[Please note, spoilers ahead. Paragraphs bordered in red include major plot points.]
When it comes to games I can't seem to stop thinking about, Watch_Dogs is high on the list for a number of reasons, not least the rather large box in my gaming area as I bought the Dedsec edition. What I didn't expect however was that it would only keep returning in my mind, and not in my PS3.
With Watch_Dogs 2 now being talked about and it's Creative Director talking about all the changes that they're looking to make, I decided to try and put all my thoughts about the original into some kind of cohesion... and invite everyone else along for the ride.
Let me just state early and for the record, I like Watch_Dogs and I hate that I don't love it... but its major downfall for me has been the amount of hype it generated and the promises it seemed to make that weren't fulfilled. It's become my go-to example now in debates about not letting hype become too big too soon.
From the start of the pomotions Watch_Dogs looked different, for me it even gave the idea that the protagonist might be more of a man like me... admittedly a more attractive, athletic, intelligent, skilled, charismatic etc version of me, but me nonetheless.
"...it even gave the idea that the protagonist might be more of a man like me..."
Aiden Pearce was going to be an uber-geek, using brains rather than brawn, using technology to his advantage and setting up elaborate schemes rather than running in all guns blazing. He was going to explore a world he had control over and explore side plots and stories that appeared from being able to find out about the lives of everyone in it.
Problem is... that was wider off the mark than a Stormtrooper shot.
Instead of a powerful cyber-warrior coding and hacking and using, well... Geek skills, Pearce seems to do the bare minimum technically, even arguably as much as anyone could do in his place. The only time he came up against a second hacker he was outclassed in every way, having things done to him he was incapable of doing back... the game itself shouting "you're not very good at this".
When things need doing on computers he invariably gets someone else to do them. Even his hacking powers around the city (more on that next) seem to be limited to pressing buttons on his magic phone that he was given by someone else.
 |
| Here, take this phone I made, it'll make you look clever. |
While the PCs in his hideouts could have been used to put together new code (even as a mini game) and let him advance, instead all the tricks up his sleeve seem to be presented to him as already fully built apps onto a phone he had no hand in creating.
Pearce felt like an enforcer, even just hired muscle. At no point was I left feeling like I was controlling a hacker, which was the main selling point of the game for many.
Of course, that does bring me to the actual hacking itself... which could possibly be the most disappointing part of the game. If I can quote off the back of by DedSec box;
"As Aiden Pearce, you can hack into this entire city and make Chicago your ultimate weapon ... get instant control over the city and its citizens."
Even the game's main tagline "Hacking is our weapon" gave the impression this would be a hackers game, the skills you had would me huge and instrumental in the quest.
Except it wasn't, not really. There were times when you had to hack something to get the game to proceed, a building, a camera or a computer. But these felt incidental, hacking became a quest objective or a non-plot extra, but never really felt like the feature, that simply fell back to the old tried and tested angry man with a gun routine.
Even your "control" over the city was extremely limited. There was an excitement the first time you made some bollards rise or fall, a bit of a buzz when you first flicked some traffic lights or managed to time some garage doors opening and closing perfectly to let you through but block off your pursuers... but these moments were few and far between, short bursts between running and gunning.
 |
| Hacking, just a flashier version of shooting someone. |
Other times the hacking were more frustrating than exciting, especially with the weird line of sight limitation, something I could understand from game balance reasons but just became a severe annoyance when the already limited hacking mechanics were rendered almost useless.
Take hacking chasing helicopters for example, a buyable skill that would stop those pesky flyboys chasing you for a short time. Sounds great and when you can use it it really could make the difference between escaping and getting busted... WHEN you can use it.
You see, with the line of sight limitation a helicopter has to be in Pearce's visual radius to work. You can, thanks to the radar, know exactly where the copter is but you can't do anything unless it's on your screen, and that's easier said than done.
Around 96.7% of the time when you put the game in slow-mo and go searching for the helicopter to disable it the tight and inflexible car view will mean getting eyes on it is impossible without stopping in the middle of a high speed chase, jumping out of the car and hoping to get back in before you're run over.
"In general the hacking felt like a tacked on gimmick instead of a deep seated game theme."
It was just an added annoyance to the line of sight limitation that was already making me ask... WHY? Was the phone only able to do IR connections that needs the receiver in sight? Is this 2005?
If that was the case why would it work to hack things you can see through a security camera?
It was one of those things that was put in obviously to balance the game, to make it a challenge and not make the hacking overpowered, but that's the problem. That was obviously why it was there, and things like that, which feel so grating in plot terms, are not enjoyable. Understandable yes but not enjoyable.
In general the hacking felt like a tacked on gimmick instead of a deep seated game theme. I recall one of the first things that came to light in previews was the idea of using the environment to help you complete missions, but most of the time it practice it was near useless.
Close a gate or raise bollards to try and stop a convoy and they'd just drive around it (running over pedestrians usually, although the police seemed fine with that...), try to plan an ambush and you'd find yourself adapting to your environment and not controlling it.
You couldn't funnel people to a specific location, you couldn't use traffic lights to make people go in a specific direction into a trap, the app for those just makes them go green in both directions. You never felt in control of the environment in these situations as much as just using what the developers had decided would be used on an inflexible route.
Of course, that's when side missions were actually about hacking in even a tiny way... apart from some collectibles the majority of quests followed open world standards, race between timed checkpoints, take out a specific person, pick up a car and drive it somewhere else while being chased... and almost always with zero need to hack a single thing, in fact sometimes it would make it harder if you did. It was formulaic in the extreme.
 |
| Hitting people with a stick, you'll do this more than hacking, but less than shooting. |
Where were the hacking missions? Where was using the information collected by your all seeing Profiler app for blackmail or to coerce people into doing something? Where were cyber-heist missions? Embarrass useless politicians with released sexts, stop criminal activity by shutting down their online operations, hack the screens in the city to get OTHER people chased, in the same way people could do against you... the opportunities for cyber missions were endless, and yet it all collapsed back into standard open world fare.
Hacking might be the weapon of choice apparently... but if you wan't Pearce to succeed you really won't be using it all that much.
Of course, that's IF you want Pearce to succeed and brings me to perhaps the part of the game that is the most troublesome to me. Aiden Pearce is an exceptionally dislikeable man.
It must be said it's not all down to the poor guy himself, he is but a pawn in a rigid storyline that doesn't drive you along a plotline as much as hold your hand and drag you into certain actions and ways of doing things.
We're used to nuanced storylines these days, even ones that give us some modicum of control over the way things play out. Whether it's morality choices, gameplay choices or simply two ways of doing something for the fun of it, I'm getting more and more used to even non-traditional RPG games having elements of character creation.
"Aiden Pearce is an exceptionally dislikeable man."
There's very little of that in Watch_Dogs, and the problem is the man Pearce is fated to become is... well, he's not a very nice person at all and there's no way to stop that happening.
While the game has a morality system it's ineffective. It works similarly to InFamous, where actions would change how the city treats you, but in a purely cosmetic way for most ends. Even then, trying to make Pearce into a good man is grating and uncomfortable.
You find yourself going from taking down thieves on the street in non-lethal takedowns to full-on homicidal in the missions themselves with the freedom to take a lethal kill-them-all attitude and often making it impossible not to.
The most grating of all I found was one specific mission where you're tasked with rescuing Pearce's nephews from kidnappers. I was still, at this point, trying to play a good Pearce, thinking I could take a concentrated approach to revenge instead of killing anyone connected even generally.
I snuck in and spent a ridiculous amount of time taking everyone out as stealthily as I could. It took four, maybe five times longer at least than going in guns blazing and I took some bullets in return for my humanitarian approach, but it was how I felt Pearce SHOULD be, how I wanted to roleplay him.
I reached the video room my Nephew was in and I was actually quite proud, it was hard work but I felt it was worth it. Then the game gave me a clip round the ear and told me not to be so silly and try and change the plotline it had decided for me.
My nephew is hiding under the desk and the script goes "He saw me kill all those people..." So wait, what was all that for? why give me the option of non-lethal takedowns if not only will it not affect the storyline, you'll actually force the plotline and character of the main protagonist in a certain way?
Testing and a quick internet search reveals a few occasions where that is the same. At every turn the game takes you in the worst way, sneak in and quietly achieve a mission only to hear Pearce say "I made a lot of noise". Take another NPC down non-lethally and and your partner bemoans the fact you had to kill him.
It's not just the lack of choice and impact, but the fact you're given a false illusion that you have it only to be told your own choices simply don't matter. Why ask someone if they want tea or coffee when you only have hot chocolate?
The worst part is every choice, every decision, every plotline takes Pearce into being a more and more dislikeable character. Even when he's forced to think about his actions as bad he seems to feel about 30 seconds of doubt about his ways... right up to the next chance he has to whip a firearm out.
 |
| Shooting. You'll do this a lot, and it's nothing new. |
Yes, this is a storyline based around revenge, but with revenge often comes redemption. Now and again we're teased with the idea we might be able to redeem Pearce and guide him on a better path, but he seems utterly uninterested, even if staying the way he is will cost him everything. The game is based so heavily around his motive of love for his family, and yet he won't change for them.
Even a late pivotal moment that could have been altered with a morality choice, the death of a close friend, is hardcoded. They die, for apparently no reason at all (I call this an emo-ending, negativity for the sake of it). He doesn't need more motivation, it doesn't expand the storyline, it creates nothing extra, all it seems to do is wipe out the idea he might use this friendship to NOT be... well, a stone-cold killer.
Amazingly there IS one single morality choice in the game. Sort Of. What I actually mean is AFTER the game there's a morality choice. Do you kill someone or let them live? It changes nothing, it's after the game has ended, there's no follow up, no future difference, no nothing, but suddenly we're given this half-assed attempt at saying who we want Pearce to be.
The stupid thing is that while every single other factor in the game told me that what Pearce would do is shoot the guy, I still chose to walk away. Because even when I knew my hopes and decisions meant squat, I still couldn't stop myself wanting him to do the right thing.
"In short it shouted "I'm different!" and then failed to back it up."
I could accept the other silliness and flaws in the game. Police gave up too easily, not following into railway stations and giving up if you were inside a garage area. The cars drove like they had no tread left on the tires. Enemy AI was sketchy at times... things that affect a lot of games.
The main problem is Watch_Dogs felt like it would be something different, and instead it felt like just another average open world game. It didn't have the character connection of GTA or Assassins Creed, the crazyness of Saints Row, the powers of Prototype or the choices of InFamous... In short it shouted "I'm different!" and then failed to back it up.
That. added to an easily dislikeable character led to a game I liked... but nowhere near as much as I'd hoped, which actually made it worse than one I didn't.
Despite all that, I not only want Watch_Dogs 2 to happen, I'm looking forward to it, I'm delighted that Ubisoft Montreal seem to understand a lot of what went wrong. Two of the games I just mentioned, Saints Row and Ubisoft's own Assassins Creed had rude beginnings.
Perhaps by avoiding the hype and approaching Watch_Dogs 2 with open eyes, I might even find myself so much happier than I ever was with the original.
Andy is always up for a geeky chat, but is hoping avoid having his bollards hacked by big fans of Watch_Dogs (He really does like it...) If that's the sort of thing you enjoy (the chatting not the assault) why not follow him on
Twitter or
Facebook? He promises not to use his magic phone to steal your money you if you do...
