watch dogs things vs gta 4 things - General

[QUOTE=Coffee;44970536]This is an [I]excellent [/I]criticism for the game and should [I]definitely [/I]be what you focus on when whining. Oh wait, you shouldn't be shooting at the water in the first place, so there's no point. 'Hi yes I am Aiden Bigcoat, today i shoot the water as I can't hack it.' I can [I]definitely [/I]see that coming up in discussions at Ubisoft Montreal when they're trying to fix the important issues.[/QUOTE] so just having a world that reacts, i don't know, reasonably is an unreasonable request of game developers? So, you'er shooting a guy, you miss, hit the ground, and notice, wow, my bullets are magic and don't hurt anything but people and you go "Wow, that's great game design". Why?

[QUOTE=Coffee;44970536]This is an [I]excellent [/I]criticism for the game and should [I]definitely [/I]be what you focus on when whining. Oh wait, you shouldn't be shooting at the water in the first place, so there's no point. 'Hi yes I am Aiden Bigcoat, today i shoot the water as I can't hack it.' I can [I]definitely [/I]see that coming up in discussions at Ubisoft Montreal when they're trying to fix the important issues.[/QUOTE] Well, it makes your bullets seem like nothing, and it's not satisfying at all.

[QUOTE=The Vman;44969785] If you're going to say Watch_Dogs is crap because it doesn't include those features then you'd have to say pretty much every open world game other than GTA is just as crappy.[/QUOTE] at least 75% of open world games don't even come close

[QUOTE=Coffee;44970536]This is an [I]excellent [/I]criticism for the game and should [I]definitely [/I]be what you focus on when whining. Oh wait, you shouldn't be shooting at the water in the first place, so there's no point. 'Hi yes I am Aiden Bigcoat, today i shoot the water as I can't hack it.' I can [I]definitely [/I]see that coming up in discussions at Ubisoft Montreal when they're trying to fix the important issues.[/QUOTE] in GTA IV and GTA V you can do this even though there is no story mission related to shooting water.. your logic is rediculous, just because you [i]don't need to do it[/i] means you shouldn't be able to do it at all? with that logic half the things in gta iv/v would be cut from the game

There are no points in the game where you have to listen for the car creek as it cools down, may as well scrap that.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44968660]Priorities m8[/QUOTE] when your game's graphics are marketed as being the high point of the game then something as simple as that should be a priority

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44973679]when your game's graphics are marketed as being the high point of the game then something as simple as that should be a priority[/QUOTE] if crysis 3 came out and looked nothing like the trailers they used to market the game people would rightfully be angry same exact logic is being used here.

[QUOTE=djjkxbox360;44970583]Are you an idiot, this is just lazy game development[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DeVotchKa;44970602]Is that really necessary? It doesn't matter if you should be shooting at the water or not (like, y'know, at enemies that fall in it but don't hurt yourself with those critical thinking skills), it's a thing that's been in games for generations but was just left out for no reason in a supposedly super immersive, graphically intensive "next gen" game. It [I]is[/I] excellent criticism because it's [I]accurate[/I] criticism.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;44971205]News flash, they didn't fix a lot of the important issues anyway. Don't make an open world game if you're going to half ass the environment and make it feel like the city is a cardboard facade with puppets for civilians. If they had of took the hacking elements, the good parts of the story and the good characters, they could make a kickass stealth game.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44971224]so just having a world that reacts, i don't know, reasonably is an unreasonable request of game developers? So, you'er shooting a guy, you miss, hit the ground, and notice, wow, my bullets are magic and don't hurt anything but people and you go "Wow, that's great game design". Why?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44971242]Well, it makes your bullets seem like nothing, and it's not satisfying at all.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=endorphinsam;44971414]in GTA IV and GTA V you can do this even though there is no story mission related to shooting water.. your logic is rediculous, just because you [i]don't need to do it[/i] means you shouldn't be able to do it at all? with that logic half the things in gta iv/v would be cut from the game[/QUOTE] What I meant to get at was that this game was probably a complete and utter buggy unplayable mess, so this extra 6 months of development time was there to make it playable and not completely broken. Hence: they probably overlooked adding bullet shot decals to the water in favour of making it playable. Though for some reason you've all decided to overlook the intended point of my post and instead blabber on about 'lazy development', when really it's clear that the game has had a lot of development issues and so you should cut them a break. It's the first open world game with a modern setting that Ubisoft Montreal have made (Assassin's Creed had a historical setting), so they're going to have a lot of difficulties in making the game work in the first place with the amount of stuff that they want to have in the game. Game development is hard. Open-world game development is harder due to the amount of content and work that needs to be put in. [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] Apologies if I couldn't make that clear enough in my original post, but it can be hard to convey a point when you have this many people so hostile towards a game.

[QUOTE=Coffee;44973878]What I meant to get at was that this game was probably a complete and utter buggy unplayable mess, so this extra 6 months of development time was there to make it playable and not completely broken. Hence: they probably overlooked adding bullet shot decals to the water in favour of making it playable. Though for some reason you've all decided to overlook the intended point of my post and instead blabber on about 'lazy development', when really it's clear that the game has had a lot of development issues and so you should cut them a break. It's the first open world game with a modern setting that Ubisoft Montreal have made (Assassin's Creed had a historical setting), so they're going to have a lot of difficulties in making the game work in the first place with the amount of stuff that they want to have in the game. Game development is hard. Open-world game development is harder due to the amount of content and work that needs to be put in. [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] Apologies if I couldn't make that clear enough in my original post, but it can be hard to convey a point when you have this many people so hostile towards a game.[/QUOTE] im sorry but you were already coming off as hostile and condescending in your post, you can't act like the responses you got weren't rightfully deserved. [editline]sd[/editline] also to point out how ridiculous your argument sounds (at least to me) you're saying the more bugs that are in a game, the more we should cut it slack? it should be the exact opposite. and developmental issues? Obviously the game has had it's fair share of development issues but you cannot use that as an excuse either. Unless of course watch dogs went through 20 iterations, and has been in development for over 10 years, and gets reset from scratch every 4, as new companies buy the IP to make it somewhat salvagable. As far as I know, that didn't happen with watch dogs. making a game in a new setting that they've never done before is also not an excuse to not live up to even last gen capabilities. as a simple example, red dead redemption was many of rockstar's subsidaries first western game (other than san diego) yet it came out amazing. You could argue that it's a simpler setting to get right and that would have some truth to it, but the point is they can pick and choose what settings to do because they are the developers. if their strongsuit is not present day open world then they should refrain from trying to make them if they pail in comparison to other games. And if they decide to do it anyway, they should expect to be compared to other leading titles in the genre. Just because it's their first does not mean it should be okay to get an inferior product for the same exact price as other leading products.

[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44973919]im sorry but you were already coming off as hostile and condescending in your post, you can't act like the responses you got weren't rightfully deserved. also to point out how ridiculous your argument sounds (at least to me) you're saying the more bugs that are in a game, the more we should cut it slack? it should be the exact opposite. making a game in a new setting that they've never done before is also not an excuse to not live up to even last gen capabilities. as a simple example, red dead redemption was many of rockstar's subsidaries first western game (other than san diego) yet it came out amazing. You could argue that it's a simpler setting to get right and that would have some truth to it, but the point is they can pick and choose what settings to do because they are the developers. if their strongsuit is not present day open world then they should refrain from trying to make them if they pail in comparison to other games. And if they decide to do it anyway, they should expect to be compared to other leading titles in the genre. Just because it's their first does not mean it should be okay to get an inferior product for the same exact price as other leading products.[/QUOTE] Because I'm having fun with this game and everyone else is being cynical because of graphics and apparent mass anti-consumerist lying. I'm appreciating the game as I find it a fun and enjoyable experience. You're all making a lot of fuss over something when you don't need to be, a game should have fun gameplay or should be an enjoyable experience from a face value. Whereas a lot of people who are hating this game are just complaining about the graphics not being as good as they were shown in a trailer, or because bullets don't have water impact decals; it's missing the main point of criticism. The little things in games like that should be a secondary focus when it comes to criticism. And I'm not saying "the more bugs that are in a game, the more you should cut it slack", I'm saying that for this game in particular, the development of it seems to be problematic and that there's been lot of problems and issues that have been hard for the developers to overcome; hence the 6 month delay for the release, they wanted it to be fun, playable and enjoyable from a face value, so that they didn't have enough time to add in a lot of details in places in this period of time. Plus you have to consider that when they inevitably make a Watch Dogs 2, it'll be improved in many of the aspects and issues that the internet has complained about, I'm sure Ubisoft can simply devote more people to work on it to ensure that it's better, or perhaps have better project managers/management processes. The key to a successful and mostly working project is good management, so maybe the main issue with Watch Dogs is perhaps poor management? It's not lazy development, it's most likely poorly managed development or very difficult development with a lot of issues.

Bring on the mods so this game looks like the E3 2012 trailer please. Call it... Watch Dogs: Reborn... or Watch Dogs: Lost Alpha.

[QUOTE=Coffee;44973967]Because I'm having fun with this game and everyone else is being cynical because of graphics and apparent mass anti-consumerist lying. I'm appreciating the game as I find it a fun and enjoyable experience. You're all making a lot of fuss over something when you don't need to be, a game should have fun gameplay or should be an enjoyable experience from a face value. Whereas a lot of people who are hating this game are just complaining about the graphics not being as good as they were shown in a trailer, or because bullets don't have water impact decals; it's missing the main point of criticism. The little things in games like that should be a secondary focus when it comes to criticism.[/QUOTE] If you genuinely think that way then you can go on, because I don't think I'll be able to change your mind. But if you have any deducing skills whatsoever, you should be able to understand that 1. making a product and advertising it is good 2. making a product and advertising the product as having features that aren't actually there is bad 3. making a product that's as easy to break using it's features as tossing it out the window is bad you seem to not understand how terribly frequent lying is in every form of media. along with the fact that we have a preorder system that allows us to buy a game with hopes that what we saw is actually what will be in the game, all this does is encourage more developers to make stupid bullshots of their games and hope no one notices until a day after release (or in this case a week before release).

[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44974016]If you genuinely think that way then you can go on, because I don't think I'll be able to change your mind. But if you have any sort ofdeducing skills, you should understand that 1. making a product and advertising it is good 2. making a product and advertising the product as having features that aren't actually there is bad 3. making a product that is easy enough to break using it's features as tossing it out the window is bad you seem to not understand how terrible lying is in media. along with the fact that we have a preorder system that allows us to buy a game with hopes that what we saw is actually what will be in the game, all this does is encourage more developers to make stupid bullshots of their games and hope no one notices until a day after release (or in this case a week before release).[/QUOTE] Please list everything that they specifically lied about in order to deceive the masses about this game.

Maybe ubisoft shitified the graphics to actually get it to run smoothly on high settings because they can't optimize for shit. I only know one person who can actually run it on mostly ultra, aside from texture details because 3 fucking gigs of VRAM.

[QUOTE=Coffee;44974022]Please list everything that they specifically lied about in order to deceive the masses about this game.[/QUOTE] that is in any way a next gen game when it can't even pull off the polish of anything last gen does the story being total garbage not affect the quality of the game either? [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Coffee;44973878]What I meant to get at was that this game was probably a complete and utter buggy unplayable mess, so this extra 6 months of development time was there to make it playable and not completely broken. Hence: they probably overlooked adding bullet shot decals to the water in favour of making it playable. Though for some reason you've all decided to overlook the intended point of my post and instead blabber on about 'lazy development', when really it's clear that the game has had a lot of development issues and so you should cut them a break. It's the first open world game with a modern setting that Ubisoft Montreal have made (Assassin's Creed had a historical setting), so they're going to have a lot of difficulties in making the game work in the first place with the amount of stuff that they want to have in the game. Game development is hard. Open-world game development is harder due to the amount of content and work that needs to be put in. [editline]2nd June 2014[/editline] Apologies if I couldn't make that clear enough in my original post, but it can be hard to convey a point when you have this many people so hostile towards a game.[/QUOTE] People are upset that a modern AAA title can't even have the most basic of polishes applied to it. Who knows if it's lazy, or shitty, or what not, but it's not good for the consumer and it shows the industry that we don't actually give a shit if our products are quality or not, we'll spend exorbitant prices for nothing at all.

[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44973686]if crysis 3 came out and looked nothing like the trailers they used to market the game people would rightfully be angry same exact logic is being used here.[/QUOTE] Thank goodness Aliens: Colonial Marines didn't have this problem, and held wide acclaim!

Just to all the people damage controlling, remember. You were promised back in 2012 an amazing HD game and what do you get? A game that looks last gen and requires a lot to run it on PC.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44954588]I never said that watch dogs was a step in the direction of next-gen technology. you're stooping down to being a nitpicky little sperg and it's quite hilarious[/QUOTE] Whoa don't make fun of autism, that makes you look like an asshole. Anyways I bought Watch_Dogs and I thought it was pretty fun, I'm sure there wasn't a downgrade as I saw trash flying in the wind and amazing specular highlights in the road, at night there's a lot more dynamic shadows going on, and when it rains there's some cool light reflections / specular highlights and it looks great. There's also some funny glitches, I found an NPC standing on a magazine display. [IMG]http://s20.postimg.org/7d3a79tx9/Funny_NPCIn_Watch_Dogs.png[/IMG] Sometimes I hate the driving though, and the mouse control, and the optimization, and the fact that if you disable invasions it will reset your online progress which I think is total PISS. I wish Far Cry 3 used Disrupt, that game had ugly grass and a lack of shadowing on the grass.

[QUOTE=BDX777;44975850]Whoa don't make fun of autism, that makes you look like an asshole. [/QUOTE] [IMG]http://puu.sh/9bPPq/7dc9f58368.png[/IMG] :downs:

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44960930]yeah but not adding fucking bullet impacts on the ground/water? thats been in most games that involve guns for over 20 years[/QUOTE] There are bullet impacts on the ground, it's only missing in water.

[QUOTE=elowin;44978453]There are bullet impacts on the ground, it's only missing in water.[/QUOTE] theres no bullet impacts on actual earth/grass, only on concrete, apparently

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44978506]theres no bullet impacts on actual earth/grass, only on concrete, apparently[/QUOTE] I just tried this in game. There's impact effects, just no bullet hole decal left behind

"omg this game doesn't have good graphics I'm so disappointed what a piece of shit" Some of these are the people who said the graphics don't matter and support indie games, too.

[QUOTE=gk99;44978962]"omg this game doesn't have good graphics I'm so disappointed what a piece of shit" Some of these are the people who said the graphics don't matter and support indie games, too.[/QUOTE] it has been said a thousand times already. the problem isn't that graphics matter more than gameplay, but the fact that watch dogs graphics were advertised as the main selling point of the game

[QUOTE=gk99;44978962]"omg this game doesn't have good graphics I'm so disappointed what a piece of shit" Some of these are the people who said the graphics don't matter and support indie games, too.[/QUOTE] Different expectations. You don't expect an indie team to make a stunningly beautiful game with state of the art graphics (especially when they don't advertise it as that) but when you're talking about a company like ubisoft that basically advertises "NEXT GEN GRAPHICS" and you get a barely average game with barely average graphics, people are gonna fuckin complain.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44979001]it has been said a thousand times already. the problem isn't that graphics matter more than gameplay, but the fact that watch dogs graphics were advertised as the main selling point of the game[/QUOTE] Then why'd people buy it instead of watching a HD walkthrough? If someone bought it solely because they thought it would look good, I have literally no sympathy whatsoever about their $60+ loss. [QUOTE=gt118;44979053]Different expectations. You don't expect an indie team to make a stunningly beautiful game with state of the art graphics (especially when they don't advertise it as that) but when you're talking about a company like ubisoft that basically advertises "NEXT GEN GRAPHICS" and you get a barely average game with barely average graphics, people are gonna fuckin complain.[/QUOTE] Boohoo, it's not a masterpiece and work of art. Maybe I can't relate because I don't really give a shit if the graphics are "average." As long as the game's fun, it runs well, and we aren't reverting back to Half-Life 1 graphics, I consider it a success of a triple-A game. I mean I'd rather "suffer" with textures that get ever so slightly blurry when I get face-on-wall with them than upgrade my PC every time the next ~breakthrough in graphics~ happens.

[QUOTE=gk99;44982684]Then why'd people buy it instead of watching a HD walkthrough? If someone bought it solely because they thought it would look good, I have literally no sympathy whatsoever about their $60+ loss.[/QUOTE]You are essentially admitting that the current industry is at a stage where consumers are required to depend on each other and ignore official sources; because official sources always lie through their teeth about everything, on every conceivable level, down to the very core selling points of their products. Then stating that the [i]consumers[/i] are the ones in the wrong.

[QUOTE=gk99;44982684]Then why'd people buy it instead of watching a HD walkthrough? If someone bought it solely because they thought it would look good, I have literally no sympathy whatsoever about their $60+ loss.[/QUOTE] thats not the point. the devs promised something and didnt deliver. whether or not people still bought it doesnt affect the fact that the developers were lazy.

[quote=Ubisoft Blog]Welcome to Watch Dogs, a true next-gen gaming experience in which every choice is up to you. In development for six years, Watch Dogs was started long before the next-gen arrived, and years before the team at Ubisoft Montreal had any clear insight into the exact specs they’d find in the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and present-day PCs. Yet Watch Dogs was designed from the very start to be a next-gen experience, regardless of the technology. How so? “We focused on what kind of experience players want to play next,” says Creative Director Jonathan Morin. “That’s more important for me than defining what technology can do.”[/quote] Those lying bastards

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44982970]Those lying bastards[/QUOTE] i'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that they didn't deliver a next gen game. It's on last gen and it sucks on last gen, but it is there. They clearly had to alter the technology significantly to get it there. On the "next gen" consoles it doesn't achieve 60 fps, high fidelity lighting, or shadows and struggles to even get physics right. On PC, it's arguable it's badly optimized to an extent for some players that the experience significantly suffers. As far as next gen gameplay opportunities go, I love the detail that's in the game for the people seeing their lives and what not, but is pressing a button to activate the environment as designed for you by the game designers really so revolutionary that it stands out to anyone here as a "next gen" gameplay mechanic? I don't even dislike the game, it's just an example of how the industry is really hurting itself, us as consumes and gamers, and itself as a business and public relations industry. It's not okay and you can defend them and their ability to sell you on one pony and let you ride home with another, but no other modern industry gets away with so little in terms of rebuttal for their shit. It's not okay man. You can love the game. Stop defending the industry and bullshit that lets them get away with crap like this.