Watch Dogs 2 June 8th. and Saints Row Developers announces Agents of Mayhem coming 2017

[Frag_Maniac]

Watch dogs fails completely, they never fix it.. So they release another one? What kinda shit is that? Ubicrap...

I agree that their performance patches felt fake, weren't effective, and they never even tried to re-enable the graphics features they cut. It was nothing but a smoke screen for damage control. After that anonymous interview with one of their devs leaked the truth, they didn't even dare try to deny it, especially since the mod easily proved their lies.

That said, with the mod, many of us still enjoyed the game, and the DLC. Despite the PC sabotage fiasco, you can't really call 9 million in sales a failed effort, which is why we're seeing WD2. Ubi may do a lot of unforgivable things, but they know how to stay in business. I give them FAR more credit than what some pubs are doing, like Deep Silver.

 

[AsRock]

I agree that their performance patches felt fake, weren't effective, and they never even tried to re-enable the graphics features they cut. It was nothing but a smoke screen for damage control. After that anonymous interview with one of their devs leaked the truth, they didn't even dare try to deny it, especially since the mod easily proved their lies.

That said, with the mod, many of us still enjoyed the game, and the DLC. Despite the PC sabotage fiasco, you can't really call 9 million in sales a failed effort, which is why we're seeing WD2. Ubi may do a lot of unforgivable things, but they know how to stay in business. I give them FAR more credit than what some pubs are doing, like Deep Silver.

9 mill sales just means they got the word out that it was good, tell you what if there was a demo or steam was offering refunds i would of not got it or got a refund asap.

9mill could mean 9mill poor saps fell for the bs.

i will get d2 but it be as a 10$ game if they are lucky.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I tend to think from what I've seen, especially with all the Ubi hate that's been brewing since well before WD1, that gamers tend to check feedback a lot anymore. There were quite a few that echoed being totally satisfied with it's gameplay, and they simply used the mod to overcome the sabotage. I just don't buy that most of that 9 million were just suckers that ended up dissatisfied. Anyway, I'll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, here's another dev interview video of WD2, showing gameplay footage, and some more details about what you can do in the game world. This was posted just a couple days ago.

 

[Agility]

Reason why Ubisoft always seem to make their customer dumb etc... They are always advertising something that doesn't look the same at the final product.

I still simply and never will understand why do they have to remove those settings instead of just putting it there so people can decide how they want their game to run

"But with E3 2016 starting next week, it's important to keep in mind that if something looks too good to be true, that might actually be the case."

 

[RejZoR]

They don't want their games look inferior on consoles. But their primary focus are consoles. So, basically they are being dishonest from the moment they announce the trailers/games. They make awesome coll everything to attract people and then they give them downgraded crap. And people still buy it en mass. I can only assume Ubisoft buyers are stupid. No other explanation. And it's not just graphics wise, it's also their attitude and quality. Their horrid DRM is just of one of main issues why I'll never ever buy anything from them.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I still simply and never will understand why do they have to remove those settings instead of just putting it there so people can decide how they want their game to run...

As I said, they only do it on the PC version, and one of their devs anonymously stated in an interview that they in fact do it for platform parity, not for performance reasons as claimed. Plus the mod that re-enables those features, and with better performance than Ubi's released version, proves they lied about why they were cut. Which is why Ubi probably didn't deny it when that interview article came out.

Suffice it to say Ubi don't give a crap about PC players.

 

[Agility]

As I said, they only do it on the PC version, and one of their devs anonymously stated in an interview that they in fact do it for platform parity, not for performance reasons as claimed. Plus the mod that re-enables those features, and with better performance than Ubi's released version, proves they lied about why they were cut. Which is why Ubi probably didn't deny it when that interview article came out.

Suffice it to say Ubi don't give a crap about PC players.

That's why, i never ever trusted any trailers from Ubisoft. I just simply don't know why they can't get their shit together and listen to their customers. And when people do point out their mistakes, they give explanations (More like excuses) to try and justify their so-called cut features, trying to wiggle their way out.

Nice try ubi....just nice try.

 

[RejZoR]

But why people still buy their crap?

 

[AsRock]

But why people still buy their crap?

Because some times the games are good, i liked FC2 FC3 and FC4, all so enjoyed playing AC black Flag too.

They know how to make good games which is probably more the reason why people do.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Because some times the games are good, i liked FC2 FC3 and FC4, all so enjoyed playing AC black Flag too.

They know how to make good games which is probably more the reason why people do.

I'd go as far to say they're typically well above average on the creative end. Too bad technically they're so bad, especially on PC where sabotage is the norm.

 

[AsRock]

I'd go as far to say they're typically well above average on the creative end. Too bad technically they're so bad, especially on PC where sabotage is the norm.

Well they don't want to sell games like Ghost Recon, simple fact there is less money in it and it's not a yearly new game.

Very few games offer what Ghost Recon ( with xpacks ) did but it was a great community game were true tournaments could be held with 1-8 players + observers which was good against cheating, then on top of that mods and new maps could be user made and a true dedicated server.

I know UBI has it in them, Far Cry has been getting closer to what Ghost Recon 2 should of been on each release of that game. And they know it as the community's have told them so many times over and over and had enough which most just had enough and went on to play games like OFP \ Arma although not the same but the only alternative.

Only like can dream that Far Cry will advance to such levels but as i said it's been closer that's for sure which is some thing i will support but they are not going to do it how ever i could be wrong but they are taking there sweet ass time about it.

So yes UBI did do one thing and truly did sabotage Ghost Recon claiming they are try8ing to give the community what they wanted they even tried free but it's not the Ghost Recon that so many want and they know it and they will lie to know end saying they are producing the game of your dreams just to get you pay the $60 a year.

 

[yotano211]

I only bought watching dogs because it was on sale on ebay for 6.99. I only bought a key.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Well they don't want to sell games like Ghost Recon, simple fact there is less money in it and it's not a yearly new game.

Well, they put a lot of effort into revamping Recon. Wildlands looks promising. Sort of a combination of what you see in Far Cry 3 & 4 ,and MSGV, but with more realism. I know you mean it's not a yearly release like AC is though, but I wouldn't want it to be.

Personally I'm OK with them doing a yearly release of their most popular series, as long as they stagger which teams devlop them to put enough time into them. The only thing I'm really put off by is their technical problems and the graphics sabotage on PC.

 

[AsRock]

Well, they put a lot of effort into revamping Recon. Wildlands looks promising. Sort of a combination of what you see in Far Cry 3 & 4 ,and MSGV, but with more realism. I know you mean it's not a yearly release like AC is though, but I wouldn't want it to be.

Personally I'm OK with them doing a yearly release of their most popular series, as long as they stagger which teams devlop them to put enough time into them. The only thing I'm really put off by is their technical problems and the graphics sabotage on PC.

Yeah but if they were going do a more true GR they would of done, question is could they have 8ppl coop games + spectators user made maps with a true dedicated server, i know they are dead set against dedicated servers as they want to watch record make sure you have payed for the gaame and all that crap.

Wildlands Sounds like it might be some fun but thinking the coop be no more than 4ppl crap, will there be a dedi yeah right it be though their servers and all that crap when it goes down so does everyone's game lol.

Will i get it ?, maybe some time later after the price drops unless it proves me wrong which it will not lol.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Wildlands Sounds like it might be some fun but thinking the coop be no more than 4ppl crap...

Well, honestly GR is more geared toward small covert teams, so that makes sense. Kinda hard to sell a game known for stealth if you have massive teams. And that's coming from someone that doesn't even play online anymore. Just seems obvious to me.

 

[AsRock]

Well, honestly GR is more geared toward small covert teams, so that makes sense. Kinda hard to sell a game known for stealth if you have massive teams. And that's coming from someone that doesn't even play online anymore. Just seems obvious to me.

Originally no Ghost Recon was geared for up to 8 people in coop. Just games these days are typically 2-4 coop.

And i am one of those who played though all the UBIsoft crap, I used to play OFP back in 02 but i found a GR group, well actually a lot of them 3 of them i actually joined.

Kinda hard to sell a stealth game ?, Ghost Recon was not really a stealth game, it only become a stealth game when the community made missions for it which made it one of the greatest stealth games to date.

A little history from a group i used to be in, would of been much more if UBI kept there promises.
http://www.specialdetachment.org/history.php

 

[Frag_Maniac]

The "Ghost" in GR has always meant going unseen, so obviously it's stealth base. Today's military if anything is going with smaller faster teams with covert ops, which there are obviously more and more of now a days.

I'm saying you're clinging to the past my friend, get over it. You don't seem to acknowledge that a lot of the tech used now means less people needed in the field. Like Sat imaging, drones, etc.

It's actually a good thing that games, especially those in a near future timeline, adapt with the times, but again, GR has always been about stealth.

 

[AsRock]

The stealth in GR never had any real stealth per say, it had some lame idea of it.

And it's nothing to do with technology progress, they just killed the GR title by killing of spectators, 8 ppl coop which they gave some lame 4 player crap on top of that they killed off modding of pretty much all kinds. They all so came out with crappy auto scripted AI to which failed at so many points.

In the end they failed to listen to the community and totally lied on what they were actually making.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Well, I think you're in denial. The only reason stealth takes more of a forefront now, is because of tech advances in software and hardware development. It takes a lot more to render invisibility cloaking, flying drones, etc. Also, if you don't think such advances mean more can be done with less men, you're sadly mistaken.

I'm going to agree to disagree once again, and leave it at that.

 

[AsRock]

Well, I think you're in denial. The only reason stealth takes more of a forefront now, is because of tech advances in software and hardware development. It takes a lot more to render invisibility cloaking, flying drones, etc. Also, if you don't think such advances mean more can be done with less men, you're sadly mistaken.

I'm going to agree to disagree once again, and leave it at that.

Huh, i think you read some thing incorrect right there.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Huh, i think you read some thing incorrect right there.

Well, after your responding with...

And it's nothing to do with technology progress...

...to my saying better tech means being able to have a smaller team, what did you expect me to think you meant?

Besides, another thing I don't think you're getting, is that most games that have coop have gone to 4 because a team of 4 is easier to assemble and organize. That also means you're more likely to be able to get into a team, and find other teams playing, since they are easier to assemble, and easier to organize, and thus more are interested in playing.

There's tons of games that were having problems with attrition or lack of team order when they went well above 4 team members. Lack of chaos and healthy server activity are paramount in ANY team based mp. Stealth is also easier to maintain with a smaller more organized team, and whether you realize it or not, stealth IS important in any "Ghost" game.