Playing watch dogs let me appreciate one thing

  • 48 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by yukushi (132 posts) -

Watch dogs lets me appreciate rockstar even more, after all these years no developer can make a open world shooting game that can compare to grand theft auto, these open world games just let me pass the time until the next grand theft auto comes out.

#2 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

GTA is overrated as hell and not as fun as other games.

#3 Posted by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

@yukushi said:

Watch dogs lets me appreciate rockstar even more, after all these years no developer can make a open world shooting game that can compare to grand theft auto, these open world games just let me pass the time until the next grand theft auto comes out.

I agree.

All the small things that rockstar do , Radio, TV, able to see the splash from your gun when shooting into water, drive and shoot, the dynamic world where you can see when you do something is what makes Gthe GTA world feel real compared to Watch Dogs which is a decent game but missing all those things Rockstar do, makes Watch Dogs seem like a cheap knockoff

#5 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Rockstar sucks at gameplay...... They've finaly got the game mechanics right but the gameplay is still the same trash it always was.

Watch Dogs is no prize pig either !

#6 Posted by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

Rockstar sucks at gameplay...... They've finaly got the game mechanics right but the gameplay is still the same trash it always was.

Watch Dogs is no prize pig either !

Hmm, what games do you actually like?

But are you crazy? lol If there is something Rockstar do better than any other gaming developer out there its gameplay.

#7 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Rockstar knows how to create distractions... Gameplay ? Not so much...

Not all of us are lucky enough to be easily stimulated by murdering prostitutes in between linear scripted missions.... :(

#8 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

@Jacanuk: Never played Gone Home and the only two French films I've ever seen are Martyrs and Inside. To me, Rockstar's games value technical design and the technology itself more than the actual gameplay and that's the wrong way to do it. And most of the stuff that GTA does is done better in other games.

Not everybody who has genuine criticism of Rockstar is a pretentious douchewad :)

#9 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2388 posts) -

yep sounds about right

#10 Posted by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

@Jacanuk: Never played Gone Home and the only two French films I've ever seen are Martyrs and Inside. To me, Rockstar's games value technical design and the technology itself more than the actual gameplay and that's the wrong way to do it. And most of the stuff that GTA does is done better in other games.

Not everybody who has genuine criticism of Rockstar is a pretentious douchewad :)

What is done better in other games? because so far i do play a fair amount of open world games, And there is nothing out there that even remotely compare to GTA in terms of gameplay, mechanics and the open world feel.

#11 Edited by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Rockstar knows how to create distractions... Gameplay ? Not so much...

Not all of us are lucky enough to be easily stimulated by murdering prostitutes in between linear scripted missions.... :(

Do you know what gameplay is? also have you actually played any GTA game? sorry to ask but you know you have a tendency to sometimes jump in without having played the game ;)

But there is a lot more to GTA then running peds over or killing cops or murdering hookers.

#12 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

#13 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Jacanuk

When you start a mission that "open world feel" goes straight down the toilet.... Unless you're doing one of those vigilante side missions or whatever then it just becomes tedious.

Rockstar is all Coffee and no Omlet.... Just like their fans.... :p

#14 Posted by Treflis (11471 posts) -

@Jacanuk

When you start a mission that "open world feel" goes straight down the toilet.... Unless you're doing one of those vigilante side missions or whatever then it just becomes tedious.

Rockstar is all Coffee and no Omlet.... Just like their fans.... :p

I wouldn't try to act so smug when you can't write omelette.

#15 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Played them all since GTA III.

You're right though.... Theres Pile Ups, Running over Pedestrians, Cop Chaces, Flying Planes, Boats, and a whole bunch of other side activities that each get tedious after 5 minutes. Thats Rockstar's signature mark, 100 ways ways to kill 5 minutes. Theres not a single feature that has longterm appeal. Its only good for people with short attention spans so they get a kick out out switching back and forth between side missions and mini games.

#16 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@Treflis

I can make an Omlet.... So I'l spell it however I want.

Watch me spell it with an "A"......... Ahmlet.

Now do you wana talk video games or Shall I continue to butcher the English Language ? :p I can do Eye-ther one ! Hell I can do Both Simultaneously !

#17 Posted by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

#18 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

GTA and Realism in the Same sentence ? HAHAHAHAHAHA !

Rockstar hasn't done a realistic thing in its life !

#19 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6896 posts) -

@yukushi said:

Watch dogs lets me appreciate rockstar even more, after all these years no developer can make a open world shooting game that can compare to grand theft auto, these open world games just let me pass the time until the next grand theft auto comes out.

I agree.

#20 Posted by mjorh (692 posts) -

You're being too hard on watch dogs , man GTA is like the master of such open-worlds and you're comparing it to a new ip .....doesn't make sense !

Still i believe Watch Dogs is great and the sequel will be awesome !

#21 Posted by cooolio (450 posts) -

I do not understand why people think that GTA V is the Mona Lisa of open world games. The world is alive and detailed, there is no doubt about that, but besides that and its size, it is a step down. There is barely anything interesting to do outside of the main story. I would say that the scuba diving is nice, but most of the stranger missions are dumb missions with hilarious stories ( if you want to call them that). I mean one of them revolves around you towing cars, towing cars!!! Another has you collecting garbage.

GTA IV may not have been the best, but there were other activities, and sp dlc added even more mini games, mini games that V lacked and did not even build upon. All I have heard people praise so far on this very board is things like physics and details, mind you that all that is important, but what does GTA V do when it comes to gameplay that makes it so much better?

#22 Edited by cooolio (450 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@Jacanuk

Rockstar knows how to create distractions... Gameplay ? Not so much...

Not all of us are lucky enough to be easily stimulated by murdering prostitutes in between linear scripted missions.... :(

Do you know what gameplay is? also have you actually played any GTA game? sorry to ask but you know you have a tendency to sometimes jump in without having played the game ;)

But there is a lot more to GTA then running peds over or killing cops or murdering hookers.

You have to admit that with all these games that have some free running or somewhat deep climbing system, GTA V still has your character moving awkwardly. You would think by now that you could actually jump while sprinting and get some more distance and then grab a ledge with sum button instead of hitting your face on the side of the building. When you look a Sleeping Dogs, you are able to leap to other vehicles and shoot while vaulting over cover. Watch Dogs gives you a choice in how you approach most missions. I am not saying that GTA V needs to copy them, but give everything some more depth.

I mean, come on. I would have though that GTA V would include some kind of human shield mechanic. Like said in my OP, they have it down pack when it comes to the npcs in the world, but there is more to an open world sandbox game than that. Honestly, I would say that we do not have any modern day or near future open world games that are topping their worlds, but I do not believe that that is saying a lot. However, I will admit that the story may have limited them to designing missions in a certain way.

And the sad thing is Jacanuck, is that their or a lot of people who love GTA and still by it simply for what is in bold in your op.

#23 Posted by mattykovax (22693 posts) -

Wow I love when opinions are presented as fact......

#24 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@cooolio

Those are some valid points..... I guess I can accept what you say about GTA.....

However I'm no longer into Open World for the sake of Open World. This generation is going to see alot of them..... This level of freedom just for freedom's sake just seems lazy..... Okay lazy is not the right word... The worlds are extremely detailed and lively, the game mechanics have been drastically improved.... Whats missing is that "cleverness". They need to learn to work smarter not harder.

#25 Edited by bussinrounds (2018 posts) -
#26 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4320 posts) -

Gta gets way too much praise. I've been enjoying Watch Dogs more.

#27 Posted by cooolio (450 posts) -

@cooolio

Those are some valid points..... I guess I can accept what you say about GTA.....

However I'm no longer into Open World for the sake of Open World. This generation is going to see alot of them..... This level of freedom just for freedom's sake just seems lazy..... Okay lazy is not the right word... The worlds are extremely detailed and lively, the game mechanics have been drastically improved.... Whats missing is that "cleverness". They need to learn to work smarter not harder.

You are right, we will be seeing a lot of them and there needs to be more to the freedom. However, think that freedom in exploration suits RPGs. The only open world games that I know that I will be getting are MGSV and The Witcher 3. The former is giving you maps that give you tons of choices in how you get to your objective and complete, while the latter is giving you a huge world to explore.

I think that the two problems that a lot of open world games have faced are just being there for you to goof off in and not actually having a world that the character can really feel like they belong in, and a lack of freedom in missions. Now I will admit that some games should be built around exploration, but if I have a game that has a sandbox, I should also then be able to use that sandbox to my advantage in missions, or at least give me some choice in how I do it.

#28 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@cooolio

Exactly !

It would be nice if the AI took advantage of the Open World too.

As for RPGs..... You know how I feel about those.

#29 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

But I have to ask what the point of realism is if it doesn't really add anything? It gives an atmosphere when you're just observing, but like someone else said, the awkward controls are really out of place and, to use a buzzword that I despise, it breaks the immersion that so many people praise the games for. Also like somebody else said, the core gamepaly is still incredibly simple and doesn't have a whole lot of depth.

In some other games you have options on how to approach a gun fight. With GTA, it's pretty much always "hide behind cover and wait for an opening." And like I said, what good is all that focus on realism and immersion if the gameplay is still the same damn thing with barely any tweaking? I'll give it to you that at least the characters in GTAV have some special abilities, but even that has been done in other games with more combat options.

#30 Posted by Behardy24 (3057 posts) -

I haven't played either games, but it sounds like GTA is overall a much more quality made game.

#31 Edited by HipHopBeats (2873 posts) -

At least in GTA games, some civilians actually put up a fight. Gangs that chase you down, and random people packing heat. Peds in Watch Dogs are merely target practice with the ability to call the cops.

#32 Posted by Bigboi500 (29286 posts) -

Rockstar hasn't been Rockstar since San Andreas. The only thing they got right with IV and V was vehicles, landscape and characters. Everything else they do now is mediocre and very over rated.

#33 Edited by Jeager_Titan (945 posts) -

Well atleast GTA is moddable. I can be freaking Iron man. Let see you do that watch dogs.

#34 Posted by ChefPers0n (43 posts) -

GTA is overrated as hell and not as fun as other games.

Would you mind filling me in on why it's overrated?

Now granted, I have not a single soft spot for open world games as virtually every one I play is a trite copy-pasty, time-wastery, fetch-questin, monotonous fuckface-athon. And though it gave me no epiphanies, Grand Theft Auto IV, V and RDR hooked me longer than most open world games combined. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I buy into the hype of Rockstar. What I don't buy into is the thousands of internet hipsters with counter-active opinions towards everything which is popular, looking to deem it all as objectively overrated for no known reason. So I'll repeat myself, why is it overrated? Seriously, now is your chance! Convince me that I'm wrong for liking Rockstar's work over the majority of Open World games, and prove your statement worthy of the devalued buzz-word "overrated".

#35 Edited by sukraj (22089 posts) -

GTA is overrated as hell and not as fun as other games.

I couldn't stand playing GTA V the gameplay mechanics are like poo and I got bored with the game but I'm having a ton of fun with watch dogs.

#36 Edited by Jimmy_Russell (543 posts) -

Rockstar are the best game developers in the world. GTA V is an achievement of epic proportions. GTA V is phenomenal, brilliant and immersing. Any other games that come out are just appetizers to hold me off until the main course.

#37 Edited by wiouds (5054 posts) -

I not someone who believes that open worlds makes the games better and I find a number of open world games are hurt by being open world.

I am enjoying Watch Dogs some much more than GTA V. The radio and other superfluous items I do not care about.

I like the street layout of Watch Dogs some much more than GTA. They fix all my problem with GTA games. I stop playing GTA 5 and do not feel like going back while I could not put do Watch Dog and plan to play it through a second time.

#38 Posted by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

But I have to ask what the point of realism is if it doesn't really add anything? It gives an atmosphere when you're just observing, but like someone else said, the awkward controls are really out of place and, to use a buzzword that I despise, it breaks the immersion that so many people praise the games for. Also like somebody else said, the core gamepaly is still incredibly simple and doesn't have a whole lot of depth.

In some other games you have options on how to approach a gun fight. With GTA, it's pretty much always "hide behind cover and wait for an opening." And like I said, what good is all that focus on realism and immersion if the gameplay is still the same damn thing with barely any tweaking? I'll give it to you that at least the characters in GTAV have some special abilities, but even that has been done in other games with more combat options.

The point of realism is to help you immerse yourself in the game and also to provide a great gaming experience. Its also what distinguishes a great game from a average game like GTA and Watch Dogs. And its just realism in the grand scale, its also the small things. If you look at Watch Dogs there is just so many things that are left out, some small some big, like being able to see where your shooting even in water to the big things like no cops on water, except if the helicopter follows you which is pretty easy to get rid of. Also the small map of Chicago doesn't help it either, even GTA3 seems a lot bigger.

And i don't see your complaints in GTA at all, gunplay is a fluid as any other game of the genre, and its not a FPS. But how did you want the gun-action to be? after all its a gun you aim and shoot,

#39 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

@ChefPers0n said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

GTA is overrated as hell and not as fun as other games.

Would you mind filling me in on why it's overrated?

Now granted, I have not a single soft spot for open world games as virtually every one I play is a trite copy-pasty, time-wastery, fetch-questin, monotonous fuckface-athon. And though it gave me no epiphanies, Grand Theft Auto IV, V and RDR hooked me longer than most open world games combined. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I buy into the hype of Rockstar. What I don't buy into is the thousands of internet hipsters with counter-active opinions towards everything which is popular, looking to deem it all as objectively overrated for no known reason. So I'll repeat myself, why is it overrated? Seriously, now is your chance! Convince me that I'm wrong for liking Rockstar's work over the majority of Open World games, and prove your statement worthy of the devalued buzz-word "overrated".

For one, the technology gets in the way too often. When I was playing RDR, I thought there was way too much focus on creating an atmosphere and meaningless, un fun side activities. It was basically a barren wasteland to explore where the only really fun thing to do was shoot things. Hunting never really got me, treasure hunting felt pointless since you barely needed money after a certain point and other side activities like cattle round up are just frustrating. But hey, at least thew technology is interesting, right?!

Also, from what I've seen, is that their open world games are far too aimless with their plot. Again, to use RDR as an example, it felt like half the interactions with other characters were simply there to fill up time. I felt nothing for the majority of the cast, mainly because it starts out in media res. Now, I don't have anything against that in itself (I've seen it work before) but the game gives you literally no context to the situation. The only way to really know that John's family is kidnapped by the government is by reading about the game outside the game itself. Then the side quests came along, and it felt to me that Rockstar was trying way too hard to just create bizarre side stories without actually making them mean anything. Take the cannibal side quest. I found the guy, saved him from the cannibal, and boom, it was over. It's never brought up again, I didn't really feel like I got anything from it and it felt pointless.

These examples can be applied to most of their open world games. There's too much of a focus on the technology and "immersion" but that gets in the way of letting players really wreak havoc. I can appreciate going for realism, but you also have to remember that this is a game where a character can die in a plane crash only to be revived at the nearest hospital. And the narratives always feel unfocused and all over the place (although Max Payne 3's wasn't but that's simply because it's a linear action game rather than an open world game).

I'm not saying their bad but holy hell do people overblow their quality. You can have all the little details you want in a game but it means nothing if that game lets the technology behind the programming get in the way of itself.

I know this is more of a joke than anything, but people always say they love GTA because they can run over hookers and whatnot. I think, "Ooookay, but I can do that in Saints Row 3, but I also have punching weapons that let me explode people..." Basically, it seems that for all the impressive tech, the actual actions you take are just as bare bones as they need to be. There's nothing that really stands out that isn't done better in other games.

#40 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:
@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

But I have to ask what the point of realism is if it doesn't really add anything? It gives an atmosphere when you're just observing, but like someone else said, the awkward controls are really out of place and, to use a buzzword that I despise, it breaks the immersion that so many people praise the games for. Also like somebody else said, the core gamepaly is still incredibly simple and doesn't have a whole lot of depth.

In some other games you have options on how to approach a gun fight. With GTA, it's pretty much always "hide behind cover and wait for an opening." And like I said, what good is all that focus on realism and immersion if the gameplay is still the same damn thing with barely any tweaking? I'll give it to you that at least the characters in GTAV have some special abilities, but even that has been done in other games with more combat options.

The point of realism is to help you immerse yourself in the game and also to provide a great gaming experience. Its also what distinguishes a great game from a average game like GTA and Watch Dogs. And its just realism in the grand scale, its also the small things. If you look at Watch Dogs there is just so many things that are left out, some small some big, like being able to see where your shooting even in water to the big things like no cops on water, except if the helicopter follows you which is pretty easy to get rid of. Also the small map of Chicago doesn't help it either, even GTA3 seems a lot bigger.

And i don't see your complaints in GTA at all, gunplay is a fluid as any other game of the genre, and its not a FPS. But how did you want the gun-action to be? after all its a gun you aim and shoot,

Apparently we have different definitions of what a great game is. I can appreciate that Rockstar goes to the trouble of adding a lot of small details, but I'd rather just wreak havoc and have a bunch of fun than stare at light coming through the trees or things like that. I get that it affects the gameplay in certain ways but it never feels like it's really meaningful; it feels more like it's put in the game just to have people gush over the technology. To me a great game is something that does have that attention to detail but also doesn't get in its own way when trying to give the player a fun time.

And what I mean about the gunplay is that there's very little options or depth to it. All it is is cover based shooting. That's it. I can get that in a bunch of other games, and some of them do it better. Take Sleeping Dogs. That also has a cover system, but it also allows the cool ability to trigger slow motion and slide out to gain ground on your enemies. Realistic? No. Fun as hell? Yes. And I understand that you can have slow motion in GTAV, but there's no smooth movement. It's just "break from cover when you can and get behind more cover and continue popping out and shooting."

Or, take Far Cry 3. There are so many different ways to get things done in that game. Hell, when you're fully upgraded, you have options just from taking an enemy down. You can pull the pin on their grenade and kick them into more enemies. You can take their firearm and shoot at their friends while using their body as a shield. I'm not saying I need all rooty tooty point and shooty games to have that much depth, but the shooting in GTA (and most Rockstar games) is just incredibly basic. There's no hook or feature that makes it stand out from any other generic shooter, aside from the bullet physics on the body of an enemy. And, again, I can appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that all you are doing is poking out from behind cover and taking a few shots every now and then.

#41 Edited by LiquidButter (43 posts) -

The Watch Dogs world is much more alive than the GTA 5 one. Every citizen has their own life. Their own online habits, job, income level, and name. Quantity alone there's more people on the streets in Watch Dogs than in GTA. In GTA the only thing you'll know about a person is what they are talking about. They are nameless. They have no personality. The hacking ability allows you to go into these randomers lives. See what they have in their bank account. Listen in on their phone conversations. Read their text messages. The information you can get of any 1 random citizen in Watch Dogs is more information than you get from all the random citizens in every GTA game ever.

#42 Posted by darkmoney52 (4307 posts) -

Rockstar's games are fun, but as someone else pointed out, they really need to incorporate the freedom of their open world into the missions. Most of the missions aren't particularly fun and outside of the missions it's mostly just random mayhem. Still, exploring such a well made world is a lot of fun, especially given the variety of cars, bikes, motorcycles, boats, and planes to do it with.

I'd like to see something with Rockstar's technology and an approach more like Crackdown: This is your objective, tackle it however you want.

#43 Edited by cooolio (450 posts) -

@ChefPers0n said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

GTA is overrated as hell and not as fun as other games.

Would you mind filling me in on why it's overrated?

Now granted, I have not a single soft spot for open world games as virtually every one I play is a trite copy-pasty, time-wastery, fetch-questin, monotonous fuckface-athon. And though it gave me no epiphanies, Grand Theft Auto IV, V and RDR hooked me longer than most open world games combined. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I buy into the hype of Rockstar. What I don't buy into is the thousands of internet hipsters with counter-active opinions towards everything which is popular, looking to deem it all as objectively overrated for no known reason. So I'll repeat myself, why is it overrated? Seriously, now is your chance! Convince me that I'm wrong for liking Rockstar's work over the majority of Open World games, and prove your statement worthy of the devalued buzz-word "overrated".

For one, the technology gets in the way too often. When I was playing RDR, I thought there was way too much focus on creating an atmosphere and meaningless, un fun side activities. It was basically a barren wasteland to explore where the only really fun thing to do was shoot things. Hunting never really got me, treasure hunting felt pointless since you barely needed money after a certain point and other side activities like cattle round up are just frustrating. But hey, at least thew technology is interesting, right?!

Also, from what I've seen, is that their open world games are far too aimless with their plot. Again, to use RDR as an example, it felt like half the interactions with other characters were simply there to fill up time. I felt nothing for the majority of the cast, mainly because it starts out in media res. Now, I don't have anything against that in itself (I've seen it work before) but the game gives you literally no context to the situation. The only way to really know that John's family is kidnapped by the government is by reading about the game outside the game itself. Then the side quests came along, and it felt to me that Rockstar was trying way too hard to just create bizarre side stories without actually making them mean anything. Take the cannibal side quest. I found the guy, saved him from the cannibal, and boom, it was over. It's never brought up again, I didn't really feel like I got anything from it and it felt pointless.

These examples can be applied to most of their open world games. There's too much of a focus on the technology and "immersion" but that gets in the way of letting players really wreak havoc. I can appreciate going for realism, but you also have to remember that this is a game where a character can die in a plane crash only to be revived at the nearest hospital. And the narratives always feel unfocused and all over the place (although Max Payne 3's wasn't but that's simply because it's a linear action game rather than an open world game).

I'm not saying their bad but holy hell do people overblow their quality. You can have all the little details you want in a game but it means nothing if that game lets the technology behind the programming get in the way of itself.

I know this is more of a joke than anything, but people always say they love GTA because they can run over hookers and whatnot. I think, "Ooookay, but I can do that in Saints Row 3, but I also have punching weapons that let me explode people..." Basically, it seems that for all the impressive tech, the actual actions you take are just as bare bones as they need to be. There's nothing that really stands out that isn't done better in other games.

To be fair, you will know that John's family was taken by the government if you pay attention to what is going on. The law killed him. The guys worked for the government. Now, I kind of get what you are saying about the side missions because GTA does the same thing, but some of those stories touched on some serious subject matter and reminded you of how serious the world was during that time. And realistically, I could see a man on a journey coming across people that he may or may not help. Really, the people that John meets serve as test or tools that develop him and test his morality. There is even this one stranger mission that has him meeting a being that many fans have concluded to be death himself. But the problem is that some are tedious in terms of actually playing them.

I also agree that the details are great, but there is not enough focus on the other stuff. In my opinion, the fact that one of main reason people love is because of the ability to wreak havoc is bad, because that is kind of all you can do outside of the main mission. For GTA games prior to V it was ok, but as you see the lack of great side missions fun stuff to do, driving and enjoy the scenery and wreaking havoc are all there is to do, and that is not good at all.

#44 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16672 posts) -

@cooolio said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@ChefPers0n said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

GTA is overrated as hell and not as fun as other games.

Would you mind filling me in on why it's overrated?

Now granted, I have not a single soft spot for open world games as virtually every one I play is a trite copy-pasty, time-wastery, fetch-questin, monotonous fuckface-athon. And though it gave me no epiphanies, Grand Theft Auto IV, V and RDR hooked me longer than most open world games combined. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I buy into the hype of Rockstar. What I don't buy into is the thousands of internet hipsters with counter-active opinions towards everything which is popular, looking to deem it all as objectively overrated for no known reason. So I'll repeat myself, why is it overrated? Seriously, now is your chance! Convince me that I'm wrong for liking Rockstar's work over the majority of Open World games, and prove your statement worthy of the devalued buzz-word "overrated".

For one, the technology gets in the way too often. When I was playing RDR, I thought there was way too much focus on creating an atmosphere and meaningless, un fun side activities. It was basically a barren wasteland to explore where the only really fun thing to do was shoot things. Hunting never really got me, treasure hunting felt pointless since you barely needed money after a certain point and other side activities like cattle round up are just frustrating. But hey, at least thew technology is interesting, right?!

Also, from what I've seen, is that their open world games are far too aimless with their plot. Again, to use RDR as an example, it felt like half the interactions with other characters were simply there to fill up time. I felt nothing for the majority of the cast, mainly because it starts out in media res. Now, I don't have anything against that in itself (I've seen it work before) but the game gives you literally no context to the situation. The only way to really know that John's family is kidnapped by the government is by reading about the game outside the game itself. Then the side quests came along, and it felt to me that Rockstar was trying way too hard to just create bizarre side stories without actually making them mean anything. Take the cannibal side quest. I found the guy, saved him from the cannibal, and boom, it was over. It's never brought up again, I didn't really feel like I got anything from it and it felt pointless.

These examples can be applied to most of their open world games. There's too much of a focus on the technology and "immersion" but that gets in the way of letting players really wreak havoc. I can appreciate going for realism, but you also have to remember that this is a game where a character can die in a plane crash only to be revived at the nearest hospital. And the narratives always feel unfocused and all over the place (although Max Payne 3's wasn't but that's simply because it's a linear action game rather than an open world game).

I'm not saying their bad but holy hell do people overblow their quality. You can have all the little details you want in a game but it means nothing if that game lets the technology behind the programming get in the way of itself.

I know this is more of a joke than anything, but people always say they love GTA because they can run over hookers and whatnot. I think, "Ooookay, but I can do that in Saints Row 3, but I also have punching weapons that let me explode people..." Basically, it seems that for all the impressive tech, the actual actions you take are just as bare bones as they need to be. There's nothing that really stands out that isn't done better in other games.

To be fair, you will know that John's family was taken by the government if you pay attention to what is going on. The law killed him. The guys worked for the government. Now, I kind of get what you are saying about the side missions because GTA does the same thing, but some of those stories touched on some serious subject matter and reminded you of how serious the world was during that time. And realistically, I could see a man on a journey coming across people that he may or may not help. Really, the people that John meets serve as test or tools that develop him and test his morality. There is even this one stranger mission that has him meeting a being that many fans have concluded to be death himself. But the problem is that some are tedious in terms of actually playing them.

I also agree that the details are great, but there is not enough focus on the other stuff. In my opinion, the fact that one of main reason people love is because of the ability to wreak havoc is bad, because that is kind of all you can do outside of the main mission. For GTA games prior to V it was ok, but as you see the lack of great side missions fun stuff to do, driving and enjoy the scenery and wreaking havoc are all there is to do, and that is not good at all.

THANK YOU. I'm not saying the games are bad at all, just that they are very overrated and the games emphasize the wrong areas. I understand that a man could stop and help people along the way, but it came across as "my wife and son are being held hostage, so yes, of course I'd be happy to pick five random flowers for you." I did like the Stranger side quests because it related to the character of John and the plot, but the majority felt like excuses to just work in weird characters they couldn't do in the main game.

And a game where the only thing to do is wreak havoc isn't inherently bad. Just Cause 2 has so much variety to its world and so many ways to cause destruction that I never get bored of running around and blowing shit up. But the mayhem in GTA and their other games feels very limited compared to others.

And, like you and I both said, they aren't bad games, but they are definitely overvalued and overrated.

#45 Edited by Ariabed (1102 posts) -

@Jacanuk: watchdogs has a lot more variety of things to do outside of main missions, gta5 is a good game with a lot of attention to little details but they didn't put enough attention into giving the player enough interesting things to do outside the main missions, other than just getting bored and running pedestrians over and getting chased by the police. Each game can learn a lot from the other.

I mean I so wish that gta5 had side missions like, clearing an area/building of a rival gang members, missions to do with the businesses you own, and even being able to rob banks and plan your own smaller scale hiest, just se side missions of substance would have been good.

Equally I wish watchdogs was a little more polished.

#46 Posted by thehig1 (1354 posts) -

I've said this before, all I want on watch dogs is to be able to punch people in the face.

#47 Posted by PsyphonX (17 posts) -

Gta is a good game, includes lots of useless features which are still pretty or cool to have. However, the game is just not as much fun. Especially compared to Saints Row. I had much more fun playing that series. It isn't built as well, but when it comes down to it fun is what matters.
I'm loving Watch Dogs., I loved Gta, and I loved Saints Row.
Don't let one experience keep you from having many different fun experiences.

#48 Edited by sebas_1987 (15 posts) -

blah blah blah blah blah.

Rockstar made great open world games. The only reason that its the Poster Child of open world games, its because is an inmersive game. its doesn´t make you feel like you are the center of the world.

Also the graphics are good, the realism when you shoot a gun, a shotgun, or when you walk or drive its really good. And specially its a great game because its great in all that at the same time.

WatchDogs its a good game, but its not as inmersive as GTA V. Ubisoft did the most coward thing to do. They played safe. Doing the EXACT SAME THING, they did with assassins creed and far cry 3. They say "its GTA with hacking" they say "iYour weapon is a phone" and when you play it, you realize that its all a lie. Your phone its not a weapon, ITS AN ACCESORIE.

Thats why a lot of people didn´t like WatchsDogs. All the things ubisoft promised werent there. Because besides all the side missions they put in watchdogs, its not fun when its always the same side mission repeated 30 times in a row.

#49 Posted by cooolio (450 posts) -

blah blah blah blah blah.

Rockstar made great open world games. The only reason that its the Poster Child of open world games, its because is an inmersive game. its doesn´t make you feel like you are the center of the world.

Also the graphics are good, the realism when you shoot a gun, a shotgun, or when you walk or drive its really good. And specially its a great game because its great in all that at the same time.

WatchDogs its a good game, but its not as inmersive as GTA V. Ubisoft did the most coward thing to do. They played safe. Doing the EXACT SAME THING, they did with assassins creed and far cry 3. They say "its GTA with hacking" they say "iYour weapon is a phone" and when you play it, you realize that its all a lie. Your phone its not a weapon, ITS AN ACCESORIE.

Thats why a lot of people didn´t like WatchsDogs. All the things ubisoft promised werent there. Because besides all the side missions they put in watchdogs, its not fun when its always the same side mission repeated 30 times in a row.

They are both flawed. You call GTA an immersive game others call it the best game to ever. We should not give any game a certain label to justify why it does what it does. The realism is great, but there should have been more effort put in to the side missions. As for Watch Dogs, I have not played the game, but as far as i know, there is nothing that was supposed to be in the game that is not there. I

As long as you can use the hacking blow people up what not, then YOUR PHONE IS A WEAPON. They promised that and good graphics, they only messed up with that reveal that was not even using the consoles power. People even complained about seeing to many videos. Some were saying that they felt like they already played the game because they believe that they saw everything that it had to offer, so in a way that was showing you what was in it as well.

And if you are going to get on Watch Dogs for repeating the same side mission, then you should criticize GTA V for lacking side content after the main story. Fair is fair. I am assuming you actually played WD, and I do not believe that it is as bad as you say. Well, its cool, as long as your not one of those people who is basing everything on reviews and other peoples opinions.

#50 Posted by Jacanuk (4198 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:
@Jacanuk said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@Jacanuk: How about an overall sense of fun? While I agree the shooting feels solid (as you'd expect since Rockstar uses the exact same shooting style in just about every one of their games) the characters don't move very well and going on a rampage can be unfun since it's so hard to make a stand. Not only that, but the realism gets in the way of things. It doesn't allow for really over the top, player made fun.

Meanwhile, in a game like Just Cause 2, realism is thrown out the window and you are given an abundance of opportunities to destroy things and wreak mayhem. Plus, the side missions actually make sense unlike, say, Red Dead Redemption where each one felt like a completely random and inconsequential story that didn't really add anything to the game (and before you say RDR isn't a GTA game, it may as well be).

I can appreciate the technology put into the games, but the attention to detail and reactionary physics doesn't do much of the game isn't that fun.

Ahh i was beginning to suspect that something like Just Cause 2 was more something you would like.

And i get where we split ways. I am not a big fan of pointless mayhem, there has to be a reason for the insanity and Just Cause 2 was a terrible pile of manure, no point to the missions, no side missions worth anything, and after the 10th time you destroy a car, plane or chopper into something it gets tiresome and the worst part was that the whole main story felt like watching paint dry.

So ya if you don't want realism Its not GTA because thats what GTA does best, it makes the mayhem have a point, the side missions to have a place and the main story to feel like a story with characters that have a appeal.

Same thing with RDR.

But I have to ask what the point of realism is if it doesn't really add anything? It gives an atmosphere when you're just observing, but like someone else said, the awkward controls are really out of place and, to use a buzzword that I despise, it breaks the immersion that so many people praise the games for. Also like somebody else said, the core gamepaly is still incredibly simple and doesn't have a whole lot of depth.

In some other games you have options on how to approach a gun fight. With GTA, it's pretty much always "hide behind cover and wait for an opening." And like I said, what good is all that focus on realism and immersion if the gameplay is still the same damn thing with barely any tweaking? I'll give it to you that at least the characters in GTAV have some special abilities, but even that has been done in other games with more combat options.

The point of realism is to help you immerse yourself in the game and also to provide a great gaming experience. Its also what distinguishes a great game from a average game like GTA and Watch Dogs. And its just realism in the grand scale, its also the small things. If you look at Watch Dogs there is just so many things that are left out, some small some big, like being able to see where your shooting even in water to the big things like no cops on water, except if the helicopter follows you which is pretty easy to get rid of. Also the small map of Chicago doesn't help it either, even GTA3 seems a lot bigger.

And i don't see your complaints in GTA at all, gunplay is a fluid as any other game of the genre, and its not a FPS. But how did you want the gun-action to be? after all its a gun you aim and shoot,

Apparently we have different definitions of what a great game is. I can appreciate that Rockstar goes to the trouble of adding a lot of small details, but I'd rather just wreak havoc and have a bunch of fun than stare at light coming through the trees or things like that. I get that it affects the gameplay in certain ways but it never feels like it's really meaningful; it feels more like it's put in the game just to have people gush over the technology. To me a great game is something that does have that attention to detail but also doesn't get in its own way when trying to give the player a fun time.

And what I mean about the gunplay is that there's very little options or depth to it. All it is is cover based shooting. That's it. I can get that in a bunch of other games, and some of them do it better. Take Sleeping Dogs. That also has a cover system, but it also allows the cool ability to trigger slow motion and slide out to gain ground on your enemies. Realistic? No. Fun as hell? Yes. And I understand that you can have slow motion in GTAV, but there's no smooth movement. It's just "break from cover when you can and get behind more cover and continue popping out and shooting."

Or, take Far Cry 3. There are so many different ways to get things done in that game. Hell, when you're fully upgraded, you have options just from taking an enemy down. You can pull the pin on their grenade and kick them into more enemies. You can take their firearm and shoot at their friends while using their body as a shield. I'm not saying I need all rooty tooty point and shooty games to have that much depth, but the shooting in GTA (and most Rockstar games) is just incredibly basic. There's no hook or feature that makes it stand out from any other generic shooter, aside from the bullet physics on the body of an enemy. And, again, I can appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that all you are doing is poking out from behind cover and taking a few shots every now and then.

Yes, it seems we do indeed have a different view on what makes a great game. As i said i can't stand the mindless pointless mayhem that are in a game like Just Cause 2, there has to be a reason for the madness, so yes i rather have Rockstar´s eye for details. Als for me it does affect the gameplay and in a major way, i simply can't look past that in a game like Watchdogs in 2014 they "forgot/neglected" to add police boats, forgot to add bullet effects and other effects to the water, make it possible for boats to jump and not just jump and sink like a rock, or show you the entire map just to close some of it off by invisible walls, areas you clearly are going to later in the story or make every shot a kill shot.

Ahh ok so what you are looking for is bullet time and other "tricks" to allow you to "alternate" the gun action, i get that but dont agree, its a gun you point and shoot and yes it is more fun to have some cool feature like bullet-time but for me it does not rank highly at all, i like the more stealthy approach anyways so if thats there i always use it.

Hmm, in regards to FarCry 3 you do also have a bit different game, GTA is a 3rd person openworld action game, where Farcry is a 1st person open world shooter. So its bound to cause some differences but in my eyes they are not that different from GTA.