Watch Dogs has 'very few' missions with required kills
Watch Dogs borrows a bit from Splinter Cell, letting you make your way through most of the game stealthily if you're so inclined.
Watch Dogs looks to be a mix of some of Ubisoft's more popular series, including Splinter Cell. It's taking that piece of its identity seriously, letting you make your way through the vast majority of the game without racking up a body count.
"About 95 percent of missions you can completely stealth through, or flee or chase without having to shoot," senior director Dominic Guay told Polygon. "So it's really player choice-driven. There are a very few, very limited amount of missions that will force you to kill people."
As an example, a demo showed Aiden relying on a gun-for-hire to help clear an area, using his hacking skills to clear a way. When it came time for the "boss," he was merely shot in the thigh. Instead of killing him, the player hacked loads of his personal information and taunted him with it.
That still means about 5% of missions require you to kill, and arguably relying on an NPC to do the shooting for you isn't a true no-kill condition anyway. But it does show some flexibility in how you approach a situation, which seems like a must for a game all about controlling the environment.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Watch Dogs has 'very few' missions with required kills.
Watch Dogs borrows a bit from Splinter Cell, letting you make your way through most of the game stealthily if you're so inclined.-
I think all this either-or gameplay is getting kinda old. Instead of "Wow, look at all the ways you can do this!", I'd much rather see compelling gameplay around expecting the player to perform the tasks as designed. It feels like most games where you can do both do one (or both) with less prowess than they might have otherwise.
-
I thought Splinter Cell: Blacklist did a very good job giving you multiple, uncompromised ways to play the game. They all felt well fleshed out to me.
-
Is that the most recent? I haven't played that one.
-
No it really didn't. Giving you more options with no real consequences in what you do is a hollow choice. In fact shooting it out is still the easier option when it should be far more difficult.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Speak for yourself.
-
Ding ding ding. Trying to please everyone usually results in a ho-hum gameplay experience for everyone too.
-
-
There are lots of those, I think we can live with both types of game.
-
-
I don't see that it's considered a stain. I've seen a number of totally linear games get plenty of praise when they're done well and I've seen some reviewers point out when an open-world game would have worked better if it was linear.
-
-
-
-
I think a much bigger problem is the binary succeed / fail nature of most stealth mechanics - that's something I thought was very successful in TLOU, it integrated stealth but made the result of failing at stealth somewhat exciting and fun (instead of a near insta death or a reason to reload your save), and then also let you reasonably re-enter stealth during the same encounter
-
-
If anything, AP was the inspiration for me beginning to tire of this stuff. It does both sides poorly, especially stealth. AP is an interesting story and conversation simulator trapped in a mediocre stealth/action game.
-
[deleted]
-
I found the stealth mechanics to be incredibly unreliable. Years of MGS and SC games have made subpar stealth mechanics that much more annoying, and AP's stealth mechanics were definitely not very good.
-
AP was a fantastic rpg. I will agree with Mr. Goodwrench on this. It was rough, but absolutely playable and it warranted multiple playthroughs. Yeah it would have been nice to have SC type stealth, and COD type gunfights but despite Segas push to get the product out the door before its time. It was a damn fine game.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
Are the pc system minimum & recommended requirements out yet?
-
Yes:
http://www.videogamer.com/pc/watch_dogs/news/watch_dogs_revised_pc_system_requirements_are_even_more_demanding_than_the_last_ones.html
MINIMUM
Supported OS: Windows Vista SP2 64bit, Windows 7 SP1 64bit, Windows 8 64bit
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66Ghz or AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.0Ghz
RAM: 6 GB
Video Card: 1024 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0 (see supported list)
Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card
This product supports 64-bit operating systems ONLY
RECOMMENDED
Processor: Core i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: 2048 VRAM DirectX 11 with Shader Model 5.0 or higher (see supported list)
Sound Card: Surround Sound 5.1 capable sound card
Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better, GT500, GT600, GT700 series;
AMD Radeon HD5850 or better, HD6000, HD7000, R7 and R9 series
Intel® Iris™ Pro HD 5200
Watch Dogs launches on PC alongside the current-gen and Xbox One versions on November 22. A PlayStation 4 version is due to follow on November 29.
-
Thanks man.. I don't suppose you would know if my pc will run Watchdogs max settings in 1920x1080?
i5 3570
Gigabyte GTX 770 2GB
8GB Memory
i guess those r the only things to know when it comes to fps in games?
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
