I was really, really excited about Watch_Dogs (underscore for life) when it was announced and shown off at E3. It seemed like this really great, really new and fresh-feeling thing that was going to ratchet up new IPs again and kick some ass. It also seemed like it was going to look damn pretty while it did it, too.
It's, uh....it's not looking like it's any of these things anymore. In truth, I just don't know what the hell Watch_Dogs is going to be like anymore. I'm not exactly convinced the developers do either.
Watch_Dogs doesn't know if it wants to be a badass hacker simulator, a Grand Theft Auto-wannabe with electronic shenannigans, a rudimentary third-person shooter with driving elements, or even if it wants to be a super serious spy romp, or a wacky "Jerks with powerful tools" simulator. The game gives off the impression that it wants to be all of these things specifically to try and cater and sell to everyone, and that little experiment has been tried and tried again, always with less-than-impressive results. And yet everyone still tries it anyway.
The above video is where the cracks in my belief -really- started to show. To that point, Watch_Dogs had seemed to want to go down the humorless (aside from the badass Asian dude rockin' the Kazuma Kiryu look) "I WILL HAVE REVENGE" route, which can be fine if done right. The tension, the bitterness, the internal anguish and hatred festering in the main character, they're all very gripping and driving with the right writing applied to them. However, that's a folly to start, since an open-world game is prone to mischief the likes of which that makes grown men giggle - something that inherently destroys that mood, and one of the big problems people had with GTA IV. (Rather, thematic disconnect all around, not just the revenge plot)
However, adding a side mission where you almost comically pass out only to awaken piloting a giant fuck-off spider-tank (with only six legs) bent on destroying everything in sight?
Nah. Not feeling it.
At least, not from the mood that Watch_Dogs had fostered before that point. The Not-So-Spider-Tank is silly and dumb as hell and I love it because of that, but it just doesn't make sense and I'm almost disappointed in it. I don't want to be disappointed in a giant fuck-off tanks in a somewhat destructible environment with plenty of people and cars to stomp. That is the direct opposite of what I want! Yet, this is what Ubisoft has reduced me to and I'm not too happy about it.
The other main bone of contention (Literally the only other thing, really, since the "lack of coherent direction" is fairly all-encompassing) revolves around the fact that the graphics and presentation has slid around quite a lot in the time from the initial reveal (Which everyone knew was bullshit anyway) to now which has seen some -dastardly- looking screenshots and gifs (that is a comparison, btw) in the meanwhile, all of which indicating that the game is going to look...well, not -bad- (except that screenshot), but not Next Gen, which at least Assassin's Creed 4 managed to do, and quite capably. Part of that has to do with splitting to last-gen as well, which is ultimately the wrong way about it, but part of the blame has to fall on the clear mismanagement that the game has seen in the time it's been developed.
So what do I even want from Watch_Dogs anymore? I don't....don't really know. I'll have to do what I do best in these situations: assemble a list.
If this is another Third-Person Cover Shooter, I'm going to be pissed. Thus, I don't want gunplay to be a -major- portion of the game. It's going to be moreso than, say, Sleeping Dogs' gunplay, but I don't want GTA-levels.
The Spider-Tank? I don't even know....I guess I hope the other "Cyber Trips" aren't as silly and inconsistent? Or maybe I want them to be moreso.
I want Jordi Chin to be a major part of the story. I do not want to go five missions without seeing that dude because he is awesome.
A little depth to Aiden would be nice. "REVENGE" is good and all, but....yeah.
Cars don't control like ass.
-Locked- Framerate. It'll probably be 30 FPS, and if it dips below 30, that is downright embarrassing.
I want the Electronics/Hacking stuff to be -useful- and -integral-, not a neat thing you can use -or- completely ignore in favor of BOOLETTS
Are we going to get any of those? I don't know. I have absolutely no clue. I just know that I want them and if they're not present, I'm just....really going to be disappointed with the game. Don't do this to me, Ubisoft.
I feel like asking this game to not just be a cover-based shooter at this point is moot, but goddamnit, I can hope
Back when Watch Dogs was announced, few people were really proclaiming that "the writing is on the wall" or anything of the sort for the Wii U, and the fact that the game was announced to be on the Wii U was less a surprise and more expected. Especially being an Ubisoft game, which has been one of the few staunch supporters of the system (even if that support is waning a bit), it just seemed an inevitability. As the Wii U has begun to flounder, support has tapered off, but at least users more or less always had Watch Dogs to look forward to. A proper new IP with a spin that promised to make the Gamepad invaluable if used correctly with a hardcore draw that, had it released when it was supposed to, might've drawn in quite a bit of business. As such, it's not going to do that, and its existence was even in question for but the briefest of moments.
What has now been blamed on a 'glitch' was a strange occurrence that disallowed GameStops in Italy (and other regions, including America) to pre-order the Wii U version of Watch Dogs. That's a problem! Generally such a thing is a precursor to an unspecified delay (another one would kill the game anyway, and it would've hit the other platforms at least) or an outright cancellation, with pre-order cancellations going out shortly thereafter. It didn't get to that point, but given the Wii U's standing and Ubisoft's now-shaky faith in the system, many were almost assured that it was a foregone conclusion. Especially when Ubisoft went the weird route (considering how this all resolved) and dropped the classic "We have nothing to report at this time" instead of just going "Nah, it's still coming out, I don't know what's up." I suppose it's called the company line because it's the line the company wants you to use all the time, but still, there has to be -some- exceptions.
As of now, it's more or less gone back to the situation as it was before - the Wii U version is still expected, but we're still at a lack of general information for the game itself. It still doesn't have a release date after the delay it was subjected to, meaning we have no idea just what's going on with it. And more criminally, we're still not sure just how much of the focus will be on the cool hacking stuff it was premised on, and how much will be bang bang, shoot mans like a good portion of sandbox games out there. Watch Dogs is at a critical phase where enough time has passed that the initial hype is well and truly gone, and the follow-up pieces have been....lack-luster so far. It needs -something-, some kind of showing or boon that'll place it front and center again with positive public image, but it's hard to tell if that'll happen. Or rather, I doubt it will because Ubisoft gonna Ubisoft.
seriously, I just want it to be good, but I have no idea if it even will be anymore
Still never gets old. It is about the only thing that doesn't.
Ubisoft's CEO recently stated that Ubisoft needs to release open-world games on a regular basis to keep on like they have been. And by 'needs to', he basically means "This is what we're going to do, so just, you know, keep that in mind". It's not really a surprise, considering Ubisoft has...pretty much only been putting out Open-Worlds from everything that springs to memory, and everything currently announced for them is similarly open, but it's something different altogether when it's just stated as such. And it pretty much all just comes down to whether or not you actually like Open-Worlds on whether or not this is good news. Personally? I'm okay with this. If it wasn't for the Assassin's Creed games, I would be ecstatic with this, and therein lies a type of distinction.
I don't quite think anyone has sufficiently nailed down what makes an open-world game 'great' even still, after all this time that it's been popular. I know it was around before them, but you could argue heavily in favor of stating that it was the Elder Scrolls games (specifically Morrowind) and Grand Theft Auto 3 that -really- kicked the Open-World sandbox scene into everyone's eyes. It's not without reason, however, as both of those games were never, ever at a lack of things to do. With Morrowind, that was almost literal given how much content is actually crammed within its confines, but with GTA 3, I think the bulk of it was being most people's first exposure to the type. A large part of it was the freedom it offered, but also how that freedom espoused with a type of 'role-playing' part of ours brains that took the Claude we were playing as and made him -our- Claude. Though, it's hard to think, now, that any of us did anything rather 'unique' with 'our' Claude, given the limitations of the map at that point.
For instance, 'my' Claude, on several occasions simply had enough of people and would take a sniper rifle on the top of the strip club to take out as many of the annoying jerks in the city as he could before anyone finally realized what he was doing and from where. When the authorities arrived in force, it was always a new game to see if he could bolt from the alleyway, hop into a car and make it to the nearby Pay-and-Spray without being witnessed so he could make a clean escape. He...barely ever did. It's hard to imagine now that 'my' Claude was the only one to do that, and I don't suspect he was, but it certainly -felt- a little more like you were 'owning' the character you were given to play around with.
San Andreas, I think, brought us the pinnacle of that type of 'ownership' that the series has seen with CJ. He was customizable enough to make your own, yet he was static enough that he was -always- CJ, just that he was your CJ on top of that. You as the player could decide if your CJ was going to be out-of-shape from his frequent excursions to Cluckin' Bell, or fit and imposing from a daily trip to the gym. You could decide what kind of melee techniques he could use. You could decide what kind of a dresser he was, and whether it was his goal to impress the ladies or not. You could decide if he was really good with a car, a motorcycle, or just -anything- with a steering mechanism. There are innumerable other ways I could expound on this further, but I think you get the point by now.
That kind of ownership is exactly the reason why I am slightly mixed on this announcement, considering it's Ubisoft. On the one hand, Far Cry 3 absolutely nailed this to the damn wall, given that it's so chock full of things that doing a simple thing like getting from Point A to Point B can become some kind of wonderful journey if you're in the mind of 'role-playing' akin to simply the type that my GTA 3 point mentioned. Which, clearly I can be. It's staggering just how dynamic and lush and alive Far Cry 3's world manages to be, and how smartly the developers created some of the gameplay mechanics around that. It's not perfect, of course (If simply because hunting becomes unnecessary after you've crafted everything, when hunting was damn fun) but it came really, really close. Close enough that it ignited a type of verve for Open-World games that I've never had before.
Assassin's Creed, on the other hand, has always been disappointing to me as an Open-World game specifically for that reason. I have never felt attached to my character in an AC game. I have never approached a situation -my- way, but rather simply the 'easiest' way. I have never felt like my AC experience was a unique one, even though it might have been. I'm not sure how many people went bare-handed at every opportunity simply to counter, steal weapon and kill, or constantly used heavy axes as projectile weapons because it was fucking fun, but I have to assume the number is up there. There's simply not enough diversity in any given AC game to make it 'yours'. It was always just a large map sprinkled with 'content' which is a big distinction to make.
Still, it's weird to point at this game and that and say "That got it right" and "That didn't" because not only is it an opinion, obviously, but it's based less on what it did on paper, but how it felt while you were playing it. Gravity Rush, while being a fantastic game, didn't feel like an open world game because there was next to nothing to do other than flying around (which was admittedly so fun). On the other hand, inFamous 2 similarly didn't have -tons- of content, but it didn't feel empty if only because the actual getting around was sort of a meta-game in itself because the ease of movement was so astounding. Dragon's Dogma is astoundingly good at giving you a wide world to explore at your leisure, but still manages to keep you into level-specific areas for the most part by way of rather large, imposing battles awaiting you in other portions of the land; it's cautionary, not mandatory. There are all sorts of qualifiers, but none of them are tangible enough to throw down as 'necessary' or something that will improve the experience by simply being in it.
That's all why I'm simply okay with the knowledge that Ubisoft is going Open-World from here on out (aside from things that they're just publishing). They've shown that they have the capability of putting out something like Far Cry 3, but Assassin's Creed is their bread-and-butter franchise. Watch_Dogs looks like closer to the latter than the former in terms of Ubisoft games, but if it's truly on the level of a Grand Theft Auto title, then that would similarly be fantastic. I just have to question whether or not I wholeheartedly believe that they can pull it off. I'm simply not sure that I can, but it's obvious why I have a little bit of hope for that type of outcome, too.
so I just sort of realized that I really like Open-World games, imagine that
I have to find it a little funny that this seems to be the year (or season, at least) of the Dog. First off, Sleeping Dogs is announced and shown off and looks fan-friggin-tastic, then you have The Last Of Us from Naughty Dog which has been kicking around for a while and was just shown off wonderfully yesterday, and yesterday also brought us something that....as far as I can tell, went completely un-leaked. Somehow. The game is Watch Dogs, a new IP by Ubisoft that is just....well, you have to see it in motion, I think. This is the point in the post where I implore you to watch the above video (Yes, even you Haplo, I know you've been ducking out on doing so, but you know you wanna) because it really just adds a whole other layer of understanding to what I'm going to say about it since, otherwise, it's kind of like me talking about magical things and you being like "Pshyeah, right" even though it's pretty much clearly there in the video.
So, I'm guessing that you'll have only read to this point if you watched the trailer, have it loading so you -can- watch it, or don't care, so with that said, let's just get right into it. The first impression that the game makes is that it is a very, very nice looking game by most standards and in fact looks like Grand Theft Auto IV in presentation when it starts with our protagonist very casually walking down the sidewalk. I will have to mention, of course, that the video shows the game running on PC, which means that this is the very best we could hope for it to look like. Which is very, very good....for PC people, and it leaves us planning to play it on consoles to wonder just how it'll look for us. I imagine the answer is "Very good, but not PC great" which is sufficient, but it is one of the small few factors that has me anticipating this game less than The Last of Us.
That's not really the point, however, as what likely counts a little more than the actual graphics and presentation of the game is the style behind it, and the game has that in spades. It's definitely not completely modern day, but it's not -too- far in the future, either, stopping well short of something like a Blade Runner or Deus Ex setting. Granted, when you're just watching the guy walk down the sidewalk, it's hard to see why I would say it deviates quite a bit from Modern Day, but it becomes pretty obvious soon enough when the Smartphone-like device that the main character has sends out what amounts to digital tentacles to tap into nearby electronics wirelessly. And then even moreso when he walks to the outside of the club, ruins shit and walks into it to show you a guy wearing a four-screen TV over his head that shows literal QR Codes. I'm not convinced this is stuff I would look into seeing in the span of five-ten years and if you did, it would be fairly cutting edge. Which I imagine it is in the game but shut up, I'm tired and this is awesome.
Now, despite the obvious comparisons a lot of people have made (though this might also be an obvious one), I get a really strong Hitman vibe from the way our MC enters the club after distracting the bouncer by bringing down Cell Service in the general area. It's a very Hitman-esque thing to do, to cause some sort of disturbance that allows you to slip in casually so as to not raise suspicion. It's stealthy, but a very -controlled- type of stealth, not one that relies on wall-hugging, vent-crawling and shadow-hopping. It's that whole mindset of being rather subdued, yet incredibly dangerous and deliberate that attaches the thread for me, so to speak, and what draws me to that thinking. Regardless of if it's just me or not (I doubt it's just me), it's a very, very good thing. Really, the whole gameplay is full of very very good things.
When it gets to the cutscene at the bar, it really starts to shine even more, because the dialogue between these two characters and the acting is quite fantastic. The familiarity between the two is clear from just a couple lines between them, and that does a whole lot of good for the interaction between them. The friendly yet derisive back and forth is entertaining just to watch, and some of the lines are really, genuinely enjoyable. My personal favorite is, "Ah...you're using yourself as bait! Oh my God, I love it, because it's such a horrible idea!", though part of that is also in the delivery as well. Later on, when there's another....er....dialogue between our main character and someone else, it's similarly nice despite the entirely different mood. Basically I'm saying that it's nice that Voicework and, well, acting in general has sort of stabilized on a really high level across AAA games, and yet it's still worth pointing out because it is good.
What follows that is something I really really like not only for the technical aspect of it, but because of the friggin' detail work that it requires and I can only hope that it carries over into the Open-World portions of the game rather than just being dependent on missions that require you to scan. Basically what happens is that the MC is prompted to hack into a nearby person's cell phone via a prompt and upon doing so, he hacks into the general vicinity, and is allowed to take a little peek at everyone through the information stored on their smartphone and, I'm assuming, the general 'network' of information out there. This person is a Foster Parent, this person has been Charged with Plagiarism, this person is HIV Positive. They all have names, they all have (likely only semi-unique) portraits/pictures/headshots, and they all have a few bits of other information that is, in most situations, completely superfluous, I would imagine.
It's through this hacking situation that he can zero in on the person who has been watching him since he entered, someone who works for his target, and listen in on her phone conversation with the target. He tells her to keep him there, that he's driving over, and she responds that she's sending the bouncers after him. Dutifully warned, our Main character scans the approaching bouncer, learns that he teaches Krav Maga, and promptly decides to exit fucking stage left. Turning around, he heads for a rear exit and scans another bouncer in the area who, despite being a military man, is dispatched rather swiftly through the use of a Riot Baton out of friggin' nowhere. Or, you know, from the giant coat the MC is wearing, one of the two. Probably the latter.
Upon escaping the club, he approaches the side of the road when he sees an indicator that points out his target's car. In most games this would be breaking the fourth wall, but not really so much here; it fits pretty decently with the whole theme of network information and all. Deciding now that subtlety and directed attacks are for wusses, he pulls out his gun, pulls up part of his shirt as a mask of sorts, and initiates a hack on the traffic lights, turning them all green. This works exactly as you think it might and in an event that is possibly heavily scripted and not-unique unfortunately, a rather large traffic accident occurs, trapping the target in his car which is trapped among several other cars. Some of which seem to have had bodyguards in them, as a few men show up, spot our MC and notice him for the threat that he is.
What follows next is your normal third-person shooter affair - take cover, regenerate health, shoot mans, you're use to it by now. There are a few subtle intricacies here and there - for instance, upon moving up next to a car that still had occupants, only one of which was still living or conscious, the MC is prompted to 'rescue' the man, which amounts to opening the door, tugging him out and telling him to get the hell away for his sake. Another little thing is a jump-from-cover move used on one of the bodyguards who finds himself on the opposite side of a taxi cab from our MC. He jumps and slides across the hood, shooting the goon in the process and taking him down before an explosion rocks the area from the side (of a car from the accident blowing up), bringing to note that explosions cause that familiar ringing of the ears or game sound for 'immersive' purposes.
The last use of the really impressive multi-tool that you have at your disposal, more or less, is pretty much the very last thing shown off in the trailer proper. Having taken out his target, our MC runs down a road only to see a Police Helicopter flying overhead with cars approaching. Taking a left, he runs to a car that had been prepared for him by his 'buddy', hops in, and drives off, likely shaking off some of the pursuit forces, but deciding to add in a whole other layer of 'getaway'. He approaches a drawbridge and, as he drives onto it, sets it to raise up so that, as he crosses it, there's really no way anyone could follow him over as the angle would be too much. I'm.....not really sure how that's supposed to stop the helicopter that was literally just there, but details. It made for a rather impressive ending for sure. Of an equally impressive concept and, well, proof-of-concept in the IP itself.
This game is firmly on my radar now if only because of this video, and I look forward to any and all information that will come out for it in the following months. S'far as I can tell, the only bit that we know is that it's coming out for PC, PS3 and XBox 360, though the when, the how and such is still up in the air. As is....well, pretty much everything about the game aside from what's in the video. You can extrapolate from it, as I am wont to do, and I think I have done somewhat, but it's about all that you'll find out there, I believe. Which is good enough for now, I must say. I'm just going to think about being the jerkiest of jerks that ever jerked for a little while in the open-world portion of the game. Disrupting cell service while dicking around with traffic lights could have hilarious results if you are a real sadistic bastard.
