Watch Dogs - Open World Gameplay Premiere Commentary

[QUOTE]Watch Dogs (stylised as WATCH_DOGS) is an upcoming open world action-adventure video game, developed by Ubisoft Montreal for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4,[3] Wii U,[4] and the Xbox 360.[5] Watch Dogs centers on the player's ability to hack into various electronic systems, either to obtain and control information or to destroy those devices completely at specific times. The game was first unveiled during Ubisoft's press conference at E3 2012.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://sickr.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/watch_dogs_art.jpg[/IMG]
Holy cow, looks amazing :biggums:

[B]VIDEO[/B]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SvdfDvPZBU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SvdfDvPZBU[/URL]

definitely looks amazing. But compared to the jump between ps2 to ps3 i think another year of r/d would have produced something amazing. It's not like the market is demanding next-gen, many people just got next gen consoles.

anyways, this game reminds me of a mix of GTAIV and Assassin's Creed. I can't wait to play it. I hope this game is long as hell.

[QUOTE=Burgz V2]definitely looks amazing. But compared to the jump between ps2 to ps3 i think another year of r/d would have produced something amazing. It's not like the market is demanding next-gen, many people just got next gen consoles.

anyways, this game reminds me of a mix of GTAIV and Assassin's Creed. I can't wait to play it. I hope this game is long as hell.[/QUOTE]
next-gen is so ****ing annoying. we ain't need it yet mofos!

anyways yeah, look's like a mix of both of that but with a blend of prototype? :confusedshrug:

more new gameplay video

i want.. I WANT

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5R_1B77bug[/url]

[QUOTE=jaydacris]more new gameplay video

i want.. I WANT

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5R_1B77bug[/url][/QUOTE]

It looks incredible but feels so overwhelming.
Still not sure if it's my "type" of game...but I really hope it is.

Oh, my god! :eek: That game looks amazing!

I'm also hoping it's a long game and has a lot of things to do on the side.

I love the concept, I just hope it doesn't get to the point where it all feels the same. I like the choose your own path sort of thing, I wish more games did that rather than having to follow a scripted story. I just hope there is some variety into what you can do.

It does look awesome.

The concept is awesome, and the quality looks as good as I'd expect from an Ubisoft open world game.

It also has another advantage, one that I thought GTA V should have taken advantage of, it's located in the gorgeous city of Chicago. Just a perfect city for an open world game, very accessible, a few really identifiable landscape elements, like the Chicago River winding through it, and Lakeshore Drive running along Lake Michigan. Because the the river the city has a huge number of bridges. It's just a great city for this sort of setting.

I think DC would be a great city too. And this is now two straight GTA's where they're recycling old cities in a game where the city is in fact a huge character in the game. I'm sure GTA is gonna be great, and I look very forward to that as well. I just feel like they missed the boat a bit by not doing more cities.

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]It does look awesome.

The concept is awesome, and the quality looks as good as I'd expect from an Ubisoft open world game.

It also has another advantage, one that I thought GTA V should have taken advantage of, it's located in the gorgeous city of Chicago. Just a perfect city for an open world game, very accessible, a few really identifiable landscape elements, like the Chicago River winding through it, and Lakeshore Drive running along Lake Michigan. Because the the river the city has a huge number of bridges. It's just a great city for this sort of setting.

I think DC would be a great city too. And this is now two straight GTA's where they're recycling old cities in a game where the city is in fact a huge character in the game. I'm sure GTA is gonna be great, and I look very forward to that as well. I just feel like they missed the boat a bit by not doing more cities.[/QUOTE]

They were talking about Tokyo and London at one point too. Tokyo looks like a video game city. Highways and ramps all over, it's all neon, has tons of hills, self contained little sections that are iconic. NOPE. Have to do the same cities over and over. I agree with you 100%.

[QUOTE=niko]They were talking about Tokyo and London at one point too. Tokyo looks like a video game city. Highways and ramps all over, it's all neon, has tons of hills, self contained little sections that are iconic. NOPE. Have to do the same cities over and over. I agree with you 100%.[/QUOTE]

They already did London in the old GTAs. I think what makes GTA great as well is that it's a satire of american pop culture. I don't think it would be quite the same in a city like Tokyo. Let games like Sleeping Dogs cover that.

But a new city could be interesting.


I still don't understand how no one is doing an open city concept game set in Baltimore and based on the Wire. If done well, its a no brainer. Especially if you can choose to play as cops or drug dealers.

[url]http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/13/watch-dogs-interview-talking-multiplayer[/url]

More on the game.

[QUOTE=macmac]They already did London in the old GTAs. I think what makes GTA great as well is that it's a satire of american pop culture. I don't think it would be quite the same in a city like Tokyo. Let games like Sleeping Dogs cover that.

But a new city could be interesting.


I still don't understand how no one is doing an open city concept game set in Baltimore and based on the Wire. If done well, its a no brainer. Especially if you can choose to play as cops or drug dealers.[/QUOTE]


When GTA V released there first little snippet of info, which was just a V with the inlay of money in it, there was a thread on here guessing cities.

Chicago and DC have always been my favorite notions for GTA, but I also suggested Rio, and agreed with London as being good ideas. But the lampooning of american culture is too big a part of what the series is, and I agree that it can't not be in the US (although Toronto might be doable). Then Rockstar came out and said the same thing, that the series will never go outside the US.

Baltimore would be excellent, and could also be tied into a larger DC story.

And as much as I'm looking forward to this rediculously good looking new GTA, I am still a little disappointed we're not exploring a new city.

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]When GTA V released there first little snippet of info, which was just a V with the inlay of money in it, there was a thread on here guessing cities.

Chicago and DC have always been my favorite notions for GTA, but I also suggested Rio, and agreed with London as being good ideas. But the lampooning of american culture is too big a part of what the series is, and I agree that it can't not be in the US (although Toronto might be doable). Then Rockstar came out and said the same thing, that the series will never go outside the US.

Baltimore would be excellent, and could also be tied into a larger DC story.

And as much as I'm looking forward to this rediculously good looking new GTA, I am still a little disappointed we're not exploring a new city.[/QUOTE]

Rio would've been cool, but Max Payne 3 came out just last year and it's set in Sao Paulo, so it just couldn't happen. I'm OK with GTA V in LA, it's such a huge city that it lends itself for multiple instalments, especially now that it's bigger and better recreated than ever before. However, I also would've liked to see a different city featured for once, somewhere like Detroit, Chicago or Boston. To be honest, I wouldn't like it if they ever took the franchise out of the US. It just doesn't feel right.
Now back on topic, Watch Dogs looks just fantastic. I wonder how that hacking system will work out, though. If the options are too limited, it will lose meaning. You can only hack into the traffic light system to cause an accident so many times before it gets old. I hope there's variety and the hacking serves a real purpose, instead of being a cool gimmick.

Boston as a city in a game where you can bomb and shoot people probably would've brought out the pussified parents/media, bashing the game for allowing "kids" to play as violent domestic terrorists. :facepalm

I'm wondering where I should preorder this game. GameStop, Amazon, BestBuy?

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]It does look awesome.

The concept is awesome, and the quality looks as good as I'd expect from an Ubisoft open world game.

It also has another advantage, one that I thought GTA V should have taken advantage of, it's located in the gorgeous city of Chicago. Just a perfect city for an open world game, very accessible, a few really identifiable landscape elements, like the Chicago River winding through it, and Lakeshore Drive running along Lake Michigan. Because the the river the city has a huge number of bridges. It's just a great city for this sort of setting. [/QUOTE]Maybe a dumb question, but do you know if this game is a true representation of Chicago? Authentic streets through and through? Or is it Chicago like GTA V will be Los Angeles, as in "It is, but it isn't."?

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]And as much as I'm looking forward to this rediculously good looking new GTA, I am still a little disappointed we're not exploring a new city.[/QUOTE]I haven't had an issue with the prospect of returning to Los Santos up to this point because from the looks of it, it may have very little in common with PS2's San Andreas. It appears so vast and so rich in detail that I don't get the feeling I'll ever be playing and get to a point and say, "Oh man, that's so San Andreas." To put it succinctly, it looks like it might as well be a new city, just as "Liberty City" in IV had very little in common with Liberty City in III. The difference, of course, is S.A. was able to closer reflect L.A. than III was able to reflect NYC, but the premise remains the same.

That said, I certainly wouldn't mind a new locale. As a local, I'd push the city of Detroit for it's gritty outskirts, solid downtown, river border/international border, Ambassador Bridge, uppity suburbs, historic structures, abandoned yet beautiful historic structures, and Robocop.

Not sure I'll get this game but it looks interesting. If this drops Nov? Man there are going to be quite a few games out at that time. New COD, GTA 5, AC 4.

[QUOTE=embersyc][url]http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/13/watch-dogs-interview-talking-multiplayer[/url]

More on the game.[/QUOTE]

Interesting multiplayer. I can see people being turned off in that you cant tear up a city shooting and blowing stuff up. They pretty much said COD or even GTA free mode isnt gonna be the thing. It'll have a free mode feel to it tho but not running around with grenades shooting stuff up etc.

[QUOTE=Rake2204]Maybe a dumb question, but do you know if this game is a true representation of Chicago? Authentic streets through and through? Or is it Chicago like GTA V will be Los Angeles, as in "It is, but it isn't."?

I haven't had an issue with the prospect of returning to Los Santos up to this point because from the looks of it, it may have very little in common with PS2's San Andreas. It appears so vast and so rich in detail that I don't get the feeling I'll ever be playing and get to a point and say, "Oh man, that's so San Andreas." To put it succinctly, it looks like it might as well be a new city, just as "Liberty City" in IV had very little in common with Liberty City in III. The difference, of course, is S.A. was able to closer reflect L.A. than III was able to reflect NYC, but the premise remains the same.

That said, I certainly wouldn't mind a new locale. As a local, I'd push the city of Detroit for it's gritty outskirts, solid downtown, river border/international border, Ambassador Bridge, uppity suburbs, historic structures, abandoned yet beautiful historic structures, and Robocop.[/QUOTE]
I'd absolutely love to see Detroit featured in a GTA game some time. As bad a reputation as it usually gets, it's a place I really hold dear.

[QUOTE=Rake2204]Maybe a dumb question, but do you know if this game is a true representation of Chicago? Authentic streets through and through? Or is it Chicago like GTA V will be Los Angeles, as in "It is, but it isn't."?

I haven't had an issue with the prospect of returning to Los Santos up to this point because from the looks of it, it may have very little in common with PS2's San Andreas. It appears so vast and so rich in detail that I don't get the feeling I'll ever be playing and get to a point and say, "Oh man, that's so San Andreas." To put it succinctly, it looks like it might as well be a new city, just as "Liberty City" in IV had very little in common with Liberty City in III. The difference, of course, is S.A. was able to closer reflect L.A. than III was able to reflect NYC, but the premise remains the same.

That said, I certainly wouldn't mind a new locale. As a local, I'd push the city of Detroit for it's gritty outskirts, solid downtown, river border/international border, Ambassador Bridge, uppity suburbs, historic structures, abandoned yet beautiful historic structures, and Robocop.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if this is a street for street version of Chicago, but from what I've seen it looks it. The bridges and river in particular. I honestly didn't know it was set in Chicago, but when I saw the trailer, I said "Hey ... that's Chicago!", which is enough for me.
I too am not too upset with LA. I just wanted something else. But its fine. The original Liberty City was also so much longer ago than the original San Andreas. We've also seen a version of LA from Rockstar in LA Noir not long ago.

As far as the gameplay, I'm also hoping for variation. As said, hacking to screw up traffic lights and cause accidents is fine, but there's gotta be more. And at the same time, I don't want it to be a one mission pony. But what I'm hoping is that I can use the skills I've aquired to beat missions in a variety of ways.

[QUOTE=Rake2204]Maybe a dumb question, but do you know if this game is a true representation of Chicago? Authentic streets through and through? Or is it Chicago like GTA V will be Los Angeles, as in "It is, but it isn't."?

I haven't had an issue with the prospect of returning to Los Santos up to this point because from the looks of it, it may have very little in common with PS2's San Andreas. It appears so vast and so rich in detail that I don't get the feeling I'll ever be playing and get to a point and say, "Oh man, that's so San Andreas." To put it succinctly, it looks like it might as well be a new city, just as "Liberty City" in IV had very little in common with Liberty City in III. The difference, of course, is S.A. was able to closer reflect L.A. than III was able to reflect NYC, but the premise remains the same.

That said, I certainly wouldn't mind a new locale. As a local, I'd push the city of Detroit for it's gritty outskirts, solid downtown, river border/international border, Ambassador Bridge, uppity suburbs, historic structures, abandoned yet beautiful historic structures, and Robocop.[/QUOTE]


I'd also like to see a new city introduced to the GTA series, as much as I like the look of GTA 5 the same cities in America repeatedly get used in games. I for one would like 2 cities in the next GTA. Perhaps your character could start out in Havana Cuba and half way through the story make it to Miami like Scarface.

As for Watch Dogs I like the look of it however I have a feeling it will become quite linear. Sandbox games very rarely offer variety in missions because the main selling point is the exploration of the city. The only sand box that has kept me entertained through out has been GTA. It's certainly shaping up nicely but like some previous posters have said it needs to have variety.

One thing that's struck me about this game ... how do you get around?

One of the critical elements about an open world game is how you get around that world. You can make the best city in gaming history, but if it's no fun to get around, it's not gonna make for much of a game.

Even GTA had to go to the fast travel stuff in IV. That was one of the reasons I've not liked a few recent open worlds, like LA Noir and Mafia. Mafia was a decent story, but it was a mission based game. The only thing the open world did was make you drive back and forth from your apartment to the mission each time. The world was involved in some of the missions, but otherwise the city was too dead, and the car handling wasn't up to snuff, making driving through the city dull. LA Noir had some random side missions you could stumble upon, but again, it was mostly just getting to and from crime scenes in lousey 50s cars.

Red Dead's horse riding was fun (and they had fast travel). Assassin's Creed's free running is fun. Infamous' free running, rail sliding, elecrofloating was fun (although that game almost got ruined by taking too long to get you the power ups needed to traverse the city properly). Batman's cape gliding was fun. And GTA's long history of stealing good cars, and having a city littered with with cool side elements, along with ramps and short cuts all over is fun (although as I said, they resorted to fast travel in the cabs, and after insisting I wouldn't use it, I wound up using it a fair amount).

So how does this guy get around? His hacking skills make me think he's gonna have some access to stealing cars, but that doesn't seem like it's gonna be his main thing, and this isn't built like a "driving game" the way GTA is. And he could have some free running skills seeing as this is Ubisoft, but I haven't seen footage like we did where he's running like we saw with ACIII. I mean that's sort of the whole point of those games. And if they did do it, wouldn't just feel like a re-skinned AC?

There's gotta be some gimmick to movement. Too much quick travel and it feels less open world and more just jumping from level to level.

f*ck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch Dogs went from being a launch game to now a spring 2014 release

[QUOTE]Ubisoft's next-generation open-world game Watch Dogs has been delayed to spring 2014. The game was previously scheduled to launch in November for Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, PC, and Wii U.

"Our ambition from the start with Watch Dogs has been to deliver something that embodies what we wanted to see in the next-generation of gaming," Ubisoft said in a statement. "It is with this in mind that we've made the tough decision to delay the release until spring 2014."

"We know a lot of you are probably wondering: Why now? We struggled with whether we would delay the game. But from the beginning, we have adopted the attitude that we will not compromise on quality," the developer added. "As we got closer to release, as all the pieces of the puzzle were falling into place in our last push before completion, it became clear to us that we needed to take the extra time to polish and fine tune each detail so we can deliver a truly memorable and exceptional experience."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jaydacris]f*ck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch Dogs went from being a launch game to now a spring 2014 release[/QUOTE]
Was just about to post this.

I'm pretty upset about this. I mean a month before it's released ahhh we need to push this back another 6 months?:facepalm

I bet Sony's pissed since it was supposed to launch with them first.:lol

I'm gonna pre order on amazon now and see if I can avoid sales tax even though we're supposed to pay sales tax next year.:pimp:

Actually now that I think about it I wonder what Amazon is gonna do about the launch bundles that included watch dogs.:lol Luckily I went BF4 but damn.

[QUOTE=Rose]Actually now that I think about it I wonder what Amazon is gonna do about the launch bundles that included watch dogs.:lol Luckily I went BF4 but damn.[/QUOTE]
They turned them into just PS4, no bundle. Gamestop allows you to bundle differently or just receive the game when released, but you still need to buy a game.

PS4 launch lineup is a bit barren now.

Amazon's also giving credit. Even though I preordered the game separately they're giving me $5.

All right. Time to cancel my PS3 preorder of this game. If it's coming out 6+ months from now, I will likely just get a PS4 by then.

This actually helps me too. I can comfortably put off my PS4 purchase until I'm comfortably done with GTA, then ease into the PS4 with Batman and ACIV without having to feel rushed into the system.

Plus obviously the game needed work, which now I'm sure it's going to get the proper attention.


Anyone want to argue that the company felt it would cut into AC sales this winter, and preferred to push this back because it's a new IP, and less has been spent on advertising?

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]This actually helps me too. I can comfortably put off my PS4 purchase until I'm comfortably done with GTA, then ease into the PS4 with Batman and ACIV without having to feel rushed into the system.

Plus obviously the game needed work, which now I'm sure it's going to get the proper attention.


[B]Anyone want to argue that the company felt it would cut into AC sales this winter, and preferred to push this back because it's a new IP, and less has been spent on advertising[/B]?[/QUOTE]

A bit of both, I'd say.
I don't think AC is even competition to Watch Dogs. WD just looks like one of those really ambitious games that come out once every 3-4 years and redefine the industry. I've never considered AC to be a GOTY candidate, even the second one (which is the best alongside Brotherhood).

Honestly, I completely forgot Black Flag is coming out in less then a month. :oldlol:

Financially, it definitely makes sense. But then again, those dates were set for quite some time, so I'm sure they didn't just figure this out all the sudden. Plus it's nearing Xmas so I'm sure most people would get both titles anyways. I mean, I don't think I've met a single person who isn't planning on getting Watch Dogs. It's a highly anticipated game, probably more so then The Last of Us and slightly less than GTA V.

I'm also hearing rumours that Uncharted 4 will be coming out for PS4. Nolan's interview was very telling. When they asked him about what ND's are up to, he had this big grin when they asked him "Is it Drake 4?". He basically said "the game looks stunning on PS4, I've never seen the environment as beautiful...the progression is astonishing."

That quote was weird to me. If ND are creating a new IP or even Jak & Daxter, than why was Nolan interviewed. You can tell he was trying his best not to leak information (because he can't). But the way he was describing the game, tells me it's Uncharted 4. The fact that he talked about graphics looking beautiful and emphasizing progression says a lot. Uncharted is arguably the best looking game ever made and it's progression (in terms of graphics) is quite visible. U3 > U2 > DF in terms of graphics.

Honestly, I've been waiting for U4 for too long... it better be coming out soon.

[QUOTE=Thorpesaurous]This actually helps me too. I can comfortably put off my PS4 purchase until I'm comfortably done with GTA, then ease into the PS4 with Batman and ACIV without having to feel rushed into the system.

Plus obviously the game needed work, which now I'm sure it's going to get the proper attention.

[B]
Anyone want to argue that the company felt it would cut into AC sales this winter, and preferred to push this back because it's a new IP, and less has been spent on advertising?[/B][/QUOTE]
Unless they were afraid that Watch Dogs sales were gonna cannibalize the AC sales, which they probably can't afford after the lackluster sales/reviews for AC 3. Which I know caused myself and 4 other people to pick up AC 4 now, instead of getting Watch Dogs which was the plan. Not too mention that Rayman and Splinter cell were disappointments to Ubisoft. So they probably feel the urge to move some more units. So why not polish the new IP a bit, even if it is arguably the most anticipated next gen game despite coming out on current on systems. So when you look at it that way it made sense to rely on what has been a pretty profitable franchise.

I am surprised though that they did it a month before the release. That seems really really strange to me.

I gotta say, I really liked ACIII. I suppose that puts me in the minority, but I really liked all the side stuff better than what I experienced in II even.

Since we're all guys who are posting in a video game forum, yeah ... there's a pretty good chance we'd buy both titles regardless.
But I think for the younger audience, with the cost of a new system hanging out there, there may have been a fear of them splitting each other's sales. And while they're not really the same game, they're both apparently open world games, coming off of GTAV's release being the biggest open world seller ever.

I also find it telling that they said it's been pushed to Spring '14, which to me reads as April, and March closes the first fiscal quarter. So they may be looking to push sales into what is traditionally a slower financial section of the year for the industry.

They have advertised the shit out of ACIV. Every game channell on youtube is pumping out footage. And they're running commercials during some of the most in demographic tv shows going, like Sons of Anarchy and The Walking Dead.

Agreed entirely Thorpe. late Spring/ Early Summer could be really really good for Sony in terms of games. Watch Dogs, Drive Club now, InFamous, and Destiny. I'd definitely assume that not long after that the next Naughty Dog game comes out as well. Plus with Gaikai launching in the spring (for now anyways) Sony could have a monster one, despite probably not selling a lot more consoles this winter than they could have with the delays.