WATCH_DOGS 2 (November 15 2016)

[JR98]

WATCH_DOGS 2, sequel to Ubisoft's 2014 open world sandbox game, was revealed at E3 and is set in San Francisco.

Ubisoft Montreal talked about the following features during their livestream:
San Francisco will feature CToS 2.0, an upgrade to the surveillance seen in the first game.

The main character is Marcus Halloway, a young black man from Oakland. His signature weapon is a billiard ball tied to a lanyard.

Marcus is a member of DedSec, the hacker group from the first game. The devs say they will embrace the more anarchic fun with their hackers this time.

You'll be able to hack a lot more stuff in WD2, including the ability to fully hack cars and drive them around like the Shift ability in Driver San Francisco

Marcus also has a small RC car he can use to distract enemies and manipulate the environment

The devs say they've improved the handling by improving the physics and given the different cars more distinct handling

There are more options for approaching different scenarios including purely hacking, purely stealth, purely action or even non-lethal

At times during SP you can come across other players in their gamers and "emote" at them

The whole city will be unlocked at the very start, no towers need to be hacked to gain access

There will be actual dogs

 

[GTFan24]

Looks better than the 1st one, but im pretty sure the game won't even be like that looking at how Ubisoft usually is with these CGI trailers. Oh well let's see if they learned their mistakes from the original.

 

[catamount39]

Knowing Ubisoft, it'll be half of what we're seeing here with worse graphics.

Looks better than the 1st one, but im pretty sure the game won't even be like that looking at how Ubisoft usually is with these CGI trailers. Oh well let's see if they learned their mistakes from the original.

Ubisoft is incapable of "learning", let alone from mistakes. Hopefully they prove us wrong, but just about everything they've released since Ghost Recon Future Soldier has been half of what was advertised.

 

[GTFan24]

Knowing Ubisoft, it'll be half of what we're seeing here with worse graphics.


Ubisoft is incapable of "learning", let alone from mistakes.

Especially the last couple of Assassin's Creed games when you think about it ( im already sick of that franchise tbh )

 

[JR98]

I know it won't look anything like that, but it should still look decent for a 2016 game and I'll most likely get it regardless unless it turns out to be completely 🤬

 

[FT-1]

I would keep my expectations low for graphics but hopefully Ubisoft has improved the gameplay. Parkour seems like a cool addition!

EDIT: Formatting seems messed up on the quote, now removed

 

[catamount39]

I know it won't look anything like that, but it should still look decent for a 2016 game and I'll most likely get it regardless unless it turns out to be completely 🤬

If the content is at least 75% of what that was then it's definitely something to consider buying. But I want more people in the streets and hanging around the city, and more traffic. Also...free flowing melee would definitely be a help in coolness/playability. And better gun play. And at least the character is cooler this time, more interesting than "Aiden" at least.

 

[JR98]

And better gun play.

I hope so too, also there was a bit of an audio bug (at least in the PS3 version) when burst firing automatic weapons (which is most of the weapons in the game) in WD1 that really bugged me. Can't find a video on it but I really hope it's fixed for WD2.

And at least the character is cooler this time, more interesting than "Aiden" at least.

Considering Aiden is the most uninteresting man alive, that shouldn't be hard to do. And I really hope it's a much brighter, happier looking game (which it looks to be) with a story that doesn't revolve around a dead family member.

 

[GTFan24]

For someone that played Driver : San Francisco, it'll be interesting to see how the whole hacking cars thing works

 

[JR98]

For someone that played Driver : San Francisco, it'll be interesting to see how the whole hacking cars thing works

 

[FT-1]

There are more options for approaching different scenarios including purely hacking, purely stealth, purely action or even non-lethal

This is actually really cool! Would be better if your decisions in missions affect the outcome of the story.

 

[Luminis]

Ubisoft?

 

[sems4arsenal]

Looks so good, day one probably, only complaint is the driving still looks like ass.

 

[MeanElf]

Yeah, I saw this last night and I'm happy that we're getting another one - thoroughly enjoyed the original and DLC.

 

[Nexus]

I'm still annoyed about the first game. I was really hyped during the E3 reveal, only for the massive downgrade to happen.


Ubisoft has done this so many times, I don't know how they get away with it.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I'll do the same thing I did with the first one. Wait 'till it's in bargain bins for less than $20, play through it once, put it away, forget about it. I was pretty lucky with Watch Dogs actually. I got it for under $20 (can't remember exact price, it was something like 12 or 15 bucks) second-hand, and it was the "ANZ Special Edition" that came with a bunch of DLC. Amazingly, none of the codes had been used lol. I ended up with something like 10 add-ons lol.

As I remember, it was alright. Was worth what I paid for it, but no way would it have been worth full price. The kind of game that's not bad to play through once, but you never feel like going back once you've finished it. So, a typical Ubisoft game.

 

[VXR]

Watching that video, they pull a bigger bait and switch than McDonald's does with their advert food versus the mess you get served in store.

 

[MXH]

Looks so good, day one probably, only complaint is the driving still looks like ass.

I honestly don't know why they don't just copy the physics from Driver:SF. I know, different game engines and all, but still.

 

[MeanElf]

Gods, you lot are so cynical.

I thought the first was a damn fine game, there again I didn't go into it with any expectations other than good graphics and getting something that'd be different to experience. I know the graphics will likely be different come the release date: it's why they have the "this is a demo and may not be representative of the final game" type disclaimer on demos. Things change when realities and practicalities are met further down the line - that's not news, nor should it be such a shock in this industry. If anything, the disparity is far less nowadays.

...Parkour seems like a cool addition!

This will be the ffith game (to my knowledge) that uses parkour as a main feature: Brink, Mirror's Edge, Dying Light and now Mirror's Edge 2.

Parkour is always good.

 

[JR98]

For those on PC who have yet to play the original, it is now 70% off, now just £9.59, or £11.99 for the Complete Edition with all DLC

http://store.steampowered.com/app/243470/

 

[Luminis]

that's not news, nor should it be such a shock in this industry.

There's a lot of stuff that's pretty much become a common practice in the industry, especially among EA and Ubisoft. Some roll with it - and that's okay.

Me? I avoid these publishers and their proprietary DRM digital distribution platforms like the plaque.

 

[MeanElf]

There's a lot of stuff that's pretty much become a common practice in the industry, especially among EA and Ubisoft. Some roll with it - and that's okay.

Me? I avoid these publishers and their proprietary DRM digital distribution platforms like the plaque.

Fair enough and I can respect such choices - my exasperation (and I know I won't become popular as a result) is with those who go wibbling off about how a game they haven't even played yet will be like

 

[Mike_grpA]

I know the graphics will likely be different come the release date: it's why they have the "this is a demo and may not be representative of the final game" type disclaimer on demos.

Yes, but normally that disclaimer is there to excuse the relatively poor quality of early clips of a game, as it won't be representative of the final game's quality. In Ubisoft games, it's the opposite way around. They jazz everything up, and make it look way better than the game ever will, in order to lure people into pre-ordering their games. They've been doing it for ages. The first Watchdogs was a massive slap in the face of gamers who have supported Ubisoft, and you'd think they would have learned from that, but then they went and did the same with The Division, which is a hilariously bad game, despite being made to look awesome in trailers and so called "gameplay videos". If anyone is expecting this game to be much different, or much better, than the first one, they're setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

[Luminis]

those who go wibbling off about how a game they haven't even played yet will be like

I can sort off get behind that.

However, there's two things to consider:
First, for games that don't offer an open beta phase (which, I think, Ubisoft doesn't do), you'll have to pay up to actually play the game - and that's a hefty investment just to form an opinion.

Second, many of these cynical reactions are the result of the practices these publishers have been sticking to for years - fool me once and whatnot.

 

[MeanElf]

Sorry @Mike_grpA I do understand what you are saying and it's your opinion and all that - but you are also throwing some big assertions around there. The first Watch Dogs got some bad press but it was hardly "...a massive slap in the face of gamers..." The Division from what I've seen on forums and comments (not played the game myself) is also enjoyed by a lot of people - to call it hilariously bad is surely a subjective observation and not necessarily the case for everyone.

Personally, as for expectation about WD2 - I'm not expecting better or more, I'm just keen to see how it has progressed. At this generation's level of graphical processing and rendering, I don't think we'll see much more perceptible improvement outside of graphical wizards such as Naughty Dog, Polyphony Digital and the former Evolution Studios. That isn't to say that new games won't be improved, but I for one am not expecting a big leap, which I think is one of the roots to some gamers' dissatisfaction.

...First, for games that don't offer an open beta phase (which, I think, Ubisoft doesn't do), you'll have to pay up to actually play the game - and that's a hefty investment just to form an opinion...

It's always been that way for not-beta games - you observe and make your choice. Also, the price also hasn't changed that much in over a decade, so it isn't any more of a hefty investment...sorry.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Sorry @Mike_grpA I do understand what you are saying and it's your opinion and all that - but you are also throwing some big assertions around there. The first Watch Dogs got some bad press but it was hardly "...a massive slap in the face of gamers..." The Division from what I've seen on forums and comments (not played the game myself) is also enjoyed by a lot of people - to call it hilariously bad is surely a subjective observation and not necessarily the case for everyone.

The first Watchdogs wasn't just given some bad press, it was thoroughly slammed by the press and gamers alike when it came out looking nowhere near as good as the pre-release trailers. Ubisoft has done that repeatedly to lure people into pre-ordering, which is very shady, and yes, I consider it a slap in the face to the people they duped with those misleading videos. As I said, it's far from the only time they've done that either. The Division may be enjoyed by some people, but it was also slammed for being graphically poor compared to the trailers and the "gameplay videos" that were shown pre-release. It is also absolutely plagued with game-breaking bugs. It is an objectively poor game.

 

[Luminis]

It's always been that way for not-beta games - you observe and make your choice. Also, the price also hasn't changed that much in over a decade, so it isn't any more of a hefty investment...sorry.

Never said it was any different a decade ago.

"Try it before you knock it" is a reasonable approach (which is why I partially agreed with you in the first place) - at least as long as the cost of trying it is also reasonable - buying a game just for that isn't reasonable, imho. As such, I disagree with the sentiment that someone has to drop sixty bucks on a game they dislike (for whatever reason) in order to be allowed to voice their negative opinion.

 

[Mike_grpA]

This pretty accurately sums up what is wrong with Ubisoft. WARNING: very sweary.

 

[Peasantslayer]

I'm expecting it to be a decent game but nothing special, the only Ubisoft games that I have thoroughly enjoyed in the last 10 years were AC2 and Far Cry 3. I think Ubisoft has it in them to make Watch Dogs 2 one of the best games of this gen but after watching the Assassin's Creed franchise stagnate among other games that didn't quite live up to their expectations I doubt it.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I'm expecting it to be a decent game but nothing special, the only Ubisoft games that I have thoroughly enjoyed in the last 10 years were AC2 and Far Cry 3. I think Ubisoft has it in them to make Watch Dogs 2 one of the best games of this gen but after watching the Assassin's Creed franchise stagnate among other games that didn't quite live up to their expectations I doubt it.

They certainly have the money to make it a good game. They just have to learn from their past mis steps. Like I said before, Watchdogs 1 was alright, it was just disappointing after the hype that built up around it pre-release. There were some decent game mechanics hidden in there, but there were also some really bad ones, and the story was just cringe-worthy. This one at least looks to be more light-hearted, and not so serious, so that's a plus.

I'd love this to be a great game. It'd be good to see Ubisoft find some form again, but based on recent form I'm not going to hold my breath.