Watch Dogs - Ubisoft's Third Person Shooter

i watched a gameplay vid the other day and the gf commented howmuch it looked (movement etc) like assassins creed.

I'm not sure if i will really enjoy it after watching a few longer videos, just seems a bit meh :/ I was really keen on it ages ago, but as time goes on its wearing off a bit.
 
I have sound off, I'm at work :p

But you've missed the context of my comment.

Watch Dogs started out life looking like it resembled the game to Person Of Interest.

What they've finished with, many would argue seems a worse prospect.

So glad it wasn't just me that thought that! That mech spider just looks ridiculous, bar that, the rest of the game that I've seen/things you can do seems my kind of thing so looking forward to it.

Don't why everyone was so hyped for this game. Looks like generic trash to me..

Because other people have different opinions to you? Shocking isn't it! I don't know why you have the word Ninja in your name, I don't like Ninjas...
 
But you've missed the context of my comment.

What ?? Your comment was about the spider and nothing else. I'm not a mind reader. If you meant to say more then you should have. Also, if you're watching this video without sound, then you should expect to miss a lot of 'context'. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ubisoft do seem obsessed with making all of their games exactly the same style and gameplay wise.

The worst part is how everyone's copying them.
Suddenly all these games like Tomb Raider and Thief have stupid AC style 'Eagle Vision' on their characters. :mad:

Just started taking a proper interest in Watch Dogs, though... Is it me, or do all the fancy, smooth, hi-def environments look amazing, but the actual animations of people look utterly ****?
I watch the trailers and I see ultra cool rain, reflections, grass and all that, with low quality people walking around.
 
Day 0 DLC, well done Ubisoft, really making this seem less appealing as time goes on.

Theres a gap when the game gets submitted for publishing as gold, then actually being released. Game developers don't exactly sit on their hands waiting for the game to launch before creating new content do they. Due to that, day 1 DLC is meaningless in the context you are thinking.
 
Theres a gap when the game gets submitted for publishing as gold, then actually being released. Game developers don't exactly sit on their hands waiting for the game to launch before creating new content do they. Due to that, day 1 DLC is meaningless in the context you are thinking.

Day 1 patching and such I don't mind, I understand that faults may be found after a game has gone gold. But adding DLC to a game that isn't even released yet seems a bit much. Has it definitely gone gold yet anyway? I don't mind DLC for games if it adds something to it, but to me that should come after it has at least been out for a while. This just screams of them developing content and trying to squeeze extra money out of people for content that should have been included in the mail release.
 
this is why i buy games with lots of dlc a year or so after launch when you can get them in one pack, sure its a pain but saves a chunk of money.

ubisoft though are getting worse and worse as a money grabbing company, and anyone surprised by the dlc stuff only needs to look at asscreed for the total shambles that is now.
 
Sounds like Rome 2. They release a broken and shoddy game but somehow still have had time to get lots of DLC released to milk people for more money.

I can't remember the last time I have ever bought DLC. I think it is a racket.
 
Back
Top Bottom