Watch Dogs 2 - Gamplay Commented Walkthrough

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

*Insert Ubisoft graphics downgrade joke here.*

Here's some gameplay of Watch Dogs 2 released by Ubisoft. The video shows off some free roaming, the contextual hacks, co-op, non-lethal weapon options, and a teeny weeny bit of pvp. Just a little. Colin Graham, or narrator, also says that you can play through the entire game without killing anyone.

The game shows off some stuff that hurt me to my core. I really, really don't want to take selfies. Virtual or otherwise. I'm also a bit iffy about the voice acting. The awkwardly long pauses and the wierd dialogue bother me. Markus and Wrench seem to be the best of the bunch, but even they had some bad lines. Josh's one line was delivered awfully.

Here's hoping this game is better than the first. A feat I'm sure isn't that hard to pull off.

What do you guys think of the video?
Do any of you think this game will be good?
Lethal or non-lethal?
Crocs or no crocs?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

So the plot of this game is that the MC was profiled as a criminal by the big computer conspiracy, how many murders were committed in that video?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

TLDR: I always thought the original could really do with a sequel to fix a lot of the problems it had, which this title appears to be addressing. But will just have to wait for reviews. It is just an opinion for now. (And EVER!!!)

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

So the plot of this game is that the MC was profiled as a criminal by the big computer conspiracy, how many murders were committed in that video?

Well, they did say you can get through the whole game without killing a single soul. It'd be nice if doing a pacifist run or going on a murder spree would have an effect on the story, but I may be asking for too much from Ubisoft. Regardless, Marcus will be spending a lot of time stealing, trespassing, and hacking, so either way he isn't looking too good, his followers be damned.

TLDR: I always thought the original could really do with a sequel to fix a lot of the problems it had, which this title appears to be addressing. But will just have to wait for reviews. It is just an opinion for now. (And EVER!!!)

Is that cautious optimism I'm reading?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know how the first Watch Dogs looked impressive only during the first demo? Yeah, everything after that looked mediocre at best. And after it was released it became clear that it's a piece of shit. This one manages to look even worse. Ubisoft games at least used to look like they'd be fun once you get to hold the controller and experience it for yourself. Now even that illusion is gone. Must be because of all the previous experience with Ubisoft and their shitty game design.

I just know that doing all the crap in the game won't feel rewarding at all. It never does with Ubisoft. Their entire game design philosophy revolves around grinding and repetition and unlocking stuff and skills that should be available from the beginning. And because Ubisoft insists on offering options to play either lethally or non-lethally or anyway in between without knowing how to actually balance those approaches and make them meaningful, their games end up being so fuckin' easy and boring that a retarded legless dog could beat them in one sitting. They put too much stuff in their games. The focus is entirely on quantity instead of quality. It happened with Assassin's Creed when they started adding a gazillion of useless ways to kill retarded enemies without doing anything to improve their AI and make those new weapons and tools useful and meaningful.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Is that cautious optimism I'm reading?

Indeed! I'd rather not leave the rest of the escapist to fetishise the ubisoft hate any more than they...*looks up* Ah!...oh well, there's only so much a bear can do to stem the coming tide.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

So the plot of this game is that the MC was profiled as a criminal by the big computer conspiracy, how many murders were committed in that video?

Hey, a writer criticized the game for having guns and that exact plot hole but he was called an outrage peddler for his effort.

A triple A title has to have guns and killing apparently. no matter the plot

Well, to be fair, even without guns you can kill people by running them over. Unless you're Batman. I'm one of those that couldn't imagine a Watch Dogs game without guns, but I guess that's because of the way I see the game. I certainly wouldn't mind a Watch Dogs style present day section for the next Assassin's Creed, but without the guns.

More importantly, the writer wasn't really called an outrage peddler, right? It was assumed that he was called so by James Ethan Petty, but that's been proven false.

Indeed! I'd rather not leave the rest of the escapist to fetishise the ubisoft hate any more than they...*looks up* Ah!...oh well, there's only so much a bear can do to stem the coming tide.

Well, at least you tried.

 

[pookie101]

i didnt mind the first one even if it got dull very quickly. but this video i laughed when they said driving has been improved and when its as bad as the first game

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

So the plot of this game is that the MC was profiled as a criminal by the big computer conspiracy, how many murders were committed in that video?

Hey, a writer criticized the game for having guns and that exact plot hole but he was called an outrage peddler for his effort.

A triple A title has to have guns and killing apparently. no matter the plot

Well, to be fair, even without guns you can kill people by running them over. Unless you're Batman. I'm one of those that couldn't imagine a Watch Dogs game without guns, but I guess that's because of the way I see the game. I certainly wouldn't mind a Watch Dogs style present day section for the next Assassin's Creed, but without the guns.

More importantly, the writer wasn't really called an outrage peddler, right? It was assumed that he was called so by James Ethan Petty, but that's been proven false.

Indeed! I'd rather not leave the rest of the escapist to fetishise the ubisoft hate any more than they...*looks up* Ah!...oh well, there's only so much a bear can do to stem the coming tide.

Well, at least you tried.

It's a little weird how out of place it looks in watchdogs. I mean most games have guns, but watchdogs feels like it is cheating with it's shooty game play. It's lazy from a gameplay perspective sure, but I kind of think it's more the story that ruins it. Watch dogs was so intent on having the player be justified, but the justification was so bloody thin and simply wrong that is only highlighted how unjustified it all was. (It's also a story that takes itself way too seriously.)

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Well, to be fair, even without guns you can kill people by running them over. Unless you're Batman. I'm one of those that couldn't imagine a Watch Dogs game without guns, but I guess that's because of the way I see the game. I certainly wouldn't mind a Watch Dogs style present day section for the next Assassin's Creed, but without the guns.

It's a little weird how out of place it looks in watchdogs. I mean most games have guns, but watchdogs feels like it is cheating with it's shooty game play. It's lazy from a gameplay perspective sure, but I kind of think it's more the story that ruins it. Watch dogs was so intent on having the player be justified, but the justification was so bloody thin and simply wrong that is only highlighted how unjustified it all was. (It's also a story that takes itself way too seriously.)

I agree that the first game took itself way too seriously. Especially considering the fact that Aiden was peaking into the personal lives of random people and finding out their various fetishes and what not and the mini games that made Aiden look like he took many, many drugs. Aiden and his story certainly did not fit in the first game. The guns, on the other hand, did fit, I think, since Aiden's story was a revenge story. It isn't a very good one; They don't ask the questions they should like "How far are you willing to go?" and what not. The questions that feel important in a game where you can mow down officers and civilians with an assault rifle. And lets not forget that Aiden is a criminal. He is a hitman after all.

As for Marcus, I will admit that a body count seems rather counter intuitive if he's trying to clear his name. It would be nice if these things were brought up in the game. If the player decided to kill everything and steal from everyone there'd be some ramifications outside of civilians calling the police, but I may be expecting too much. I'm still pretty adamant that entering gang territory, with the intention of interacting with them, without a gun is an extremely bad idea.

It seems like Ubisofts intention when making Watch Dogs is to create an open world action game with hacking as the sprinkles. The interesting twist to the game that would otherwise be Grand Theft Auto. I'm now very curious about how they'd handle removing guns, and killing in general, from the game, since I can't seem to picture it. Unless it's Batman.

i didnt mind the first one even if it got dull very quickly. but this video i laughed when they said driving has been improved and when its as bad as the first game

The player driving may just suck at it. I know I do. My hit and run count is ridiculously high in Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, and the first Watch Dogs. I can't turn on the radio without crushing someone into a wall. And I really didn't think the handling in Watch Dogs was that bad.

 

[sXeth]

It's a little weird how out of place it looks in watchdogs. I mean most games have guns, but watchdogs feels like it is cheating with it's shooty game play. It's lazy from a gameplay perspective sure, but I kind of think it's more the story that ruins it. Watch dogs was so intent on having the player be justified, but the justification was so bloody thin and simply wrong that is only highlighted how unjustified it all was. (It's also a story that takes itself way too seriously.)

Watch_Dogs story felt like multiple people wrote different versions of it then jammed them together. Aiden had his whole endingm onologue about being the Punisher and stuff, but other story beats had him being a getaway driver for hire and his sister outright tells him he's a crazy lunatic and never find them again after she gets rescued.

I'm wondering if they bother justifying the shooting ability in this one. In the original, it made sense for Aiden, because he was the field-op guy/Fixer for the actual hacker, then partnered with various hackers. He used scripts and stuff on his cellphone, but was never apparently a hacker himself. The new guy is supposedly an actual hacker, so the random mercenary tangent doesn't make a lot of sense? T-Bone had the same sort of dissonance in the Bad Blood DLC.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I didn't find Watch Dogs original story and character as awkward as many people say. Despite the inconsistencies in theme and mood, it was kinda hard to see whether they wanted to implement a kind of moral system, or that things would be the same regardless. I had fun with a bit of hacking, but it didn't always work, and I tended to rely on the old-fashioned type of getaway and shootout tactics that worked better. It was spectacular when they worked out though.

This gameplay looks kind of boring, I dunno. It seems like a bigger leap into the hacking side rather than the action side, but I'd have to see more of the driving and firefights before I decide whether it's worth a shot. And that cringey af voice acting...