Watch_Dogs
was one of my favourite games of the last few years. I thought it was
pretty great. I know I’m in the minority with that opinion, and
particularly for my fondness of its protagonist – the ‘boring
white guy’ Aidan Pearce. For many reviewers, Watch_Dogs 2 is a
sequel that surpasses the original.
But
few were fans of the original game, so that’s not exactly a
surprising conclusion. But I am. So the question becomes – as a fan
of the original, do I think Watch_Dogs 2 is a better game? Well, I do
think it’s pretty good but once again, it seems I’m going to fall
into the minority and say – the original was better.
Let’s
begin with narrative. Watch_Dogs 2 is set in San Francisco and our
new hero is Marcus Holloway, a young hacker with a grudge against the
nefarious Blume Corporation – the creators of CTOS. To this end, he
joins the ‘hacktivist’ group DeadSec, a collection of misfits and
outcasts who embark on a series of ‘operations’ (missions) to
increase their ‘followers’ (which is cleverly tied into the XP
system) and undermine Blume and its allies.
The
tone of Watch_Dogs has taken a dramatic shift from dark and serious
to light and silly, and that’s immediately evident in your first
main mission in which Marcus is running about in his underwear. As a
result, Watch_Dogs 2 has a greater sense of fun and far more humour,
reflected both in the characters and how they interact, but also in
many of the missions you undertake.
But
this playful tone also results in a narrative that lacks any real
sense of drive. Why does Marcus care so much about ‘taking down’
Blume? And what does ‘taking down’ Blume actually mean? It’s a
nebulous goal with no narrative progression and a wholly unsatisfying
conclusion. Say what you will about the revenge based plot of the
original, but at least it gave both Pearce and the player a clear
motivation and goal.
The
problem with Watch_Dogs 2, is that none of the characters have a
comparable motivation driving their actions. Nearly everything is
done purely because ‘it’ll be funny’. It’s done ‘for the
lulz’. And that’s fine, to a degree, but it means the narrative
lacks bite. It lacks any sense of danger or stakes. There’s little
sense of threat to Marcus, despite him tackling a corporation we know
is willing to kill to protect its interests.
There
are odd moments when the game does try to be a little more serious,
but these moments are quickly glossed over and forgotten. I did like
Marcus and the supporting characters of Watch_Dogs 2, and I can’t
deny it had me laughing a lot more than the sombre and serious
original, but I also never really took their ‘mission’ very
seriously because … well, neither did they.
There
really needed to be a moment when they realised that ‘taking down’
Blume wasn’t just a game. A moment when Shit. Got. Real. That there
were consequences to their actions. It’s a moment that never comes.
And it doesn’t help that the main ‘villain’ of Watch_Dogs 2 is
a hipster with a man bun.
The
original narrative had a clear goal. It began with a mock execution,
with Pearce pointing a gun to the head of the man responsible for
killing his niece. And it ended the same way. It was a perfect circle
bringing the story to a close. The narrative had structure and pace –
a clear progression of Pearce (and the player) working towards a
goal, a goal Pearce was emotionally invested in achieving.
But
Watch_Dogs 2 doesn’t have any narrative thread guiding you from
start to finish. It’s just a series of disconnected, narratively
detached missions that eventually lead to a final mission which has
no build up at all. Seriously, there’s no real narrative build up
to ‘taking down’ Blume. The final mission just pops up, seemingly
at random – and what a lame final mission it is.
And
our heroes? When our heroes in Watch_Dogs 2 hit their first real
hurdle, all of them aside from Marcus are immediately ready to quit.
If they don’t really seem to care about their mission … then why
should I? Where’s the personal investment? What’s really at
stake?
The
tone also creates an odd clash with the gameplay. Pearce was on a
mission of revenge, fighting gangs, corporate assassination squads
and career criminals whereas Marcus is fighting … hipsters. There
is a small gang element to a couple of missions, but your primary
‘bad guys’ are poorly paid security guards just doing their job.
It never felt out of place for Pearce to murder his way (if the
player chose) through his missions, but Marcus?
Marcus
isn’t a criminal, not in the same sense as Pearce. Remember, Pearce
wasn’t really a ‘hacker’ in Watch_Dogs. He was a ‘fixer’
who worked with hackers, including DeadSec itself. He was accustomed
to violence. Marcus is just a kid who likes cheesy 80s action flicks
and taking selfies with his friends. So it’s all a little jarring
when you can equip him with military grade weapons and begin
murdering people. It’s even more jarring when none of your friends
comment on the fact that you murdered 8 people just to spray some
graffiti on an advertising board.
Sure,
you don’t have to and like the original, there’s certainly
non-lethal and stealth based options you can take. The point I’m
making is that Marcus killing just doesn’t feel right, not
for the character, not for the story and certainly not for the tone.
I can’t really criticise the game for giving the player the option
to use lethal violence, but I also can’t help but wonder what the
game would be like if they’d taken the bold design choice to limit
Marcus to entirely non-lethal weaponry and gadgets.
Speaking
of gadgets, Watch_Dogs 2 introduces a remote buggy and drone to the
series. These are a fantastic addition, opening up new ways to
approach missions, although I do feel they’ve made the game
significantly easier as a result. There are also cool new hacks to
utilise, my personal favourite being the ability to take control of
vehicles.
The
core gameplay of Watch_Dogs remains intact, as you use a variety of
hacks, stealth and combat to complete your missions. And that’s
something I loved about the original – being able to approach and
devise plans to complete these missions in my own way. The game
provides the toys, but how you use them is entirely up to you.
The
open world of Watch_Dogs 2 is a significant improvement over that of
the original and a far more enjoyable sandbox to screw about in. It’s
still not comparable to say, GTA V, but it’s a very good step in
the right direction. The new hacks like the vehicle control or the
ability to call the police to arrest people provide some extremely
enjoyable ways to f**k about and cause all kinds of havoc.
That
said, the side content of Watch_Dogs 2 isn’t as good. Although
there’s more unique and elaborate side missions, there’s nothing
quite as enjoyable or compelling when compared to those of the
original. The original also had far more side content, including
various mini-games (that Watch_Dogs 2 entirely lacks) and
collectibles, which it cleverly tied together by building unique
missions around them.
Player
progression in Watch_Dogs 2 is also a little annoying in the sense
that even if you’ve unlocked enough skill points to purchase a new
ability, you may not be able to until you’ve collected a ‘research
item’ on the map, forcing you to go and hunt it down. They’re not
hard to find. There’s very rarely any puzzle or challenge to
collecting them. It’s just a tedious way of slowing the player
down.
In
terms of performance, Watch_Dogs 2 isn’t great, with a frame rate
that frequently dips regardless of settings. It also randomly freezes
for a few seconds at odd times (even when using the menus) which
isn’t game breaking, but certainly irritating so I hope we see some
patches on the way.
Car
handling could be better as it feels very ‘floaty’. The original
didn’t have fantastic car handling either, but I’d have hoped for
an improvement in its sequel, including better car physics and damage
model – but we don’t really get either. This is one of the key
areas that Watch_Dogs as a series really needs to improve.
Overall,
despite my complaints, I enjoyed Watch_Dogs 2. The core gameplay
remains intact with the ability to approach missions in my own way,
at my own pace. And whilst none of the missions really connect
narratively, they are all fairly enjoyable and cleverly varied in
their own unique way. The open world is a good step up from the
original, and the new characters are a lot of fun.
But
Watch_Dogs 2 is also inconsistent with its tone, its narrative lacks
bite, and it doesn’t provide the appropriate motivation or
investment that the characters (and the player) need. Its side
content is rather shallow compared to the original, and I don’t
feel it offers such a wide range, variety and quality in terms of its
missions. It’s a very solid and enjoyable continuation of the Watch_Dogs series,
but I do think the original was better.
7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.