I could hardly call this blog "Gaming in the Big Smoke", if I didn't talk about Watch Dogs Legion. Finally, a video game set in the streets of London! And one that doesn't feature terrorist attacks in Piccadilly Circus, (Looking at you 'Modern Warfare') but rather just human trafficking in Camden Market. Many who got a look-in for this game have come away calling it the most ground breaking project this year despite it's drastic departure from the Ubisoft formula. For my part I find myself optimistic for what Ubisoft could deliver with this title whilst fairly sure in what departments this project will inevitably fall short.
I have had an interesting history with Watch_Dogs; a sort of love/hate affair with the franchise ever since the first game. Watch_Dogs was the very first AAA game I ever purchased for my eighth generation console and so I was obviously enamoured by the technical capabilities of a game that seemed to dwarf anything I had ever seen before. The textures, lighting, framerate, everything appeared to be light years above the open world projects of yesteryear. The novelty of being able to hack the phone of any NPC and read a snippet of their life was destined to be an absolute game changer for the PC-NPC relationship. However, once the honeymoon period started to fade and the eighth generation began to really kick off, it became apparent that Watch_Dogs wasn't going to have the staying power that I initially thought it would.
Of course there was the whole 'E3 controversy' where the shown demo portrayed a graphical fidelity that was not reflected by the final product, showcasing little animation touches and ambient details that rivalled even today's open worlds. But that would not be the reality of Watch_Dogs and the project had to be sanitized in order to be shippable to as many people as possible in the desired launch window. Whilst many fans still reel at the thought of this 'deception' for me it was never really the key issue; the game was still beautiful at night, the gunplay was surprisingly solid and the gimmick of hacking seemed like such a compelling tool to leave in the hands of the enterprising player. Where the game really fell off for me was in the two areas that Ubisoft have always had trouble with: story and characters.
Although I have yet to play the latest two Assassin's Creed games I still think it's safe to say that Ubisoft have had trouble writing solid protagonists with compelling narratives ever since Unity, with Black Flag featuring the last great main character. Even Assassin's Creed 3's dull protagonist was offset by a fantastic (if drawn out) opening and some of the most relatable and, in some cases even pitiable, villains in the franchise. Watch_Dogs was never so lucky.
Aiden Pearce has been lambasted by critics over the years for his stereotypical 'Revenge plot' writing and the hypocritical way he pursues justice for death of his niece whilst simultaneously throwing his remaining family into peril. I, for one, have no problem with characters that I disagree with. A character can be stupid, and cruel, and hypocritical in my book as long as it rings with authenticity. As long as it fits this story and leads to a interesting narrative. And that is my problem with Watch_Dogs' story, it didn't go anywhere. That 'twist' ending was such a slap in the face to anyone who tried to invest themselves in this world that even the own game calls itself out. Aiden has a 'So that's what this was all about?' line that just about sums up my frustration at having wasted so many hours of my life to the world's least interesting conspiracy. Heck, the operation that attempted to cover up a murder ended up leading to the murders of hundreds if not thousands in a senseless revenge tale, even by video game logic the whole thing just made no sense!
And then there's the hacking. The signature gimmick of Watch_Dogs that failed amount to anything truly special in the finished product. Due to the first game's limitations the most intuitive branch of hacking was the scanning of NPC's, actually using it in gameplay felt far more restrictively situational and prohibitively contextual than what was initially teased. This wasn't the revolutionary new gameplay idea that would forever change the landscape of gaming but an interesting gimmick that lost it's luster far sooner than anyone could have expected.
It was only earlier this year that I was finally able to forgive the game enough to dive into Watch Dogs 2 (For a heavily discounted price). Now shed of the original title's underscore, Watch Dogs 2 ditched the dark, gritty, Neo Noir for the bright, spray painted, punk rock hacker lifestyle. No longer would players stalk the grey streets of modern day Chicago but now they cruised the bright sunny roads of lightly futuristic San Fransisco. Gone too was gloomy Aiden Pearce in favour of the almost charismatic Marcus Holloway. The message was clear, this was a shift in direction for the team, they wanted to focus less on the revenge tale of one hack happy serial killer and instead pick up on the adventures of hacktivist freedom fighters DedSec.
Most important of all was the way that hacking was implemented. This time we got the chaotic freedom that everyone expected from the first game. Now we were able to hack and remotely drive other people's cars, falsify police APB's on the fly and set a pedestrian's pocket aflame by setting off their phone from afar. (Maybe a sly nod to the Galaxy Note 7) This was the gameplay that everybody wanted from the first game, at the surprising cost of the tight gunplay, but the benefits mostly outweighed the negatives. Hacking was fun, parkour felt great and the citizen's AI and ambient interactions really bought the larger world to life. Everyone seemed to agree that Watch Dogs 2 was a marked improvement over the first title, so why can't I just love it like everyone else? Because I'm just too much of a darn curmudgeon I guess.
This time around the protagonist wasn't some wannabe action hero. Marcus Holloway was built from the ground up to be everything that Aiden wasn't. Likeable, relatable, funny, black (Always nice to have more black protagonists in gaming) and yet still I wasn't satisfied with the final product. I think my key gripe lies in the character of Marcus Holloway and the lack of growth that character undergoes. Throughout the entirety of Watch Dogs 2 Marcus Holloway is little more than the 'get it done' guy. Despite his grand words in the opening about 'doing something' about the slow decay of personal freedoms and privacy, Marcus organises very little himself in that pursuit. Instead it's up to support characters Sitara, Wrench and Horatio to make Marcus do everything. A well worn cliché in video game story telling. As a result Marcus doesn't ever really learn or grow at all. He was the same man at the beginning as he was when the credits rolled. Perhaps I am the only person who actively complains about squandered potential in video game story telling but I just can't help but sigh everytime a great concept sleeps through the plot like this. The raw idea of of tackling different exploitative tech start ups that all lend to a fledgling Orwellian surveillance state spearheaded by Blume; is exciting to me, even now.
But will Legion be the one that finally gets it right? Maybe.
Off the bat, Legion has made a move that many would call daring and that I wholly applaud. They have removed the protagonist entirely. Straight away I see this as a positive move in the right direction for Ubisoft's open world franchises. The time of well written characters in a Ubisoft game fizzled up long ago so why not focus on their current strengths, Addictive gameplay loops and stunning open worlds. But the really promising part is what they chosen to replace the main character with.
Earlier I mentioned how the hacking of Watch_dogs appeared to revolutionize the PC-NPC relationship, until the honeymoon shades wore off and it became apparent that the feature was really rather shallow and gimmicky. Well, this time around Legion has expanded upon that mechanic to provide every NPC with the opportunity to become a controllable character. And this isn't just a case of model swapping, each NPC has a job, a past and a stat modifier. Whenever you try to recruit one you are presented with a series of generated tasks to get them on your side. Once they join you can assign a role that best suits their respective strengths and repurpose them in the fight to free London.
The whole system has a feel of the sandbox about it. An algorithm with seemingly limitless potential that just oozes replayablity, much in the same way that 2014's Shadow of Mordor did with it's nemesis system. The prospect of building your team of hackers and infiltrators from a randomly selected pool, coupled with the tension of permadeath and the absurdity of your options (Retiree assassin and living statue being my personal highlights) promises an experience that doesn't just revolutionize the Watch Dogs brand, but maybe Ubisoft AAA's from here on out.
And of course there is the setting. 'Cyberpunk London' as I've heard it described. Watch Dog's Legion is set in a futuristic dystopian spin on modern day London, complete with a totalitarian military dictatorship, huge worker drones alongside self driving taxi's and a whole bus service that consists solely of the 42 to 'City center'. (Chilling!) For a local, seeing an imaginative spin on actual London (No 'inspired by' nonsense) is more exciting than anything else on Ubisoft's lineup. Us Brits almost never get represented when it comes to video game settings. Again, excluding the one about the terrorist attack in Piccadilly Circus.
Of course the bubble of positivity bursts when it comes to the story telling. '70 missions!' Ubisoft boasts, but already people have commented on how the new systems have sacrificed narrative cohesion. Ubisoft have gone out their way to acquire a huge amount of voice work to account for the possibility of any NPC being present in any cutscene but despite how impressive that sounds on paper, there are some limitations. A brand new recruit jumping into the fray with all of the confidence of a worn veteran? Unavoidable unfortunately. One character starting a quest chain, getting killed, forcing another character to take over making it look like DedSec members share a hive mind? Necessary for the plot. But then the obvious question is, does the promising idea of endless potentially playable characters offset the abandonment of a well told story?
It's difficult to criticize a Ubisoft game because, besides a few examples, they don't deliver absolute turds just a slew of rehashes. Their core formula isn't rotten just flogged half to death by Ubisoft themselves. Perhaps this is why I personally have such a hard time giving them a break. Ubisoft is one of the biggest game companies in the world and yet they never take risks, never push the industry forward, never revolutionize their genre of choice. And yet Legion may be poised to change all that.
In my opinion, if the game is given the level of variety and unpredictability of Shadow of Mordor then I can forgive the loss of a good story. At the end of the day, Ubisoft's goal is to create a platform for replayability and probably a little bit of monetisation too. As long as the former is rich and the latter is sedate, then I'm on board for this adventure. Watch Dogs might finally be coming into it's own.
No comments:
Post a Comment