-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Watch_Dogs reviews
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
It is an open world game, what did you expect from that genre?
You have like a 1/10 chance of the story being good since the genre usually only focuses on gameplay, and that is where most of the resources will go to.
And I can't blame them since open world games are all about doing endless missions, and collecting useless stuff for hours until you are forced to do story missions to unlock more useless stuff to do.
If you are able to make it playable by having decent gameplay, you can get by okay.
IGN and Polygon are signing embargoes and sticking to them. I don't care about traffic. Playing by the rules is what makes them more credible to me.
Legendarybeepa
Member
Excellent! Now, I've just got to finish Wolfenstein before tomorrow...
They had the world exclusive first review (19/20 = 9.5/10):
Translation by Dualshockers: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/05...lls-it-almost-perfect-technically-very-solid/
Wonder if that's a mix of Ubisoft being Ubisoft and perhaps worried that the game may not live up to its hacking potential? Though that may be more what I'm thinking of, I mainly want to be able to screw around with these abilities and sometimes games seem to want to penalize you for daring to mess around, and I have a feeling Ubisoft may be one of the less friendly ones in that regard.
Even if the rules are bullshit?
M.W.
Member
Do you care what the general gamer has to say? Most people streaming it have been in love with it, or are they not credible because they got the game early?
I saw parts but not everything. What I managed to see of the story is that sometimes it goes to melodramatic and the characters facial animation or lack thereof don't help with what they want to portray at times. It has nice ideas but poorly done and as someone above mentioned generic.
general dan
Member
Hype, hype, hype!
I don't need the game, i don't need the game.
I NEED THE GAME!
I'm so excited to play it.
I don't need the game, i don't need the game.
I NEED THE GAME!
I'm so excited to play it.
breakfuss
Member
User feedback is also very important, but let's not pretend people don't get swept in hype. Especially when their the "first" to play it.
These are the publisher's rules. Playing by the publisher's rules, the one party who stands to gain the most from favorable reviews, are the review sites you trust the most?
What is it about corporations and corporate rules that has people lining up to trumpet how awesome they are and how their word is gold?
ComputerMKII
Banned
They had the world exclusive first review (19/20 = 9.5/10):
Translation by Dualshockers: http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/05...lls-it-almost-perfect-technically-very-solid/
I thought you meant jeuxvideo.com, not Jeux Vidéo magazine. OK, I'll add this review to the OP
M.W.
Member
Oh, I know. But, there's something to be said when a lot of people are streaming for hours on end just free roaming and playing multiplayer modes. The feedback has been very positive so far. It looks like fun. The story itself looks bleh, but then again, I don't play games for story.
To bad the theme of the plot and the theme of GTA don't mesh together properly. You can say Trevor fits perfectly, but everything he did in the plot makes no sense what so ever to the theme of GTA. The whole conflict between him and Micheal is about Brad. And this whole stupid thing is dragged on for hours, the revelation of what happened to Brad is made into a big deal, and then after the game ends and you make choice C, and might be the dumbest way to implement choice into a story that I have ever seen. Trevor says he never cared about Brad. -_-
GTA V story was the biggest waste of time I have ever participated in. I can go into more details about how most of it was them faffing about, about the annoying attitude Franklin has for being to good about everything he does, but still does it any ways, the fact most of these characters are unlikable. Thats a better word than asshole. A character can be an asshole but likable, but a majority of the characters in that game are flat out unlikeable and can't even keep a motivation for long enough.
Honestly, after GTA V and MP3.... I keep thinking RDR was a fluke.
They are the same, are they not?
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I just traded my uplay code for DS II, but this looks decent enough! Maybe I'll pick it up on a sale later on, but I guess I should at least play Sleeping Dogs (in backlog) first ?
I do have a feeling the hacking aspect of the game will be fairly one-note, but I suppose that could tested now given people are playing it.
They're not. What good does a game getting 9.5 do you when you can't even purchase it? Embargoes have been explained on GAF numerous times now, both by people abiding to them and people setting them. They're for out benefit and not just for us, but for developers and writers, too.
What does that matter? We're in a thread to discuss critical reviews from media outlets, so that's what I'm doing. Your question is neither here nor there.
Sigh... I guess your right.
When I think about it the only stories I thought were truly great in an open world game was AC2 and RDR. Everything else was just serviceable or mediocre.
Guess I though watch dogs would be in that category due to the premise video. Oh well.
Game still looks fun though.
What's the developer benefit in an embargo exactly if the day 1 patch still comes out after the review has been written and is being published? Even if they followed the embargo and the day 1 patch comes out the same day as the review is published, what does that solve exactly?
The "review copy" of the game is going to be exactly the same unless they make the day 1 patch available a week in advance for reviewers, but that's not what's happening. So breaking this magical embargo date that this particular company didn't sign hurts who exactly? Please articulate it for me.
M.W.
Member
Well, you seem to be on some sort of crusade against this game, but that's been the mantra here lately.
Anyways...
I'm curious to see how long the game ends up being. I've heard the SP campaign can be finished as quick as 15 hours. I've also heard 25 hours.
Mushroomer25
Member
Review Embargoes are mutually beneficial for publishers, consumers, and media outlets. Otherwise, reviews become a race to finish a writeup in time to be the first on the scene (scooping up the majority of pageviews). Having one set date that every outlet abides by allows time for better reviews.
Having it set on release day is sketch, though. Earlier embargoes display confidence in a game.
ComputerMKII
Banned
No, they're not. Jeuxvideo.com (a.k.a JV.com) is the #1 video game site in France. Gamekult is #2 and Gameblog is #3. Jeux Vidéo Magazine is only #40. (Source)
Jeux Vidéo Magazine: http://www.jeuxvideomagazine.com/
Jeuxvideo.com: http://www.jeuxvideo.com/
Legendarybeepa
Member
Stories in open world games are nearly always going to be disappointing, in my opinion. I want to play these games for the setting, freedom to explore and hopefully be entertained by the gameplay. A top quality story is pretty far down my list of priorities.
But the patch is only available after the embargo date. Even if the embargo is up on the exact same day as the patch, the review has already been written by then. So would would be different exactly? Are you saying with no additional patching, forcing reviewers to wait a few additional days to play the exact same game is going to result in a different review?
A lot of games that turned out great have had release date embargos, and some companies make it a policy to slap a release date embargo on all games period. I really don't think it's worth worrying about anymore, though finding it irritating is another story. Though as noted they probably had literally just a week to play, so even release date's kind of tight.
What I'd worry more is when you see ONLY reviews past a certain score show up ahead of time, like you'd get a 9.5 IGN review but nothing from GameSpot. There's active pressure to review a game higher in order to get early hits, and that does no one any good. It seems that's been phased out though, hopefully.
I don't have anything against Watch_Dogs. I wish them the best and if it reviews well, great. I expect I'll eventually play it down the road regardless because I do enjoy the genre and there aren't exactly a whole hell of a lot of games on the new consoles right now.
I'm just saying I think people should be suspicious of extremely high/perfect scores for a game from little known sites that are breaking embargoes or not signing them to begin with.
Embargoes are great, especially in Open World Games, to stop reviewers from rushing through the game, not playing through it properly and then slapping a review online to be the first and generate easy hits. Embargoes ensure reviewers can play through the game at their own pace and know (usually) that it's not a race against time to get to the end to make sure you're not later than your competitors.
Benefits everybody.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Was watch dogs the one where you can't actually start the game without downloading the patch? I know some very recent game has that, but I can't remember which one. Sound like ubi though
Well, let's hope so.
I don't want another repeat of Bioshock 3.
"The game has great gameplay!" from hyped-up reviews
Me: They were serious about the gameplay? The game is so tedious...sigh, another game in the trash bin =(
GarciaHotspur
Member
I'm french and yes jeuxvideo.com and jeuxvideomagazine are not the same, not at all.
I think you are thinking about wolfenstein, and that was debunked within a day.
Unfortunately AI is the area where it's the hardest to make gains in. AI really hasn't been able to improve as drastically as graphics have over the years.
Reviewers are going to devote as much time as they want to in a game. Artificially pushing back their deadline isn't going to magically make them play your game for tens of more hours.
If you need to form artificial constructs to try to make reviews more meaningful, that's like adding artificial constructs to capitalism to make it function. Let readers decide if a reviewer sucks or not. Forcing a shitty reviewer to wait an additional week isn't going to make a shitty review any less shitty.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Ah, good. Seemed like a worrying new type of drm
ComputerMKII
Banned
Only if you trust garbage sites. Websites known to rush their reviews would probably lose their credibility and readers so it wouldn't be in their interest to try too hard to be first.
That's not what I'm saying.
There has to be an implied dumbness though. Otherwise the game might become too difficult to complete. Hell some of the "best gameplay" oriented games like Dark Souls doesn't have great AI, but it focuses on players being able to read and understand patterns and behaviors. Making Ai to smart and to unpredictable might create gameplay problems.
However, you can't have too much particles and polygons.
You're saying that an embargo forces a reviewer to take more time with a game review. True or false?
I actually think a lot of the problem with AI is that for some games there's really no point in trying to refine it. It's pointless in something like CoD or anything with that kind of focus on attacking, and it can get more irritating than impressive in something like Dark Souls, Zelda, or similar games about exploring and conquering dungeons. Where it does make a lot of sense is with stuff like stealth games or open world ones with a lot of characters, where you may want some dynamic stuff to make it interesting to toy with them, or to be a matter of outthinking them. As stupid as the guards can be in an MGS games they're likely infinitely more complex and "smarter" than something that's in CoD, and it REALLY shows in games like Elder Scrolls which are a case of enemies being "too smart" with overly simple programming: once they know you're there they'll hound you down, not be thrown off or have periods where they're trying to figure out where you went before giving up and going back to their prior activities.
If the angle of hitting ahead of everyone else for max hits is removed then other factors will dictate how long they play, such as work schedules or simply how long it takes to beat the game. If you don't have those embargos period it can be a mad rush among many to get reviews out fast or look irrelevant. Maybe some DON'T push for an early review for one reason or another, but it is a pressure that gets removed and ensures an even playing field whether they want to rush through it or take their time... or complete it at all for that matter, as those who just want to be first may be satisfied playing only a few. Fuck, look at that review that says "character seem interesting" that just sounds like a transparent attempt to play a small amount and review based on that.
Plus there's the fact they could get done with the game in the first few days and stew on it for while. Maybe they think back and realize the game wasn't really THAT amazing, or whatever.
Oh Jesus, don't start demanding "True or False" answers dude. It doesn't look cool. Especially when you're trying to put words in my mouth.
No, I didn't say that.
I said that it prevents the rush of reviewers not playing through the game properly to upload a quick review and generate easy hits for their websites on account of being the first.
If everyone uploads their reviews at the same time, it stops this from happening. It benefits us, as it gets us proper reviews that haven't been rushed.
ryanofcall
Member
I didn't like GTA V because of the story
lol are you going to hook him up to a polygraph?
Doen't mean much. Until the fix is out it's impossible to know if it actually fixes anything. There's no reason to better a grade for something that might be better later
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
If these reviews are indicative of the reviews as a whole (and I will concede that is a BIG if) then it looks like we can infer this game's detractors are going to be eating some serious crow in a day or two.