In defense of Aiden Pearce

[Kalamala]

This post may contain spoilers.

After seeing the large amount of people insulting Pearce for being a dull and boring character, I have not seen anybody voicing a counter-argument which from having completed the game I feel is quite obvious. To keep this post short and not make it an essay, I shall only quote one example where it shows the player a major part of Aidens character and a small idea. This is during the credits, where the psychologist is being interviewed, it simply presents the fact that what we see of Aiden is not an exposed open part. She presents the idea that Aiden is himself playing a character, showing the world what it wants to see and so manipulating it, allowing it to underestimate him, just as Lucky Quinn did. The small idea that I want to present is simply a reminder that Ubisoft said they were not making a game they could not make a franchise out of. This means that Aiden still has time to grow as a character.

Are there any critisiscms you would like to voice against my point or any other wyas you would defend Aiden?

 

[Racecarlock]

So you have to wait for the credits to get any kind of unique character development.

Yeah, nothing wrong there. I mean, they only had the entire rest of the game to develop him.

 

[Kalamala]

So you have to wait for the credits to get any kind of unique character development.

Yeah, nothing wrong there. I mean, they only had the entire rest of the game to develop him.

Not quite, that's just the one I quoted, there are multiple audio logs and other things which characterise him, for example his interactions with Damien and his audio logs. Also, it is not developing the character as much pointing out a part of it, even then, its only the psychologists view of him based on three meetings.

 

[Racecarlock]

So you have to wait for the credits to get any kind of unique character development.

Yeah, nothing wrong there. I mean, they only had the entire rest of the game to develop him.

Not quite, that's just the one I quoted, there are multiple audio logs and other things which characterise him, for example his interactions with Damien and his audio logs. Also, it is not developing the character as much pointing out a part of it, even then, its only the psychologists view of him based on three meetings.

Oh, audio logs. Of course. Of course there would be audio logs. I know bioshock did it, but they sort of fit the setting. They made sense because people didn't have videos or internet back then. Except for some black and white silent stuff. I don't know, I'm not entirely sure where bioshock is set.

But seriously, tell me. Why would you keep all the good development in a side collectible that most people aren't even going to aim for? Why would you do that? I mean, why even have a main story if you're just going to keep all the actual good writing in a bunch of radio dramas strewn about the place?

Bioshock got away with it because the setting and story were interesting enough without them. What is this game's excuse?

 

[Kalamala]

So you have to wait for the credits to get any kind of unique character development.

Yeah, nothing wrong there. I mean, they only had the entire rest of the game to develop him.

Not quite, that's just the one I quoted, there are multiple audio logs and other things which characterise him, for example his interactions with Damien and his audio logs. Also, it is not developing the character as much pointing out a part of it, even then, its only the psychologists view of him based on three meetings.

Oh, audio logs. Of course. Of course there would be audio logs. I know bioshock did it, but they sort of fit the setting. They made sense because people didn't have videos or internet back then. Except for some black and white silent stuff. I don't know, I'm not entirely sure where bioshock is set.

But seriously, tell me. Why would you keep all the good development in a side collectible that most people aren't even going to aim for? Why would you do that? I mean, why even have a main story if you're just going to keep all the actual good writing in a bunch of radio dramas strewn about the place?

Bioshock got away with it because the setting and story were interesting enough without them. What is this game's excuse?

Well, most of the audio logs are due to people fearing for their lives (Rose Washington), people who wanted to be remembered (Iraq and to a lesser extent Bedbug) and people who wanted to expose Blume (Giggles and Dedsec). The audio logs are the only place where they can put their true thoughts, due to the fact that with Ctos, everything is transmitted and its hard to have a conversation without being heard by something or someone. Even then, there is still characterisation in the main game by showing Aidens multiple "personas" adopting different morals and reactions based on who he is dealing with (For example, when he is around his sister he presents himself as kind and caring, while with Damien he would act cold and calculating). Imagine that he has a PR department in his head, telling him how to deal with certain people. It's the same way Blume acts which provides a nice contrast.

 

[Longing]

No idea why, but I got the strongest Tom Cruise vibe for some reason. He just strikes me as a character Tom Cruise was born to play.

it's the dead eyes, both are empty to the core.

 

[Therumancer]

This post may contain spoilers.

After seeing the large amount of people insulting Pearce for being a dull and boring character, I have not seen anybody voicing a counter-argument which from having completed the game I feel is quite obvious. To keep this post short and not make it an essay, I shall only quote one example where it shows the player a major part of Aidens character and a small idea. This is during the credits, where the psychologist is being interviewed, it simply presents the fact that what we see of Aiden is not an exposed open part. She presents the idea that Aiden is himself playing a character, showing the world what it wants to see and so manipulating it, allowing it to underestimate him, just as Lucky Quinn did. The small idea that I want to present is simply a reminder that Ubisoft said they were not making a game they could not make a franchise out of. This means that Aiden still has time to grow as a character.

Are there any critisiscms you would like to voice against my point or any other wyas you would defend Aiden?

Well, the my basic attitude is that the game was supposed to start a franchise so should have been working to hook us on the basic idea and the appeal of the protagonist. The problem with Aiden is that he's very bland, and what's more looks like a bit of an idiot. Not to mention what you see of his personality and motivations is directly contradicted by the actual gameplay, the dude runs around being a peeping tom in order to rob people's houses (draining their electronic devices) and randomly siphoning bank accounts in the street, while at the same time trying to take some kind of moral high ground as a vigilante. When he's not being bland he's basically sitting there moralizing about how evil corporations are using this bizzare city-wide operating system to intrude on everyone and gather data, while he turns around and does the same exact thing, except he robs them rather directly too...

As far as video game protagonists go there HAVE been far worse, Aiden just isn't very good for a game with this much hype. Especially when they seem to be trying to channel the vibe of a retro cyberpunk-type story, and yet the protagonist is about as anti-cyberpunk in his look and demeanor as you can get.

Furthermore, I wouldn't hold my breath for further characterization on his part, Ubisoft seems to change protagonists with the major installments of their franchises for the most part. I doubt we'll see Aiden in "Watch Dogs 2" any more than we see the same Assassin return in a leading role in the "Assassin's Creed" games, or as a general rule in "Far Cry". This could be an exception though. The vibe I'm getting is that Ubisoft wants the ballcap and bandana look to be as "iconic" as the hoodie-hood look has become for Assassin's Creed, to the point of pre-emptively declaring it iconic. I get the impression that their intention as a recurring theme was going to be the ballcap at least, and showing it in silhouette or whatever in the future for promotions since you can really stick a cap like that on anyone.

If I had to defend him, I guess the biggest defense is that he isn't terrible, he's just very bland. It has nothing to do with him being a "brown haired white guy" it just happens to be that this brown-haired white guy is poorly written. I do not think he'll become the next Altair or Enzio.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Relatively unrelated question: Is Ubisoft still going ahead with the Watch Dogs movie plans? Cause I haven't heard anything about that in quite some time.

 

[Smooth Operator]

That might have been the idea at some point but was in no way represented, so the only thing they made was one lame ass character.

 

[stroopwafel]

The characters and story in Watch Dogs were..subdued and that's kinda how I like it with open world games. I prefer context for me to enjoy the world rather than an intrusive story. Watch Dogs delivered in that regard, the setting and premise were interesting, the gameplay was a lot fun(though a little lacking in variety) and I wasn't put off by the protagonist. It wasn't like ''OMG this story emotionally resonates with me like holyshit and Aiden's charisma and character drips through every orifice of this fucking game!'', but I'm not looking for that anyway. I actually prefer relative blank slates to play as.

I'm glad Watch Dogs didn't go the route of GTA5. I loved that game, don't get me wrong, but the characters were way too prominent for my taste. Actually I found them so repugnant it took away a large part of the fun I had with that game, espescially during missions. Characters like that are interesting in a movie, but with a game that takes over a dozen hours to oomplete I wish I was able to play as a fourth character to kill them off. Unfortunately you were stuck with them till the very end.

But anyways, I had no problems with Aiden Pearce and I had a lot of fun with Watch Dogs(much more so than GTA5 which in many ways is a better game). Just like Asses Creed I hope this series will improve with every new installment.

 

[Kyrian007]

I Loved Watch Dogs. Having said that, Aiden was pretty boring. Nothing in the credits or audiologs really suggested he actually made any kind of development on a personal level in any way. He started an amoral, kneecapping, torturing, fixer... and then his neice dies changing him into a...

Amoral, kneecapping, torturing, killer. I went out of the way to roll "clean" my first playthrough. Never killed a bystander, (btw complaints about horrible controls... naa, just suck less at driving... like I do) pedestrian, or a cop. Only ever killed mercenaries or criminals. And still got the obviously scripted "all the people I killed" moment toward the end. The mission where they "say" Jacks saw Aiden kill... All Jacks could have seen in MY game is a couple of beatdowns, a chokeout, and Aiden playing with his phone. Jacks didn't see ME kill... well jack. So MY actions in game didn't have any bearing on the outcome throughout the entire story. And seemingly... neither did Aiden's. He completed his own personal vendetta. That ultimately changed... basically nothing. Still estranged from his family, maybe now even more so. Still lives in basically the same opressive distopia. Not really much different than the Aiden who hadn't yet lost his niece.

Those AREN'T terribly bad things though. A good sequel can make up a lot of ground on those issues.

Aiden wasn't any worse than anyone else though. Just about every character was fairly shallow and cliche. That didn't kill my enjoyment of the game any. It was easily enough to show off the engine and functioned as a great proof of concept. Tighten up some things here... trim some fat there... WD 2 could be EPIC. You know... or the other thing. But I'm looking forward to it.

 

[duwenbasden]

The characters and story in Watch Dogs were..subdued and that's kinda how I like it with open world games. I prefer context for me to enjoy the world rather than an intrusive story. Watch Dogs delivered in that regard, the setting and premise were interesting, the gameplay was a lot fun(though a little lacking in variety) and I wasn't put off by the protagonist. It wasn't like ''OMG this story emotionally resonates with me like holyshit and Aiden's charisma and character drips through every orifice of this fucking game!'', but I'm not looking for that anyway. I actually prefer relative blank slates to play as.

Then let me make my own character ala Saints Row. Having to play Aiden "Desmond" Pearce is actually a deal breaker for me; at least in SR if my character is bland, lest a bit psychotic, it is still my character.

Having that said, I might pick it up in a Steam Sale or something. Definitely not a $60 game.

 

[Netrigan]

Nah, he's just the dullest Batman of all time.

Even the origin story is weak sauce. Who wages a lonely war on crime because of the death of his niece? And he's such a dick to everyone, it's amazing that there's anyone who didn't betray him. There's three or four times where he's a giant dick to people until they mysteriously decide to ally themselves with the idiot who is doing nothing but calling undo attention to them.

And he's completely unrepentant about it. He completely blows T-Bone's identity to the bad guy (in the stupidest way possible) and he's not taken to task for it. Aiden keeps feeding sensitive information to the guy who betrays him over and over and over again.

Or the morality of the character. At the start of the game he's teamed up with a creepy murderer and does nothing but give the guy shit. Is Aiden just stupid? If he doesn't want to team up with guys who get him in bed with organized crime, maybe he shouldn't team up guys who make no secret of their ties to organized crime. How the hell do the game writers find Aiden's moral indignation even the slightest bit plausible. This guy is laying bed with dogs and surprised he gets fleas.

Just a horribly, horribly written character who isn't the slightest bit interesting. The only character I've ever played who was less likable were RPG characters I deliberately played as douchebags.

 

[IceStar100]

They had the making of someone intresteing but spread it too thin. They wanted to make him an unoffenceiv everyman. He has traits that make him intresting. Like the fact he's a hipocrit. He want to right wrongs but he does wrong himself. Also he wants to protect whats left of his family even if it destories them.

So yeah had they not played it so safe he would have been more intresting.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Aiden Peirce was not an interesting character in the slightest. It could be the need for an "everyman" character upon whom we as the player can project, but considering the amount of cutscenes and dialogue he was thoroughly under-developed, inconsistent and boring.

In fiction, as in fact with real life, we learn about people in three ways: what they do, what they say and what others say about them. From what Aiden said or did all we can tell is that he can't let go of his niece's death. That's it, the entirety of his motivation and personality. He starts the game that way and finishes the game that way.

Further, he's a villain for whom I haven't much real sympathy. He's not a hero by any stretch and IMO, not really an antihero either (someone who lacks "heroic" traits but does the "right thing" (although in fairness, he would qualify as an antihero if the definition stops at lacking heroic traits). He steals from innocent victims, kills them and police alike without pause or remorse. He's a horrible, amoral person whose selfish vendetta places his agenda above everything else, including the lives of countless others. We learn this from what he (and we as the player in his shoes) does. The only reason he isn't entirely condemned is because he's rallying against things we might consider worse (crime lords, gangbangers, Big Brother, corporate interests, etc). Perhaps because of our natural tendency to root for the underdog even if the underdogs are violent, amoral killers (see Syrian Rebels, Hamas for real world examples).

In conclusion, the story and characters all sucked. They were banal, juvenile and uninspired across the board, the game itself was mediocre with shoddy driving, lacklustre last-gen visuals, clunky and unnecessary cover mechanics and shooting, repetitive mechanics and the only motivation to play was an overabundance of sidemissions and of course, the quintissential "RPG elements"/achievements. The only thing playing Watch Dogs achieved was make me have to go play other, better open-world games to remind myself that there are great games out there. Homogenised Ubisoft gameplay that mashed together AssCreed, Splinter Cell and Far Cry (the poker minigame was copy/pasted straight out of FC3) with one twist. The hacking had a few interesting moments but overall, a 6.5/10 at best. Aiden was an amoral, unsympathetic, shallow sociopath who dressed like a prick.

 

[TheIceQueen]

So the one bit of characterization to someone we're supposed to get hooked into if we're going to buy into the whole yearly sequel thing is that they're being bland on purpose.

That doesn't change the fact that they're still bland.

 

[Souplex]

While I have not played Watch Dogs due to it looking like a GTA clone with a thrown-in hacking gimmick, I will just say that Aiden is a dumb name.

 

[Ferisar]

While I have not played Watch Dogs due to it looking like a GTA clone with a thrown-in hacking gimmick, I will just say that Aiden is a dumb name.

Wat.

As opposed to what? Steven? Bob? Anderson?

Names are names. What the fuck, hahaha. Weirdest point of "criticism" I've ever heard. This isn't a guy named Flex Steele or Tess Tosterone. It's just some dude with some dude's name.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You're giving the writers way too much credit with that little thing at the end. Writing in video games sucks almost across the whole board, Watch Dogs is no different. I enjoy Watch Dogs for the gameplay, not the characters or story.

While I have not played Watch Dogs due to it looking like a GTA clone with a thrown-in hacking gimmick, I will just say that Aiden is a dumb name.

Watch Dogs isn't even close to a GTA clone, it's more of a 3rd-person Far Cry game with the added hacking mechanic than anything. GTA stopped being a good game long ago; Mercenaries on PS2/Xbox demolished GTA. I've completely given up on Rockstar making good sandbox games after playing about 10 hours of RDR and all the missions being complete shit. Watch Dogs has open-ended missions unlike GTA, you can play however you like from shooting to stealth to hacking (and mix and matching freely between them). Watch Dogs has a great cover system and probably the best 3rd-person shooting of any sandbox/open world game, it's better than some pure TPSs like Uncharted. You can play Watch Dogs like a bland cover shooter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHlYuhdyeDg] and say it's nothing but a GTA clone or play it like it's meant to be played [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSBxRTw7Ft0].