Drakron
Arcane
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,326
The first game was kinda political in the sense it was about the abuse of power in a world with increasingly less privacy.
The second game seem to be they wanted to do the opposite tone of the first game and they werent sure of what it should be about and the entire plot ends up being a rehash of the first game plot but even dumber (the first game plot work in the sense of how people were playing each other).
This is just Ubisoft REALLY WANTING FOR WATCH_DOGS TO BE A THING! because lets face it, the first game wasnt that well received and it wasnt because of the plot and Woke_Dawgs Too sold even worst because they managed to create a game people that played the first didnt want to play and the people that didnt play the first were not going to play the second just because it was woke and "funny" and "witty". Most of the pitfalls of the series lie with it being a "Generic Ubisoft Open World Game" with all the tick boxes ... and the fact they lied with the E3 tech demo.
The second game seem to be they wanted to do the opposite tone of the first game and they werent sure of what it should be about and the entire plot ends up being a rehash of the first game plot but even dumber (the first game plot work in the sense of how people were playing each other).
This is just Ubisoft REALLY WANTING FOR WATCH_DOGS TO BE A THING! because lets face it, the first game wasnt that well received and it wasnt because of the plot and Woke_Dawgs Too sold even worst because they managed to create a game people that played the first didnt want to play and the people that didnt play the first were not going to play the second just because it was woke and "funny" and "witty". Most of the pitfalls of the series lie with it being a "Generic Ubisoft Open World Game" with all the tick boxes ... and the fact they lied with the E3 tech demo.