🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:37:05 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:


I'm holding off on Watch Dogs 2 for now, for several reasons. First,
and most importantly, is that I've found Ubisoft open-world games to
all be pretty much the same, with a gimmick or two to differentiate
FarCry from Assassin's Creed from even The Club. They are big,
beautifully rendered maps filled with collectibles and side-quests,
and an almost tangential main quest. That is not to say I don't like
the games - I think they are well produced and very engaging - but
there is an unfortunate sameness to the experience. As such, I have a
hard time justifying spending $60 on what is, essentially, a skin-pack
for a game I've bought and played a dozen times before. 

The second reason is that it's based in San Francisco. SF is a lovely
town - I even used to live there briefly - but it is probably the most
overused location in computer games, and I'm rather disappointed that
Ubisoft decided to go there. One of the fun things about the original
game was that it presented us with a much less frequently used city -
Detroit - to explore. For a game already suffering from ennui because
of its re-used mechanics, re-using a location just makes it less
likely I'm going to buy on release.

Plus, Watch_Dogs 1 wasn't really the greatest game to begin with (it's
hacking was disappointingly underused), buying a game on release day
is a terrible idea anyway, and - in an era where I can get 30+ hours
of fun from a $1 phone app, it's hard to justify a $60 expenditure
just because the graphics are a bit sharper with a PC game. Not to
mention that huge Steam back-log I still have to work through...