Watch Dog metacritic reviews

[lassiie]

So I was just looking at reviews on Metacritic and noticed something interesting. Critic reviews averaged out around an 80 on all platforms, however user reviews ranged from 4.6 (on PC) to 6.3 (on PS4). Normally from what I have seen on Metacritic is the user reviews being slightly more friendly then the critic reviews, however this is the exact opposite, and the difference is by a large margin.

I bought it on Steam and have played it for a few hours, so I can't make too many judgements about the game as a whole. However, considering the fact that I am the type of person who will sit down and play a game for 10 hours a day till I finish it if the game is good, gives me some indication that this game isn't that great. The most common gripe I have heard and experienced is how badly driving sucks without a gamepad....it is awful. If you press 'W' your car jumps forward like you slammed on the gas. It's nearly impossible to make small turns.

Other then that, it has just seemed largely mediocre. The hacking aspect is cool, and I will admit it is neat to look at every individual and see there details, however, that novelty wears off pretty quickly once you start seeing the same things over and over again.

It is overall an average game, and I think it deserves a lot harsher criticism then it has received from critics. Even Jim gave it a 4.5/5. I was really hoping he would tear into the game for not living up to the hype that the developers themselves created. This game is barely a next-gen game, and definitely not a game that should give anyone a reason to move to the next-gen.

I will finish the game soon, but honestly, I don't see that changing my opinion about it.

What does everyone else on here think?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the metacritic part is probably another social balance issue, "professionals" blow smoke up the big budget titles ass and people then go the other way and shit on it to try and even things out, not productive either way.

The game itself... is ok, just ok, nothing overly bad and nothing that would put it above competitors. If anyone asks I will still recommend GTA, Saints Row, Sleeping Dogs, Red Dead Redemption, possibly even Mafia before mentioning Watch Dogs, because all the others have something unique that will stick with you in them and this one doesn't.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Who cares about hype? I live on the far end of the world and all I've seen are a couple of gameplay videos, out of curiosity. No big announcements, no promises, no street or TV publicity, nothing. It looks like a fun game. So what if it's not a "next-gen" game? Has any game released so far looked next-gen to you?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's Good. It's Decent. It's only problem is it's not amazing.

The plot is like a bad movie though, but the gameplay is enjoyable. I like in the middle of a shootout using the camera's and making shit explode halfway across the map. And when you manage to clear out a building all stealthy like you feel really cool.

 

[lassiie]

Who cares about hype? I live on the far end of the world and all I've seen are a couple of gameplay videos, out of curiosity. No big announcements, no promises, no street or TV publicity, nothing. It looks like a fun game. So what if it's not a "next-gen" game? Has any game released so far looked next-gen to you?

You are 100% correct that no game yet has looked or felt next-gen, the only reason I brought it up is because of the fact that was how the developers themselves chose to advertise it. Basically, it felt like they made promises about this game that ended up being a huge letdown.

 

[Elfgore]

Yeah, it isn't bad. Just meh. The shootouts are fun as are the stealth segments. The car chases and evades could be fun if the driving didn't suck. The story hasn't caught my attention at all, I'm still in the first act though, so this could change. It isn't a bad game, but falls victim to the standard hype let-down. Same thing happened with Titanfall, Attack on Titan, and some other stuff I can't think of now.

I flat out despise the invades though. I'm just about to start a mission then invade. Too bad most players are terrible at invades so I find them in ten seconds. One guy was driving around in a red sports car like a madman. He tried to run me over and failed so badly it was unrealistic.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Didn't the PC version have optimization issues with AMD cards on launch? That may have something to do with its incredibly low score, especially since PC-specific reviewers like PC Gamer were often running NVIDIA cards.

There's also the fact that the graphics were downgraded during development, and people didn't take too well to that for various reasons. There have also been some issues with UPlay.

But, in general, a lot of people made up their minds about Watch Dogs before it was even released, and a lot of that turned to negativity after people found out that they probably wouldn't be experiencing the game at the same graphics levels that caught their eyes a few years ago. Unless a game absolutely flops, such as in Colonial Marines's case, you can almost always guarantee that Metacritic user reviews will reflect more the pre-release biases rather than the quality of the game itself, all with the usual "0 and 10 are the only scores in existence" mentality a lot of people have. Then again, that might just be my cynicism in the average Internet dweller's ability speaking.

 

[MeTalHeD]

What I don't get is how developers can spend 5 years on a game and still not deliver what they promised. They had ample time for things like properly porting it to PC, improving the graphics and maybe even working on the story some more. I had an argument with another poster saying that Ubisoft is simply not delivering what they had promised to console users - 1080p at 60fps (they retracted that and adjusted it to 30fps and around 900p very close to its release date AFTER many people had pre-ordered the game). Some people say it's the developer's fault for not using the console to its full potential (if indeed you got it on a so-called next gen console). However, this gives developers an easy excuse considering they have had other consoles to work on before, so I don't quite buy that. We've been through a "next gen" phase before, you should know what to look out for when this happens.

Relating to the Metacritic reviews, I feel the user reviews are a fairer reflection of what people are actually playing. We are the average user, not the reviewer. The game might be "good" but is it good enough for the average user? The same thing happened to Call of Duty Ghosts. It got a 70/100 on Metacritic by reviewers and it was slammed by users (I think 2/10) and rightfully so. The game was a mess and exhibits the problem with developers these days. They see us as money first and gamers second. This means if they don't HAVE to put more effort into a game but they're going to cash in on sales, why bother? Seriously, for the money we're paying they should offer better products.

I suspect Watch Dogs may suffer from the same problem. Too much plastic and not enough substance, especially after all the hype. Then again, there was hype for COD Ghosts, Duke Nukem Forever and Titanfall (although Titanfall still has SOME redeeming qualities like the multiplayer is kinda fun). Still, there's a trend among developers to charge more for less. Titanfall barely has a story, for example, and Watch Dogs has multiple versions of the same game, but each has different content. The game also had DLC planned with its release - that is content that was created while the game was being developed, but not included with the main game.

Maybe they spent all their budget on making DLC and on marketing...

Also, and I suspect this is the main reason the game is so lowly rated ASIDE from the bad PC porting - I don't think many gamers see the value in paying $60 for the game. If the game was, say, $5, there's a good chance it would have scored a higher considering what we're getting for that price. The more you have to pay, the more the company has to convince you its product is worth every cent. Next gen is expensive and instead of developers creating more for the additional $20 they're charging (compared to games about a year or two ago - that's right, we paid $40 for new games not too long ago) we're getting rather meager looking offers.

The game might be okay, but is it really a $60 game? Does it represent fair value for what you're handing over? The user reviews seem to suggest this is not the case.

 

[omega 616]

The game itself... is ok, just ok, nothing overly bad and nothing that would put it above competitors. If anyone asks I will still recommend GTA, Saints Row, Sleeping Dogs, Red Dead Redemption, possibly even Mafia before mentioning Watch Dogs, because all the others have something unique that will stick with you in them and this one doesn't.

Pretty much, this!

The game doesn't do anything really offensive but it looks like it was built by board room of CEO's and not by a game dev ... it has no "WOAH!" moments.

The hacking thing is a joke, look at something and hold square or do some silly and very easy puzzle to gain access to a camera in a building.

I guess it's kind of cool to stop cop cars chasing you, but it was also cool in some of the need for speed games and that had the excitement of racing in it. Other open world games have there thing, watch dogs thing is underwhelming.

Pro reviewers don't want to sully there friendship with devs, so they inflate the score. Gamers use hyperbole, it's uncommon to read a respectable review ... it's either "zomg, best game evar!" or "total unplayable garbage!" 'cos the frame rate drops below 30 fps when shit gets cray cray on the 360!

 

[tippy2k2]

The primary reason I've always trusted a "professionals" review over the "average person" is that professionals (in theory) are much more balanced and good about what deserves what scores.

I find that a lot of user review sections are completely skewed for there are waaaaay too many people who believe that it is either the greatest thing that has ever been bestowed unto mankind or it is the worst thing that has ever existed and anyone who was involved with it should be banned from creating anything ever again. There are users who do actually rate correctly but they seem to be heavily outnumbered by the extremist scorers.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The most common gripe I have heard and experienced is how badly driving sucks without a gamepad....it is awful. If you press 'W' your car jumps forward like you slammed on the gas. It's nearly impossible to make small turns.

The driving is just fine on PS4. The fact that a keyboard is digital instead of analog really hurts it in regard for video game controls.

I had an argument with another poster saying that Ubisoft is simply not delivering what they had promised to console users - 1080p at 60fps (they retracted that and adjusted it to 30fps and around 900p very close to its release date AFTER many people had pre-ordered the game).

Did Ubisoft ever say 1080p at 60FPS? Because I thought that was Sony, then Ubisoft corrected that.

OT: Watch Dogs is one of the best Open World games I've ever played, right up there with Mercenaries, Far Cry 3, and Arkham City. The detail in the city of Chicago is amazing, they even have the Cheese Cake Factory right where it's supposed to be. The interplay between shooting, stealth, and hacking similar to Far Cry 3 (sans the hacking obviously) where you can mix and match between all styles however you like. It's not 10/10 good, but at least 8.5/10 for me, and I'm pretty tough on games. The criticisms like the story being "meh" are valid but pretty much all video game stories are "meh" as there's very few good writers in the industry. I don't understand why people go into any game expecting good writing (besides a select few devs like Bioware and Telltale).

 

[Brownie80]

The most common gripe I have heard and experienced is how badly driving sucks without a gamepad....it is awful. If you press 'W' your car jumps forward like you slammed on the gas. It's nearly impossible to make small turns.

The driving is just fine on PS4. The fact that a keyboard is digital instead of analog really hurts it in regard for video game controls.

I had an argument with another poster saying that Ubisoft is simply not delivering what they had promised to console users - 1080p at 60fps (they retracted that and adjusted it to 30fps and around 900p very close to its release date AFTER many people had pre-ordered the game).

Did Ubisoft ever say 1080p at 60FPS? Because I thought that was Sony, then Ubisoft corrected that.

OT: Watch Dogs is one of the best Open World games I've ever played, right up there with Mercenaries, Far Cry 3, and Arkham City. The detail in the city of Chicago is amazing, they even have the Cheese Cake Factory right where it's supposed to be. The interplay between shooting, stealth, and hacking similar to Far Cry 3 (sans the hacking obviously) where you can mix and match between all styles however you like. It's not 10/10 good, but at least 8.5/10 for me, and I'm pretty tough on games. The criticisms like the story being "meh" are valid but pretty much all video game stories are "meh" as there's very few good writers in the industry. I don't understand why people go into any game expecting good writing (besides a select few devs like Bioware and Telltale).

You haven't played that many sandbox games, haven't you. Mafia, Sleeping Dogs, Saint's Row 2, and Just Cause 2 since they brought so much more to the table then pressing square to hack 50k.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You haven't played that many sandbox games, haven't you. Mafia, Sleeping Dogs, Saint's Row 2, and Just Cause 2 since they brought so much more to the table then pressing square to hack 50k.

I played both Sleeping Dogs and Just Cause 2, I got bored in a few hours in both of them. Mafia seemed to be more a PC game than console game. I saw enough of Saint's Row to know I won't like it, too similar to GTA in structure, more wacky though.

 

[MeTalHeD]

The most common gripe I have heard and experienced is how badly driving sucks without a gamepad....it is awful. If you press 'W' your car jumps forward like you slammed on the gas. It's nearly impossible to make small turns.

The driving is just fine on PS4. The fact that a keyboard is digital instead of analog really hurts it in regard for video game controls.

I had an argument with another poster saying that Ubisoft is simply not delivering what they had promised to console users - 1080p at 60fps (they retracted that and adjusted it to 30fps and around 900p very close to its release date AFTER many people had pre-ordered the game).

Did Ubisoft ever say 1080p at 60FPS? Because I thought that was Sony, then Ubisoft corrected that.

OT: Watch Dogs is one of the best Open World games I've ever played, right up there with Mercenaries, Far Cry 3, and Arkham City. The detail in the city of Chicago is amazing, they even have the Cheese Cake Factory right where it's supposed to be. The interplay between shooting, stealth, and hacking similar to Far Cry 3 (sans the hacking obviously) where you can mix and match between all styles however you like. It's not 10/10 good, but at least 8.5/10 for me, and I'm pretty tough on games. The criticisms like the story being "meh" are valid but pretty much all video game stories are "meh" as there's very few good writers in the industry. I don't understand why people go into any game expecting good writing (besides a select few devs like Bioware and Telltale).

Both Sony and Ubisoft said so: http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2394596/watch_dogs_is_1080p_60fps_on_ps4_says_ubisoft.html

Apparently Sony were the first to remove the reference but Ubisoft were still convinced it could be done. They both seem to have backpedaled a bit so they both screwed gamers.

And quite a few games have good stories or at the very least good characters. Many people either loved or hated GTA4, for example, but I loved the character of Niko. I was willing to put up with shitty gameplay to know more about how he develops and his past etc.

Dead Space (the first one) was another game I thought was well done, if you're going the story route. There are many games with well-written stories (God of War, the first Max Paynes, Metro 2033, Fallout, Skyrim, Dragon Age, The Grim Fandango, hell even Starcraft) and while they may not be original when compared to previous work done by different media, a story well told is still a good story. You don't have to be the first to come up with the concept, but you can tell it better than anyone else can, or at least well enough to keep gamers hooked. In 5 years, they had enough time to source enough material and writers for a decent story. The game was not a rushed job, but still it misses the mark.

 

[BrotherRool]

The hype hurt this game, I'm sure of it. Ubisoft were so cock sure about this being the next big game. Their ads, pre-release BS, etc... all of it suggested that Watch Dogs was just going to be tits... so when it ended up being slightly less than tits, of course it was a let down.

Had they not talked it up so much and let gamers discover it, it wouldn't be tainted with disappointment.

^This. I think it's the reverse Sleeping Dogs situation, where Sleeping Dogs somehow managed to avoid being on the hype train a lot of the time and so people talked it up because it was actually decent. Whereas Watch Dogs managed to bill itself as the next big thing (even if people were always unsure if it was going to deliver), so when it turned out to be the next good thing same as the last good thing, it was a disappointment.

'80' is game critic for 'didn't love it, but would very happily play it' which seems like a fair judgement.

Take this metacritic user review

It's just that this game is a very average one that doesn't deliver half of what it promised.

He gave Watchdogs a 2.

or

they went all the way hyping up a very mediocre game

With a follow up score of 1.

Aside, from often going too extreme with their 0's and 10's, Metacritic user reviews are also more likely to have a 1-10 scale instead of a 6-10 scale. There are a lot of 5's (Which metacritic highlights as 'negative review') which basically boil down to 'Not quite as good as GTA V'

 

[stroopwafel]

I think Watch Dogs is a fantastic game and I played (and completed) all 3D GTAs, Just Cause 2, Saints Row 3, Prototype 1&2, Farcry 3 etc. so I have a decent frame of reference when it comes to these type of sandbox games.

What sets Watch Dogs apart is how organically the gameplay flows with the setting; with missions having a lot less linear structure than is usual in open world games. Graphically there is an added layer of detail and lighting effects that makes every corner of Chicago feel fully realized and unique, almost all of it looks customly designed instead of cut&pasted. You can stop anywhere between downtown Chicago and the city's edges and the level of detail is just amazing.

As for gameplay you can tell experienced designers were at work here, as it combines the best gameplay elements of both Assassin's Creed, Farcry and Splinter Cell. It's never as 'floaty' as GTA(though GTA5 improved a lot) which is quite a feat given how dense the game world is.

On top of that the game is thematically quite interesting with a story that is never intrusive and provides a nice context for the missions. Player agency is what makes a good open world game, not overly long story exposition. And in this regard Watch Dogs also hits the sweet spot.

To be honest I lowered my expectations of the game b/c of all the bad publicity but when I started playing I can't think of any other recent game I had so much fun with. And to think that this is essentially just a near launch game. It seems most 'criticism' on the game is not the game itself but whatever beef people have with Ubisoft.

I also find it somewhat ridiculous that Watch Dogs is now compared to GTA to demonstrate how much it sucks while when GTA5 was released all people did was complain how Rockstar was overrated, Houser was a hack etc.

edit: I played the PS4 version btw so I don't know how other versions of the game fare.