Something that will always crack me up:
A game gets a LOT of good reviews, ending up with a 8/10 average.
A few say " This game is bad", even though it's not, objectively. Not great, but not bad, and you can read "OMG I KNEW IT, SO BRAVE" all over the internet.
I see SO many people saying "I didn't play this game, but it's overhyped so it's bad", I just don't understand.
Is Watch_Dogs overhyped ? Oh god yes.
Is Watch_Dogs a bad game and not worth a buy ? Oh god no.
It's FULL of good ideas. It's actually fun to play, and seriously, there are a few glitches, but the game is NOT broken. I spent 25+ hours playing the game, and I never had a single glitch.
Of course the game has flaws, but it has also a lot of qualities, which are ignored by pretty much everybody...
The thing is, Watch_Dogs has three main problems.
- It was presented by Ubi like the best game ever for years
- It was released on PS360
- It's not part of the Grand Theft Auto IP, and it's getting bashed for this
That is a good thing for PS360 owners, but it clearly held the game back. And I'm not even talking about graphics here.
But are these flaws enough to claim the game isn't worth playing ? Damn no. GTA V also had a lot of flaws. But was the game bad ? Please.
Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
