two games goes to show that Rockstar cannot multitask and if you follow that formula to VI, either single player will be amazing but with a lackluster multiplayer or vice versa. Of course, I could be very well wrong. I hope I'm wrong! But when you look at how little they cared when it came to remastering the trilogy, even though it was a minor studio that did it, what optimism do I have that VI won't be trash, or at least open a void for other open world crime devs to jump into?

 

If GTAO turned out to be a masterpiece it's because it's built on the foundations they made with GTA V, which seems to be the same plan with GTA VI. Unless your point is that V got no SP DLC, which is a meaningless point as SP DLC has zero bearing on the quality of the game. RDO was frustrating as I was a huge fan of it but I long had the impression what R* really wanted to make was the story and not the online, and when push come to shove (and with the helping hand of the pandemic lockdown) they seemingly chose to put RDO to rest in favour of going all hands on deck on GTA VI.

 

Like I'm by no means trying to be like full shill and go "VI's gonna be amazing dood" when we've not seen anything from it, but we heard all the exact same stuff about RDR2 pre-launch that we're now seeing for VI and it turned out just fine in the end and while there's reasons to be concerned about aspects of R* with the cash grab remasters, their mainline projects seem to have the same support and backing they've always had.

[Ondr4H]

Ubisoft is only company, that can have open world crime game somewhat comparable to Rockstar one.

But they dont have that magic touch that brings life to their games...

 

Im still blown how GTA IV, still can hold the candle to modern games. Its truly timeless title.

 

I kinda see this genre semi dead, it started with Rockstar and it will die with rockstar. Mafia is not open world, its story driven game which suit it better. Yeah there is M3, but is standalone game after all.

 

[The Tracker]

12 minutes ago, Ondr4H said:

I kinda see this genre semi dead, it started with Rockstar and it will die with rockstar. Mafia is not open world, its story driven game which suit it better. Yeah there is M3, but is standalone game after all.

 

I always wonder how things could've went if some other company instead of Take Two bought Ilussion Softwares (The original devs of Mafia). With the creative ambition of Daniel Vavrá and the resources of a bigger company, they could easily would have given R* some competition.

Edited September 13 by The Tracker

[Ondr4H]

4 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

 

I always wonder how things could've went if some other company instead of Take Two bought Ilussion Softwares (The original devs of Mafia). With the creative ambition of Daniel Vavrá and the resources of a bigger company, they could easily would have given R* some competition.

They had really big plans with Mafia 2 comparable to GTA IV terms of details. But Take 2 bought them, and greed speaks.

 

I kinda hate this game, because everything in it screams cut/unfinished . Never experienced something similar... Its definitely shame...

[Bigglo145]

38 minutes ago, Ondr4H said:

 

I kinda hate this game, because everything in it screams cut/unfinished . Never experienced something similar... Its definitely shame...

I thought i was the only one. I love mafia 2 but it does feel unfinished, although the story is good. There feels like it should be more to do in the city, city also feels too small. A couple more chapters wouldnt have hurt neither

[universetwisters]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

I've never played Mafia so I can't comment there but Watch Dogs isn't remotely close to anything on R*'s level, nothing Ubi is. Decent open urban open city games, sure, but not much more than that. WD1 was dreary, WD3 was terrible and WD2's world and characters are just a wee bit sh*te.

 

Mafia's just alright. It's just really linear. idk I think WD1, if the story was a bit better could be comprable to IV at least in atmosphere. WD2 was really good but yeah the characters are kinda like the Saints Row reboot lol. idk, I think Ubisoft definitely has the technical ability to make a decent gta clone, they just need to get a better writing staff and they'll be on the ball.

 

8 hours ago, Jason said:

Unless your point is that V got no SP DLC, which is a meaningless point as SP DLC has zero bearing on the quality of the game

 

 

Idk man, I'm still a bit salty because Rockstar teased MORE ADVENTURES WITH YOUR FAVORITE CRIMINAL TRIO back in like 2014 and were like "lol nevermind" and repackaged that for online behind a paywall. They went from really good episodic DLC from IV to, more often than not, car and weapon packs in Online. 

 

8 hours ago, Jason said:

while there's reasons to be concerned about aspects of R* with the cash grab remasters, their mainline projects seem to have the same support and backing they've always had.

 

Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong but I don't see why a competitive series or preexisting series can't use Rockstar slacking to move on up.

 

I remember like 15 years ago between Simcity 4 and Simcity Societies, there was a city building game called CITY LIFE and it specifically said in a press release that it wasn't trying to compete with Simcity, rather it was made to bridge the gap between the two of them (kinda like how Saints Row 1 was the first open world crime game on 7th gen consoles). CITY LIFE was a bit average but, by the time Simcity Societies came out and was a buggy sh*tty mess, CITY LIFE was praised. Then they made CITIES XL and CITIES XXL and CITIES SKYLINES  (whoops cities skylines isnt related to City Life oh well) while the next and final Simcity game was a total flop. I know what you're gonna say, "A city building game isn't comparable to GTA!" and I know what I'll say; "That's not the point! The point is that the big dog in the genre got lazy and let other games take its title!" and then I'll vomit blood all over your carpet.

Again, I hope I'm wrong and Houser & Leslie leaving Rockstar helps get things back on track and back on top. But it's not impossible for a competing series or even a whole new one to take their title. Even if they don't have the same budget and manpower as Rockstar and it's 30 or whatever studios, does it really matter? All the money combined with all the people in the world can't make a good game if they're not told to.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

I think Ubisoft definitely has the technical ability to make a decent gta clone, they just need to get a better writing staff and they'll be on the ball.

 

They need way more than writing staff. Their leadership is rotten from top to bottom and are the ones who are the reason behind their formulaic design. From a tech PoV they're no where near, gameplay no where near, world building no where near (and Ubi are actually good at building worlds). I enjoy many Ubi games as "fast food" type games, but they're not even close to other great non-R* studios despite having some of the biggest teams in the industry.

 

8 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

Even if they don't have the same budget and manpower as Rockstar and it's 30 or whatever studios, does it really matter? All the money combined with all the people in the world can't make a good game if they're not told to.

 

It does matter, is the thing. Rockstar have thousands of developers, virtually limitless budgets and the most development time in the industry - on top of also having a sh*t ton of experience in making these massive games. They're too big to fail, which as a concept is sh*tty but it's how it is.

 

I don't think we live in a reality where game devs capable of competing with R* with GTA-likes are sitting there waiting for R* to fail before entering that genre either tbh. They won't touch online cause GTAO owns that space, but after thinking about it I do reckon a big reason for the lack of activity in the genre in recent years is tech related. I hope so, anyway, and hope tech like UE5 will give devs encouragement to take stabs at that genre again.

[universetwisters]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

They need way more than writing staff. Their leadership is rotten from top to bottom and are the ones who are the reason behind their formulaic design. From a tech PoV they're no where near, gameplay no where near, world building no where near (and Ubi are actually good at building worlds). I enjoy many Ubi games as "fast food" type games, but they're not even close to other great non-R* studios despite having some of the biggest teams in the industry.

 

idk man maybe I'm a bit of an optimist (really funny when you go through my posts in this thread :V) but I really did enjoy Watch Dog's worldbuilding and gameplay. Yeah Legion was crap and we aren't gonna talk about it and some of the tech noir stuff gets a luddite like me, who still has a flip phone, incredibly confused when it talks about hacking stuff, but it's still a fun ride from start to finish. I agree, they need a restructuring from the bottom up to get to Rockstar's level, but WD2 and WD1 are good starts. Hell, Sleeping Dogs was good too, but RIP to the developers.

 

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

I don't think we live in a reality where game devs capable of competing with R* with GTA-likes are sitting there waiting for R* to fail before entering that genre either tbh. They won't touch online cause GTAO owns that space, but after thinking about it I do reckon a big reason for the lack of activity in the genre in recent years is tech related. I hope so, anyway, and hope tech like UE5 will give devs encouragement to take stabs at that genre again.

 

I really tried not to jack myself off about this because its personal anecdotes and reeks of "my dad works at rockstar" but me and some friends a few years ago used to be working on an indie GTA clone on the unreal engine. It wasn't 1:1 intended to compete with GTA but, to be a throwback to the older III era games, I think it did alright until infighting and loss of capital put it in an early grave. It's tedious, but with some stuff available on the unreal marketplace (as well as stuff made entirely from scratch), you can make a pretty good base for chaos.

 

 

Of course a literal open sandbox made by indie developers isn't comparable to a complete GTA game and I agree with you. Not only that but have you seen some of the indie gta clones out there? It's literally Sturgeon's Law out there. But a team that has their sh*t together? Or a proper small studio working in UE5 with some grants available from Epic Games? I'm pretty optimistic that there's a chance that there can be something that's made that makes rockstar say "f*ck we gotta step our game up".

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

But a team that has their sh*t together? Or a proper small studio working in UE5 with some grants available from Epic Games? I'm pretty optimistic that there's a chance that there can be something that's made that makes rockstar say "f*ck we gotta step our game up".

 

In a nutshell, this is our disagreement.

 

I think a team could put out something good and successful in it's own right in that space but not something that will touch the sides at R* because ultimately they will never be able to compete with 5k devs, $300m+ budgets and 5-7 years of development led by some of the most experienced in the industry with bespoke tech.

 

And I think ultimately when you look at the open world urban crime genre (including WD, which is not quite full on crime in the way GTA/SR is) I think I'm right about the first, I'm harsh on WD cause I think it's a genre that really highlights Ubi's weaknesses in open world gameplay where as something like FC or AC especially play to their strengths, but Saints Row and Mafia do well when the games they make are good.

 

But yea, I don't think it needs R* to fail or for GTA VI to flop (which it won't) for someone else to do well in the genre, I mean it's not like GTA comes out as every year as we all know, there's plenty of room to drop a good single player (or co-op) game in the genre. A mix of development cost, tech and maybe comparisions with GTA might be the reason they don't exist, but for the latter I mean there's incredible shooters and RPG's that exist and devs do still plod away in those genres still.

[universetwisters]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

I'm harsh on WD cause I think it's a genre that really highlights Ubi's weaknesses in open world gameplay where as something like FC or AC especially play to their strengths

 

You should give them a break they're trying their best!!!!!!!!!!

 

NGL ever since the new Saints Row got announced, I looked at Watch Dogs 2 and was like "yknow you aint that bad"

[DexMacLeod]

1 hour ago, universetwisters said:

 

 

NGL ever since the new Saints Row got announced, I looked at Watch Dogs 2 and was like "yknow you aint that bad"

 

I think Watch Dogs 2 is still pretty underrated. It does gunplay, enemy A.I. and on foot controls better than Rockstar ever has. If only Ubisoft could just figure out how to make driving a vehicle feel good. 

[universetwisters]

7 minutes ago, DexMacLeod said:

 

I think Watch Dogs 2 is still pretty underrated. It does gunplay, enemy A.I. and on foot controls better than Rockstar ever has. If only Ubisoft could just figure out how to make driving a vehicle feel good. 

 

Honestly the one thing I genuinely loved about WD2 over V are the police chases. The cops don't just spawn in front of you and find you through walls and behind cover, they'll actually chase you. Yeah the helicopters are a pain in the ass but I mean, you can hack them off so its kinda part of the game. 

 

It's def good enough to where I don't call it shovelware or forgettable, but there's still a lot that can be done with it. It's a shame Legion went backwards instead of forwards but still, WD2 isnt that bad outside of its narrative but its not like that's the fault of the developers

[Jason]

24 minutes ago, DexMacLeod said:

I think Watch Dogs 2 is still pretty underrated. It does gunplay, enemy A.I. and on foot controls better than Rockstar ever has. If only Ubisoft could just figure out how to make driving a vehicle feel good. 

 

Don't really agree, tbh. I played WD2 very recently and tried it on both kb+m and controller and felt the gunplay was pretty underwhelming and I was actually expecting it to be quite good cause my memories of WD1 gunplay on controller was that it felt good. R* gunplay on controller is dodgy as f*ck cause it's built around lock on but the feeling of shooting (especially in RDR2) is really good due to ragdoll, gore, sound, etc. On foot is more iffy cause there's absolutely a clunkyness to R* open world controls that can make moving around funky at times but I distinctly remember running into issues with the controls in WD2 as well especially when it came to stuff like the cover system and the parkour stuff. And yea, driving sucks massively in Ubi open world games. As for AI, it has the same dogsh*t AI that every other game w/ stealth has these days. Throw rocks to distract and then lose all intelligence the moment they lose line of sight and all that. R* are not much better, though enemy AI in general hasn't really improved in yonks in any game.

 

WD2 wasn't a bad game but I don't really dig anything they've done open world wise with the WD series. I wanna explore open worlds but WD's open worlds do nothing for me, the exploration in their open worlds is pretty generic to begin with but an urban setting just puts those shortcomings front and centre.

 

I'm perhaps being mean but I heard a lot of good things about WD2 as it's sorta become a cult hit but I sank a few hours into it and come away thinking it's... not really very good.

 

(MP3 wipes the floor with any Ubi has ever done shooting wise btw but I assume you meant open world games lol)

[universetwisters]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

I'm perhaps being mean but I heard a lot of good things about WD2 as it's sorta become a cult hit but I sank a few hours into it and come away thinking it's... not really very good.

 

Honestly the story and characters are rubbish and it feels like a dry run to the Saints Row reboot. But if you just stick to roaming around or can mentally filter the cringe characters out while you do the missions, it's a really fun time. And you don't get the cops called on you if you stand next to a pedestrian for more than a few seconds! If I can ask, what do you think makes WD's open worlds feel generic compared to Rockstar's?

 

 

 

4:19 talks about the civilians. tho I think civilians in RDR2 arent as stupid as they are in V tho I dunno

[Jason]

45 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

If I can ask, what do you think makes WD's open worlds feel generic compared to Rockstar's?

 

There's no story to it. Exploration exists to further your progression - exp, crafting materials, skill points, etc. Beyond that there's very little story to the open world. I know there's some little moments like hacking into someones house and catching them wanking off or trying to commit suicide (one of the ones I found in WD2 lol) but yea, WD2 encouraged me to explore to find progression stuff and cosmetics, not because there's stories to be found. To put it another way, the best open worlds present you with a view with interesting looking things dotted around that make you go "oh, I wanna check that out and see what's there", Ubi open worlds present you with an in-game map chocked with icons that make you go "well I need to go through this way to my next mission so I might as well stop and get the crafting stuff and skill points".

 

I'm not someone opposed to the check list open world, again, fast food games, but at the same time I don't think they're good open worlds.

 

50 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

4:19 talks about the civilians. tho I think civilians in RDR2 arent as stupid as they are in V tho I dunno

 

Listen V's AI isn't fantastic but comparing a 2013 360 gen games ped AI to WD2's is a bit, ya'know. RDR2's wipes the floor with it regardless.

 

But as for WD's whole thing with peds, I will give it brownie points for giving every ped a name and a tiny background and I know you can hack into some texts and phone calls and get these little stories which is nice... but more so something you end up doing for the sake of it rather than because it's engaging. Beyond that the peds just walk around doing really nothing, not giving any sort of life into the world. The video also talks about V's AI feeling like cannon fodder which is fair, but as cannon fodder they are far more fun to f*ck with than WD peds.

 

Again, V's not great in this area and direct comparisions with RDR2 is unfair given RDR2's stance on NPC's was allowed to be quality over quantity cause of the setting, but I do suspect they'll build on what they did with RDR2 on VI, the interactivity stuff in particular.

[DexMacLeod]

40 minutes ago, Jason said:

Don't really agree, tbh. I played WD2 very recently and tried it on both kb+m and controller and felt the gunplay was pretty underwhelming and I was actually expecting it to be quite good cause my memories of WD1 gunplay on controller was that it felt good. R* gunplay on controller is dodgy as f*ck cause it's built around lock on but the feeling of shooting (especially in RDR2) is really good due to ragdoll, gore, sound, etc. 

 

Yeah, as far as gunplay I meant more the way gunfights play out. I like being able to scout the location, plan my approach, and attempt to stealth my way through it before inevitably failing and just trying to survive. It's a little different every time, whereas, the way Rockstar do it it's the exact same mission every time you play it. I couldn't really care less about the "feel" of the guns or the sounds. I only ever really notice how the enemies fall if it's super distracting and the only games I can think of that are like that are GTA IV and RDR.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

On foot is more iffy cause there's absolutely a clunkyness to R* open world controls that can make moving around funky at times but I distinctly remember running into issues with the controls in WD2 as well especially when it came to stuff like the cover system and the parkour stuff.

 

I felt like Watch Dogs 2 really perfected it. Being on foot was just really smooth to me. Legion took a massive step backwards though. The cover system got almost RDR2 levels of clunky. 

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

And yea, driving sucks massively in Ubi open world games.

 

I don't really get it. It's open world games with cars in general. Rockstar seems to be the only ones who can do better than functional driving in a game.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

As for AI, it has the same dogsh*t AI that every other game w/ stealth has these days. Throw rocks to distract and then lose all intelligence the moment they lose line of sight and all that. R* are not much better, though enemy AI in general hasn't really improved in yonks in any game.

 

Yeah, for my tastes, I'll take dosh*t AI over whatever Rockstar's been doing for decades. It's just mindlessly shooting hive-minded robots as you work you're way down a hallway. It kills the replicability for me.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

WD2 wasn't a bad game but I don't really dig anything they've done open world wise with the WD series. I wanna explore open worlds but WD's open worlds do nothing for me, the exploration in their open worlds is pretty generic to begin with but an urban setting just puts those shortcomings front and centre.

 

Yeah, I find the older I get the less I seem to care about that stuff. I want an open world that's engaging and playable rather than interesting to look at. That's one of the thing's I really like about Ubisoft's worlds. NPCs might not be as interesting to people watch but the entire suite of gameplay features are available on the map in free roam without ever having to trigger a cut scene.

 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

(MP3 wipes the floor with any Ubi has ever done shooting wise btw but I assume you meant open world games lol)

 

Meh... kinda just more of the same mindless shoot 'em up to me. You're kinda forced to stay on the move, though, if I remember correctly. Better than GTA, for sure.

 

To be clear, I like all of these games. I feel like they're all pretty far from being perfect and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I think Rockstar tends to focus more on the presentation and the gameplay is sort of just something you put up with to keep discovering the story. Whereas Ubisoft these days is the opposite. I play those for the gameplay and the story is just there to give me a little bit of context. 

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, DexMacLeod said:

Yeah, as far as gunplay I meant more the way gunfights play out. I like being able to scout the location, plan my approach, and attempt to stealth my way through it before inevitably failing and just trying to survive. It's a little different every time, whereas, the way Rockstar do it it's the exact same mission every time you play it. I couldn't really care less about the "feel" of the guns or the sounds. I only ever really notice how the enemies fall if it's super distracting and the only games I can think of that are like that are GTA IV and RDR.

 

The thing with that in Ubi games is they build entire games on that premise - approach from any objective, use environment to distract braindead AI to stealth, or go in all guns blazing. When you build entire games around that (WD, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon...) the combat has to be really good with lots of room for improv and dynamism and I don't think a single Ubi game has that. Their combat simply isn't that good, in any of their games, IMO. So what you end up getting is a veeeeeeeeeeery repetitive gameplay loop of clearing out bases or hideouts or w/e and cause there's a bajillion of them due to their open world design what started as a methodical approach to each one typically devolves into whatever is the quickest for you.

 

6 minutes ago, DexMacLeod said:

Yeah, for my tastes, I'll take dosh*t AI over whatever Rockstar's been doing for decades. It's just mindlessly shooting hive-minded robots as you work you're way down a hallway. It kills the replicability for me.

 

I know what you're talking about and I agree but I don't think it's an AI issue, it's a level/combat design issue. R*'s level/combat design and difficulty design is genuinely a bit rubbish. Their combat scenario designs are basically just throw bodies at you and call it a day, and if they want it to be hard, throw more bodies at you and give them aimbot. They've never been any different and haven't ever really put out well designed and thought out combat missions but I don't think they're alone in that. Open world combat design has been a sh*t show for yonks, in large part thanks to Ubi's formula catching on.

 

10 minutes ago, DexMacLeod said:

I don't really get it. It's open world games with cars in general. Rockstar seems to be the only ones who can do better than functional driving in a game.

 

I've always wondered if it's to do with the physics tbh. Ubi's The Crew shares many of the same issues I have with driving in other Ubi games (WD, Far Cry), the cars just feel like on rail tanks, you can really feel it when you take jumps. Compare that to R* where cars feel and behave way more natural in general, and again, you can really feel it when you take jumps, crash, roll, etc.

 

Like I said, I use the term fast food to describe Ubi type games. I enjoy them for what they are but I think most are solid 8's out of 10 at most but I don't think I can name a single aspect of any Ubi game I've played in recent years - AC's, FC, WD and more - and pick out a single aspect and say that was genuine quality.

 

As I typed that I actually thought of one, which weirdly enough is their female protagonists, but there's a whoooooooole sh*tshow of a reason why they're so good (tl;dr devs wanted to do female protags, higher ups wanted male). Kassandra was fantastic in particular.

[universetwisters]

42 minutes ago, Jason said:

Listen V's AI isn't fantastic but comparing a 2013 360 gen games ped AI to WD2's is a bit, ya'know. RDR2's wipes the floor with it regardless.

 

What if I told you WD1's AI was about the same? Yea I guess you could say that there not being much improvement from WD1 to WD2 is a setback but, for the time, I'd say that the AI in WD1 is better than the AI in V

 

 

2 months is long enough to visit Los Santos? What about 9 years?!?!?!?!

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

What if I told you WD1's AI was about the same? Yea I guess you could say that there not being much improvement from WD1 to WD2 is a setback but, for the time, I'd say that the AI in WD1 is better than the AI in V

 

Yea that's not praise lol. Again, I get the angle you're coming from but I'd still objectively disagree, I can get where the opinion that WD AI is more interesting comes from but ultimately I think the reasons why are gimmicky and don't really add anything, where as GTA V's AI, which I agree isn't great, is more fun to f*ck with.

 

Both games suffer from the same problem though which is that AI in general hasn't improved much in a long time. It's been an aspect of games that's been on the backburner development wise for a looooooong time, for whatever reason. I did really enjoy RDR2 AI though, especially being able to interact with them which when you put it in a bottle so to speak was a pretty shallow system but in the bigger picture is a feature that is honestly light years ahead of anything else in the genre, so I really do hope we can interact in similar ways in VI.

[sabitsuki]

Idk man, watchdogs, or any ubisoft title for that matter, seems like a pretty poor example to be used as a comparison to gta because, well, theyre ubisoft, seeing as theyre the marvel of the vg industry. If anything, a game like sleeping dogs is a better example to be used.

 

When gems like sleeping dogs are made by a relatively small, heavily laid off AA/AAA dev team with smaller maps, tight time constraints, working off a dead ip and still manage to have a great story, a kickass soundtrack and fun linear yet unpredictable gameplay loop, I think it's still possible for devs to make competent games under a tight budget. UFG (rip) doesnt have the big numbers and dollars like rockstar does, and the game wasnt technically or mechanically impressive with a tv series-length storyline like rdr 2, but man, ill be damned if sleeping dogs wasnt as fun as, if not more fun than gta v at times.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2012/aug/30/sleeping-dogs-hit-title-game

 

It really all comes down to design vision, gameplay mechanics and atmosphere i guess. Greenlighting a project however is a whole other thing but what do i know man im not a game dev

Edited September 14 by sabitsuki

[B Dawg]

10 hours ago, DexMacLeod said:

I think Watch Dogs 2 is still pretty underrated. It does gunplay, enemy A.I. and on foot controls better than Rockstar ever has. If only Ubisoft could just figure out how to make driving a vehicle feel good. 

Especially AI in general, there's a good video on it:

 

Also can we stop comparing everything to GTA V? It's far from being the best GTA. It's only strength is presentation. because if you dive deep into the gameplay itself, you'll find a lot of problems (especially outside of missions since mission scripting helps to hide the game's flaws, maybe that's why they're so scripted to begin with). R* doesn't seem to care about making the gameplay itself good anymore (haven't played RDR2 but from what I've seen it seems to have the same problem). Making a competitor should be easy because R* aren't setting a high bar (outside of presentation), but the problem always seems to be management (except maybe in Volition's case, don't know what the hell happened there, they had that excuse for everything that happened in the THQ days but not now). Imagine what all the Ubisoft studios could do, if they weren't part of Ubisoft or another crappy publisher, if they had R*'s autonomy.

Edited September 14 by B Dawg

[Lock n' Stock]

4 hours ago, B Dawg said:

Also can we stop comparing everything to GTA V? It's far from being the best GTA. It's only strength is presentation. because if you dive deep into the gameplay itself, you'll find a lot of problems (especially outside of missions since mission scripting helps to hide the game's flaws, maybe that's why they're so scripted to begin with). R* doesn't seem to care about making the gameplay itself good anymore (haven't played RDR2 but from what I've seen it seems to have the same problem). Making a competitor should be easy because R* aren't setting a high bar (outside of presentation), but the problem always seems to be management (except maybe in Volition's case, don't know what the hell happened there, they had that excuse for everything that happened in the THQ days but not now). Imagine what all the Ubisoft studios could do, if they weren't part of Ubisoft or another crappy publisher, if they had R*'s autonomy.

I wouldn't say so for RDR2 (probably the last truly great title R* ever did, unless GTA VI surprises us), but GTA V was the definition of "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle". Enjoyable game for what it was, but certainly not one of the best in the series.

[Creed Bratton]

21 hours ago, Jason said:

There's no story to it. Exploration exists to further your progression - exp, crafting materials, skill points, etc. Beyond that there's very little story to the open world.

I agree. But it does have its charms though. You can find people engaged in all sorts of activities that you'd expect to see in certain areas of the city, which is kinda nice. It can feel like a real place. But only sometimes. Ubisoft just felt short of accomplishing what R* managed to do back in 2001. Despite their best efforts, the illusion falls apart eventually.

 

Ubisoft doesn't know how to pull off a world that feels truly natural and real. A part of that can be attributed to the very concept of the game. Locations in WD are supposed to be real American cities. But smart cities that look like Chicago and San Francisco in WD simply don't exist, which makes the atmosphere all wrong. And you can only stretch suspension of disbelief so far. A bigger part of that is just something that eludes them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it just feels wrong. You can sense it. Sort of like how Neo sensed that something is wrong with his world.

 

20 hours ago, Jason said:

As I typed that I actually thought of one, which weirdly enough is their female protagonists, but there's a whoooooooole sh*tshow of a reason why they're so good (tl;dr devs wanted to do female protags, higher ups wanted male). Kassandra was fantastic in particular.

Evie as well. Syndicate could have been a terrific game if Ubisoft was only allowed to do what they seem to have wanted - a game set in Victorian London with a female protagonist.

Edited Wednesday at 09:41 PM by Creed Bratton

[universetwisters]

Volition really said no to Rim Jobs but said yes to WHAT THE f*ck 17????????????????

 

Edited Thursday at 09:49 PM by universetwisters
fix pic

[sabitsuki]

10 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Volition really said no to Rim Jobs but said yes to WHAT THE f*ck 17????????????????

 

Bro they said f*ck its so funny!!!!!!!!

[Datalvarezguy]

12 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Volition really said no to Rim Jobs but said yes to WHAT THE f*ck 17????????????????

 

Remember, being nasty is okay when you're doing reddit humor.

 

But remember guyze, having mature moments in your CRIME GAME IS BAD!!!! WE SHOULD TOTALLY AVOID THAT, now watch as we fill our asset flip with crass humor written by a child instead!

 

-Volition, unironically 

[Lock n' Stock]

3 hours ago, Datalvarezguy said:

15 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Volition really said no to Rim Jobs but said yes to WHAT THE f*ck 17????????????????

 

Remember, being nasty is okay when you're doing reddit humor.

 

But remember guyze, having mature moments in your CRIME GAME IS BAD!!!! WE SHOULD TOTALLY AVOID THAT, now watch as we fill our asset flip with crass humor written by a child instead!

 

-Volition, unironically 

This bizarre live-action TV spot has moments like this as well. Some chick (at 0:32) literally has BDSM sex slaves on a leash.

 

 

Speaking of which, why does this corny-ass trailer seem to grasp the tone of the series better than the actual game does? Those dudes at the start are more gangsta-looking than anyone in the entire game, lmfao

[Zello]

 

[Lock n' Stock]

16 minutes ago, Zello said:

 

Just watched it! Yep, he gives it the trashing it deserves really. When he gives it a 2/10 (I expected a 3 or 4), you know you've shat the bed hard.

 

I guess Violation not "backing down" didn't pay off so good.

Edited Friday at 06:31 PM by Lock n' Stock