Watch Dog metacritic reviews

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Brownie80 said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
grey_space said:
SaneAmongInsane said:
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.
I completely agree. It's a very polished game. The hacking is cool for the infiltration bits and when you are in the midst of a shootout.

But there just doesn't seem to be anything that really grabs at you. Maybe if the protagonist was a little bit more interesting or the plot a little less hackneyed?

I am finding the driving difficult enough but I generally suck at driving in these games anyway so I'll be getting a couple of the driving perks when next I decide to level up.

I personally think that a score of 4-4.5 is a perfectly reasonable score to assign the game. It's just missing a certain undefinable..something that would make it a classic.
I'd say a 6 or 7. It's functional. I've only encountered one glitch so far (An enemies dead body contiously spinning on the floor) and thats after a ton of gameplay.

And the sidemissions, the ARG freerunning, playing chess, the digital trips, those bits are really amazing.
What does ARG mean? And you know how to play chess? There's chess in this game? Does that mean there is backgammon and Chinese checkers too? Just wondering.
Alternate Reality Gaming... Its the free running thing but your "phone" makes gold coins appear floating in the game world. It's like the thing the 3DS can do with the cards. It's neat.

Grey Carter tweeted that he was doing it and got hit by a train :p

Chess and only chess, and yes I do know how to play. Am I any good? No. Not really. but it's enjoyable.

Theres also a drinking minigame that's a fun time waster.

Really if it wasn't for all the extra bits I'd be disappointed but theres enough fun to be had outside the campaign. The puzzles. Killing people because they're homophobic or whatnot. Police chases are fun enough.
 

Artina89

New member
Oct 27, 2008
3,624
0
0
I personally, am really enjoying Watch_dogs at the moment. I put the disc in my PS3 and didn't stop until about 7 hours later when I realized I hadn't had anything to eat, which hasn't happened in a long time. I have spent most of my time getting the collectibles and completing the side missions, and have barely made my way through the main campaign because I am having a lot of fun with everything else. I don't really pay attention to reviews anyway, I have my opinion and they have theirs.
 

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,157
0
0
Yeah, that's professional reviews for you. Chalk it up to the disconnect between game reviewers and the average gamer.

I'm not saying reviewers are paid for, but they do get the review copy for free. An inoffensive, mediocre time filler that advertises on your site will probably land an 80 easily.

Me? I've played games for a while and the past few years got a whole lot more responsibility. Yeah, the game has pretty solid mechanics that I've seen in various other games before. It's doesn't screw any of them up, it doesn't really add enough new material to throw in a substantial 'WoW' factor (maybe I'm just old and jaded,) but it's also 70 goddamn dollars.

That $70 is what makes the difference between a score of 80 and 50 in my mind.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Agreed. I personally prefer to avoid trailers and things like that especially ones that come out long before the game is released precisely because I don't want to get overhyped, and if I preorder the game it's at most a couple months before the game comes out. If one allows their enthusiasm to overwhelm them they are going to end up disappointed one way or another, and if someone preorders a game a year or so before it comes out they deserve to end up with a crappy game.

The oddest complaint I hear about Watch Dogs is that the graphics aren't really next-gen. My reaction to this criticism is something like "you actually expect that? You actually care about the graphics at all? How nutty is that?" First, the next gen hasn't even been out for a year yet, so there isn't really going to be any games with next-gen graphics, and if there are it's going to be one or 2 probably linear games that barely work. What we're mostly going to see at this point is a bunch of high end last gen graphics at best because of developer inexperience. It isn't going to be for a few years before we start to really see "next-gen graphics" in games and definitely not until then will we see those graphics in games that actually FUNCTION.

Second, this obsession with graphics over all else is one of the biggest reasons why video games as a whole are going down the tubes. If one can tell what it is they're looking at that should be good enough for most people.
I only pre-order like days before it comes out to get the pre-order bonus if it's anything good, which it usually isn't.

The graphics are damn good to me. It is a sandbox game, the graphics will never be great in a sandbox game. The main thing about sandbox games is little to no pop-in and a consistent framerate. The characters are at least PS3/360 quality when comparing Watch Dogs to the best looking PS3/360 linear games like Uncharted. The character models are probably more detailed than Uncharted especially with the clothing. If a sandbox game with Uncharted level graphics isn't next-gen, then I don't know what is.
 

Brownie80

New member
Jan 27, 2014
996
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
immortalfrieza said:
Agreed. I personally prefer to avoid trailers and things like that especially ones that come out long before the game is released precisely because I don't want to get overhyped, and if I preorder the game it's at most a couple months before the game comes out. If one allows their enthusiasm to overwhelm them they are going to end up disappointed one way or another, and if someone preorders a game a year or so before it comes out they deserve to end up with a crappy game.

The oddest complaint I hear about Watch Dogs is that the graphics aren't really next-gen. My reaction to this criticism is something like "you actually expect that? You actually care about the graphics at all? How nutty is that?" First, the next gen hasn't even been out for a year yet, so there isn't really going to be any games with next-gen graphics, and if there are it's going to be one or 2 probably linear games that barely work. What we're mostly going to see at this point is a bunch of high end last gen graphics at best because of developer inexperience. It isn't going to be for a few years before we start to really see "next-gen graphics" in games and definitely not until then will we see those graphics in games that actually FUNCTION.

Second, this obsession with graphics over all else is one of the biggest reasons why video games as a whole are going down the tubes. If one can tell what it is they're looking at that should be good enough for most people.
I only pre-order like days before it comes out to get the pre-order bonus if it's anything good, which it usually isn't.

The graphics are damn good to me. It is a sandbox game, the graphics will never be great in a sandbox game. The main thing about sandbox games is little to no pop-in and a consistent framerate. The characters are at least PS3/360 quality when comparing Watch Dogs to the best looking PS3/360 linear games like Uncharted. The character models are probably more detailed than Uncharted especially with the clothing. If a sandbox game with Uncharted level graphics isn't next-gen, then I don't know what is.
Some of the best graphics ever are in sandbox games. Besides I don't think Uncharted is THAT linear, I think that only applies to the first one.
 

Brownie80

New member
Jan 27, 2014
996
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
Some of the best graphics ever are in sandbox games. Besides I don't think Uncharted is THAT linear, I think that only applies to the first one.
Just wow... George Carlin is always right ("and then you realize half of them...").

Say you have a piece of hardware that can render 10 million polygons at once. If all you have is one character being rendered (no environment), you can have that character made of 10 million polygons. If you have 2 characters, each character can only be made of 5 million polygons. Games with smaller environments can have better looking graphics, which is why a game like Metal Gear Solid 2 looks better than any sandbox game on PS2.
So then I can say MGS1 on PS1 looks better than San Andreas, released 6 years later on superior hardware.
That dosen't make sense and you know it.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Brownie80 said:
So then I can say MGS1 on PS1 looks better than San Andreas, released 6 years later on superior hardware.
That dosen't make sense and you know it.
Do you know basic logic? ON THE SAME HARDWARE, a linear game can look better than the very best open world/sandbox game. MGS1 and San Andreas run on different hardware (PS1 vs PS2). MGS1 looks better than GTA2 (PS1 vs PS1). If you wanna make up stupid rules like comparing games from different consoles, then you proved how awesomely right you are as Super Mario Brothers looks worse than GTAV.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Brownie80 said:
No need to blow a gasket on some stupid thing you made up when it was completely illogical and contrived. Please get that through that MGS2 wasn't praised for it's graphics, either.
I didn't make up any rules, it's simple fucking math. If you render less objects, each object can have more detail.

All the MGSs are praised for graphics. MGS2 got a 9.8 graphics score at IGN with the text description: "Tell me you've found something better-looking on the market and you're a damned liar. A powerful engine mastered by excellent artistry."
http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/11/17/metal-gear-solid-2-sons-of-liberty
 

Brownie80

New member
Jan 27, 2014
996
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
No need to blow a gasket on some stupid thing you made up when it was completely illogical and contrived. Please get that through that MGS2 wasn't praised for it's graphics, either.
I didn't make up any rules, it's simple fucking math. If you render less objects, each object can have more detail.

All the MGSs are praised for graphics. MGS2 got a 9.8 graphics score at IGN with the text description: "Tell me you've found something better-looking on the market and you're a damned liar. A powerful engine mastered by excellent artistry."
http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/11/17/metal-gear-solid-2-sons-of-liberty
When did you use math? And graphics in MGS isn't a selling point is WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY!
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Brownie80 said:
When did you use math? And graphics in MGS isn't a selling point is WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY!
Here's simple math:

A piece of hardware that can render 10 million polygons:

If you just render a single character, that character can be made of 10 million polygons.

If you render 2 characters, they can both be made of 5 million polygons.

More objects on screen at once, means less detail per object. That is why Uncharted has more detail than GTAV and why MGS2 has more detail than San Andreas. Sandbox games have more objects on screen at once compared to a linear game, which is why they don't look as good.
 

Brownie80

New member
Jan 27, 2014
996
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
When did you use math? And graphics in MGS isn't a selling point is WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY!
Here's simple math:

A piece of hardware that can render 10 million polygons:

If you just render a single character, that character can be made of 10 million polygons.

If you render 2 characters, they can both be made of 5 million polygons.

More objects on screen at once, means less detail per object. That is why Uncharted has more detail than GTAV and why MGS2 has more detail than San Andreas. Sandbox games have more objects on screen at once compared to a linear game, which is why they don't look as good.
Good job! You can read a Wikipedia article! Should I be impressed? Graphics aren't defined by their statistics.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Brownie80 said:
Good job! You can read a Wikipedia article! Should I be impressed? Graphics aren't defined by their statistics.
Yes, graphics are defined by statistics. Aesthetics are not. You didn't watch the Extra Credits video did you. They say Killzone 2 is objectively graphically superior to Katamari Damacy while Katamari has better aesthetics. Graphics = objective, Aesthetics = subjective.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
BrotherRool said:
Oh yeah :( All the sucky practices work in this industry. We're stuck in the hype machine, marketing is more important than game making. People are so hyped for games that they will pay money to play them before they've even finished and if you don't have the hype you aren't going to cut it.

At least in this case, it's more about Sleeping Dogs underselling than Watch Dogs overselling. I think the amount of game you get for your money is much more important to a lot of people than is given credit for, and Watch Dogs/Sleeping Dogs definitely met that need. But still.. :(
I don't know. I'm not sure anything about this game merits it being one of the biggest media events of the year. I'm sure it's not a bad game, but I'm not sure it has anything to put it on top. I think it is as much about those practices as it is the lack of hype behind Sleeping Dogs (which I really enjoyed, despite its flaws). Although the lack of hype is especially baffling; it was already an expensive game before Squeenix took it on. You'd think they'd do a media blitz to get hype to recoup the costs. Seems like buying a leaking ship, doing nothing to stop the leaks or rescue the passengers, and then acting shocked when nobody survives.

But I could be completely wrong.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
lassiie said:
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?
here's the thing... at first, all the mediocrity was shining bright in my eyes, so i said to myself "oh shit, i fell for it again." but like you, the hacking aspect kept me intrigued, so i kept going. then, while hacking my way across an enemy stronghold, something clicked and i realized "this game is AWESOME!" there are times when you're playing a puzzle game without even really realizing it. a puzzle/platform/adventure game, fairly seamlessly molded into a gta style game.

also, if you haven't played ALL the digital trips yet, it is highly recommended that you do. as frustrating as later sectors in Alone can be, it is so much fun.

as for the mediocrity, yeah, the driving is sub-par, as is the audio related to driving, which is something that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. but keep giving the game a chance and let yourself get lost in it.

btw, this is based off a 360 version, so you're screwed without a gamepad, something that's always annoyed me about keyboard/mouse set up, it's either all go or all stop.
 

Brownie80

New member
Jan 27, 2014
996
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
Good job! You can read a Wikipedia article! Should I be impressed? Graphics aren't defined by their statistics.
Yes, graphics are defined by statistics. Aesthetics are not. You didn't watch the Extra Credits video did you. They say Killzone 2 is objectively graphically superior to Katamari Damacy while Katamari has better aesthetics. Graphics = objective, Aesthetics = subjective.
So you just proved that graphics are subjective and don't matter. Okay then.
 
Dec 16, 2009
1,774
0
0
its an Ubisoft game, so can't make my own judgement until about 6 months time when its as patched as its gonna be, and the game & season pass are nice n cheap.
But from an outside perspective, i'd say it dwas from people who were butthurt that they had bought into the hype.

http://games.on.net/2014/06/ubisoft-game-the-review/
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Brownie80 said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
Good job! You can read a Wikipedia article! Should I be impressed? Graphics aren't defined by their statistics.
Yes, graphics are defined by statistics. Aesthetics are not. You didn't watch the Extra Credits video did you. They say Killzone 2 is objectively graphically superior to Katamari Damacy while Katamari has better aesthetics. Graphics = objective, Aesthetics = subjective.
So you just proved that graphics are subjective and don't matter. Okay then.
And, you just proved you don't understand the difference between words.
 

Zykmiester

New member
Jun 22, 2010
30
0
0
it's simple, the game pissed people off before it was released. This happens all the time because us gamers are really fickle and easy to anger. I find critic reviews to be more accurate because they have a sense of professionalism and you can at lest trust that they played the game. User reviews however are a cesspit of crybaby whining. If the game is overhyped or it did something to piss people off the user reviews will always be overly negative. DmC, Mass Effect 3, Pretty much every CoD since MW2, Titanfall and now Watch_Dogs.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Brownie80 said:
Good job! You can read a Wikipedia article! Should I be impressed? Graphics aren't defined by their statistics.
Yes, graphics are defined by statistics. Aesthetics are not. You didn't watch the Extra Credits video did you. They say Killzone 2 is objectively graphically superior to Katamari Damacy while Katamari has better aesthetics. Graphics = objective, Aesthetics = subjective.
So you just proved that graphics are subjective and don't matter. Okay then.
And, you just proved you don't understand the difference between words.
Actually even though it can be somewhat measured statisticly, polygons arent the way to do it since they arent the only thing that is visually represented. I can have the Unreal Engine 4 show me a 10 million polygon sphere versus an 8 million polygon sphere except the 8 million one has a real time reflective texture. What is the sphere that is more advanced graphicly?

Add to that games that have tesselation, reflections, real time particles, soft physics, etc... and its a lot harder to judge a game using statistics.

Imagine a game with more polygons per object but barely any physics (canned death animations, static objects, etc...) versus a game that is more flat on the models but is a lot more intensive with things like dynamic water, ragdolls and real time shadows. Its hard to say what game has the upper hand.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
josemlopes said:
Actually even though it can be somewhat measured statisticly, polygons arent the way to do it since they arent the only thing that is visually represented. I can have the Unreal Engine 4 show me a 10 million polygon sphere versus an 8 million polygon sphere except the 8 million one has a real time reflective texture. What is the sphere that is more advanced graphicly?

Add to that games that have tesselation, reflections, real time particles, soft physics, etc... and its a lot harder to judge a game using statistics.

Imagine a game with more polygons per object but barely any physics (canned death animations, static objects, etc...) versus a game that is more flat on the models but is a lot more intensive with things like dynamic water, ragdolls and real time shadows. Its hard to say what game has the upper hand.
I realize there's more to it than polygons, the whole point was keeping it simple to explain why linear games have better graphics than sandbox games. Doing all that extra stuff like shadows, reflections, and such in an open world is more hardware intensive than doing that in a smaller environment. The very best looking linear game is ALWAYS much much better looking than the very best looking sandbox game on the same hardware, it's not even close. Oh, and MP3 still doesn't have a jump button by the way.