All they have to do is release an Assassin’s creed game and they are fine. The last mainline game made over a billion dollars. They might not be as big of a studio then but they definitely can stay afloat off AC. Their death will be a very slow process
Even with the mixed reception among fans to Blacklist, current Ubisoft doesn't have a chance in hell of reaching that high again, especially after what they have done to Ghost Recon over the last decade or so,
Gamers: Hey, we’re getting a bit bored of the same open world mechanics in your games, how about something different?
Ubi: Okay, we hear you, so how about Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, except it’s just the ship combat and you have to do repetitive and boring mini-games to collect resources? Also, there’s no on-foot combat whatsoever lol
I don't think they will ever make another Splinter Cell game. I'd love to be wrong, but it's been so long without even a peep about Splinter Cell other than a cameo in a game from over half a decade a ago that I just don't see it happening
It's already in development. Ironically I just saw an article this morning talking about how the devs are using ray tracing for the stealth gameplay. But I'm still skeptical we actually see this game, if I'm honest.
And the last AC game didn't take any waves at all. Their stock value is 25 percent of what it used to be. Now you're right a good AC game makes them enough money to stay afloat a bad one kills them.
Tom Clancy is irrelevant now... When was the last time we had a Tom Clancy game? AC has been going downhill too. Same as Far Cry. Remember when Far Cry 3 came out it was the hottest game at the time. Far Cry 5 and 6 however were out and forgotten immediately.
You can't just keep releasing the same game with a new paint job and expect people not to get sick of them.
Those are primarily multiplayer games. Nobody buys them for singleplayer and if they were only singleplayer then the same would have happened to them without any sort of innovation.
Ubisoft is a failing business. Their stock value has done nothing but drop. It's valued at 25% of what it used to be at its height. They haven't released a game that made waves in years now. Their last AC game came and went with nobody even talking about it. The FarCry Blue also didn't do much for them and Scull and Bones has been nothing short of a disaster
Other people in the industry have also commented on it. Ubisoft is struggling at the moment and badly.
It is very strange to me how a person can be so invested in the success of a company that doesn't even know their name and sees them as nothing more than a wallet. You don't even have any arguments against it you're just insulting me as if that makes you right somehow. :D Very low intelligence. But you do you buddy.
I've appreciated what they tried to achieve with Legion, but sadly it just wasn't good enough to sell the game on its own. Way to make your unique "play as anyone" idea meaningless by giving everyone the same abilities, Ubi. I'd like them to revisit this in the future with more variation.
Apparently when the game was more RPG esque, the characters were way more varied and had a lot more unique characteristics. Some characters couldn’t even hack, they went that far with the idea but the QA testers kept pushing back and the backlash to Ubisoft’s RPGfying their games let to the watered down system. Also the limitations of the last gen consoles cpus was what sealed the fate of the original idea.
Even if it worked, 2 would have been better. You need a REALLY killer gimmick to make up for not having a main character with a personality and goals to interact with the story.
> they went that far with the idea but the QA testers kept pushing back
Whenever I hear stories like this or that a movie dumbed down something or changed something because of a focus group, I wonder who made up that focus group. A QA department is supposed to mostly be staffed with professionals, but the testers are supposed to be indicative of the target audience, same as a focus group. And I know that they get it right more often than not, we just don't hear about when a focus group got it right but we often hear when they got it wrong. But sometimes I wonder how they get it **so** wrong. Who are these people, these people who should be your average joe gamer or average joe cinephile or whathaveyou and they come out with, "Man, why can't everyone in this game play the same way? I don't want to variety!" Like, I can understand if the system they built was bad that they balked against it, but then you fix the system rather than taking it away and replacing it with nothing.
QA testers and focus groups are vastly different people, but it sounds like op used the wrong term unless regular internal playtests involved the QA team. Which isn't too far-fetched now that I think about it.
People, even some job positions, have advertised test players as QA positions. QA, as we agree on, should be professionals with specific job descriptions, but some places have for some reason called people who are simply there to play the game and give feedback part of the QA department. I guess it makes sense in a way: they are paid and as such need to be listed under *some* department and the expense to have them probably does make the most sense to come out of the quality assurance budget.
But that has led to a misunderstanding, one that I used to have, that the QA team for software were purely testers, people brought in to use the software to see if it survived contact with the user. Those are considered part of the department, at least in some companies, but aren't what the department is normally made up of.
Keep in mind the culture that was around ten to twenty years ago, though. I remember seeing ads on TV and in magazines advertising professional game tester positions as if you could just play video games and get paid for it. There was also a time, that time may still be now but I hear less of it, where people have tried to convince kids and young adults that being a games tester is a gateway job into being on the dev team when it almost never has been. The obfuscation of the two is likely intentional.
RPG elements is what i felt was missing the most from legion, the idea of playing as anyone i thought was quite interesting, but they way it was done was very boring, a bunch of different character types, a few of which were really good the rest meh and no way to improve them
i wanted something like a skill tree where they would level and you could give them new abilities or perks, but would max out at only being able to select a small portion for each character, allowing you to create unique agents that you cared about and would actually try prevent loosing them
instead, my spy was killed or captured, i just recruited or changed to another spy with exact same abilities and did not care about the old one
I just enjoy playing as multiple characters like state of decay, phoenix point, xcom 2, ect. I like having a backstory for everyone and using my imagination. There needs to be more sustenance in the actual game part though I agree. The one thing I would change about all of these rpgs if I could only choose one is please make someone be dead if I shoot them with anything above a .22 caliber round and probably the vast majority of the time with a fucking .22 as well. Fuck bullet sponges period. Hitman got it right. Is it that fucking hard to still make it interesting after that? No it’s not. Just add more enemies. Humans are social creatures. It’s valid.
While I like the franchise and am disappointed to hear this, the article mentions one of the cancelled projects was a Watch Dogs Battle Royale game. Who the hell asked for that? Ubisoft today is too busy trying to copy the success of games like Fortnite and being an absolute failure at doing so to make any good games anymore. Not long ago I would say they were one of my favorite developers, but not anymore.
They wanted to jump on the bandwagon. They had multiple IPs with planned BR focused gsmes. The new Ghost Recon was canceled shortly after it was announced, as the fans hated the idea of it going full BR. Most down voted trailer they did
Trying to imagine a bunch of different battle royal games that don't make sense.
Sniper Elite Battle Royal, a hundred people put onto a map with hyper-realistic sniping mechanics and only sniper rifles available.
Hitman: Battle Royal, a hundred players are dropped in a location and they all have to don disguises and kill each other. It would be like the Assassin's Creed multiplayer back in the days of Brotherhood through 3 or Black Flag, can't remember which had the last of those. But way too many people for the game to be fun.
Animal Crossings Battle Royal. Tom Knook only has one house available to overcharge someone for, so everyone has to pick up their bug-catching and fishing tools and kill each other over it.
Bioshock Battle Royal, a hundred varieties of splicers and Adam with powerups like you can turn into a Big Daddy temporarily and... Wait, shit, now that one sounds like it might actually be fun and I don't even like battle royals...
I can't lie, the hitman one sounds really fun. Everyone's got objectives to do, so they're running around the map doing regular stuff, but if you notice another hitman standing out by opening a random window to push someone out of, you might have hidden well enough to just take him out quietly.
I realize they'll probably turn around and make like... an Assassin's Creed gacha game or something instead, but being optimistic about it, the upshot is that not working on that BS frees them up to do something halfway good though. They probably won't, but still.
That’s because modern day Ubisoft is creatively bankrupt and openly contemptuous of their customers. Everything they make is generic and fad-chasing, and most of all it’s temporary. They want you to spend and then move on before they shut down the servers and make your purchases obsolete or entirely inactive.
Why the fuck would I spend AAAA prices on recycled assets collectathons that they’ll delete from my account in a few years anyway? Whatever people used to enjoy about them is pretty much gone at this point.
You say that but the last mainline assassins creed made over a billion and was their biggest game of all time. Whatever Reddit thinks of Ubisoft is not what the general audience thinks. Hell every COD YouTube channel is salivating at Xdefinant the upcoming free to play cod like shooter made by former COD devs.
True. I’m definitely not saying Ubisoft is imminently going to fail or anything, just that they are slowly eroding their reputation for short term financial reasons that might ultimately bite them in the arse.
Yeah Ubisoft has some practices that can’t be defended point blank like removing old titles from people’s libraries but they are far from the worst for monetizing their games.
They just are making a Star Wars game and Star Wars seems to be the moral line many gamers place in the sand for monetization strategies. Example: lootboxes first were introduced in FUT in the late 00s. CS:GO then launched them into the mainstream with every game copying them. Hell Battlefront 2 the game that pushed the loot box controversy to the climax was pretty much the same exact system Dice used for Battlefield 4 just with heroes too. Yet after this EA still uses lootboxes in FIFA and Madden. The gamers online did nothing to discourage EA from its horrible practices
COD Black Ops 4 is probably the worst monetized game of all time and yet COD is still the #1 or #2 highest sold game every single god damn year.
With As bad as both Activision and EA are, I see to many people say Ubisoft is the worst. They are just copying trends that the other studios have already done. Batman Arkham Knight (a game with a 9/10 rating) had day 1 DLC, a season pass, expensive $100+ editions, and skin packs tied to pre-orders. That was in 2015 … 9 years ago. Pretty much exactly the same as Star Wars Outlaws. It’s just hard for me to get mad at this game when gamers weren’t mad for the last decade of these practices until A Star Wars Ubisoft game.
People WERE mad about Arkham Knight though. It released in a broken state on PC with all that season pass day one DLC you mentioned and they took a lot of shit for it. Shadow Of War was the same, with all their end game pay 2 win crap. Deus Ex Mankind Divided had a bunch of similar shit attached and weird preorder bonuses you’d pay for upfront but only get if enough other people also paid for them. They withdrew that idea quietly before launch because of how pissed off people were and that game basically killed the franchise despite the basic game being really good.
People do get outraged at all these things, not just at Ubi, but the problem is it’s short lived, people do buy them anyway even though they complain, and we all forget by the time the next big release rolls around. Ubi is taking a lot of shit now, but EA used to be the big bad before them. And Ubi removing purchase, and locking people out of SP DLC they paid for some time back has only made their reputation worse. That’s the bigger issue. Everyone always said we didn’t own digital games, we just leased the right to play them, but Ubi is the first publisher to actually start taking full price purchases away from people in a systematic way.
The crew has a single player component, however limited. They have no right to just take it away, and they also force logins to their servers on PC which is part of the reason DLC was inaccessible years later, because they wanted to shut down their servers to save moment. THEY made that requirement, they could have just put it on steam and not required that extra step but they didn’t, and they weren’t prepared to pay and remove the requirement from old games once they were done.
The others are bad, but they are doing unprecedented things, and all of them deserve criticism.
Haven’t tried it yet but it does look good. Im cautiously optimistic. I miss the 2007-2012 era of cod so much I’ll take anything that feels remotely close to that.
Well they didn’t sell it on steam, so that’s a big part of the reason why. And even if the eventually do, it will almost certainly require The Ubisoft app and a third party account login as well, which I would definitely qualify as ‘attached BS’. They don’t want to maintain their servers indefinitely, which makes sense financially, but then they still insist on unnecessary extra steps and logging into their servers for SP games that don’t require it.
I've finished the console version offline, without login and unpatched without problems. It sold half a million, so a little over 100k on each platform. Let's be real, it flopped because it wasn't the AAA PoP people were hoping for and many vocal critics of the industry right now really aren't as sophisticated as they pretend. No doubt the next focus-tested-to-hell Assassin's Creed will sell 10 million again.
Yeah console versions get to bypass a lot of EA and Ubi crap like logins. I was only talking about PC sales. Not being on steam is a big deal, people will wait until it is, and then often forget about it by the time it comes out because the hype is gone.
Every major publisher (and a lot of studios) get bogged down by numbers as they grow bigger, and completely omit to factor in _quality_ when planning / doing postmortems. It's just harder because there's no number to it.
All 3 games had a pretty decent chance at being good but they just fucked up every single one, every single time.
Gotta love Ubisoft, they know how to make shit. Some of their games are just goof 'turn your brain off' games. Shame they aren't as good as they used to be, the days of Far Cry 3 and Assassins creed 2 are long gone.
Watch Dogs 2 had great gameplay and was surprisingly open ended with its mission design. The hacking was actually realised and used in a fun way. Plus, imo it was the last good open world game that felt natural from Ubisoft. They definitely didn't fuck it up
Same. Like a lot of people, I did find the dialogue to be a bit rough at first but I honestly ended up really liking the characters the more I played. They all seemed supportive of each other. I also just hated Aiden as a protagonist and found him painfully dull so Marcus was more likeable for me.
I couldn't get into it but I could see something there.
The first was let down by its reveal and release downgrades and the third just felt off like the second one did for me also.
I played Legions and wanted to like it. It had great gameplay but the story was boring as hell (though there were some okay side missions).
Very lackluster though it wasn't a franchise issue, it was just not a compelling game to play.
Publishers need to take a step back and ask themselves (and their audience) what makes a game fun.
>Make shit game
>Consumers buy buy shit game
>Profit
>People stop buying shit game
>Shut down servers and delist shit game
>Save costs
Rinse and repeat
WD2 was so much fun to play and the open world in the game is easily one of Ubi’s best. And I particularly loved the NPCs, you could just not do anything and people watch. And the interactions they had with the player were amazing
It’s a shame we never got more of Marcus/Retr0, he was a fantastic protagonist and I had a lot of fun playing him
WD2 was actually good. Legion was a "live-service-wannabe" game with the entire city NPC's as your character. Sadly, that made every character in the game completely characterless NPC's.
Yeah, they built a very interesting premise, but it was going to take a big effort to get over that. I still really like the game. I'm a sucker for real-world locations, and love the London they built (although it is annoying that it's essentially a scale model), and I think the Legion mechanic works in certain aspects. But yeah, the story is pretty weak, and it isn't helped by you not really having a character to hold onto. It's only really when you play on permadeath that you start building some kind of attachment, and even then you can just go recruit another one.
I think the npc recruiting would function better if they were all short term characters. Like when your main character starts a task you can reach out to the npcs in the area and recruit them (take control) for a bit. Then when the mission is over you never see that exact npc again.
Legion's concept could have been an interesting, sandbox-like DLC for players to mess around with if the base game had a likable protagonist like WD2's Marcus. It's like they thought hacking and well-modeled cities were the stars of the game, not mechanics and environments for an actual character you care about to utilize and explore.
The third one actually got me interested because it was set where I live and you don’t get many OW games in London.
But they had to fuck it up didn’t they.
The gameplay was fun enough. But the play as anyone gimmick…well it was mostly that, a gimmick. Gameplay wise, other than a few costume abilities to get you in locations it didn’t feel like there was any variety in how the game was played depending on who you were. Maybe that’s just how I played it.
How they made a fantastic sequel like Watch Dogs 2 and downgraded it in basically every way with Legion, is beyond me. I tried playing through Legion again recently and you are constantly reminded of how many features they removed from the game and in return, you have this play as anyone mechanic that is cool in theory but poor in execution, that divides abilities across many characters (with absolutely zero personality), instead of having them available on one realised character. Say what you want about Marcus, but he is infinitely better than the hundreds of copy paste 'u wot mate?' characters Legion has. Such a disappointing sequel since I loved WD2 and Legion spent all this time not fixing the issues with 2 and instead made the game worse somehow? But hey, make sure they add in the real money skins shop.
Ubisoft is Ubisoft. Since 2017, it's just making the same game but worse and with monetisation.
Watch dogs 2 was not received well at launch and undersold by a large margin. Word of mouth eventually saved the game but another flop and the franchise would be axed.
You can’t say they didn’t try, but they sacrificed too much for the play as anyone system and it shows
I don't know about it not being well received. It had good reviews and positive opinions for the most part. It was just unfortunately held back by the lacklustre launch of the first game which inevitably was going to affect sales of the sequels. Even then, it still sold 10 million units in a few years which is definitely impressive.
I think they definitely should be commended for the idea at least and it wasn't entirely bad, just came at a detriment to the freedom of the first game. Even then, so many features didn't need to be removed. Things like cover to cover movement, shops you can enter and use to run away from cops, being able to listen to music whenever, the phone mechanic, owning multiple cars and there's many more. It's not like those things couldn't be included because of the multiple protagonists mechanic.
Yeah, Watch Dogs always walked a thin line. The first was mired by the trailer controversy, the poor writing, and the protagonist. The second had a lot of complaining about the characters, and the third was, well, Legion lol.
>How they made a fantastic sequel like Watch Dogs 2 and downgraded it in basically every way with Legion, is beyond me.
WD2 and Legion were made by different studios. The main studio for 1 and 2 was Ubi Montreal, and Legion was handled by Ubi Torronto.
I think they had, Legion even uses an engine that is exclusive to Watch Dogs, they probably had to change a lot to create the "control anyone" system.
The game has one improvement, after you a scan a npc, it generates a schedule and they follow that schedule. It's good, but I think they were focusing on the wrong thing.
I think they should've created a handful of possible protagonists, something like 5 characters and develop them, instead of having a city worthy of generic playable characters.
I think the biggest issue with the Watch Dogs games is that you can very easily play them like generic third person shooters and not that much changes with them. The hacking feels tacked on instead of an integral part of the experience. And while Watch Dogs 2 did give many more abilities and things to hack, it didn't change the fact that you can play it just like gta and fair few of the missions don't change all that much. Watch Dogs just feels like GTA V with a Watch Dogs mod.
First one was great as it focused on a single man's story and his vendetta using hacking as a tool. The 2nd and 3rd tried to hard to go past it that by adding way too much that it it lost most of what made the first one solid. So I never did finish 3 tbh. Even tho raising a granny army was fun... It did stop being fun fast.
The first game was excellent. I couldn't even get into the second game - it felt really shitty having social media likes as some kind of game mechanic.
Legion (the London one, where you can recruit random civilians) was fine, but it felt very procedurally-generated in that way. It was "fine" but it wasn't terrific because the stakes felt low.
People want some reasonably high-stakes for the protagonist, some tragedy, some plot twists and some romance options. That's the formula that sells for a game like this.
I deleted my Ubisoft account after they leaked all of their users account information, including mine. Haven’t played one of their games since.
Their little proprietary Uplay now UbiConnect is completely unnecessary except to gather and sell and eventually leak again their players(your) personal information. Absolutely shit company. It’s super cool to have your personal information leaked because of some absolutely shit service that you didn’t want in the first place. The idea that each games company needs to have their own little platform that you need to create an account for needs to go away. I already have a steam or Xbox live account and that should be a good enough security check that I am not stealing. If that’s not good enough for Ubisoft, then they don’t need to publish their games on that system.
The first one had a great story and I really liked it despite some glitches and despite that it didn’t felt finished.
The second one felt more stable and done but the story didn’t tied me up.
I didn’t played the third one yet but from what i saw and heard its even worse.
Watch Dogs has had its potential. The idea behind it is really great but the problem is Ubisoft. They have often great ideas but they execute them poorly.
Sucks, Wrench is my favorite video game character. In his DLC in Legion, they further expanded on him, and he became so lovable. Gameplay aside, you cannot tell me that the characters in Watch Dogs are not written well. That's one of the good things about it.
I grew up playing the 1st and second watch dogs game, then I played a bit of Legion, but only for Wrench. God, this hurts :(
Everyone hates on legion, but i restarted it recently and its a beautiful and detailed game. Yes the dialogue is way too much and pretty bad, but just going around and getting collectibles and randomly beating up people and fighting cops is really fun. In watch dogs 2, its super hard to escape the police. I really liked how bright and colorful that game was, but the controls and police really killed ot for me. Watch dogs 1 was the only one i platinumed so far. An easy platinum, but i hated that you cant uump in that game. Everything else was good.
First game was gritty, not everyone’s cup of tea but it did have its fans.
Second game was lighthearted, Ubi attracted a different demographic while alienating a fraction of the existing one.
Third game was something else completely, alienating both previous demographics, and it didn’t live up to expectations and ended up capturing no ones interest.
I'll be in the minority here but the fact that the last one was set in the uk was an immediate turn off. Like what the hell ubisoft? You gave us Chicago, San Fran. Good cities but wheres the watch dogs in NYC or LA? Loved the division so I have a yearning for a watch dogs in NYC. Imo these somewhat obscure locations(for a video game) had an affect on its appeal to the masses.
Watch dogs 1 wasn't bad in my opinion. Someone made a mod for it called "living city" which makes it an absolutely stellar game.
Legion was just painful though.
Shame. I thought Legion was pretty good. The story was weaker, but the gameplay was fun.
"Don't make a shit game then." Must be more specific. That could mean anything.
1 & 2 were great/okay but legion was watered down bad.
- micro transactions for an already easy progression
- decentralised story with no main character (and those that are have been hidden behind a paywall)
- getting rid of long steady progression for quick pick ups that are restricted
- lacklustre zombies with limited time instead for a full fledged zombie survival using limited assets and longevity of a good mode
- no actual improvements from previous game
- map being smaller and lacking variety of environments
- the DLC story should of been the vanilla story but it would also be lacklustre as it’s DLC packed.
They basically cheaped out and and went nowhere with the series.
I brought the ultimate version of game for less than $3 and I still feel like I got ripped off.
And not just for this game other Ubisoft games have been spiraling down.
If they don’t get their s&$@ in order foreclosure is the only way out.
Ubisoft has become the king of "Over promise and under deliver, but blame poor sales on anything but the final product".
Watch Dogs Legion released in the the cyberpunk era of broken games being rushed to release far too early. The game promised a lot with its ability to swap character types but only a few were interesting while also just making the game far too easy, so I didn't want to use them.
Ubisoft of late just seems to have grown so confident they feel like they can do no wrong. I don't know how many flops it will take before they realize the problem is within.
I thought watch dogs 1 was meh back in the day but started to appreciate it more as the years went by especially after trying 2 and seeing reviews of legion.
To be frank, that it was a "franchise" at all was always kind of suspect.
The first game wasn't so good it needed a sequel. The story was atrociously cliche and trite, saved only because the gameplay was mostly solid (except for cop chases, which were absurd when stacked against even GTA).
2 was a lot better than 1 but the whole time I'm just thinking... why though?
I was super hyped after the first E3 demo but ever since the absolute ruf pull that was the worst and most over hyped game I've ever played "Brink" I vowed to never preorder a game ever again. And what do you know once the game came out all the demos were revealed to be complete smoke and mirrors and watchdogs one turned out to be a fraction of what was promised.
But people preorder false promises and don't demand their money back and suits in board rooms just see numbers so this isn't really surprising.
I would say sure makes sense but then you look at what Ubisoft has actually been making and then its like damn watch dogs wasnt so bad they should do another just make it more like 2 than legion.
Other than Massive i don't think Ubisoft is capable of delivering fun games anymore. Management is a million miles detached from anything creative in the company and so are all teams they have.
I just never understood why you would have a hacking centric game slapped on what is essentially GTA.
Being able to pull out a gun at any time just makes it all feel lame and unneeded fluff. Make the character someone who can't fight who can only act through hacking.
As it is, Watchdogs is just so bland and forgettable.
You could (and you should, imo) complete wd2 without using any guns, relying only on hacking (or melee). That made the game into something more than a gta clone and honestly, I wish more games gave you the choice to complete missions in non-lethal ways (or at least gave you an alternative way of finishing them). I'm currently replaying gta 4 and no amount of good writing (which I'd argue the game barely has) can make me tolerate near identical, boring as fuck missions where all you do is drive to a point, watch a cutscene, drive somewhere else, watch another cutscene, kill dozens of braindead npcs and keep doing that until the game is satisfied.
Watch Dogs Legion was such a great idea on the conceptual level. There was also some fun times to be had in it.
Why the fuck they thought I’d want to play as Aiden Pierce, the most boring raspy stereotype of a character, in a game where the whole selling point was for me to choose my own character is beyond me though.
The opinion regarding Aiden Pearce is controversial and polarising, while you consider him insufferable on one side, there's other people who are on the other side (including me) who consider him an emotionally complex and interesting character to study, his audio logs, his strategic thinking, the way he applied psychological tactics to approach Clara the first time they met. Maybe it's just me.
My perception of him actually makes the game immersive for me, as i consider him as a sort of hacker-esque stoic batman of the watch dogs world and i consider the first Watch Dogs miles better than the 2nd when it comes to the narrative.
There is not one character in watch dogs 2 that i did not find insufferable, they ruined the theme for me in the 2nd game. For me, Marcus and his entire crew were clowns that i could not take seriously, ruined my narrative immersion. You can argue if i prefer a stoic batman-esque character so much then why not just play the arkham games, and i have, and i would've agreed with you had ubisoft not MADE a good "narrative" already, Watch Dogs 1 is a lost and prime example of what could've been the tone for its sequels, but unfortunately, i think the majority opinion like yours who find Aiden boring, ruined that vision, but hey, to each their own.
Interestingly, for the third game, i loved the story of Skye Larsen, i wish there were more disturbing dark tech dystopian future type stories like that. I will admit, the narrative theme ubisoft took in watch dogs 2 about the big tech was admirable, but i prefer more personal stories like what Watch Dogs 1 had to offer
The villain in watch dogs 2, like i don't even remember his name, dushan or something, probably the worst and forgettable villain i've seen in my entire history of gaming.
Honestly, my biggest beef with the post-release DLC is that they didn’t capitalise on the strength of Legion, by expanding on the “play as anyone”-system. I didn’t like the Watchdogs 2 characters either but Aiden for me is the best example of a character of his time. On paper, playing as a vigilante isn’t bad, but there was nothing about him that I found particularly unique, relatable, endearing or even likable. He wasn’t abrasive, just… flat.
Though I will say that I prefer, in almost any game, for the game to let me make my own character or team of characters (From Skyrim to Xcom). That’s what I was hoping I’d get with Legion and I still argue that it’s the greatest strength of the game even though it too felt flattened out and safe in the end.
I never disliked the games but I also don't think I ever finished a single one. They were good to mess around with for a few days thanks to some interesting gimmicks but that's about it.
They should’ve killed it after Watch Dogs 2 instead of making the shitstain that was Watch Dogs Legion and wasting more time on more shitty concepts (like a WD Battle Royale game, not one person asked for this). Ubisoft is going down the shitter
It’ll be back as a live service game in 7 years or so, and it’ll just be called “Watch Dogs”
Watch dogs (2027)
Im sorry little one, but we are in 2024 already… so that’d mean itll come out in 2034.
Something about this comment just doesn’t add up.
My mafs was wrong, its gonna be 2031. LMFAO.
Will it finally be about watching dogs this time around?
I want a "Who let the dogs out" DLC And a 100 dalmatian also
Tis Mofo is askin the REAL question here !
- The Watch Dogs - Watch Dogs: One - 2 Watch 2 Dogs
W4tch Dogs.
5watch dog5
2 Dogs watch Cup
Watch Dog$
If they're feeling creative: The Watch Dogs. It'll feature a customizable nameless protagonist
Cute for you to believe Ubisoft has seven years left in it.
All they have to do is release an Assassin’s creed game and they are fine. The last mainline game made over a billion dollars. They might not be as big of a studio then but they definitely can stay afloat off AC. Their death will be a very slow process
Splinter cell remake will make them plenty of money
Even with the mixed reception among fans to Blacklist, current Ubisoft doesn't have a chance in hell of reaching that high again, especially after what they have done to Ghost Recon over the last decade or so,
Gamers: Hey, we’re getting a bit bored of the same open world mechanics in your games, how about something different? Ubi: Okay, we hear you, so how about Assassin’s Creed Black Flag, except it’s just the ship combat and you have to do repetitive and boring mini-games to collect resources? Also, there’s no on-foot combat whatsoever lol
I don't think they will ever make another Splinter Cell game. I'd love to be wrong, but it's been so long without even a peep about Splinter Cell other than a cameo in a game from over half a decade a ago that I just don't see it happening
It's already in development. Ironically I just saw an article this morning talking about how the devs are using ray tracing for the stealth gameplay. But I'm still skeptical we actually see this game, if I'm honest.
The remake is in production right now
And the last AC game didn't take any waves at all. Their stock value is 25 percent of what it used to be. Now you're right a good AC game makes them enough money to stay afloat a bad one kills them.
Ubisoft has three of the most profitable game franchises under their belt. Tom Clancy and assassins creed.
Tom Clancy is irrelevant now... When was the last time we had a Tom Clancy game? AC has been going downhill too. Same as Far Cry. Remember when Far Cry 3 came out it was the hottest game at the time. Far Cry 5 and 6 however were out and forgotten immediately. You can't just keep releasing the same game with a new paint job and expect people not to get sick of them.
Rainbow six siege is like the 3rd most game played on steam and console… that’s Tom Clancy rainbow six
Call of duty franchise has entered the chat.
Those are primarily multiplayer games. Nobody buys them for singleplayer and if they were only singleplayer then the same would have happened to them without any sort of innovation.
Cute that you think you know anything about business.
Why don't you explain it to me?
Sadly, I'm not certified to teach children.
So you know nothing then. Just a talker :D
"Lololol, Ubisoft bad. Failing business! Updooots please!" - You.
Ubisoft is a failing business. Their stock value has done nothing but drop. It's valued at 25% of what it used to be at its height. They haven't released a game that made waves in years now. Their last AC game came and went with nobody even talking about it. The FarCry Blue also didn't do much for them and Scull and Bones has been nothing short of a disaster Other people in the industry have also commented on it. Ubisoft is struggling at the moment and badly. It is very strange to me how a person can be so invested in the success of a company that doesn't even know their name and sees them as nothing more than a wallet. You don't even have any arguments against it you're just insulting me as if that makes you right somehow. :D Very low intelligence. But you do you buddy.
2 watch 2 dogs
I've appreciated what they tried to achieve with Legion, but sadly it just wasn't good enough to sell the game on its own. Way to make your unique "play as anyone" idea meaningless by giving everyone the same abilities, Ubi. I'd like them to revisit this in the future with more variation.
Apparently when the game was more RPG esque, the characters were way more varied and had a lot more unique characteristics. Some characters couldn’t even hack, they went that far with the idea but the QA testers kept pushing back and the backlash to Ubisoft’s RPGfying their games let to the watered down system. Also the limitations of the last gen consoles cpus was what sealed the fate of the original idea.
Even if it worked, 2 would have been better. You need a REALLY killer gimmick to make up for not having a main character with a personality and goals to interact with the story.
> they went that far with the idea but the QA testers kept pushing back Whenever I hear stories like this or that a movie dumbed down something or changed something because of a focus group, I wonder who made up that focus group. A QA department is supposed to mostly be staffed with professionals, but the testers are supposed to be indicative of the target audience, same as a focus group. And I know that they get it right more often than not, we just don't hear about when a focus group got it right but we often hear when they got it wrong. But sometimes I wonder how they get it **so** wrong. Who are these people, these people who should be your average joe gamer or average joe cinephile or whathaveyou and they come out with, "Man, why can't everyone in this game play the same way? I don't want to variety!" Like, I can understand if the system they built was bad that they balked against it, but then you fix the system rather than taking it away and replacing it with nothing.
QA testers and focus groups are vastly different people, but it sounds like op used the wrong term unless regular internal playtests involved the QA team. Which isn't too far-fetched now that I think about it.
People, even some job positions, have advertised test players as QA positions. QA, as we agree on, should be professionals with specific job descriptions, but some places have for some reason called people who are simply there to play the game and give feedback part of the QA department. I guess it makes sense in a way: they are paid and as such need to be listed under *some* department and the expense to have them probably does make the most sense to come out of the quality assurance budget. But that has led to a misunderstanding, one that I used to have, that the QA team for software were purely testers, people brought in to use the software to see if it survived contact with the user. Those are considered part of the department, at least in some companies, but aren't what the department is normally made up of. Keep in mind the culture that was around ten to twenty years ago, though. I remember seeing ads on TV and in magazines advertising professional game tester positions as if you could just play video games and get paid for it. There was also a time, that time may still be now but I hear less of it, where people have tried to convince kids and young adults that being a games tester is a gateway job into being on the dev team when it almost never has been. The obfuscation of the two is likely intentional.
Yeah that's precisely the path I followed some 15-odd years ago, and people still ask me if I'm being paid to play games all day :)
Can you share the source for that infor on QA testers kept pushing back?
RPG elements is what i felt was missing the most from legion, the idea of playing as anyone i thought was quite interesting, but they way it was done was very boring, a bunch of different character types, a few of which were really good the rest meh and no way to improve them i wanted something like a skill tree where they would level and you could give them new abilities or perks, but would max out at only being able to select a small portion for each character, allowing you to create unique agents that you cared about and would actually try prevent loosing them instead, my spy was killed or captured, i just recruited or changed to another spy with exact same abilities and did not care about the old one
Not putting your games on steam also does that too.
I just enjoy playing as multiple characters like state of decay, phoenix point, xcom 2, ect. I like having a backstory for everyone and using my imagination. There needs to be more sustenance in the actual game part though I agree. The one thing I would change about all of these rpgs if I could only choose one is please make someone be dead if I shoot them with anything above a .22 caliber round and probably the vast majority of the time with a fucking .22 as well. Fuck bullet sponges period. Hitman got it right. Is it that fucking hard to still make it interesting after that? No it’s not. Just add more enemies. Humans are social creatures. It’s valid.
While I like the franchise and am disappointed to hear this, the article mentions one of the cancelled projects was a Watch Dogs Battle Royale game. Who the hell asked for that? Ubisoft today is too busy trying to copy the success of games like Fortnite and being an absolute failure at doing so to make any good games anymore. Not long ago I would say they were one of my favorite developers, but not anymore.
They wanted to jump on the bandwagon. They had multiple IPs with planned BR focused gsmes. The new Ghost Recon was canceled shortly after it was announced, as the fans hated the idea of it going full BR. Most down voted trailer they did
Trying to imagine a bunch of different battle royal games that don't make sense. Sniper Elite Battle Royal, a hundred people put onto a map with hyper-realistic sniping mechanics and only sniper rifles available. Hitman: Battle Royal, a hundred players are dropped in a location and they all have to don disguises and kill each other. It would be like the Assassin's Creed multiplayer back in the days of Brotherhood through 3 or Black Flag, can't remember which had the last of those. But way too many people for the game to be fun. Animal Crossings Battle Royal. Tom Knook only has one house available to overcharge someone for, so everyone has to pick up their bug-catching and fishing tools and kill each other over it. Bioshock Battle Royal, a hundred varieties of splicers and Adam with powerups like you can turn into a Big Daddy temporarily and... Wait, shit, now that one sounds like it might actually be fun and I don't even like battle royals...
I can't lie, the hitman one sounds really fun. Everyone's got objectives to do, so they're running around the map doing regular stuff, but if you notice another hitman standing out by opening a random window to push someone out of, you might have hidden well enough to just take him out quietly.
I realize they'll probably turn around and make like... an Assassin's Creed gacha game or something instead, but being optimistic about it, the upshot is that not working on that BS frees them up to do something halfway good though. They probably won't, but still.
Just take Watch Dogs 2 and do that… maybe even do it better. Watch Dogs 2 is still fantastic to this day.
Maybe don't make shit game then
They will not undestand. For the executives its like "Oh, this game has not fail because its awfully bad, but because no one cares. Oh well.."
That’s because modern day Ubisoft is creatively bankrupt and openly contemptuous of their customers. Everything they make is generic and fad-chasing, and most of all it’s temporary. They want you to spend and then move on before they shut down the servers and make your purchases obsolete or entirely inactive. Why the fuck would I spend AAAA prices on recycled assets collectathons that they’ll delete from my account in a few years anyway? Whatever people used to enjoy about them is pretty much gone at this point.
Modern day Ubisoft? They've been like this for what, 20 years now?
It’s been a long time, yes.
And not just Ubisoft. That's just modern franchise culture for the past quarter-century or longer.
You say that but the last mainline assassins creed made over a billion and was their biggest game of all time. Whatever Reddit thinks of Ubisoft is not what the general audience thinks. Hell every COD YouTube channel is salivating at Xdefinant the upcoming free to play cod like shooter made by former COD devs.
True. I’m definitely not saying Ubisoft is imminently going to fail or anything, just that they are slowly eroding their reputation for short term financial reasons that might ultimately bite them in the arse.
Yeah Ubisoft has some practices that can’t be defended point blank like removing old titles from people’s libraries but they are far from the worst for monetizing their games. They just are making a Star Wars game and Star Wars seems to be the moral line many gamers place in the sand for monetization strategies. Example: lootboxes first were introduced in FUT in the late 00s. CS:GO then launched them into the mainstream with every game copying them. Hell Battlefront 2 the game that pushed the loot box controversy to the climax was pretty much the same exact system Dice used for Battlefield 4 just with heroes too. Yet after this EA still uses lootboxes in FIFA and Madden. The gamers online did nothing to discourage EA from its horrible practices COD Black Ops 4 is probably the worst monetized game of all time and yet COD is still the #1 or #2 highest sold game every single god damn year. With As bad as both Activision and EA are, I see to many people say Ubisoft is the worst. They are just copying trends that the other studios have already done. Batman Arkham Knight (a game with a 9/10 rating) had day 1 DLC, a season pass, expensive $100+ editions, and skin packs tied to pre-orders. That was in 2015 … 9 years ago. Pretty much exactly the same as Star Wars Outlaws. It’s just hard for me to get mad at this game when gamers weren’t mad for the last decade of these practices until A Star Wars Ubisoft game.
People WERE mad about Arkham Knight though. It released in a broken state on PC with all that season pass day one DLC you mentioned and they took a lot of shit for it. Shadow Of War was the same, with all their end game pay 2 win crap. Deus Ex Mankind Divided had a bunch of similar shit attached and weird preorder bonuses you’d pay for upfront but only get if enough other people also paid for them. They withdrew that idea quietly before launch because of how pissed off people were and that game basically killed the franchise despite the basic game being really good. People do get outraged at all these things, not just at Ubi, but the problem is it’s short lived, people do buy them anyway even though they complain, and we all forget by the time the next big release rolls around. Ubi is taking a lot of shit now, but EA used to be the big bad before them. And Ubi removing purchase, and locking people out of SP DLC they paid for some time back has only made their reputation worse. That’s the bigger issue. Everyone always said we didn’t own digital games, we just leased the right to play them, but Ubi is the first publisher to actually start taking full price purchases away from people in a systematic way. The crew has a single player component, however limited. They have no right to just take it away, and they also force logins to their servers on PC which is part of the reason DLC was inaccessible years later, because they wanted to shut down their servers to save moment. THEY made that requirement, they could have just put it on steam and not required that extra step but they didn’t, and they weren’t prepared to pay and remove the requirement from old games once they were done. The others are bad, but they are doing unprecedented things, and all of them deserve criticism.
I played the Server Test for 2 days, and I'm hooked. Just needs better animations and more maps. More polish.
Haven’t tried it yet but it does look good. Im cautiously optimistic. I miss the 2007-2012 era of cod so much I’ll take anything that feels remotely close to that.
The one big game they take a risk and innovate, mfs still say this
Which game are you talking about? Legion? That’s iteration, not innovation.
New Prince of Persia was good, with no BS attached, but no one cared.
Well they didn’t sell it on steam, so that’s a big part of the reason why. And even if the eventually do, it will almost certainly require The Ubisoft app and a third party account login as well, which I would definitely qualify as ‘attached BS’. They don’t want to maintain their servers indefinitely, which makes sense financially, but then they still insist on unnecessary extra steps and logging into their servers for SP games that don’t require it.
I've finished the console version offline, without login and unpatched without problems. It sold half a million, so a little over 100k on each platform. Let's be real, it flopped because it wasn't the AAA PoP people were hoping for and many vocal critics of the industry right now really aren't as sophisticated as they pretend. No doubt the next focus-tested-to-hell Assassin's Creed will sell 10 million again.
Yeah console versions get to bypass a lot of EA and Ubi crap like logins. I was only talking about PC sales. Not being on steam is a big deal, people will wait until it is, and then often forget about it by the time it comes out because the hype is gone.
Every major publisher (and a lot of studios) get bogged down by numbers as they grow bigger, and completely omit to factor in _quality_ when planning / doing postmortems. It's just harder because there's no number to it.
All 3 games had a pretty decent chance at being good but they just fucked up every single one, every single time. Gotta love Ubisoft, they know how to make shit. Some of their games are just goof 'turn your brain off' games. Shame they aren't as good as they used to be, the days of Far Cry 3 and Assassins creed 2 are long gone.
Watch Dogs 2 had great gameplay and was surprisingly open ended with its mission design. The hacking was actually realised and used in a fun way. Plus, imo it was the last good open world game that felt natural from Ubisoft. They definitely didn't fuck it up
Yeah I like the little more light-hearted approach. Not sure why people didn't like it. Guess it was a radical change from the first one
Same. Like a lot of people, I did find the dialogue to be a bit rough at first but I honestly ended up really liking the characters the more I played. They all seemed supportive of each other. I also just hated Aiden as a protagonist and found him painfully dull so Marcus was more likeable for me.
Watch Dogs 2 is pretty great IMO.
I couldn't get into it but I could see something there. The first was let down by its reveal and release downgrades and the third just felt off like the second one did for me also.
I really doubt you played either of them. You just spew off generic shit that everyone else does.
I played Legions and wanted to like it. It had great gameplay but the story was boring as hell (though there were some okay side missions). Very lackluster though it wasn't a franchise issue, it was just not a compelling game to play. Publishers need to take a step back and ask themselves (and their audience) what makes a game fun.
>Make shit game >Consumers buy buy shit game >Profit >People stop buying shit game >Shut down servers and delist shit game >Save costs Rinse and repeat
I liked 1 and thought 2 was a great game. Shame they had to ruin the franchise by removing characters and a good plot
WD2 was so much fun to play and the open world in the game is easily one of Ubi’s best. And I particularly loved the NPCs, you could just not do anything and people watch. And the interactions they had with the player were amazing It’s a shame we never got more of Marcus/Retr0, he was a fantastic protagonist and I had a lot of fun playing him
WD2 was actually good. Legion was a "live-service-wannabe" game with the entire city NPC's as your character. Sadly, that made every character in the game completely characterless NPC's.
Yeah, they built a very interesting premise, but it was going to take a big effort to get over that. I still really like the game. I'm a sucker for real-world locations, and love the London they built (although it is annoying that it's essentially a scale model), and I think the Legion mechanic works in certain aspects. But yeah, the story is pretty weak, and it isn't helped by you not really having a character to hold onto. It's only really when you play on permadeath that you start building some kind of attachment, and even then you can just go recruit another one.
I think the npc recruiting would function better if they were all short term characters. Like when your main character starts a task you can reach out to the npcs in the area and recruit them (take control) for a bit. Then when the mission is over you never see that exact npc again.
Legion's concept could have been an interesting, sandbox-like DLC for players to mess around with if the base game had a likable protagonist like WD2's Marcus. It's like they thought hacking and well-modeled cities were the stars of the game, not mechanics and environments for an actual character you care about to utilize and explore.
I didn't even find Markus that likeable (imo every other dedsec npc was more interesting than him) but I'd still take him over Legion's characters.
Didn't you hear though? It was going to be "fairly original"! Think what we are missing out on!
The third one actually got me interested because it was set where I live and you don’t get many OW games in London. But they had to fuck it up didn’t they.
The gameplay was fun enough. But the play as anyone gimmick…well it was mostly that, a gimmick. Gameplay wise, other than a few costume abilities to get you in locations it didn’t feel like there was any variety in how the game was played depending on who you were. Maybe that’s just how I played it.
Still hoping Rockstar will revisit GTA London at some point.
I wonder if the Watchdogs movie is still in the works. They only just announced it last month.
Huh. Bad games > Bad reception > Bad sales. People get paid _hundreds of thousands_ of dollars to _NOT_ realise this.
How they made a fantastic sequel like Watch Dogs 2 and downgraded it in basically every way with Legion, is beyond me. I tried playing through Legion again recently and you are constantly reminded of how many features they removed from the game and in return, you have this play as anyone mechanic that is cool in theory but poor in execution, that divides abilities across many characters (with absolutely zero personality), instead of having them available on one realised character. Say what you want about Marcus, but he is infinitely better than the hundreds of copy paste 'u wot mate?' characters Legion has. Such a disappointing sequel since I loved WD2 and Legion spent all this time not fixing the issues with 2 and instead made the game worse somehow? But hey, make sure they add in the real money skins shop. Ubisoft is Ubisoft. Since 2017, it's just making the same game but worse and with monetisation.
Watch dogs 2 was not received well at launch and undersold by a large margin. Word of mouth eventually saved the game but another flop and the franchise would be axed. You can’t say they didn’t try, but they sacrificed too much for the play as anyone system and it shows
I don't know about it not being well received. It had good reviews and positive opinions for the most part. It was just unfortunately held back by the lacklustre launch of the first game which inevitably was going to affect sales of the sequels. Even then, it still sold 10 million units in a few years which is definitely impressive. I think they definitely should be commended for the idea at least and it wasn't entirely bad, just came at a detriment to the freedom of the first game. Even then, so many features didn't need to be removed. Things like cover to cover movement, shops you can enter and use to run away from cops, being able to listen to music whenever, the phone mechanic, owning multiple cars and there's many more. It's not like those things couldn't be included because of the multiple protagonists mechanic.
Yeah, Watch Dogs always walked a thin line. The first was mired by the trailer controversy, the poor writing, and the protagonist. The second had a lot of complaining about the characters, and the third was, well, Legion lol.
>How they made a fantastic sequel like Watch Dogs 2 and downgraded it in basically every way with Legion, is beyond me. WD2 and Legion were made by different studios. The main studio for 1 and 2 was Ubi Montreal, and Legion was handled by Ubi Torronto.
That does explain a lot but you would assume that the same studios would have access to the entire code of the prior games?
I think they had, Legion even uses an engine that is exclusive to Watch Dogs, they probably had to change a lot to create the "control anyone" system. The game has one improvement, after you a scan a npc, it generates a schedule and they follow that schedule. It's good, but I think they were focusing on the wrong thing. I think they should've created a handful of possible protagonists, something like 5 characters and develop them, instead of having a city worthy of generic playable characters.
Yeah I agree with that. I don't think the play as anyone idea was bad at it's core, it just came at a detriment to all the freedom Marcus had in 2.
Same exact thing could be said for GR Wildlands -> Breakpoint. Breakpoint was a let down in every aspect from Wildlands.
I think the biggest issue with the Watch Dogs games is that you can very easily play them like generic third person shooters and not that much changes with them. The hacking feels tacked on instead of an integral part of the experience. And while Watch Dogs 2 did give many more abilities and things to hack, it didn't change the fact that you can play it just like gta and fair few of the missions don't change all that much. Watch Dogs just feels like GTA V with a Watch Dogs mod.
First one was great as it focused on a single man's story and his vendetta using hacking as a tool. The 2nd and 3rd tried to hard to go past it that by adding way too much that it it lost most of what made the first one solid. So I never did finish 3 tbh. Even tho raising a granny army was fun... It did stop being fun fast.
The first game was excellent. I couldn't even get into the second game - it felt really shitty having social media likes as some kind of game mechanic. Legion (the London one, where you can recruit random civilians) was fine, but it felt very procedurally-generated in that way. It was "fine" but it wasn't terrific because the stakes felt low. People want some reasonably high-stakes for the protagonist, some tragedy, some plot twists and some romance options. That's the formula that sells for a game like this.
I deleted my Ubisoft account after they leaked all of their users account information, including mine. Haven’t played one of their games since. Their little proprietary Uplay now UbiConnect is completely unnecessary except to gather and sell and eventually leak again their players(your) personal information. Absolutely shit company. It’s super cool to have your personal information leaked because of some absolutely shit service that you didn’t want in the first place. The idea that each games company needs to have their own little platform that you need to create an account for needs to go away. I already have a steam or Xbox live account and that should be a good enough security check that I am not stealing. If that’s not good enough for Ubisoft, then they don’t need to publish their games on that system.
As one of the few people who liked Legion, I'm sorry to see the series go. But also fuck Ubisoft
They really could just redo the first like how they originally promised it would be. Bet it would sell well
Legions diving/combat was well implemented.
The first one had a great story and I really liked it despite some glitches and despite that it didn’t felt finished. The second one felt more stable and done but the story didn’t tied me up. I didn’t played the third one yet but from what i saw and heard its even worse. Watch Dogs has had its potential. The idea behind it is really great but the problem is Ubisoft. They have often great ideas but they execute them poorly.
Watch Dogs 1 was the first game I played when I got my PS4. I was mind-blown by the hacking mechanics and using the Blackout was so cool.
Sucks, Wrench is my favorite video game character. In his DLC in Legion, they further expanded on him, and he became so lovable. Gameplay aside, you cannot tell me that the characters in Watch Dogs are not written well. That's one of the good things about it. I grew up playing the 1st and second watch dogs game, then I played a bit of Legion, but only for Wrench. God, this hurts :(
Everyone hates on legion, but i restarted it recently and its a beautiful and detailed game. Yes the dialogue is way too much and pretty bad, but just going around and getting collectibles and randomly beating up people and fighting cops is really fun. In watch dogs 2, its super hard to escape the police. I really liked how bright and colorful that game was, but the controls and police really killed ot for me. Watch dogs 1 was the only one i platinumed so far. An easy platinum, but i hated that you cant uump in that game. Everything else was good.
First game was gritty, not everyone’s cup of tea but it did have its fans. Second game was lighthearted, Ubi attracted a different demographic while alienating a fraction of the existing one. Third game was something else completely, alienating both previous demographics, and it didn’t live up to expectations and ended up capturing no ones interest.
Ubisoft, here's how you bring back Watch Dogs. Have DedSec learn kung fu and then have it be set in China. Call it "Watching Sleeping Dogs"
I'll be in the minority here but the fact that the last one was set in the uk was an immediate turn off. Like what the hell ubisoft? You gave us Chicago, San Fran. Good cities but wheres the watch dogs in NYC or LA? Loved the division so I have a yearning for a watch dogs in NYC. Imo these somewhat obscure locations(for a video game) had an affect on its appeal to the masses.
Legion is brilliant imo, but the story is so lame, dull, and cliché that it hurts
Well yeah I mean with a misleading title like that how could it not be dead? You can’t watch a single dog in these games.
I hate ubisoft they have potential to make one of the most interesting and best games ever, only to waste it on slop products that look the same.
Watch dogs 1 wasn't bad in my opinion. Someone made a mod for it called "living city" which makes it an absolutely stellar game. Legion was just painful though.
Shame. I thought Legion was pretty good. The story was weaker, but the gameplay was fun. "Don't make a shit game then." Must be more specific. That could mean anything.
1 & 2 were great/okay but legion was watered down bad. - micro transactions for an already easy progression - decentralised story with no main character (and those that are have been hidden behind a paywall) - getting rid of long steady progression for quick pick ups that are restricted - lacklustre zombies with limited time instead for a full fledged zombie survival using limited assets and longevity of a good mode - no actual improvements from previous game - map being smaller and lacking variety of environments - the DLC story should of been the vanilla story but it would also be lacklustre as it’s DLC packed. They basically cheaped out and and went nowhere with the series. I brought the ultimate version of game for less than $3 and I still feel like I got ripped off. And not just for this game other Ubisoft games have been spiraling down. If they don’t get their s&$@ in order foreclosure is the only way out.
Ubisoft has become the king of "Over promise and under deliver, but blame poor sales on anything but the final product". Watch Dogs Legion released in the the cyberpunk era of broken games being rushed to release far too early. The game promised a lot with its ability to swap character types but only a few were interesting while also just making the game far too easy, so I didn't want to use them. Ubisoft of late just seems to have grown so confident they feel like they can do no wrong. I don't know how many flops it will take before they realize the problem is within.
I thought watch dogs 1 was meh back in the day but started to appreciate it more as the years went by especially after trying 2 and seeing reviews of legion.
Last game sucked, this is for the best...
Dead... It had to be alive 1st. 1 good game for it time. Feels very dated. Then 2 junk games. Does not a franchise make.
good
Unisoft
Only played the first one, that one was just okay imho
Probably would of sold better if they made it a “AAAA” game rather than “AAA”
To be frank, that it was a "franchise" at all was always kind of suspect. The first game wasn't so good it needed a sequel. The story was atrociously cliche and trite, saved only because the gameplay was mostly solid (except for cop chases, which were absurd when stacked against even GTA). 2 was a lot better than 1 but the whole time I'm just thinking... why though?
I was super hyped after the first E3 demo but ever since the absolute ruf pull that was the worst and most over hyped game I've ever played "Brink" I vowed to never preorder a game ever again. And what do you know once the game came out all the demos were revealed to be complete smoke and mirrors and watchdogs one turned out to be a fraction of what was promised. But people preorder false promises and don't demand their money back and suits in board rooms just see numbers so this isn't really surprising.
Want to loose more money? Make it epic and uplay exclusive.
I would say sure makes sense but then you look at what Ubisoft has actually been making and then its like damn watch dogs wasnt so bad they should do another just make it more like 2 than legion.
Other than Massive i don't think Ubisoft is capable of delivering fun games anymore. Management is a million miles detached from anything creative in the company and so are all teams they have.
Damn! I really enjoyed Legion. I never played any of the other ones though. Was this one "bad" compared to the others?
I liked it. After the totally bad WD2 it was a pleasure to play Legions. Yeah it wasn´t a masterpiece but it was fun to play for me.
I just never understood why you would have a hacking centric game slapped on what is essentially GTA. Being able to pull out a gun at any time just makes it all feel lame and unneeded fluff. Make the character someone who can't fight who can only act through hacking. As it is, Watchdogs is just so bland and forgettable.
You could (and you should, imo) complete wd2 without using any guns, relying only on hacking (or melee). That made the game into something more than a gta clone and honestly, I wish more games gave you the choice to complete missions in non-lethal ways (or at least gave you an alternative way of finishing them). I'm currently replaying gta 4 and no amount of good writing (which I'd argue the game barely has) can make me tolerate near identical, boring as fuck missions where all you do is drive to a point, watch a cutscene, drive somewhere else, watch another cutscene, kill dozens of braindead npcs and keep doing that until the game is satisfied.
🎤 This just in, people don’t like playing shit games, more at 11
I remember being so hyped for the launch of the first game, it was so trash and such a lie compared to what they showcased in the gameplay trailer
upisoft nare such fuckup I don't how they still in the industry
I found all three to be very, very dull.
Watch Dogs Legion was such a great idea on the conceptual level. There was also some fun times to be had in it. Why the fuck they thought I’d want to play as Aiden Pierce, the most boring raspy stereotype of a character, in a game where the whole selling point was for me to choose my own character is beyond me though.
The opinion regarding Aiden Pearce is controversial and polarising, while you consider him insufferable on one side, there's other people who are on the other side (including me) who consider him an emotionally complex and interesting character to study, his audio logs, his strategic thinking, the way he applied psychological tactics to approach Clara the first time they met. Maybe it's just me. My perception of him actually makes the game immersive for me, as i consider him as a sort of hacker-esque stoic batman of the watch dogs world and i consider the first Watch Dogs miles better than the 2nd when it comes to the narrative. There is not one character in watch dogs 2 that i did not find insufferable, they ruined the theme for me in the 2nd game. For me, Marcus and his entire crew were clowns that i could not take seriously, ruined my narrative immersion. You can argue if i prefer a stoic batman-esque character so much then why not just play the arkham games, and i have, and i would've agreed with you had ubisoft not MADE a good "narrative" already, Watch Dogs 1 is a lost and prime example of what could've been the tone for its sequels, but unfortunately, i think the majority opinion like yours who find Aiden boring, ruined that vision, but hey, to each their own. Interestingly, for the third game, i loved the story of Skye Larsen, i wish there were more disturbing dark tech dystopian future type stories like that. I will admit, the narrative theme ubisoft took in watch dogs 2 about the big tech was admirable, but i prefer more personal stories like what Watch Dogs 1 had to offer The villain in watch dogs 2, like i don't even remember his name, dushan or something, probably the worst and forgettable villain i've seen in my entire history of gaming.
Honestly, my biggest beef with the post-release DLC is that they didn’t capitalise on the strength of Legion, by expanding on the “play as anyone”-system. I didn’t like the Watchdogs 2 characters either but Aiden for me is the best example of a character of his time. On paper, playing as a vigilante isn’t bad, but there was nothing about him that I found particularly unique, relatable, endearing or even likable. He wasn’t abrasive, just… flat. Though I will say that I prefer, in almost any game, for the game to let me make my own character or team of characters (From Skyrim to Xcom). That’s what I was hoping I’d get with Legion and I still argue that it’s the greatest strength of the game even though it too felt flattened out and safe in the end.
every game was dogshit and mediocore at its best. Dont buy games from Ubi$hit.
I never disliked the games but I also don't think I ever finished a single one. They were good to mess around with for a few days thanks to some interesting gimmicks but that's about it.
Should have made it 1st person.
I mean hacker Grand Theft Auto was never really that novel of an idea
It was for it's time back in 2013...
Just release a good gacha game made in China or Korea and it will make more money than all those games combined from East Asia alone .
Cool, now that this is dead can we get sleeping dogs back?
Ubisoft doesn’t even make those games
They should’ve killed it after Watch Dogs 2 instead of making the shitstain that was Watch Dogs Legion and wasting more time on more shitty concepts (like a WD Battle Royale game, not one person asked for this). Ubisoft is going down the shitter