Why You Should Still Be Pumped For Watch Dogs

[Machocruz]

Seems like it's always a AAA game from the same 4 or 5 publishers that I should be getting hyped about, according to the mainstream game sites. It's so generic a heading that it could apply to hundreds of games over the past generation, yet it's predictable as to which games will get such headlining. I just ask myself why I should still be pumped for Watch Dogs as opposed to any other at-least-decent game coming out this year. Will this be a "AAA" Ubisoft game that isn't shallow and requires no more than the bare minimum of competence to play? Will the hacking even be on the level of Gunpoint?

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Or, you know, this is the logical extension of decades of being lied to, misled, and deceived, both by PR and press. Not to say Andrea is responsible for any of that. Like Winter, this was always coming, whether a fast-talking misanthrope became trendy on the internet or not. This is the extension of the dynamic between the promotion that has promised us everything short of hookers if we buy a game and the reality that we're getting more promise for less product. And while I'd like to believe the multiplayer is "seamless," if I had a nickel for every time I heard that about a game where it didn't apply, I could buy the Escapist and the Occulus Rift and offer forumites the most immersive experience ever (it's just like you're sitting at your computer!). I'd also imagine that people are extra cynical with Watch_Dogs.dll because we've already had a "bullshots" scandal (I don't care much, because the "downgraded" stuff looks good enough for me, but still).

But how is that unique to video games and how is this recent? I'm sure if I turned on my tv right now I'd be bombarded with movie trailers with taglines like "story of a generation" and tv shows being called "the hottest thing on television". Their are plenty of people older than the average escapist user who have been bombarded with hyperbole their whole lives who are capable of enjoying things. And I believe it was Call of Duty 3 that tried passing off a CGI trailer as actual gameplay when the last gen of consoles were introduced. No one should expect a new game to be the second coming of Jesus even if the publisher is promoting it that way. There's nothing inherently logical about being cynical, its just an opinion and people shouldn't think of antihype as any more valid than actual hype unless they've played the game

Yahtzee is a symptom, not a cause.

Though yeah, people don't need to be outright hostile about it.

I want Watch_Dogs_./ to be good, for the record. I'm personally less cynical and more just unimpressed.

Well I can agree with this. My issue isn't that people don't like the hype but the fact that people are getting so annoyed over the idea of looking forward to a game. Watch_Dogs was kind of an "oh neat" game when it was announced but nothing about it made me plan on getting it. Though now that I see it has robot spiders I'm a little more interested. Maybe Watch_Dogs will move past that antihype train and actually be good, but I won't really be interested until I read the Watch_Dogs threads

 

[Vegosiux]

But how is that unique to video games and how is this recent? I'm sure if I turned on my tv right now I'd be bombarded with movie trailers with taglines like "story of a generation" and tv shows being called "the hottest thing on television". Their are plenty of people older than the average escapist user who have been bombarded with hyperbole their whole lives who are capable of enjoying things. And I believe it was Call of Duty 3 that tried passing off a CGI trailer as actual gameplay when the last gen of consoles were introduced. No one should expect a new game to be the second coming of Jesus even if the publisher is promoting it that way. There's nothing inherently logical about being cynical, its just an opinion and people shouldn't think of antihype as any more valid than actual hype unless they've played the game

Hype aversion doesn't mean you can't enjoy the end product. It means you don't enjoy the hype associated with it. And well, I'd say that being cynical is just about as rational as being overly excited for anything.

I do disagree with the notion "If you're cynical about something, you won't be disappointed if it sucks." Of course you will be disappointed, and as ego-trippy as going "I told you so" can be, I can't imagine saying it without some bitterness and disappointment if something I was cynical about yet hoped it turns out good ends up sucking.

But, for example, hype is a major part of what killed Game of Thrones for me. Aside from the fact I didn't see anything special or exceptional about it to begin with, the fact that everyone and their dogs gush about how awesome it is and how I just "have to watch it" just extinguished the last remnant of interest I might have had for it.

As I said there's nothing personal here for me, except for the fact that I don't like hype trains. I'm not telling anyone not to be optimistic or excited, but trying to spread that to me, well, it just rubs me the wrong way. But I'll not for a second think I am in a position to tell them to quit being excited for it.

 

[weirdee]

Would probably attribute most of this ire to the title. Whoever's been writing titles lately for the articles has been more miss than hit. Don't need to take too many pages from Upworthy's book, so to speak. Some of the more egregious examples are outright misinterpretations of the articles, which I won't say are intentional lies, but it's riding the border like one of them old tony hawk games where yall get more points the longer you're grinding. Some of them read like the person that wrote them just sort of glanced over the summary and slammed it out for emphasis on eyecatching fanfare before moving onto the next one.

 

[Roysten]

The title of this piece is grating, the whole "pumped" thing screams hyperbole. Reading this in the U.K. I was almost expecting to read a piece of satire on 90's print gaming journalism, the language does not travel well across the pond.

The substance of the article was well written but unrelentingly positive. The reader should "still be pumped" because of the shiny positive things. The problem I have is that the piece offers no perspective. Why are readers currently less than fully pumped for the watchdogs experience.

"It's important to remember builds of a game change over the development process, so while certain scenes may not look identical to their trailer counterparts from 2012, the overall world of Chicago looks fantastic."

This sentence is not journalism dealing with recent controversy surrounding the game, it is the language of PR and spin.

Personally I am looking forward to the game and if I can find some post launch reviews that deal with the product in a balanced way that say its worth a punt I will get it. I have never played a game yet that didn't have some kind of faults so I will continue to discard any preview or review information that is entirely positive.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

How is this still being talked about?? My first experience with some form of online community is revealing some serious padantic behaviour. This would be highly hilarious if it wasnt so downright depressing.
I recommend hobbies and girlfriends for all!! Failing that, get high or anything...just let it be

 

[roboman123]

Personally I just skimmed through the article, skipped a few times through the video and dismissed the whole thing as usual extended marketing for a game. Never giving it a second thought.

So I guess I shouldn't care about what you have to say then? How silly of me to think people would actually watch the interviews or read the article before making judgement calls. Call me crazy but I believed The Escapist community was of a higher standard than that.

I thought this site was above making "Titanfall: Believe the Hype" esque articles, seems we were both wrong.

 

[Something Amyss]

But how is that unique to video games and how is this recent?

You know what books and movies and TV don't have (generally speaking)?

Interactivity. They have a lot of things they don't have to promise to sell.

On top of which, movies haven't gotten shorter, or become more linear, or turned brown because they can't handle multiple colours and still offer shiny next-gen graphics. Movies don't claim "in-movie footage" when they make trailers or claim demos are "vertical slices" which represent the final mark. IT's one thing if we assume it--shame on us--but another when they say it.

No one should expect a new game to be the second coming of Jesus even if the publisher is promoting it that way.

Except it's not about the second coming of Jesus, it's about expecting things to perform to technical claims. Again, movies don't usually have to deal with resolution. Books don't deal with framerate.

There's nothing inherently logical about being cynical

There's nothing logical about believing a whole market exists to make money, and that reviewers have to walk a tightrope to deal with them? The Escapist may be home to Andrea Renae, but it's also home to Jimothy T. Sterling, who has spoken about this issue multiple times.

Being cynical is completely logical and completely rational. You just made arguments for it yourself! You claimed companies will hype their product as the second coming of Jesus. Why? For altruistic reasons? No! For cynical reasons!

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

But how is that unique to video games and how is this recent?

You know what books and movies and TV don't have (generally speaking)?

Interactivity. They have a lot of things they don't have to promise to sell.

On top of which, movies haven't gotten shorter, or become more linear, or turned brown because they can't handle multiple colours and still offer shiny next-gen graphics. Movies don't claim "in-movie footage" when they make trailers or claim demos are "vertical slices" which represent the final mark. IT's one thing if we assume it--shame on us--but another when they say it.

Well if that's your opinion then yes, you have plenty of reason to be concerned about whether or not this game is good. While its important, I care about more than interactivity. Maybe that's not an artsy fartsy, high class gamer opinion to have but I've played plenty of fun games that weren't Planescape Torment

And we've had plenty of games with vertical slices and claims of in-game footage that turned out just fine. Aliens Colonial Marines was just one extreme example

No one should expect a new game to be the second coming of Jesus even if the publisher is promoting it that way.

Except it's not about the second coming of Jesus, it's about expecting things to perform to technical claims. Again, movies don't usually have to deal with resolution. Books don't deal with framerate.

If that stuff's so important, then buy it on a pc. I for one am not in the camp of people complaining because CoD Ghosts dropped down to an "unacceptable" 30fps or ran in a "muddy" 720p resolution. Unless you're talking about the game outright not working in which case, this isn't a Steam greenlight title

There's nothing inherently logical about being cynical

There's nothing logical about believing a whole market exists to make money, and that reviewers have to walk a tightrope to deal with them? The Escapist may be home to Andrea Renae, but it's also home to Jimothy T. Sterling, who has spoken about this issue multiple times.

Being cynical is completely logical and completely rational. You just made arguments for it yourself! You claimed companies will hype their product as the second coming of Jesus. Why? For altruistic reasons? No! For cynical reasons!

It sure is logical. Just no more logical than thinking this game might be good. Its not Ubisoft's first game its not the first game to have an ad campaign. I think people rather liked their last hyped release which was Ass. Creed 4. This game could totally be shit and I've already said that I'm not that interested in it. But the fact that people are getting their panties in a bunch over a preview where someone dared say they enjoyed a game they fucking played then act like we should sit here and be cool cynical bastards for no reason other than speculation.

Speculation that game might be bad is perfectly valid. Just no more valid than Andrearene's opinion

 

[Atmos Duality]

The concept of a GTA-hacker game is indeed a very interesting one, and it SEEMS that is what Ubisoft is delivering.

...But I'm still not getting too pumped for Watch Dogs, because I've seen the kind of change that can occur between the "press coverage" version of a game, and the one that they actually charge money for. Turns out, not even AAA is above such things (see Aliens: Colonial Marines).

That, and I wonder just how much "ancillary content" is actually in the core game, and how much of it is gated behind a premium paywall.

Call it cynicism if you want; I call it being wiser with my money.

 

[Artina89]

I for one, am looking forward to Watchdogs the premise seems very interesting, and I love open world sandbox games. This could very well be the game that tears me away from Dark souls II, at least for a little while. I wouldn't say I am "pumped" but I am definitely interested.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

While I fully respect a person's right to be excited over something, and good on them for being excited over something, expecting me to share the excitement is a tad irritating. I can't say I'm a huge fan of being told "I should be pumped." I'll be pumped when I'm damn good and ready. <.<

The ad campaign for the game chewed my nerves when they said they knew "how I game," to paraphrase. enough for me to leave a message on the ubisoft board. They pretty well missed the mark with Watch Dogs so far.

Still seems like a pass now. Definitely not pumped. Will see when it's closer to release date.

captcha:
Hear me roar!
I appreciate the advice, captcha, but no thanks, I'll keep my claws sheathed.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

**Sigh** more PR department extension, 'promotional shots' and ramping up the hype train. I expect "Why you should be be pumped for X" as the title for a preview more from a site like IGN. After the PR disaster of dubious early marketing and bad damage control i think the most we can be is "Cautiously optimistic".

Is it so inconceivable to be excited for something? Because this is the Escapist I'm automatically supposed to hate everything? I had a genuinely awesome experience playing the game, plain and simple. But I love video games, and it seems more and more like a lot of this community doesn't love anything.

I hear you on that one. 100% agree, seems all people wanna do these days is hate on things for trivial reasons.

OT: I'm actually looking forward to Watch Dogs, and I really don't give a single shit about the whole graphics fiasco.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Wow guys. Call off the attack dogs. The site's for criticism, but that doesn't mean someone can't praise something once in a while. [sub]like the Sun \[T]/[/sub] Personally I think the title gets straight the point of the issue: Watch Dogs looked great in previews, now the lustre's worn off a bit and the graphics aren't what they were meant to be and I'm hearing things about hacking not being as versatile or useful as it should have been and Andrea thinks it deserves more of a look than the average gamer might be prepared to give it based on the murmurings and wanted to convey that instantly.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well if that's your opinion then yes, you have plenty of reason to be concerned about whether or not this game is good. While its important, I care about more than interactivity. Maybe that's not an artsy fartsy, high class gamer opinion to have but I've played plenty of fun games that weren't Planescape Torment

Woah woah woah...Put down that man of straw and back away.

You asked how things were different. I gave you an answer. Why do you have to turn this into some sort of high-brow attack on the proletariat?

At the same time, do you understand what interactivity is? Games as a medium are inherently interactive.

And we've had plenty of games with vertical slices and claims of in-game footage that turned out just fine. Aliens Colonial Marines was just one extreme example

...Which wasn't the point. The point was, when you see "false advertising" in movies, it's not claimed to be part of the movie. They chain together the exciting parts, maybe include something that doesn't make the final cut. When a game does it, you often see things that deliberately lie. And honestly, ACM wasn't the only example. And Watch_Dogs_ was already on that path.

If that stuff's so important, then buy it on a pc.

They're examples. I mean, if you don't want a question answered, don't ask.

But even on a PC, you're not guaranteed they'll be honest. So what difference does that make?

I for one am not in the camp of people complaining because CoD Ghosts dropped down to an "unacceptable" 30fps or ran in a "muddy" 720p resolution.

Huh. Convenient, since neither am I.

My biggest complaint is that I'd rather be playing Blops 2, but my friends have moved on. I don't know about the framerate of any of the COD games, and the resolution is yet to bother me. That doesn't change the fact that there are claims of a technical nature made by companies which are largely unique to gaming. You rarely see a movie advertised by its framerate or aspect ratio, the same way you don't see movies treated as player-controlled or interactive.

It sure is logical. Just no more logical than thinking this game might be good.

Those are some low standards. Sure, the game "might" be good. So might any game. So what?

I think people rather liked their last hyped release which was Ass. Creed 4.

Ass Creed 4 and 3 both received markedly lower scores than earlier titles and were less well-received by fans of the series. Surely, then, there's no correlation between hype and quality, as they were more hyped, so why bring it up?

This game could totally be shit and I've already said that I'm not that interested in it. But the fact that people are getting their panties in a bunch over a preview where someone dared say they enjoyed a game they fucking played then act like we should sit here and be cool cynical bastards for no reason other than speculation.

No reason other than the reality of the games industry, past experience, etc. I think you're omitting some issues I've already brought up. Hell, you're using past performance to argue that their future performance might not suck.

Also, while I've already agreed people shouldn't be down Andrea's throat, the article was not phrased "this is how I feel about Watch@Dogs," but rather "why you should still be pumped for...."

Yeah, when you start making arguments to other people's state of mind, the "it's my opinion" excuse loses some credibility.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Woah woah woah...Put down that man of straw and back away.

You asked how things were different. I gave you an answer. Why do you have to turn this into some sort of high-brow attack on the proletariat?

At the same time, do you understand what interactivity is? Games as a medium are inherently interactive.

The consequence of getting hyped is that product you buy might be bad. Because you brought up interactivity, I was under the impression you thought that games that didn't have "good" levels of interactivity were bad games

snip

Ok I clearly misinterpreted some of the things you said and now that I'm looking at these quotes, my level of sarcasm was unnecessary. But I also don't think you get what I'm saying.

Those are some low standards. Sure, the game "might" be good. So might any game. So what?

That's my point. I'm not trying to say Watch_Dogs will be good. I don't think people don't have the right to push their opinions when they're based on nothing more than assumptions and speculation. You have plenty of good reasons to think this game will be bad, but I think most people do it with 100% confidence because it makes them seem "smart" if they're cynical when its nothing more than false equivalency[footnote]Here [http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20cuddy,%20glick,%20&%20beninger,%20ROB.pdf] is a section from a textbook explaining what I'm talking about. It basically says that people who are cold assholes are perceived as smart and warm hopeful people are seen as naive when in reality there's no correlation. I know you don't feel like reading 80 pages, but I don't like to say things without context[/footnote]. And no one promotes that idea better than Yahtzee [small](I seriously had to back and look at why you quoted me in the first place)[/small]

"this is how I feel about Watch@Dogs," but rather "why you should still be pumped for...."

The only thing bigger than Watch_Dogs's hype train was its subsequent anti-hype train. Maybe she was trying give the people who used to be interested a little more hope that this game won't be shit?