General / Off-Topic Ubisoft - Had annonced Watchdogs 2 - why to avoid

[Curlyriff]

OK,

So with E3 and Watchdogs 2 getting a load of exposure I was like ah maybe it's time to forgive them for what they have done previous to their games but then I saw this video;

https://youtu.be/xNter0oEYxc

And realised that I can never forgive them and will avoid their games at all costs. Highlighting just how much bull is shown at E3 and what we get in reality is so bad. Clearly they can produce games that look amazing but choose to loose all that because they don't know how to optimise.

Developers need to learn to stop over promising.

This is something that Frontier has been excellent with, they don't promise the earth, they allow us all to see where they are and yeah the graphics are not super ground breaking epic but they are of high quality and sometimes that is all thats needed.

Not sure where I am going with all this, just watched the video and needed to rant really.

 

[SydVic]

I don't know...I think, that Watch Dogs was a pretty good game (not a masterpiece -but good)...and the graphics (even if they were downgraded) are also pretty good...and what I've seen from Watch Dogs 2 so far looks very promising.

I'm not against one company...every company has made faults - I just care for their products .
And every company overhypes their games...I would do the same if I had a game company

 

[0BobTheJanitor]

Don't support companies like these. If you do support them, what you COULD get you WON'T get. Don't be treated this way, actually demand more from your products. Reward the good companies to get better products, and avoid the shady ones. [knockout]

 

[Curlyriff]

I think the problem is for me I had Watchdogs for free and still thought it was awful, look bad, played bad, felt disconnected.

I then got a code cheap for Seige and that was a let down. Nothing like what was shown about the game. It isn't just graphics but full on parts missing from it.

The atmosphere that made the games feel alive and more than something from the 90's was stripped out and it becomes the same as every other game.

Yep a lot of other companies have done the same and I won't support them by buying their games either. I haven't brought an EA game in years cause of how they have been, Ubisoft is a no from me for a while now too.

I get downgrades happen but as said they are almost completely different games with parts missing because it became too much for them to handle.

 

[SydVic]

But what's the big problem here...We're talking about games...Neither EA nor Ubisoft exploits poor countries, have horrible working conditions, polute the seas or harm anyone. It's like with movies...I watch (play) what I like... I don't care for the company behind them...but of course I don't support things like always-on etc.
I prefer to support Indie developers too... but like said before - if a game doesn't interest me, I don't buy it.

 

[Curlyriff]

Nah they might not be evil like that but it is still exploiting their customer base. I think you may be looking at it a little deep if you want to compare it too the things you have mentioned though. [blah]

 

[SydVic]

Nah they might not be evil like that but it is still exploiting their customer base. I think you may be looking at it a little deep if you want to compare it too the things you have mentioned though. [blah]

I just wanted to show, that I don't see a point in boykotting them for myself. I don't own many ubisoft games...just two (Rayman Legends and Watchdogs) and Rayman is a great game...and yeah, Watch Dogs is "good". It's a bit comparable with "Sleeping Dogs" - they are both looking good (okay, graphics aren't that important to me, if the style fits), play well, their stories are okay and the characters are good (okay the watch Dogs guy is a bit 0815). I don't feel that they've exploited me with their games
I don't have any game from EA but only for the reason, that they have nothing that interests me.

 

[0BobTheJanitor]

I just wanted to show, that I don't see a point in boykotting them for myself. I don't own many ubisoft games...just two (Rayman Legends and Watchdogs) and Rayman is a great game...and yeah, Watch Dogs is "good". It's a bit comparable with "Sleeping Dogs" - they are both looking good (okay, graphics aren't that important to me, if the style fits), play well, their stories are okay and the characters are good (okay the watch Dogs guy is a bit 0815). I don't feel that they exploited me with their games I don't have any game from EA but only for the reason, that they have nothing that interests me.

It's exploiting your rights as a consumer. If you don't stand up for wanting good products they will keep make bad products. Think about it like this, what if Planet Coaster cut out water rides and dark rides as $10 DLC. Would you complain then?

 

[SydVic]

It's exploiting your rights as a consumer. If you don't stand up for wanting good products they will keep make bad products. Think about it like this, what if Planet Coaster cut out water rides and dark rides as $10 DLC. Would you complain then?

Of course I stand for good products and I've never buyed something that lacks quality ...but none of the two games I've mentioned lacked quality to me...

I'm not a big gamer...and I'm not that informed about ubisoft or EA...and like I've written before - I have played two games (with "PoP Sands of time" -a really great game by the way - three...but that's pretty old now ) and both of them are good. I've played both at least 20 hours...so i think that I've got enough value for my money. I don't think that Watchdogs lacks quality...I've just watched a gameplay video on youtube again and I really think that the game looks good - the night and rain effects are even fantastic. But it's pretty often, that I hear bad things about ubisoft from other people (who are more in gaming than I ) and Watchdogs has very mixed reviews on amazon etc...but I cannot say why exactly...and most of the reviewers can't eiter

The DLC problem is something different. DLCs can be awesome (if they really give you a good amount of new stuff) but also can be cashgrabs...but I don't own the watchdogs DLC and I can perfectly live without it.

 

[Curlyriff]

I feel the problem for me is I was shown what it could have been, what was there and now isn't is a big problem. The little things that make games come alive always seem to be the first to be removed and they just feel bland and drab.

The biggest balls up was siege, there isn't even a way of selecting the roof and repelling down onto it in the game yet it was there even in games 10 years ago. They removed all the ambient lights, they downgraded significantly the textures that even the 4k texture pack looks drab and washed out. Everything is flat.

In watch dogs I wasn't so bothered because the writing was that bad for the main character I got bored and it was way too easy to do anything. I want things to be more interesting that hit this button, where were the technical puzzles and challenges that they originally described?

Farcry was just a reskin of the previous so didn't bother with that but I did enjoy their Blood Dragon reskin but that was like £10 and so value for money was fine. Just wanted to relive the 80's there though.

It is just that they haven't offered what they suggested to us and so I don't feel they deserve my money for another game.

 

[SydVic]

I feel the problem for me is I was shown what it could have been, what was there and now isn't is a big problem. The little things that make games come alive always seem to be the first to be removed and they just feel bland and drab.

The biggest balls up was siege, there isn't even a way of selecting the roof and repelling down onto it in the game yet it was there even in games 10 years ago. They removed all the ambient lights, they downgraded significantly the textures that even the 4k texture pack looks drab and washed out. Everything is flat.

In watch dogs I wasn't so bothered because the writing was that bad for the main character I got bored and it was way too easy to do anything. I want things to be more interesting that hit this button, where were the technical puzzles and challenges that they originally described?

Farcry was just a reskin of the previous so didn't bother with that but I did enjoy their Blood Dragon reskin but that was like £10 and so value for money was fine. Just wanted to relive the 80's there though.

It is just that they haven't offered what they suggested to us and so I don't feel they deserve my money for another game.

I understand all of your points... maybe the reason why I liked the game more is, that I haven't watched their E3 promotion before and just bought it because I've read a few (magazine) reviews and I thought that it sounds promising...so I've expected nothing more than a "good" standard gta-clone.
Yes, the writing of the main character is a "bit" uneven...and the lack of "real" puzzles is a real problem that even "old-school" adventures have...puzzles etc. are way too easy in modern games...but on the other hand, I didn't expected puzzles in Watch Dogs .

Of course, false advertising isn't something that I want to support...and yes...they have downgraded Watch Dogs which is pretty sad...but if I like the game in the end, and it's something I'd like to play I don't see a reason for not doing so...even if they don't use all it's potential.

 

[Curlyriff]

That is fair enough, just I often see a lot of what they show at E3 and similar events and then it comes to release and it's nothing alike.

In regards to the puzzles, I was more of the understanding when they discussed it that you would have to complete almost mini games to do a lot of the hacking where it would go into slow-mo for you to complete but that seemed to get dropped completely.

 

[0BobTheJanitor]

Speaking of conferences/conventions, I just got back from my first Comic Con, and it was great. Got a pony print signed by Andrea Libman and John De Lancey, and a Phineas and Ferb print signed by Dan Povenmire. Plus, the cosplayers were a lot of fun.