What's Wrong with Watch Dogs

Okay, so I made a mistake. I let myself get excited by a game. I told myself I wouldn't, not again, the pain just wasn't worth it. But nothing quite compares with that siren-song lure of flashy marketing blandishments designed specifically to appeal to my geek brain. What better time to be reminded of this than during E3?

So, a couple of weeks ago, my mental train became the rhythmic judder of 'WatchDogsWatchDogsWatchDogs'. I pre-ordered it, I took a day off work so I could play it at launch, and went to some lengths to pre-load it so it was set to go on release.

Launch Day Expectation

There were two things that should have set off alarm bells from the start. Firstly, the review embargo - the date before which journalists are barred from publishing their reviews - wasn't until launch day. That bothered me. The obvious deduction from this is that the game publishers have concerns about how it is going to be received and are running damage limitation on their day-one sales and pre-orders. But this isn't a universal warning sign - there are plenty of great games which have held their reviews until launch day. So, hope against hope, I wasn't too put off.

Launch Day Reality

Much has already been written about the second alarm bell (which, in retrospect, was more of a biohazard containment failure warning klaxon), which was that the game would be delivered digitally, on PC at least, through UPlay, Ubisoft's carbuncle of a games platform. Needless to say, to the surprise of literally no-one, there were many, many problems extending from launch day into the rest of that week (some of which are still issues for me - read on). You can read plenty about this elsewhere, but needless to say, f&#! DRM and its criminalisation of legitimate users.

For anyone not familiar with what Watch Dogs is, you play as Aiden Pearce, hacker extraordinaire, blasting his way around a hyper-connected Chicago with pretty predictable, revenge-based motivations, unsurprisingly rooted in the death of one or more close friends or loved ones.

Snark aside, I had high hopes for the story. It struck me that a game about a morally-grey hacker going toe-to-toe with the seedy immoral underside of a hyper-connected, near-future Chicago, backed by a major studio ploughing AAA-level dollars into a game for which they've been driving the hype train for months sounded like it would be anything but boring.

Yeah, about that...

Early on, I was lulled into a false sense of security by a pretty engaging if slow-paced start. I was hoping this would be a nice slow build into something increasingly pacey and far-reaching, much like the 'classic' generation of 3D GTA games (461 words before the inevitable GTA comparison). What I got was something that slowly devolved into an increasingly formless mush.

For reasons that I shall explain below, I can't actually comment on the story in its entirety, but the 60% or so that I made it through was punctuated with weird tangents that didn't really go anywhere or mean anything on their own. There was a sort of meandering feel to the missions where none of them were that interesting in isolation, and I found myself waiting for a payoff that never really came.

The worst example that I played was at the climax of the first act. For reasons that don't entirely merit going into, Aiden decides that he needs to sneak into a prison to intimidate a potential witness into keeping his identity a secret, citing fears of risk to his family.

Partway through the mission, the situation changes when another group drag off the witness in question, ostensibly to kill him. Aiden reacts roughly along the lines of 'oh no, I have to get to him before they kill him'. I may just be a heartless bastard, but this made absolutely no sense to me.

You can play Aiden as a freedom-fighter style hacktivist, or a self-interested criminal - that's an intentional-if-meaningless choice the developers have given you. Here, his reaction didn't quite jibe right with either. While Aiden might feel a genuine sense of horror that this street thug is about to get killed (notwithstanding the scores of people Aiden himself kills throughout the game with far less provocation), he didn't exactly sneak into a prison to save him. What's more, if the thug does die, it solves Aiden's problem anyway.

I say 'solves the problem', but it actually doesn't. Nor does Aiden's 'Tryhard of the Year' intimidation attempt. Because by this point, there is already a clear threat to Aiden's family, and throughout the game Aiden's real identity as the vigilante hacker is repeatedly advertised on the radio with a repetitiveness seemingly designed to make me intentionally slam my car into a wall. What you are left with is a mission which does not advance the main plot, does not make an interesting climax for the first act, and which is ultimately pointless. This is one example, and a particularly egregious one, but it's not alone.

The story is best summed up as 'filler', something on which to hang the gameplay, which left me waiting for the real beat to drop and the pace and tension to ratchet up. I'm still waiting.

While, for me, the story is what usually makes or breaks a game, I accept that this is far from the only thing that matters, and games are many things to many people. I can forgive a weak story where there is excellent gameplay that carries the experience, particularly in an open-world environment which lets you to inject your own narratives.

My overwhelming reaction to Watch Dogs' gameplay was - it's fun. It was consistently enjoyable for the 23 hours I've somehow rack up so far. That said, it's nothing groundbreaking, which in itself, is fine - not everything can be truly new and exciting, except that, in the case of Watch Dogs, that's precisely what was being hyped as.

Hacking is the obvious 'innovation' here, and it makes you feel empowered in exercising control over the environment. For the most part, though, it is just hitting buttons at the right time, and when driving, it often doesn't work quite as responsively as it needs to. There's also a pretty limited range of things you can hack. In close-quarter encounters, it generally didn't feel all that impactful compared with using your guns.

I actually found the gunplay more satisfying than the hacking. It's very well implemented, and one of the stronger sides of the gameplay. The obvious problem with that is that the game is meant to be all about hacking. Shootouts are all too often unavoidable, and there generally isn't enough incentive to use your phone over your guns.

Beyond the main storyline, the map is packed with other things to do. And I mean packed, like a rush-hour tube full of sardine tins, to the extent that the icons on the map seem to be trying to crowd each other out.

Many of these side-quests and activities were very diverting, and I sunk a lot of time into them, with the attitude of 'just one more' again and again (and again). But given the choice between a better-developed story, one that grips me at my very core and leaves me trembling at the knees and coming back again and again (I'm looking at you, Bioshock Infinite), versus crawling around a map from location to location completing yet another flavour of 'find the thing', I think it's pretty clear which I'd choose. One of these I will happily experience over and over, repetitiveness be damned, while the other, well, I'd be unlikely to do it even once. Watch Dogs, sadly, falls firmly into the latter camp.

So, a good way into the plot, I found myself a pretty deflated. Not wholly disappointed, but disillusioned about so many 'almost good' things in the game that hadn't quite come to fruition. So now, we come to the big roadblock, rising from the ground in front of us as if guided by some unseen hacker; the giant red rubber stamp over my whole experience with the game.

My Watch Dogs experience. Sadly, I'm the car in this scenario.

While playing the online mode where you invade another player's game (where the game comes closest to brilliance), I died, and came back to my own game world, finding myself with...nothing. None of my unlocked weapons, skills, nothing. This was distressing, to say the least. Apparently, I was not alone. While everything remained tangibly unlocked in the games menu, it effectively blocked me from doing very much, and certainly from continuing with the main story. Astoundingly, this still appears not to be fixed, more than two weeks on. This from a game that was delayed for more than six months to get it right.

This was the defining test of the game for me. With no easy fix in sight, I was faced with starting over if I wanted to continue the story in the near future, and, confronted by that prospect, I discovered that I just wasn't excited enough to do so. Up to that point, I had been enjoying an admittedly flawed game, but this brush with a near-enough game-breaking bug was jarring enough to remove the last of the gloss, and I've barely been back to it. Disappointingly, I haven't even found myself craving to fire it back up, instead burying myself in tried-and-true alternatives, and that realisation was pretty disappointing.

The bottom line? Watch Dogs is a fun game, but it could, and should, have been so much more. The prospect of a fun game alone would not have been a good enough to draw to get me to content with UPlay and launch-day disasters, but that's just a testament to the power and success of the game's marketing engine (if you want an idea of how hyped this game was, when the delay was originally announced, Ubisoft shares dropped 26%). Would I still recommend it? Just. But only if you find it at a significant discount and, ideally, if you can somehow avoid using UPlay at all. Just wait for the bugs to get fixed first.

The Real Watch Dog