Watch Dogs was extremely average.... but is that bad?

Vulnerability detected: Angry customers in pursuit

Yeah so Watch Dogs released, and... honestly people are quick to side with extremes when it comes to this game. On one sides its a horrible scam. Press X to hack, no drive by shooting, QTE ending, spoiler bait, E3 graphics are still a lie, GTA clone, etc. Somehow even "future assassins creed" is also thrown in as a complaint. Just check out this video for a quick summary of all the hate its getting. Some of it by the way is a blatant lie (cars and town life are fine on 360/ps3, even the video uploader that was linked to for evidence admitted it was just a one time glitch he recorded) and obvious flame pandering because hey why not keep the hate snowball rolling. On the critic side its yet another game critics hype up, say nice things about without really telling you why, and then let it die off while they talk about future trendy things they'll give the same cookie cutter positive scores. Honestly though.... I'm kind of baffled about both sides, in case you couldn't tell before. The problem isn't a love it or hate it game, the problem is actually the opposite... its blatantly average and a mixed bag of everything we've ever seen and done before done just yet again with a brand new theme slapped over it. I sort of called it. Not exactly like this, but I knew it wasn't really anything too special and it would be sticking to the common open world formula. I did expect it would have more identity to it though, but at face value it just doesn't, save for minor designs that represent the IP (character, fox line logo, and the hacker theme). Everything at face value is the same as you've seen it somewhere else before.

It becomes very obvious across the game that its really kind of reaching out to different things, but re-knitting it in its own odd mutated way. This is even apparent outside of a gameplay standpoint, where allusions from batman to robin hood are made, you're a gravely voiced "anti-hero" because that's on the check list to, you've got wolf moon shirts and old memes subtly floating around, shoe horned betrayals and revenge stories around the plot, and even anonymous and deadmau5 inspirations falling into place at some point. Again, I haven't even begun talking about how it seems like a generic open world video game. It hits cliches and elements, and it hits them pretty hard. GTA, assassins creed, Far Cry 3, and Saints row 3/4 elements are very present influences, and I'd even say Infamous and spider-man to a very small degree. You have the overused generic layout of side-quests, towers, typical mission format, and all the typical types of activities they imply: Tailing missions, Instant fail stealth missions, worthless mini-games that further nothing, even building prompt style platforming to a small degree, and areas that lock down things just so you have more padding to chase after. Don't get my negativity wrong, I'm not angry with Watch Dogs here, I'm just being blunt about my impressions on general open world games. Actually Watch Dogs thankfully makes the tailing jobs few and most general main missions a lot less painful than most open world games. Still it has their problems in there to some degree anyways. Less painful doesn't necessarily make that pain any good. Open world games are great don't get me wrong, just with their share of issues more so than many will admit. Moving on, you have shops for clothes, guns, earn money, encouraged driving, You have a morality meter, and level up system that are next to worthless or have odd calls made within them. You have randomized crime, stealing money, stealth, a signature melee weapon, enemy tagging, and of course the prompts... they're all over the place. The game pretty much plays up like just another open world game, only it stretches to touch nearly everything outside of the RPG counter-part. Everything feels familiar and surreal, some of it unnecessarily tacked on, and other areas oddly lacking like they just forgot about them or didn't have the enthusiasm to do it right. In the end I guess it feels like a far more engaging form of Rage. Oh but at least there is a nice little camera hacking system that you can use to scan the area, hacker prompts that make care chases fun, "car stealth", and of course the puzzles. However honestly none of that ever feels too unique, even if that's about all the game had going for it with that word "unique". Wasn't this supposed to be that brand new IP everyone was excited about? I think it missed the point a bit.

Totally worth a new IP!

However somewhere within it all, my position and feelings kind of switched. Instead of feeling careless and uninspired I suddenly hit a point where a jolt of intrigue ran through me and I found the game to be engaging, and was pretty hooked on it. I became kind of sad whenever I had to turn it off, and I always turned it off when I had to (like hurt eyes, late time, town trip, etc). For the week I had this game, I ended up feeling a bit attached to it. I also started tallying up a solid list of things that I just generally enjoyed. Loved the character's outfit, the retractable police baton was an awesome signature weapon, the plot had interesting unexpected bits that made what was otherwise one big cliche all the more interesting, the side quests could be fun enough to be worthwhile in between some missions, motorcycles feel so good to ride, the guns felt good as far as 3rd person shooting goes, stealth was a blast, low default health made gun fights tense, utility devices were interesting to use, car chases are amazing, spying on people is fun once you get over how creepy it is, etc. Also to restate what I said earlier, the things that often made open world games a bit of a chore were less prevalent here.

Now in large part I really started to wonder: Was it really the game that was "average", or was the game simply doing its job in a style of game that refuses to go through true innovative changes? Well its still average, but its really far from the only one and doesn't deserve the blame on its own. For the most part open world games are still on and have mostly always been on the old GTA3 formula. You have side quests, main quests, a pile of weapons, authority or faction side that gives the game more chance of a fail state, and a sandbox city to play in. Very few games really do anything to stray from that. Its obviously built more over time, like morality systems, physics, new side-quests, and XP systems, but it ultimately keeps building on the same thing. You have a couple that innovate by making the character and setting different, and a few really play it up well like Infamous and prototype where the powers heavily alter the combat and lore/story, but ultimately the formula, corner cutting, and routine are all the same. The closest we've seen to a core formula change that I know of has probably been randomized crime with side jobs that sort of start themselves, but even then that's not really much. Meanwhile open world RPGs and MMOs have done far more innovating, but the 3rd person action sub-genre never really moved far to anywhere at all, and I feel like Watch Dogs is a big lesson in that. When you don't dump a super budget into it, don't have any awesome core mechanics (again infamous), don't change the setting, and knock down other similar illusions you really see the experience more for what it is. There aren't any gimmicks or labels to keep people from seeing how mediocre it is. No pirates and sloppy ship combat, no over the top pants on head retarded humor, no wild west and lassos, and no super sized city sandbox and brand name are here to cover up the stale formula. Its Watch Dog's fault for not being one to break the mold, but then again when nobody else is doing much either or relying on, you have to wonder a bit.

"look at all those kids still playing follow the leader"

As I type this though I know I'm a bit conflicted with myself about this. The idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Its true to, I don't like games changing for the sake of change. However its also a matter of balance, and I really want to make that clear because the industry really has no idea at all what that means anymore. By contrast to this situation where open world formulas and mechanics rarely ever change, look at FPS where its bottle-necked into a sloppy mess of change for the worst and only has that one formula anymore. Then there's my other favorite, 3D platformers, which have nearly stopped existing. I'm not asking for that with Open world games. I don't want "GTA clones" to die. I don't want side-quests, main quests, tail missions, moral meters, and gang themes to all just die and stay in the past. That would be horrible. Instead I just wished there was more of an alternative, more experimenting, and more ideas open to interpretation. Watch Dogs isn't bad for going in with low gimmicks and high safety style... its padding out a successful and enjoyable style of games, and it has nice subties and signs of personalization from other teams than what we already have. It isn't much, but its sort of what I've come to call "genre padding". Sort of like what Quake 4, Alpha prime, Turok evolution, and Prey were for shooters. Were they new, special, fancy, full of eye catching gimmicks, and must haves? No, but they worked and provided fun gameplay that combined common elements to create a general and fun though mixed quality game. They added to the diversity of games of a certain style to choose from, were subtle entries with mixed (or even bad) reception, and did cool stuff that could catch someone with an unexpected surprise that interested them somewhere down the line. Its especially fascinating to a kid who has seen less games, but might be interested with some small novelty... like seeing that giant harvester spider tank in quake 4, or playing with exaggerated shaman powers in prey. In Watch Dog's case it would be something like seeing that rat masked DJ guy and thinking "oh cool, a villain like that dub-step guy!" or hacking a digital street sign with a meme for a quick laugh. In my case I really loved how they executed combat (angry joe is with me on this one as well), enjoyed the hero, enjoyed some plot points, and a few other minor things.

Ultimately a game like GTA5 is pretty much objectively superior, but when you have a couple of games along just doing minor personal adjustments, I really appreciate some of them. I liked the story, character, combat choice, health, car chases, and more so much from watch dogs over GTA. Actually... I'd even go as far as to say it was just a generally more engaging game to me. Again I got to a point where I didn't want to turn this game off... with GTA5 I played it off and on some more for the curiosity to see when I could open up something more, as if I was looking for the reason to be invested. I turned it off after simply doing some work on it... almost like I was whittling. It was a grand game and I certainly acknowledge that I didn't spend the time I needed to with it, but I also know when a game is better at engaging me and GTA5 didn't. When I got mad at Watch Dogs, I punched through it and rocked on like any blissful gamer should. This was a bit difficult with the painfully annoying loading found all over the game, but I worked with it. When I hit a rocky point at GTA5, it felt pretty typical and I sighed and stepped away from it. I stepped away quite a bit really, sometimes from frustrations, and sometimes just from not being compelled. My point? While the game isn't breaking any records, its another game to choose from, another that has its own touch even if at face value its a wannabe, and its another chance to bring in and include more people that would have missed out or avoided the other games. Its genre padding, and that's not a bad thing.

Plus GTA doesn't have my approval stamp written on it like watch dogs does

Some spoilers coming up ahead in the next paragraph. Nothing major, but be aware you'll lose some small surprises

Another interesting thing that came to mind was its morals, and I kind of love it now that doing some research got me thinking about it. While its actual in-game moral meter is a tacked on joke, the game's true underlying theme is a moral minefield and many are upset that it didn't engage any of the subject matter. However I cry foul on those accusations, and found the morals within it to be fascinating. Its about a 15 hour storyline, stars a character with a super hacking phone and knows other hackers as well, the protagonist monitors his own family for safety concerns while bemoaning the government for monitoring people, a giant conspiracy surrounding cyber blackmail, and has commentary from the news and Deadsec (basically anonymous) pushing their view points on the giant police state the city has become, and allows the player themselves to manipulate and see pieces of it all themselves whether they're stealing money through webcams or tracking and stopping crime with it. Its almost impossible for this game to ignore the morally gray theme. The morals are all over the place, and honestly I question anyone's comprehension abilities if they missed it under all of this. The truth is though that it isn't shoving it in your face like a wallstreet or tea party occupation screaming their moral views as if their plan could end world hunger over night. Instead the game kind of leaves it up to you, and shows you potential to see either view point or keep it level. On one hand hackers rule over and practically own the whole city. They are holding digital blackmail over police, city officials, companies, and other members. Basically it ends up almost like crooked capitalism where the "rich" end up getting richer from bought lobbying only instead its digital conspiracies against people, and its flat out said that one of the most lethal and troubling gangs is helped out by the ctOS system because cops only notice and go after the small crimes while the real threats sit back and relax on personal information and using the system to their advantage. Similarly a major hacker like the player easily causes absolute havoc and wrecks lives at the touch of a button, as well as being capable of spying on things they have no business in knowing. Its not just the player either, the Anonymous inspired group hacks their way into news programming to warn people of the dangers and exploits the system to show people how awful and unsafe it has become. It gives a slanted side way too much control. On the other hand if that control is given to the right people, they can help out and benefit the people who simply have no business going independent. You fight crime, rescue the helpless, and you're able to even track and punish people behind a giant underground human trafficking auction. On a similar note, why would hackers be holding black mail if the city officials were good to begin with? Maybe they should be given a hard time and face justice down the line like the rest of us. They wont be able to hide from a police state situation this big... would they? Well that's up for you to decide really, the game isn't shoving that into your face and force feeding you any pre-set morals and politcs. Being a mostly libertarian type thinker, I found the world to be appalling and myself to set an example that it was a terrible system. I was almost happy to make the cops regret living in a city they had too much control over as I used it against them beyond even their limits, and I felt happy to make the people angry at their problematic traffic system and the city that made it so it could fall apart at the touch of a button. I felt sort of like the Deadsec/anonymous guys showing them this is what happens when you connect everyone a little too much. However I also felt a bit of enthusiasm to go after gang groups myself, and also loved the sound of the Vigilante when he talked about breaking a guy's legs over the cruel conversations a gang member sent through text that I caught. I also stopped a terrorist-like fire bomb attack on a school of children.... much like in real life you can't rely on the government to do anything right, so it was kind of cool feeling like I could be that voluntary crime stopper myself. While I was clearly against the whole ctOS thing, it wasn't without its traces of joy especially within a fictional context of a game, so I was enjoying the ideas given here and without a pre-labled moral position set for me.

Oh... and one more thing: Online mode. Yeah that in itself is like one big moral gray area surrounding it, and I think that is one of the most clever elements in the game if it was intentional that way. If you leave it on, you can have your single player open world game invaded at any time. Yeah that same game style you've been trained to cause havoc, ruin, and glitch hunt on can have another player watching you at any given time without any warning. This is done by someone selecting to tail another player, and just so happens to pop into your game without you knowing it until you either accidentally bump him or suddenly the next phase hits and you have to chase the guy down. If you feel uncomfortable by this, then yeah you'll probably be the kind of person that hates this ctOS crap. On the opposite side of the fence though you could sort of live more in your role more as Aiden as being the kind of guy who actually liked sneaking into someone's else's business for your own gain through points, cash, and starting your own rivalries. Maybe you actually get a good kick out of using this system, and kind of like and support this sort of connectivity.

End of minor spoilers.

To conclude on what I've been saying... Watch Dogs is still really average. However after the first hour or two I really find it hard to care about that issue too seriously. The topic nagged at me the entire time I was playing. Oh no, this is a triple A horror story where they didn't do anything special because of "risks". Oh yeah been there, done that. How is this worth a new IP? Yet I was nagging myself not because it was bad... if that was the case I'd try to ditch and forget about it like Medal of Honor's last game. However I kept nagging myself because I was curious as to why I was having so much fun (give or take frustrations, but like I said I pushed through them because I wanted to enjoy myself again).  The game is far from perfect, and I could tear its flaws apart bit by bit, but that's not why we're here to play games. Watch Dogs was fun, engaging, and even after I beat it it lingered on my mind for some time. Its the first open world game I've played in a long time that has me saying that, and it didn't need strong gimmicks to do that either. However... it is bad enough that for now I'm keeping my money and I really don't want to burn $60 on it. Its good, but like some awesome things and other genre padding games have it I also see it with a lot of flaws, and it just hurts to think of spending so much money on it. Someday, some time, I would like to look forward to playing this game again and on a superior platform like the PS4. For now it lingers on my mind as an interesting experience, and it provokes an interesting discussion on what an average game means and to how it appeals to people... or repulses them. Its kind of sad to see it have such monster hype only to see it released and bashed as a combination of Ubisoft's sour E3 stunt, and people's overdone hype levels. I think its a fairly interesting game that does well. However I've also had a similar feeling with Turok Evolution, and I can deal with that fading into mixely received obscurity. I guess I'll do so with Watch Dogs. However at least the hype lead it to sell phenomenally, and that means we may be looking at a better sequel. Please do good justice to it Ubisoft.

A bigger thrill ride than it had any right to be.