Do you think this game would deliver it's promises?

I have to admit that I put in about 30 hours into Watch_Dogs before something else came along. I had every intention of going back to it... but I just haven't... yet. It's not that I don't like it, but like you said, you get a bit bored with it. Who knows, maybe when I pick it up again, it'll be fun.

I've played a few MMOs (City of Heroes, DCU Online) where I quit for a few months and came back to them later and they had almost completely changed. Sure, a lot of the stuff was there, but just a few months can totally change an MMO, so I agree with you 100%.

 

@Cyborg Superman
Yea you're right, I guess you don't quit entirely from either type of game unless you really just don't like it. There's always the possibility for Watch Dogs to redeem itself, too, I guess. If they just fix the issues people have been complaining about from day one, they could possibly still salvage it. And I'm glad this game is an MMO for the same reasons stated above. It's so adaptable that it's never completely sunk if something goes badly with it.

 

The MMO model allows you to push as many updates as you want (I mean, within reason) but it's fully expected that every few weeks you'll have to wait for an update... I know it's like that for DCUO as they keep releasing new DLC every month or so.

 

That's what is so fantastic about the fact it's an MMO. I mean, look at Final Fantasy. There was the Final Fantasy Online MMO that tanked at first. But then they relaunched it as A realm reborn and it went back up in numbers(never actually played it myself, so it's possible this information I've heard is incorrect) . You can make or break a game so easily as an MMO, with enough effort.

 

True, but the fact that you can update it again means that if you mess up, you can either revert back or modify it again. I think it gives the game extra chances to be successful in a way.

 

That's actually what I'm saying. Final Fantasy was fixed because of it. I think it would be the same here. Even if it struggles at one point it can still be fixed up.

 

I've definitely seen some past MMOs go from broken to fixed to broken to fix a few times thanks to DLC. The fact that the devs actually kept working on stuff and tried different things until they got it right is good.

I'm waiting for the inevitable nerfing that will happen with the first update to the Division, lol.

 

It's true that A Realm Reborn saved Final Fantasy XIV (I've played it, the rerelease is fantastic and one of the best MMO I've ever played) but people were willing to give it another chance after that terrible first release because of two reasons in my opinion: first, because Final Fantasy is a long running series with millions of fans that easily recognize the brand and high quality of it so they'll probably trust developers if they want to give it another chance; because FFXIV wasn't the first online game Square ever made, they did XI which was critically acclaimed and IS STILL BEING PLAYED with a new expansion which released like a couple of years ago, so with a precedent like that Square could afford to try again.

The Division is a completely new IP and, I think at least, the first MMO-like game Ubisoft has ever done. If the game is bad, it's going to be hard for them to recover the damage and I'd understand the buyers if they don't want to try again hoping not to get burned again.

 

I agree with you on all of your points. Final Fantasy is well established (heck, I played it on the NES) so you're absolutely right that fans will stick with it, or at least be more forgiving when it comes to give it another chance. I see The Division on par with Watch_Dogs, where because it's a new franchise, they'd really have to redeem themselves for fans to jump back in. If Ubisoft announced WD2, people would flood to the boards and comment sections saying that after being "screwed" on Watch_Dogs, they won't play a sequel, etc. Of course if the game is awesome, that will turn anyone around.... Or at least most people.

 

This could go either way to be honest. I think because we have waited so long for this game, it might be hard for it to actually live up to the enormous expectations that people have for it. But that could also work in its favour, as if it does live up to the hype, it will just make it that much better.

As people have mentioned before though, never trust Ubisoft! That company has been on the decline recently with their game quality, but hopefully they've took enough time for this game to be flawless!

 

How so? Assassin's Creed Syndicate has had positive reviews and the game has a metacritic score of 75 on PC, 76 on PS4 and 78 on Xbox One... That's hardly a decline, considering Unity ranks between 70-72 on the different platforms. That seems like the opposite of a decline to me.

Also, you're going to guarantee being disappointed if you think The Division will be flawless. No game is.

 

Who knows, it could actually be buffing instead of nerfing. Stuff isn't ALWAYS OP

Although you're totally probably right, and everything is going to need nerfed. Hahaha.

 

It just seems inevitable that at some point the so-called nerf hammer will be coming down on something, but I like your glass half-full type of thinking... maybe they'll just buff everyone else to make it even. It's a new positive way of thinking for the new year, lol.

 

Isn't buffing everyone else pretty much the same as nerfing? You aren't really getting anything that's "overpowering" anything else... haha

 

Not exactly. If you're nerfing my skills, I'm less effective at what I was doing and it'll suck because I know I was able to say for example heal for 200 HP and now I can only heal for 175 HP. If you're buffing, then everyone else feels they get a bonus to what they could do, and I don't feel like my skills have been brought down.

It's really a perception thing, but there is a difference.

 

I feel like more people notice how it affects what they're doing it to. Like if one of my attacks takes 10% off of someone's health, but their defenses got buffed, and now I'm only doing 5%, i'm going to see it more as a nerf rather than everyone else getting a buff.

 

Yeah that's a good point, I guess I was thinking more towards NPC enemies and not necessarily PvP. But you're right, a nerf is a nerf, both side of the equation.

 

Well I understand what you were looking at, too. Cause if you look at it like a healing standpoint, it makes sense the way you say it. Because most people don't have a weird resistance to healing haha. You weren't wrong either

 

That's even too low of an average for Syndicate considering that, to me, is one of the best Assassin's Creed games.
So no, I don't see Ubisoft on a decline either. The only real disappointing thing I've saw from them is Watch Dogs but even then it's not like it was a TERRIBLE title...
I mean we can't say for sure that The Division will be amazing either, but there's not reason to be pessimistic about it.

 

Hahaha good, I'm glad we agree. In the end, I hate when I get nerfed but I like when others get nerfed, lol.

Watch_Dogs was mainly disappointing because it has been hyped so much. It was going to be Ubisoft's next Big Thing, the next AC, the big franchise. Maybe WD2 would salvage this, as AC1 was good, but AC2 took everything that AC failed at and made it better. Without AC2 being amazing, we wouldn't be talking about Assassin's Creed today.