[QUOTE=PCGamesN;49467449][url]http://www.pcgamesn.com/watchdogs/hacking-in-watch-dogs-could-be-amazing-if-ubisoft-had-more-faith-in-players[/url][/QUOTE]
Saving you the trouble, Ubisoft didn't actually say anything. Just a guy saying how much cooler hacking would be if we were given more control over our actions, like raising a bridge just a little bit, or partially rotating a crane. There's even an MSPaint diagram to boot.
when i got watch dogs i expected some actual challenge in hacking, not holding down a button. some minigame like the hollywood movie style 'hacking' in Uplink. not realistic, but it felt like it
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;49468819]Saving you the trouble, Ubisoft didn't actually say anything. Just a guy saying how much cooler hacking would be if we were given more control over our actions, like raising a bridge just a little bit, or partially rotating a crane. There's even an MSPaint diagram to boot.[/QUOTE]
Ok so it's yet another pointless article for a game nobody gives a shit about anymore?
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49469784]Ok so it's yet another pointless article for a game nobody gives a shit about anymore?[/QUOTE]
For PCGamesN, it's Wednesday.
[QUOTE=portalcrazy;49469420]when i got watch dogs i expected some actual challenge in hacking, not holding down a button. some minigame like the hollywood movie style 'hacking' in Uplink. not realistic, but it felt like it[/QUOTE]
Making the hacking a mini-game would have made it annoying as hell to use imo
[QUOTE]I get why the first game didn’t allow this level of granularity. [B]Letting players loose with systems like this is scary: it’s sure to release all manner of bugs/odd situations. You just know that within 20 minutes, exploits and bizarre videos will appear[/B]. It’s clearly built to be accessible, too. Risking the launch of a many millions of dollars franchise on a hacking subsystem that takes a bit of learning might be a scary prospect.
[/QUOTE]
Aaaaand that happened anyway because the game was shoddily made in general?
[QUOTE=Joeyl10;49471986][img]http://cdn.pcgamesn.com/sites/default/files/watchdogs%20diagram.png[/img]
quality psgamesn content[/QUOTE]
It makes me angry that someone gets paid extremely good money to do this.
From now on any hacking in any PC game should have the game Hacknet built in. It's a simple game after you spend half an hour with it
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;49472256]It makes me angry that someone gets paid [B]extremely good[/B] money to do this.[/QUOTE]
not really iirc
vg journalism isn't really a profession and the salary varies depending on how good your content is and how much money the site pulls in
[editline]6th January 2016[/editline]
and PCGamesN doesn't seem big enough to be like an office or anything, could just be freelancers (although i might be wrong)
Yeah, I don't think Watch Underscore Dogs would have played so well if you had to pause the action and do a minigame EVERY time you wanted to hack something. Then you've got the MGS3 problem of having to STOP EVERYTHING the moment you're injured or you're in an area with slightly different terrain.
Maybe what they could have done instead was use a button to initiate a hack on an object, and when the hack is successful, a few different options appear based on button presses. Perhaps that way the hack button wouldn't feel like a "Make a crazy thing happen" button, and more of a way to 'access' objects and then exert control over them. You know, like a tiny tiny step closer to actually hacking into something.
I found something shittier than Watch_Dog's hacking:
This article.
[QUOTE=Joeyl10;49471986][img]http://cdn.pcgamesn.com/sites/default/files/watchdogs%20diagram.png[/img]
quality psgamesn content[/QUOTE]
i had to check to see if you made this as a joke, or if it was really from the article
its really from the article
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.