Sir Gus the Mighty Rent's overpriced, food can be pricy or cheap depending on whether or not you cook, and if you're ok with doing a lot of shopping in either the Richmond District and/or Chinatown. Oh, and Japantown doesn't actually have good Japanese food(except for one confectioner called Benkyodo). When it comes to Coffee, Blue Bottle is overrated, Philz is excellent, and most of the smaller companies are kind of interchangeable(but still better than starbucks) Oh, and there are a lot of hipster/yoga mom restaurants that emphasize really buzzword laden ingredients, but with really sloppy execution resulting in unsatisfactory food. But, they still remain popular since they're a status symbol and hipsters have notoriously bad taste. Oh, and on occasion, one ends up picking junk off the street for personal use, because people move a lot, and it's easier to just leave stuff on the sidewalk than dispose of it properly. Oh, and criminals have pretty low standards as to what they're willing to steal/swindle. As in, random bike parts, worthless junk from a glove compartment, food from a charity food giveaway. And of course, this should be obvious, but don't walk around at night on a deserted street while looking into a smartphone.(but that's true in any major city)
@@deathpyre42 I wonder what the culture is like. I follow a bunch of developers from Silicon Valley type companies on Twitter, and a lot of them seem pretty obnoxious, especially about politics. But maybe there's a selection bias in my experience, like, maybe the nice people aren't on Twitter, and I bet there's a lot of them.
@Bwa Bwa Yoshi I get how alienating some crowds could be seen as a bad business decision. But when you have a game with one set of mechanics that works well, you get better publicity than with a game which has two sets of mechanics, one which feels like it would have worked better if the designers didn't have to focus on the second set, which is more clunky and obviously there just because the executives were afraid of "alienating certain crowds". Removing the guns seems like a good design decision, not the least of which because good design means to remove extraneous elements. Players are already trained by the games they've played to go in guns blazing; many may not try to be creative with their approaches, because they've been conditioned to accept the boring but practical "shoot guy with gun" approach as the main mechanic.
Take it from MGS. Did mgs remove guns? No. Did it discourage its use in favor of tactical stealth non lethal gameplay, yes. Maybe guns should have been harder to get by OR Made the use of guns very consequencial for Marcus to the point players would do the Stealth hacker approach
@Bwa Bwa Yoshi So, discourage the player from using guns in favor of stealthy-hacky approach. Which raises the question: why have guns in the first place? If the player is discouraged from using guns, evem though they're available, that's just deceit. Best come clean with the fact that the game is stealthy-hacky and get over it. You know, this reminds me of Mirror's Edge, a game which had first person shooting segments in it, but it's not remembered for that, and people only reference the first person shooting in mirror's edge only to say it wasn't needed, that the game is perfect just by its parkour gameplay. Shooting was only added because the suits were afraid of alienating the shooter loving crowd, even though it's pretty clear the game wasn't for the shooter lovong crowd. This is just another instance of a game wasting resources to try to pander to sone demographic that won't be interested in it to begin with.
Ubisoft have done a huge disservice to this game by marketing it as the same boring shite the first game was, I'm amazed at how fun and interesting you made it look and sound.
I agree with you. When I saw the commercials, I was already ready to hate it because the first game looked too forced. But, George actually made the game look pretty good. I'm really glad I watched this video. I'm going to pick the game up when it is 20 dollars (I do that even for games like DOOM).
Yeah, I actually wasn't sure what to expect, I liked the first but was questioning this a bit, but decided to pick it up, and am having possibly the best time with a game I've had all year, super fun, don't regret it in the slightest.
I absolutely agree. The story trailers for this game sucked ass, trying so hard to make it look as serious and grim and high stakes as the original. After seeing the actual gameplay being shown off by let's players I looked back at those trailers and screamed "what the hell are you doing, Ubisoft?! You have a mission where you steal the car from Knight Rider! Show THAT in the trailer not the big bad bad guy being all big and bad and stuff nobody gives a fuck!"
Yeah, but it also makes the gameplay boring. That's the whole "robbed from the experience" part, which is far more important than narrative dissonance.
R619ification2011 we, the players, shouldn't have to force the game to be good. Me not using doesn't make it go away. in fact, it makes me silly for going through all that effort to sneak and hack when all I had to do is point and click
R619ification2011 if you want to use guns, play a different game. There are a million different open world shooters. Choose one. And actually that's just it, it does make the game better because it forces players to use their hacking skills instead of it being an afterthought.
Well, Square is well known for not giving "second chances" to games that don't sell the expected quantity. From her older years: Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, Xenogears... From her newer one: Kane & Lynch, Sleeping Dogs.
@@Illusionaire1 SE is run by a bunch of out of touch old fools that don't have any idea what makes a good game or what their fans want. They can't even finish their main games in adequate amounts of time. I truly have no idea how they're still a business while simultaneously being so bad at it.
The inclusion of guns is the biggest problem of a surprisingly really good game. They don't fit the tone at all considering your playing as a more immature version of Anonymous. You could kind of justify their inclusion in the first game since you are a vigilante trying to take out the criminal underworld, but in wd2 you're just a punk kid who wants to troll the corrupt. And they need to patch it to make it so the melee counts is non lethal.
Imagine finding out that some crazed Ghost in the Shell fan snuck onto the set of the new movie and just did a mass shooting because he didn't think the movie would be true to the anime. Nobody would think that guy was "cool" or had any righteous motivations behind him. And yet, you put that scenario in a video game, and people don't bat an eye. Cuz it's a video game, and _"Herpdy derpdy durr, it's not a real game unless you shoot people!"_
I'm amazed that they turned the perfect concept for a Teen-rated stealth-hacking game into a Mature-rated hacker-terrorist game. It's so gleefully tone deaf that it actually seems satirical.
Well, let's be honest, if going in guns blazing and blowing up stuff wasn't there, and it was just stealth, it wouldn't sell as well, they need it to be slightly GTA like to draw in more people, but they made stealth no kill run a viable option, which makes me quite happy.
Or you could have different XP for none lethal, remote lethal, and gunplay. Different behaviours would get you different followers, but you might well lose other followers if you do one too much.
Splinter Cell Blacklist has a score system that highly rewards non-lethal and non-detected playstyle. The score you get unlocks upgrades so it was a nice incentive to actually try and stealth your way through the game.
ubisoft wont make shit as deep as that, they make shooty gun bang games cause thats what their audience buys. Ironically when they decided to ruin the Splinter Cell franchise by taking away the depth and complexity of the previous games and replaced the gameplay with mediocre cover-based shooting, they actually received far less sales for that respective franchise. Ubisoft won't push any boundaries or try new ideas like they used to, their newer games mostly just blend into samey, cliche, character action, open world frameworks.
GiRayne no guns no fun in a game we play games to be how we know we can't be in real life but I guess there are people that have no life and lay games cus that's all they have !!! are you that person ???
GiRayne hi sorry mate did not read all your text but I have only just started playing watch dogs 2 and I have a quistion is there really no guns and shooting in this game
Kent Brockman No, that's false. It's completely up to you whether you want to kill or not. There'a a robust 3d printed weapons system in the game. Tone of weapons to pick.
Me: Starts mission wd2 Remember don't kill . Dark me: you have been spotted use ied . Me: but super bunny hop said... . Dark me: I said blow him to shit
Agreed! I can't help but feel like WD2 is a bit of a half-measure. If they broke away from the typical, GTA-esque conventions and further embraced a non-lethal Splinter Cell/Deus Ex campaign, set in an open-world, they'd have something of a blend that most other games lack.
Watch dog ones gameplay is the best part..ie the gun takedowns and bullet. The games the closest i ever to being john wick. But there being more pistol takedowns make sense
TheRainySky is right it is very punishing. The second you're in someone's line of sight everyone is alerted and they gun you down in 5 seconds. I can't tell you how many times I've been spotted and some dude with a shotgun just blasts my ass across the room killing me in one shot let alone two guards with pistols shooting you on sight
This review seems like he played the result of a company thinking they needed "hundreds of hours of gameplay" instead of actually creating quality content.
Never scene a vid or review from you before. This was outstanding. You really did a great job of not only sharing your opinion of the game but also pointing out what could have made it better. And also in a way that makes sense to the franchise. Great review man.
I love your reviews. You are a really good video maker person. Thanks for taking the time to make them. I hope you are getting some form of rewarding compensation. Here, have 10 karma points.
Ubisoft definitely should have made firearms usage limited, much like in Sleeping Dogs. The same goes to taser, so that you're forced to use it wisely and have to re-stock.
Maybe you could have some enemies who it doesn't work on, ie. guards in bullet-proof vests or the weird out-of-nowhere power armour wearing dudes from the first game. That'd allow for a very natural way to modulate difficulty.
I tended to shoot weaker guards with the suppressed 1911 and take out the Heavies almost exclusively with melee in W_D 1. I know exactly what you mean!
With all this talk about Sleeping Dogs I'd love to see you cover it sometime in the future. I still remember getting it off of Playstation Plus a few years back with zero expectations and was really surprised at how great it was.
I got the game quite recently (February of 2018) and I got to admit, the online has really polished up. The way it weaves so elegantly into and out of online events without stuttering is quite impressive. And a lot of the online events are actually fun. Wether it be you’re hacking someone or they’re hacking you, it becomes a fun game of cat and mouse.
Something they put in the game that I'm completely surprised that they never took advantage of in the main missions its the fact that theres an active sailboat system. Like you can't just press R2 and go but you actually have to align the thing to wind direction. Another thing about this game is the amount of areas you ignore in this game. There are some really cool locations in this game like Alcatraz Island. The actual building is accessible and there's some extra stuff to get there. The last thing personally for me is how much they made this world feel lived in. Even Gta V sorta had this issue where the npcs just felt like npcs and not real people but in this game the npcs actually have conversations about relevant stuff in their area. People don't just hang out in the street and alleyways but really do stuff like have parties outside and hang out. Buildings are mostly accessible too. This game is a big step towards better world design in open world games.
I just love how T-bone went full Johnny Depp. I love this game. it reminds me of how cool I felt when I though I was a badass on the internet. the right amount of cringe and happiness when you look back on it.
How come all the hate crimes post election have been coming from Trump voters, hmm? Or do you just hate facts? (in before uses that one instance against a Trump supporter versus the dozens from them)
AKN Concept I live in UK, and I've only seen Trump supporters attacking others since rallies and after the election committing hate crimes and violence.
That was my biggest problem with the first game too. I wanted to be a cool stealthy hacker guy yet the game wants to send me on a mission to BLOW UP AN ARMORED TRUCK. The ludonarrative dissonance is too jarring even when the character is more "edgy" like in the first game. I just check out of games when the story and characters feel one way and the gameplay feels completely detached from those aspects of the game. I guess it's a consequence of games striving to be more realistic. I know a lot of people don't give two shits about this kind of thing and for them, gameplay is king. If it's fun, it's fun. But for me, I'd rather have fun AND be engaged in the experience as a whole.
That part where you said the game would be better if it punished the player for using lethal options actually reminds me that the first game KINDA had something like that, but only to a small extent. Aiden had a "reputation" meter that, when at a high enough point, would prevent civilians from calling the cops on Aiden as they knew that while Aiden's a vigilante they still ultimately saw him as the "Good guy" and that whomever he was shooting or beating up was some real scum (like the human trafficking ring during that one part). However the meter would decrease should Aiden harm civilians and/or kill police, so it did still encourage players to not get TOO gungho. But yeah as some people have said it feels like it makes more sense to play completely non-lethally with Marcus as, unlike Aiden, Marcus isn't a vigilante anti-hero out for revenge. He's a hacktivist trying to bring people over to Deadsec's cause and expose corruption.
George, you know when I first started watching you, I thought that you had some valid opinions but i thought most were derived from other journalists in your field. I am here to say how wrong I was about you. You are one of the few amazing game journalists. Your humor, research, and opinions are excellent. As time goes on, I see how predictive some of your opinions are and how honest you are about your feelings toward the game. I also love how you put the WatchDogs 2 OST music in the background but you don't dedicate a whole section of the video to it. Bravo George, you are one of the few true journalists of the industry.
I agree with too much weapons thing they would made a minimal arsenal or simply make it with electricity that wouldn't kill enemies but shock them, in my opinion that would be a cool idea but I don't think some will agree
Sleeping Dogs was a great game. I love how they disincentivised guns & made them a much more serious thing. Watch Dogs made the mistake of having a serious gritty story in a silly world where Aiden takes a break from his revenge fueled romp to play AR games & get into drinking competitions. It seems Watch Dogs 2 makes the mistake of having a silly self-unaware story with deadly stakes for no real reason. I think George's ideas about rewarding stealth & punishing lethality. Even games like Red Dead Redemption had a system where you could become an outlaw & get a negative reputation. LA Noire had no business being an open world game but it took away stars if you did damage to the city on a mission. Sleeping Dogs did it much better, cop missions required you to go buy the book & rewarded or punished the player accordingly with a skill tree system. I think the Watch Dogs franchise could really benefit from anything that stops it from being just another GTA clone.
Funny, wasn't the original concept of Watch Dogs 1 was for Aiden Pierce to only have a pistol and rely more on his hacking skill instead? Looks like George had the right idea. Hmm.
One thing common among all reviews of the game is the sentiment that - it's more fun to hack and be stealthy, AND guns and killing don't fit with the story at all. In my opinion, those are two great reasons to remove guns and lethal actions from the game, similarly to how Mirror's Edge 2 opted to do the same, and I personally don't feel this would impact sales as much as people might think. It's such a shame that Ubisoft have done a great job with the new direction of the game but have chosen to stubbornly play it safe in this one area - a classic case of being "so close" to getting it right.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I had more fun with Watch Dogs 2 than I did with GTAV. Why? Purely because of the chaos I can create with the gang wars. Back in GTA3 with the pedestrian riots w/weapons was a blast and a hell of a lot of fun. GTAV while they have fun characters and decent story telling, its actual gameplay is too grounded. Not enough of the chaotic element. WD2 brought back the feelings I had with GTA3
I love this game. I remember one of those mission when you had to bring that robot from haum. I just sat in front of that game where that truck was. I think it was some kind a of small pier area maybe jsut the one in 09:01. And while I was sitting there I was just hacking things like that moveable platform and forklift while driving the truck out of the area to me where I sat next to that gate xD I was using that forklift for more precision turning for that truck but i manage to get that truck with that mission objective(robot) to me without eeven going in to that guarded area! And then I just drove away. Everyone can say whatever, but thats what I called freedom in video game! Thats why I like this game and its character personalities more than GTAV.
WD 2 pretty much killed GTA V to me. Yeah, WD 2 is full of problems... but omg... What do you even do on GTA V compared to WD 2? WD has much more gameplay freedom, much more things to do, a way more alive city. I can stay stationary, and hack so many shit and create a caos, in many, many diferent ways. I love the concept of WD Legions, and I hope it is amazing. But I also hope Ubi still makes WD 3.
Okey so I watched this review while high and it was amazing. I just GOT what George said so vividly and felt the intent behind his words and I think that removing guns from the game is a wonderful idea I suggest everyone in a legal country to try watching this while high and you will get so much more enjoyment from his wonderful analysis.
Easily the best review of this game out there. Your criticisms are so logical and insightful. This game did actually have a great potential, and it would have only taken a few minor tweaks to help it get there.
With guns and lethal violence the game kinda became a terrorist simulator. The activist characters would have been way more likeable if you couldn't kill people as one of them. Them not giving a shit about it either and being so happy and youthful actually made the game look worse. But it's still a fun game, I love the SF hipster atmosphere.
Great review as always, I didn't think of it before but when you said that the game could've gone full stealth something clicked. It would make perfect sense in the universe they built over the course of the first two titles.
I'm so pleasantly surprised that this game is actually good and not so serious as. Seems like a lot of sequels learned a lot from their predecesors: Hitman by tropping the AAA shtik and focusing on replaying, Doom 4 with incredible gunplay, infinite warfare with cooler settings, titanfall 2 with a great sp, Dishonored with more non lethal options, Far Cry Primal with more focused gameplay, and now this. As awful as this year has been, at least it's been pretty good for games.
Yeah, the whole massacre thing not making any sense inside the game's story and tone is enough for me to not like this game. I don't think the removal of lethal weapons is just a "what if" scenario for potentially improving the game; I think it would have been essential to the game, to make it stand out and not feel like another shooter, even if you can decide to play non-lethally. It's so transparent how the only reason there are weapons in the game is because of the number-crunching telling the suits that the game will sell more if you can watch people's brains splattering in a red mist. It's almost like the decision to have the player kill people is just a token feature they don't even need to question. It's like a check-mark to tick off, without the need to question if it's a feature you need or which makes sense in the story you're trying to tell. It's just so ridiculous to me the casualness with which the teen goofy hacktivists mow down security guards just doing their jobs and then resume the memes and lighthearted comradery in the next scene. It just doesn't fit the game and it takes me out of the immersion. It's just like in Uncharted. He's murdering literally hundreds of "baddies" with no emotional impact on him and making lighthearted jokes afterwards.
Interesting review. Especially the part in which you say we should concentrate on the main mission while another youtuber said he only enjoyed the side missions
Assains creed and Watch dogs were meant to be stealth games But hey, lets make Ezio super badass in melee combat and make cheesy teenagers gun experts God damm you Ubisoft -_-
I think the addition of kill chains is great! But I also think that the first Assassin's Creed probably emphasis (more or less) real combat the best, as it definitely is the hardest (out of the games I've played at least.) Although this is also a reason due to lack of combat/parkour skills which both would really improve by each game. This made stealth more of a must in the first game though since it could be pretty hard killing enemies at times (those damn Knights, man!)
what exactly is so great about being able to instantly kill any amount of enemies near you with a single button after one successful counter? in my opinion all it did was to turn the guards into low or rather non-existant threats which made me just run away from fights more often than actually fighting just because of how boring they became.
Because it gives the player an option to sometimes (doing it ALL the time ain't fun) deal with multiples enemies in a very fast and effective way, especially if in dire need. You're supposed to play as some badass master in fighting, right? Giving the character the ability to quickly expose of more than one enemy in these quick yet devastating attacks, all in one big combo, not only makes fighting more fun because it gives you yet another choice for how to deal with your enemies but can also save your life. That's what I think.
What irked me most in AC2 was the scene where Ezio got the "trademark" assassin suit. In AC1 it was already established that assassins wear long white robes so they can pass as the scholars who wear the same thing. Altair's suit was not a uniform, it was a practical outfit which enabled assassins to hide in plain sight. What's Ezio wearing? A long white robe. Who else dresses like that in the entire game? No. Fucking. Body. Not even other assassins. He sticks out like a sore thumb, completely throwing out the window the reason assassins dressed up in white robes.
@@theyellowmeteor back in Altair times an Assassin wearing a hood and long white sticking out robes was funny but it tried to make sense. After that its just a trademark (all the way till they gave em a tophat)
Your suggestions are by far the best I've heard for the game. They make sense, they're smart and they add new layers of player choice that cater to an audience that has taste instead of people who play ubisoft games because they're ubisoft. And yes they exist. I've met a few.
You had a very good point with the non-guns thing. If one game can benefit from that is this one. I hope they hear you out. Besides, it would represent perfectly the whole young-hackers-out-smarting-everyone thing. If it does happen, it´d come to show how hard it is and how long it takes to figure out a new game concept.
They shouldn't remove the guns. Should just make the stealth/non-lethal option more robust for people as the same sentiment as you. Unless the overwhelming majority agrees, of course.
That's why he said Ubisoft had to take the "safe" approach, that being keeping guns for the player in the game. It would make much more sense and fit their main characters more if they did not use guns though. Guns are not always necessary to give power or control to the player, it is just a lazy thing that every AAA developers feels obligated to do because all the other games with guns are selling well.
"Unless the overwhelming majority agrees, of course." That doesn't sound like a very creative or interesting way to design a game. If the shooting doesn't benefit what the game is trying to do and is there to simply check boxes, I think it should be cut out.
I understand your sentiments, but it isn't just to cut boxes *if* most people want guns in the game. It's selfish to remove what most like, just for the artistic vision of a few, or the developers. It's about what the consumer wants, especially in this case.
Caustic_ So should every game be made to perfectly fit their respective demographic? Because in that case there wouldn't be many games... or innovation. Imagine if you wrote a book like that, "Hmmm... what do the majority of people want to hear?". Games shouldn't be treated as simple products made to perfectly satisfy consumers, they should be viewed as an expression of artistic vision (even the most generic AAA action games). And when it comes to art, most consumers don't know what they want (you can't just throw all the game mechanics that people like into a pot and make something amazing).
Caustic_ If games are only made with what the current statistics say is the majority, companies will never be able to get new players into their demo-graphic. Innovation is a part of making games, and it is not being selfish to want to try new things, in fact, it is more selfish, imo, to only take the safe approach when it comes to making games AAA or not. So you should really say that it would be risky for the company financially to take out guns for the player, it is not selfish, it is risky and they don't want to take risks and would rather take the safest approach to their games.
About gun removal, no. What makes the game fun is the option to kill or not kill, to be stealthy or not. If you remove guns and such and it just be a stealth game then it would be a downgrade, etc. no
two very important questions: 1) Do the police finally police boats? 2) Are the camera still only controlled by player or are they like the camera on Deus Ex. If its still the first they are render completely useless and break the immersion and any challenge of trying to play it stealthy. I have to say watching footage it looks still as rough and broken as the first game
Really great to see what happens when devs take advantage of feedback. Probably will eventually pick this one up assuming the PC port doesn't have any issues or low frame rate.
I think removig the guns in Watch dogs is a great idea. It makes the most logical sense, story wise. The only problem is that doing this turns off a large percentage of players who want to play the game like gta.
Nope its an in joke, on the podcast the SBF were talking about a comment that was like "THis video fucking sucks, im unsubbing from SuperBunnyHop" (or something to that nature) and they made a bit out of it.
11:35 yeah but taking followers away from you would hint to a "wrong" way of playing the game, and that doesn't go to well with a openworld playground that they are going with. perhaps followers should be like notoriety and play differently as exp, just to give players more options as to how play their games, even if I think going with the stealth route is way more fun. But hey man I think variety is cool
Yeah like you could have the innocent "script kiddies, pranksters" demographic of followers, or the "Bestgore" demographic, with the amount of each follower type dictating how the in-game world views Dedsec. That'd be sick.
And each type of followers gets you different interactions with factions, some are more hostile and stuff, or give you different abilities, I dunno man Vidya Gayms
The appeal of Saint Row, specially the later from 2 to Gat Out of Hell is the chaos, the unapologetic, totally random, totally out of control, in your face chaos, I love the missions were you need to blow stuff or destroy and kill the enemies around you, and Saint Row has a lot of those. Have you forgotten the thrill that all that chaos and explosion give you? I was having so much fun blowing things up.
Ditching guns sounds like a good idea, but as you said, it's too radical for a AAA Ubisoft mass market sandbox. However, something better may be having two types of PR with separate EXP bars. One for lethality/destruction and one for more crafty and less dangerous solutions - The people that want to kill and maim can have that option, they'll still have fun and be rewarded, but there's a subtle nudge to gain levels in a less destructive manner with that other EXP bar sitting empty.
Kind of wanted to check this out for the setting but was unsure... Now I think I'll grab it and take your advice with the main story and stealth! Thanks mate. High quality review.
I highly agree about the guns. Not only would it fit the story and characters better, but it would be refreshing to play a triple-A stealth title that didn't include murder as a viable option.
***** I'll be honest, it wasn't enough to convince me to buy it even on sale. And I don't want to use Uplay at all, the only thing I use it for is Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon.
Geoff Gersman put it the best: The likes the style that they are going for but wishes it was in a better game. Or rather, a more risky game rather than the homogenized formula AAA games are going for these days.
About the devs not including guns for the user...I don't think that will be a good idea. I mean in Watch Dogs 2, you have the option to play lethally or non-lethally like you said you did in your video. The player should have the choice to play how they want and not being restricted to a particular play style. The variety is key. The fact that guns are available to the user in the game doesn't mean the player has to use them. Besides, the exclusion of guns in such a game is not a good business decision. If I were Ubisoft, I honestly wouldn't go that route. I can definitely enjoy the game without guns but most people wouldn't.
Ocelot4R but the point isn't variety, the point is the tone of the game clashing with gameplay. By no means is limiting player choice a good thing, but pure stealth games are better at stealth and pure shooters are better shooters than games that feature an equal measure of the two.
