Connect with us

Game Reviews

‘Watch_Dogs 2’ Review – Zero-Day Tolerance Policy

Published

on

Watch_Dogs 2 is Ubisoft’s latest infliction upon the world of gaming, a sequel (although crucially not a spiritual successor) to the widely disappointing Watch_Dogs. Gloomy Aiden Pearce has been exchanged for young, hip Marcus Holloway, hacker at large and lover of retro pop-culture, hence his hacker handle ‘Retr0’.

Full disclosure, Watch_Dogs 2 is such a sprawling mess in terms of game design that there’s a lot to deal with, and considering this game’s budget could have fed all of San Francisco’s homeless for a month, whether that expenditure is justified needs to be scrupulously analysed. After all, if the game world is anything to go by, clearly there’s a massive homelessness problem in the Golden City. If you want a critique of the game’s writing in terms of both character and narrative, click here. TLDR: The writing is abysmal.

Jack-Sh*t at All Trades, Master of None

Watch_Dogs 2 doesn’t strictly have ‘central’ gameplay, because no one of the gameplay facets, be that hacking, controlling your RC or aerial drone, sneaking, driving, shooting or puzzling, is being done more than 50% of the time. Furthermore, each element is too distinct aside from the sneaking and some parts of the hacking to really be considered different facets of the same gameplay. Perhaps more importantly, each facet is also too underdeveloped to be central too the game. Ubisoft pulled itself in far too many directions this time.

Regardless, the general process of the game is that Marcus is given a mission by DedSec or discovers one peering at people’s private lives. The mission will require you to get to some objective or objectives and either personally interact with (usually, hack by sticking in a USB or holding your phone up to it) or destroy them, within an area patrolled by hostile guards or behind one of the game’s puzzles. After running, fast-travelling or driving to the location, you scout the area for guards, layout, hackable objects and so on using your aerial drone and the world’s most useless security cameras, then you get to the objective through stealth, hacking objects to create distractions or take out guards, or murdering everyone in your path. Should you get noticed you’ll need to make a getaway by stealing a vehicle and hacking more objects to throw pursuers off. Completing a mission nets you followers, this game’s equivalent of experience points (which is pretty smart actually) and cash. Enough followers earns you research points which can be spent to grant new hacking powers and upgrade old ones, and cash can be used primarily to buy new guns.

Can I Hack it? No you can’t.

The hacking is very lacking in polish for the supposed unique selling point of the game. Too often movable hackable objects such as the swing stages are put in only as a means to access the mission area, rather than something you can really use to clear the mission. On the other hand, the hack that makes a guard’s cellphone ring is far too over-used due to its effectiveness. It’s one of the starting hacks, yet distracts a guard completely for a long duration with easy, quick use that even distracts them when they’re in the process of spotting you. Some parts of the game you can simply forget about stealth if there are a low enough number of guards, by making sure you hack in a distracting phone call just before they end up spotting you. The late game ‘mass-hack’ that turns of the lights goes beyond overpowered, however. This hack is so powerful, essentially making Marcus invisible for a generous period, that after using it twice allowed me to clear a massive mission with no difficulty nor skill, I banned myself from using it.

The hacks that call in either the police or a gang hit don’t seem to actually do anything of benefit. The police only arrest the one guy you target, with no shoot-out ensuing, and cause the remaining guards to begin moving erratically, doing nothing for you if you were trying to stealth, and if you’re being more violent in your approach and get spotted the police actually will shoot you while letting their arrest target flee. Calling in gang hits is even worse – it gets rid of the one you called the hit on, but in exchange the thugs who show up to do the hit stick around (that must be a bug, right?), and again the remaining guards start moving erratically.

Far too many missions, including some quite a few late-game story missions, can be brute-forced with the RC hopper. A lot of the game’s mission objectives can be hacked by RC rather than Marcus in person, and should it be destroyed by a guard, Marcus will infinitely respawn a new one after a few minutes. This all means, for many missions, even if you’re incompetent with the RC hopper (which isn’t hard to use), you can clear the objective without ever incurring risk. You can achieve something similar for missions requiring you to destroy objectives by attaching explosives to your aerial drone, all of the while sitting Marcus out of sight and away from danger. These piloted tools, supposedly facilitators to the central challenge of getting Marcus to hack the thing, are instead more bricks in the firewall blocking the player from a worthwhile experience, and reduce it all to just a glorified timer.

The game does have a solid electronic soundtrack to set the hacking vibe (although if you choose a more violent play style the music often clashes). However, the majority of the songs are not original tracks, and how hard is to make an electronic playlist?

An Unclean Bill of Stealth

The stealth is boorishly basic, following the pattern of parking up behind something chest-high, hacking to create distractions for the one or few guards that would see you, then moving on to the next piece of cover. There are some stupid bugs however that can seriously muck up the stealth. Security sensors and guards can, depending on the kind of wall, actually see you through it, but only sometimes, adding a frustrating element of random chance if the artist decided to design a wall with a few holes in it. Furthermore, when attempting to stealthily move your RC hopper through an area, it’s too easy to move quickly enough to simply never give anyone enough time to spot you.

Garbage Shoot

Shooting in Watch_Dogs 2 is, surprise surprise, also underdeveloped. The mechanics are your basic stop-and-pop. Enemies hang around outside of cover for generous periods and hesitate to shoot. Health recovers extremely quickly. The initial guns are fairly weak, but in the early game the free stun gun with infinite ammo is perfectly adequate, and actually not that useful – shooting an enemy will alert others nearby, so you’re better off using the melee takedown – which renders the assailed dead, despite looking like it should knock them out. However as soon as you earn enough money, which doesn’t take long, and buy one of the heftier guns, rampaging through the levels becomes if anything too viable. Make use of the lethal hackable objects in the mission area and use a hack to call a gang hit at the right time, and things can become a blood bath. So long as you take down anyone before they call reinforcements, you can flee from the destruction very easily too.

The shooting in Watch_Dogs 2 is problematic. It’s too easy. The whole stealth element to the game is redundant from an optimal-strategy point of view, and the shooting element of the game is redundant from a challenging point of view. Furthermore, the game’s narrative grates excruciatingly against this play style. Shooting is made even more unappealing by the vomit-inducing names the guns have been given, like ‘4N00bs Pistol’.

Watch_Driver: San Francisco

Driving takes a backseat in Watch_Dogs 2. Cars accelerate furiously and stop on a dime, giving this awkward, staccato sense of motion that you need to come over at first, and removes much of the momentum that makes tearing through the city streets in a hijacked sports car fun in other sandboxes, and that’s just one of the issues with the game’s driving. There’s a lack of consistency in what is and isn’t breakable; giant, cast iron street lamps can be taken down by a slow moped, yet piles of wooden planks are immovable. The AI for civilians avoiding speeding objects is terrible; more often than not pedestrians will jump in front of a moving vehicle rather than away from it.

However the staccato driving does make sense given how small the world map is. If it only takes minutes to go from one destination to another, you don’t want to overshoot when you hit the brakes. Overall the driving is the aspect of Watch_Dogs 2 with the highest level of polish, because it’s not strictly another direction the game attempts to go in, but instead there to facilitate other gameplay aspects. Still, casual driving can be fun in games with open worlds, and it’s a shame it isn’t much in Watch_Dogs 2.

Stick a Puzzle on that Dog

Most facets of Watch_Dogs 2’s gameplay are be poor, but the puzzles sink to another level of shoddy. Puzzles come in two forms in the game. One set are an adaption of the Far Cry tower puzzles, where you have to use the environment and available tools to get to the prize atop the San Francisco rooftop, and the other set are Network Bypass puzzles. Both puzzles are a flop.

The rooftop puzzles are far, far too rarely a challenge, instead typically being solved by simply having progressed enough to have the right available hacking tools, going through the obvious steps presented, or by brute-forcing the puzzle by finding one of the cherry pickers scattered about the city to carry you to the roof. On top of this the rewards (either cash, upgrade points, or objectives for the most boring side mission in the game) are never significant enough to really encourage players to undertake them. Cash is plentiful, and more importantly redundant once the aerial drone and a decent weapon have been bought. You only get one upgrade point per reward, whereas missions give you far more, making progressing with missions a much more worthwhile time investment. At no point are the puzzles really puzzling, unless you’re missing the hacking upgrade necessary, in which case you can’t actually solve the puzzle!

The Network Bypass puzzles are even worse, requiring you to rotate parts of a grid to make the flow of power get to an objective. The puzzles have no actual parts you need to intellectually solve, instead just requiring you to go through the steps of rotating the obvious parts. The best the game can muster are occasional time constraints, which anyone with half a brain-cell will be able to succeed within, and if not, only within one of these puzzles are you actually penalized. There is no solving a Network Bypass puzzle. You just go through the routine, mindless motions, and it’s done. That’s not a puzzle. That’s an insulting, artificial speed bump.

If you’re Going to San Francisco…

The San Francisco sandbox the game’s set in isn’t much of a world to inhabit. Dozens of small visual failings deprive the world of an organic feel. The little internet bios that pop up on the populace are immersive at first, but the illusion is quickly broken once the first of far too many bios clearly doesn’t relate to the person you’re interacting with. There are too few random NPC dialogues, and each conversation is too unique, meaning you will notice the same dialogue, repeatedly, from different people. The supposedly nerdy board game store DedSec operates from under sells plain Monopoly. Grounded birds always appear in exact same formation of five. The small failings add up to a very plastic-feeling world.

This lack of organic immersion is only exacerbated by how the poor AI will often single out Marcus, pushing this plastic reality in to something like the Truman Show. When driving like any other vehicle, civilians will still leap away from your vehicle as it drives past them, and police will readily allow a criminal you’ve got them to arrest flee should you walk into their view, at which point they will immediately open fire on Marcus, regardless of surrounding civilians. It’s hard to enjoy yourself in this world when it constantly singles you out.

It’s also hard to enjoy the world visually. Ubisoft promised better graphics for Watch_Dogs 2 after the bait-and-switch Watch_Dogs 1 pulled. I can’t attest as to whether the graphics are improved between games, but there are a lot of visual cock-ups in Watch_Dogs 2, particularly with the graffiti that adds a splash of colour to San Francisco. Notably, a later side mission requires you to deface billboards and the sides of buildings with DedSec artwork, which when ballooned up to the appropriate size makes individual pixels become visible due to the low resolution of the images, resulting in some awful looking creations.

Lastly San Fran just seems a really unhappy place. Why set a fun game here? There’s a lot of trash strewn about, and almost all of the random NPC conversations are negative in tone. The place is swamped with criminal gangs you can’t actually get rid of. Cops have itchy trigger fingers. There’s a huge homelessness problem. It’s miserable.

Who Didn’t Let the Dogs Out?

Gravest of all of the game’s failings, you can’t even watch that many dogs in Watch_Dogs 2. In my travels around San Francisco, I only discovered three different breeds of dog to watch, meaning my interest in following the titular objective of the game was quickly limited when I ran out of new kinds of dog. While you can also pet dogs, something like Nintendogs will give a far more fruitful dog-watching experience.

How to Play

As I mentioned before, the lethal approach to the game is way too easy, and also, as I discuss here, so discordant with the narrative it’s actively uncomfortable. Not to mention, I’m not a huge fan of murder anyway. So, I constrained myself to a non-lethal play through, in the hope of more challenge and a more comfortable time. When that became too easy (pretty much straight away), I also forced myself to have to stealth every mission that called for it perfectly.

At some point after I’d committed to this non-lethal perfect stealth play style, when I was distracting guards with phony phone calls and a fabricated police bust, having scouted the area with my aerial drone and gained the ability to unlock the electronic doors by infiltrating with my RC hopper, all set to electronic music, it became apparent there is the hint of solid game here (Although, how ‘apparent’ is it really if I had to place artificial constraints upon my play-style to see it?).

That is an interesting game concept, where the player’s successful stealth is determined more by their long-range interaction with an environment (such as triggering a guard’s smartphone as a distraction) than usage of personal tools and techniques (such as using the side roll to quickly get past an guard’s view), which was the method of Metal Gear Solid games. But a lack of development focus has left the experience in need of a preliminary polish just so it would be clear what is in need to further polish.

Conclusions

It’s my belief that this briefest glint of a worthwhile game must be the light that has blinded so many critics in to giving this game anything above 5/10. Unless they’re being bribed, blackmailed, or… gasp! Hacked! Or was the original Watch_Dogs just that abysmal? However I would argue strongly against finding positivity in this barest whisper of a hint of a ghost of a possibility that there might be a good game buried in Watch_Dogs 2. We must contextualize the merits of this and any game with what it took to get there, and Watch_Dogs 2 took far, far too much.

Super Bunnyhop ventured that taking guns out of Watch_Dogs 2 would be a good idea. I whole-heartedly agree, but go one step further. Take as well the open world, take the characters, take the narrative, take the pseudo-puzzles, take the fully modeled genitalia, take the kart racing, and put those resources in to making a complete, polished stealth hacking game. Currently Watch_Dogs 2 gets vastly outdone at every turn as Ubisoft throws resources in every direction. You want to have fun driving recklessly through an open world? Play Just Cause. Stealth in an open world? MGSV:TPP. Shooting in an open world? Borderlands. Action-adventure stealth where you use magic (let’s be frank, the hacking in this game is basically that)? Dishonored.

I will not say there is nothing in Watch_Dogs 2. To do so would forget the corpulent decadence of Ubisoft. What there is, is a vast waste of resources, squandered all to create some barest speck of potential, screaming in pain as it struggles to grow in cramped, crushing conditions. Such cruelty should not be forgiven, and such wastage should not be highly scored.

Liam was created in 1994. At seven years old his friend passed on her Gameboy and copy of Pokémon Yellow. He never made it passed the first gym, but he did pass in to the magical world of video games, and has been trapped inside ever since. He also likes webcomics, regular comics, pen and paper rpgs, sculpting, drawing, scifi books, technology, politics, films, literally all music ever, and TV. He is trapped in a loveless marriage with manga. The kind of guy you call when need a Gramscist-hegemony-analysis on the purchasing format of PES, Liam does not get called very often. He hopes to fight evil, make video games a recognised field in its own right, and see the Bard class removed from Dungeons & Dragons.

11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Matt De Azevedo

    November 26, 2016 at 10:11 am

    While reading this I couldn’t help but feel that you either have a personal vendetta against someone on the development team, or your expectations for this game were through the roof.

    You have a whole paragraph about graphics, but the only complaint made is low resolution textures on some graffiti? A board game store selling Monopoly is a bad thing? The same formation of birds seen in multiple locations surprised you? The names of the guns really bothered you that much? A lot of the stuff you bring up seems like the highest level of nit-picking.

    And to score the game a 2/10… with a score like that you’re arguing that the game fails to even function properly, but you never actually argue that, as your main complaints are lack of difficulty (which in and of itself is an oddly placed criticism for this game), and that the gameplay options are lacking (which is funny because you say the shooting is too viable, but also claim that hacking too powerful, and you yourself played through the game with a perfect-stealth style… so it seems to me like the game presents multiple options, all of which are certainly functional). The score you’ve given doesn’t seem accurate to the complaints levied against the title, in my opinion.

    Interesting perspective, to say the least.

    • Oliver Rebbeck

      November 26, 2016 at 11:31 am

      I might be biased because I’ve just had a piece published about how great the game is but yeah I disagree quite heavily with the review. A lot of small nitpicks but that’s opinions I suppose.

    • Liam Hevey

      November 26, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      I understand that my style of critique could come across as nit-picking, but what I’m aiming for is presenting a range of actual evidence to my points. I dislike to just leave things at a statement without backing it up. After all, if I don’t evidence anything it’s just, like, my opinion man.

      There is a distinction between functional and well made. You shouldn’t praise a game just because it’s not unplayable. The point I hoped to get across in this article is that every gameplay aspect Watch_Dogs 2 offers is somewhere between somewhat and very badly made. If a game is unplayable, it’s not a game. It doesn’t even get a score.

      I didn’t go in to the game with high expectations at all. I thought the game would be a collection of fairly commonplace ubiquitous gameplay design choices with an new, underdeveloped gameplay feature as the selling point, which has been Ubisoft’s MO in the past. I haven’t played a triple-A game in a while and I was genuinely shocked at the lack of quality in both game design and writing. Interestingly, when reviewing the writing, I only began to feel pissed off AFTER I’d written out and reviewed all the evidence.

      Also I don’t think it makes sense to criticise using lots of little points of evidence as nit-picking, but then also criticise only specifically referring to one thing when discussing the graffiti in the game? That seems to be contradictory. Anyway, the other problems with the graffiti off the top of my head: the way the designers have placed the flat images in means that the graffiti image only gets placed on to one object. What that means visually is that the graffiti has a flat edge where it reaches the pavement, which looks particularly bad on the graffiti that’s on roads. It stops the graffiti actually being graffiti, and instead just a poorly placed .jpeg. The ability to take selfies with the graffiti and other landmarks and get a few followers as a reward is an interesting feature to encourage players to ‘see the sights’, but janky camera controls and the game struggling to recognise when you’re photographing a landmark make that process a bit of a chore. Lastly, and this is entirely a matter of personal preference and not a criticism of the game, but I wish they made the graffiti and other colour objects pop more.

      Lastly, as someone who actually hangs out in nerdy stores, absolutely none of them would ever sell plain Monopoly. Also, why doesn’t the shop cell any CCGs?

      • Oliver Rebbeck

        November 26, 2016 at 2:35 pm

        I hate to tell you this but it is just your opinion, you can’t change that. Any game can be nitpicked to death, literally any game. You talk about how people shouldn’t be giving this game anything over a 5 because you don’t understand how, maybe you should actually read said reviews and listen to their well reasoned arguments that come before the score at the end before claiming they were bribed.

        • Liam Hevey

          November 26, 2016 at 5:38 pm

          Oliver, I’m quite happy to tell you that, that is just your opinion.

      • Matt De Azevedo

        November 26, 2016 at 8:58 pm

        @Liam
        You’re completely entitled to your opinion, but there is a difference between opinion and fact.

        Big Rigs Over The Road Racing is a complete utter mess of a game. It’s not even functional in many regards, as the vehicles simply fall through the floor on many areas of the maps, and drive straight up vertical surfaces on other areas. But the fact remains, it’s a video game, and I cannot take that away from it. No one can. The game is pretty much unplayable, unless your just looking for a laugh; that’s a 0-1/10 game. To say Watch Dogs 2 is a 2/10 is saying that it’s within that same territory, and I simply don’t get that impression from your criticisms.

        Also, I agree with Oliver that any game can be nit-picked similarly. GTA 5 has some really low res textures found all over the city… pedestrians can be heard repeating lines frequently… A.I. will sometimes jump in front of cars or simply fail to react to a speeding vehicle…. yet GTA5 is one of the best reviewed games and best selling games of recent times. Any large open world game can be hit with these same criticisms, but they’re mostly ignored. The reason being, these small issues, even when all added up together, tend to be completely insignificant to the whole (at least they are with GTA 5, I haven’t played Watch_Dogs 2, so I cannot confirm or deny the game’s quality).

        I think it actually speaks volumes to Watch_Dogs 2’s credit that after stating the game has “a lot of visual cock-ups”, the only flaw in it’s visual fidelity that you point out is some low res graffiti. In my recent review of the game Aragami I point out how low res textures hurt the experience, but that was because a high percentage of textures in the game look like crap. I was seeing them constantly, all over the place, leading them to actually have a negative effect on my outlook of the game as a whole. But that’s different than running around in GTA 5 or The Division, which look fantastic 98% of the time, and then finding a very low res group of textures somewhere. Again, I haven’t played Watch_Dogs 2, but from the review I simply get the impression that many (maybe even most) of the things you hinge your arguments on seem borderline inconsequential to the whole. I could be wrong though.

  2. William Stribling

    November 27, 2016 at 11:28 am

    This review is a ridiculous mess. It’s pretty clear that you just wanted to take a dump on Ubisoft to fulfill some personal vendetta, or seem “different” when compared to the overwhelmingly positive critical response. It reads more like an edgy teens rant than an objective review. The numerous structural, grammatical, and punctuation issues don’t help either, but I’m not your English professor. I’ll go through and offer rebuttals to most of your paper-thin points.

    “Ubisoft pulled itself in far too many directions this time.” I don’t remember when gameplay mechanics being distinct from one another, or offering players multiple options became a bad thing. Maybe you’d prefer it if we just had to click one button for the entirety of the game? “Press square to hack” could be the only objective. Would definitely keep me from having to do that pesky thing of playing the video game.

    “The hacking is very lacking in polish for the supposed unique selling point of the game.” Did we play the same game? There are a ton of ways the hacking mechanics can be utilized in each mission, much more so than the first game. It can be overwhelming at times, honestly. You also complain about certain options given, such as cell phone hacks or using the drone. If that’s not how you want to play, go ahead. That’s why they offered so many other routes! Don’t knock them for simply being there. If we’re using that logic, GTAV is way too easy because I can input an invincibility cheat.

    “The police only arrest the one guy you target, with no shoot-out ensuing” You’re complaining about this? How dare those police officers act like police officers. This is one of the examples where your criticisms actually enter the realm of the ridiculous.

    “The stealth is boorishly basic.” You act as if you were expecting them to reinvent the wheel here. Using cover to hide and sneaking around are literally the fundamental parts of any stealth mechanic. As mentioned before, there are multiple ways to approach each encounter. It’s on you if you didn’t use all the tools at your disposal.

    “Garbage shoot.” Another instance where you wanted Ubisoft to reinvent the wheel for some reason. You’re complaining that enemies die when you shoot them with an assault rifle. That’s sort of how things work. If the game’s too easy for you, change the difficulty. The harder ones available offer plenty of challenge in any shootouts you may enter.

    “Cars accelerate furiously and stop on a dime” The driving is meant to be arcade-like and goofy, just like the rest of Watch Dogs 2. This ease of use actually makes the driving fun, which isn’t the case in many other open-world titles. ‘Truck Driver Simulator’ is on Steam if you’re craving some driving that’s a little more grounded.

    “Stick a puzzle on that dog.” If you want legitimate hacking puzzles, take some introductory programming courses at your local community college. This whole game is a spoof of hacker culture, so I don’t know what you were expecting. The puzzles are simple, but engaging enough to be satisfying. Network security credentials aren’t required to play Watch Dogs 2, because of course they aren’t! It’s a bloody video game, you dolt.

    “San Francisco.” Repetition is present in every open-world game, and it’s no more present here than in GTA V. San Fran is vibrant and alive, especially when you compare it to other titles released this year like Mafia 3. While the game isn’t groundbreaking visually, it’s still full of color and personality. If your biggest gripe is that some graffiti in the world isn’t as hi-res as you would’ve liked, then you’re just grasping at straws. You also complain about Monopoly being in a board game store. Just another instance of you being hyperbolic over nothing just because you want to complain.

    In your other article you complain about the murder feeling out of place in the narrative. That’s just how video games work, and you can go through the whole game only using a taser if that’s the experience you want. The rest of us will have our fun shootin’ stuff. If every time I played Uncharted I wasted all my time thinking about how Nathan Drake lacks PTSD from murdering hundreds and hundreds of men, I’d miss out on the wonderful adventure in front of me. That’s the case in almost every game with a gun in it. The point of a sandbox game is to let players do what they want, and removing lethal options would be a disservice to players. A game about hacking cars with your phone shouldn’t be serious, and the gloomy tone is a big part of what held the first game back. This game is meant to be nothing but goofy fun, and it accomplishes that excellently. You really missed the whole point, didn’t you?

    Also, maybe turn down the pretentious language in your next review? “To do so would forget the corpulent decadence of Ubisoft. What there is, is a vast waste of resources, squandered all to create some barest speck of potential, screaming in pain as it struggles to grow in cramped, crushing conditions. Such cruelty should not be forgiven, and such wastage should not be highly scored.” Give me a break. Reviews are supposed to be enjoyable to read, so stay wary of the hyperbolic metaphors and whatever big words that are there for the sole purpose of showing that you “know words good. ”

    You are entitled to your opinion, though, and I doubt this will change anything. Just think about it, and use some of the criticism constructively, yeah?

    • Oliver Rebbeck

      November 27, 2016 at 8:07 pm

      There is an alternative opinion posted on the site, written by me (shameless plug) that has the complete opposite opinion to the review, seems like you more likely agree with me, however opinions are opinions and although I disagree with the review I will say it is interesting to hear different perspectives than your own on certain things.

  3. Enforcer

    November 27, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Such a joke review…is this what so called professional reviewing has become?! A personal rant by an obviously inexperienced guy on some kind of vendetta disregarding the school of journalism?!
    What a waste of my click and time!

  4. Ricky D Fernandes

    November 27, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    I’ve played a bit of the first game but at the time, I was working two jobs so I gave up on it. That said, I didn’t enjoy much of what I did play. I had no interest in the second game until I noticed other journalists/critics talking about how great it is. I figured maybe one day I’ll get around to it. Then I read this article and the other two on this site and now it is at the top of my list, if only to see what all the fuss it about.

  5. John Cal McCormick

    November 27, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    Most of the complaints seem overly nit picky, and the score seems outrageously, disproportionately low based on those complaints. Nobody enjoys a bit of snark more than me, but this comes across like someone at Ubisoft ran over your cat or something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Trending