Watch_Dogs by Ubisoft

[DavidGraham]

@David : how is the game ? Does the city feel as real as G tA V? Are the activities fun?

From the gameplay vids, it seems the game has no personality. Does it feel average or above average?

Definitely above average, it has an interesting combination of SplinterCell cover and stealth system, Farcry3's crafting and AC's parkour as well as it's own mechanisms of hacking, so it's a pretty unique experience, I actually I enjoyed my time wandering the streets hunting for graphics

I am also in it for the multiplayer, it's been a while since we played an open world adventure game online on the PC "last was GTA4", so I am excited for that.

 

[BRiT]

*AHEM* Friendly reminder that talks of piracy and DRM circumvention are not allowed on the forums. On top of that, this is the CONSOLE section. Please take the PC DRM hell to the PC section. kthxbi!

 

[Jedi2016]

The softness of the console versions appears to be a YouTube issue. Direct captures folks posted over on GAF (PS4 version, anyway) look a lot sharper.

Still really on the fence about this one.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The softness of the console versions appears to be a YouTube issue. Direct captures folks posted over on GAF (PS4 version, anyway) look a lot sharper. Still really on the fence about this one.

Wait for the pro reviews then make your decision. It's the smart thing to do

 

[Lager]

From GAF PS4 footage :

http://www.mediafire.com/download/e...+-+My+Great+Capture+-+2014-05-25+07-03-05.mp4

imo it looks pretty good.

 

[deathindustrial]

GTA5 seemed to be almost anti-derp in that any action that caused an explosion meant pretty much instant shark cops so any experimentation with the physics engine was punished. Based on Twitch streams of this game I get the impression they want the player to explore and try things and it definitely looks like there is fun to be had.

Cheers

 

[Jedi2016]

Wait for the pro reviews then make your decision. It's the smart thing to do

Hell no.. lol. I have no faith whatsoever in the "pro review" system. There's a rule they don't talk about in games journalism, where the production budget and marketing budget are directly proportional to the review score. Any major AAA game is guaranteed a good review score just on the basis that it's a AAA game. Scores on games like this have no relation whatsoever to whether it's any good, or fun to play.

No, I'm waiting for the user reviews. Impressions from actual gamers and having my questions answered honestly instead of via marketing materials. Like so:

Question: Can I get to the top of that building?
Ubisoft: We want the player to have total freedom. Watch_Dogs is a truly immersive experience in which we allow the player to do whatever they want. You can navigate the city in any way you can dream of, the sky's the limit. Go where you want, how you want.

Notice how there's not an actual answer in there. As opposed to:

Question: Can I get to the top of that building?
GAF User: No.

See? So much better. And, despite far fewer words, much more informative. And disappointing, really. GTAV hit the nail on the head with the "open world" thing. There is nowhere that's out of reach. I'm pretty sure WD isn't going to be like that, you'll be stuck on the ground. All those skyscrapers? Just for looks.

 

[orangpelupa]

From GAF PS4 footage :

http://www.mediafire.com/download/e...+-+My+Great+Capture+-+2014-05-25+07-03-05.mp4

imo it looks pretty good.

downloading that, NOW wheeeeee~

dont know why, i feel hyped with WD more than GTAV

 

[fearsomepirate]

What I've noticed from the gameplay vids is that many people are racing about the streets like it's GTA. Whereas the gameplay videos that Ubisoft show are on foot, letting you soak up the atmosphere. If you want to soak up the personality of a place, you don't drive through it at 60mph!

But how people play really does change the vibe of the game. If you watch the Gamespot's hour-long preview from Thursday (don't!, no really.. don't!) the game looks terrible. Whereas if you watch the IGN Live's hour-long preview from Friday, the game looks a lot more interesting. Gamespot are playing it like GTA, IGN are playing it like Watch_Dogs, hacking the environment, luring enemies, using stealth.

The core multiplayer looks great in JackFrags's stream.

The problem with giving a lot of options is that players will usually take the path of least resistance. For example, once I figured out that the easies, quickest way to close an Obliviong gate was by sprinting all the way to the top of the tower and grabbing the rune, I never did anything else. Or like how in Just Cause 2, the fastest way to get most things done was via attack chopper. You *could* walk on foot and take in the atmosphere, or you could just get where you're going already.

 

[DieH@rd]

Watch Dogs, Playstation 4, capture card

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/14260973151_c7f9a2d92b_o.png
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2932/14077644669_5d22fd90a6_o.png
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2898/14241185836_8bff965243_o.png

Aliasing can be spotted, but overall, looks great!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Hell no.. lol. I have no faith whatsoever in the "pro review" system. There's a rule they don't talk about in games journalism, where the production budget and marketing budget are directly proportional to the review score.

While that has definitely happened (Jeff Gerstmann at Gamespot), that's quite some allegation you are aiming at hundreds of journalists. Just wow.

But on your point, how do you know which opinions on GAF you can trust. I'm a regular there but the signal:noise (or truth:bullshit) ratio isn't good. People confidently state things which aren't true, not always because they intend to deceive, but because they don't know any better but think they do.

The problem with giving a lot of options is that players will usually take the path of least resistance.

If you just want to get to rush through to the end of the game then sure. But if you bought the game because, like me, you actually want to enjoy playing it, then you'll do what is most enjoyable to you. That might be guns blazing, stealth, hacking, or a bit of everything.

 

[orangpelupa]

watched the video, the game does look flat. Maybe because the lack of "glow" effect on light sources? shadowing and fog?

become something like this?

Spoiler

EDIT:theimage
the "before"

Spoiler

 

[Shifty Geezer]

watched the video, the game does look flat. Maybe because the lack of "glow" effect on light sources? shadowing and fog?

It's because the lighting lacks decent shadowing. Look at the street-lamp in your example. The light-bulb doesn't cast any shadow with the arm it's on. It lights the pole as if the arm wasn't even there. There's probably only one shadow-casting light in the engine and the other lightsources are without shadows (headlights aren't casting shadows either).

 

[orangpelupa]

It's because the lighting lacks decent shadowing. Look at the street-lamp in your example. The light-bulb doesn't cast any shadow with the arm it's on. It lights the pole as if the arm wasn't even there. There's probably only one shadow-casting light in the engine and the other lightsources are without shadows (headlights aren't casting shadows either).

yeah it seems the shadowing is the culprit. on photoshop it getting better "depth" after adding fake shadows

 

[Jedi2016]

While that has definitely happened (Jeff Gerstmann at Gamespot), that's quite some allegation you are aiming at hundreds of journalists. Just wow.

Wait and see. There will not be one negative review of the game on any major news site. Not. One. And very few, if any, will even mention any negative points about the game. And do you really think I'm the only one leveling these "allegations"? Please. Everyone knows it, they just don't talk about it. Don't bite the hand that feeds. We are not IGN's customers, remember that.

But on your point, how do you know which opinions on GAF you can trust. I'm a regular there but the signal:noise (or truth:bullshit) ratio isn't good. People confidently state things which aren't true, not always because they intend to deceive, but because they don't know any better but think they do.

All of them. Law of averages. I've been doing this a long time, I'm well versed on how to sift through the chaff.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

"Depth" is a psychological interpretation of the lighting in a scene. It 'grades' from flat (no shadowing) through more-convincing (strong shadows, self-shadows) to more realistic (AO, baked GI, perhaps PBL ) to realistic (realtime, dynamic GI).

A low polygon game with lousy textures rendered in a great GI renderer will look like real photo-textured cardboard models, whereas high poly, highly detailed, sophisticatedly shaded models in a shadowless world will look more like a poor photo montage.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Wait and see. There will not be one negative review of the game on any major news site. Not. One. And very few, if any, will even mention any negative points about the game.

I think you've been avoiding mainstream gaming sites for too long. EDGE, IGN, Eurogamer et all, always list the pros and cons of games. I've never, as in never, seen a game with no cons - not even those that score crazy high.

 

[ArcticCircle]

list the pros and cons of games.

Important thing to remember that pros and cons can be different things for different people. If, for example, someone would say "Driving mechanics in Watch Dogs are more arcade then in GTA IV". For me this would be a huge con but for some others (who hated GTA 4 driving mechanics for any reason), it might be a pro. Thus it's almost impossible to write review that avoids all negative issues for all the potential buyers.

I know what I like and I find most of reviews helpful in one way or the other. Scores are usually correct too in bigger picture (as in metacritic score or similar). Assassin's Creed Black Flag score is 84... I can deal with that, it was a fun game. Alpha Protocol score is 72. With over ten full runs I can agree with that. ect ect.

Watch Dogs is bit more demanding then I expected so I most likely won't buy it right away. My poor i5-3750k can't handle it. I should have bought some i7 CPU.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Watch Dogs is bit more demanding then I expected so I most likely won't buy it right away. My poor i5-3750k can't handle it. I should have bought some i7 CPU.

Have you actually tested that as I find it insane that that would be the case, We've seen other examples recently of CPU requirements that turned out to be completely unwarranted.

I'm fairly certain far lesser CPU's will provide an almost identical experience. If not, then serious shame on the developers for not providing a Mantle path (or just a better optimised DX11 path).

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The has already been pushed back once and that must have cost Ubisoft a LOT of money. Expectations on PC sales are also probably quite a lot lower than on consoles, so it makes little sense to delay the game further with such a big feature. Maybe the engine isn't as easy to port to Mantle either; based on some links from the DX12 topic, it seems to me that it could be a complex job.

If the sales justify the investment, they can still release a patch sometime later.