Talk:Watch Dogs (video game)/Archive 1

Platforms
It's worth noting that Ubisoft's word on their twitter was that it would be released on PC and consoles, there is still some speculation about whether the consoles it will be released on, are next gen. 80.0.148.127 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.148.127 (talk)

Elusive
"The game features an elusive online multiplayer element"

is "elusive" the right word here? the answer is "probably not" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superwesman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Developer
ubisoft montreal is the dev. been in development for 2 years. currently only confirmed for ps3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.33.182 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Not only confirmed for PS3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.159.37 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying some things between article sections
Okay, I just thought I'd point this out asap. I read in the Gameplay section that:
 * 1) Aiden Pearce is Irish-American.
 * 2) Aiden Pearce is voiced by Noam Jenkins.

Which doesn't make much sense. I mean—yes, that's interesting. It still doesn't explain why a protagonist's background details—specifically, ones that are unrelated to the game's gameplay—are in a section that mainly focuses on the Gameplay. This may be obvious, but shouldn't I have read about those things in the Plot and Development sections of the article?

—017Bluefield (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link to a wikia project?
I've been working on a wikia, which essentially is a much more expanded version of the article here. I was wondering if it would be of assistance to readers if we added a link on the article to the site; Watch Dogs Wikia. The site itself adheres to all of wikia best practices, and could offer readers who wish to go more in-depth (for things like characters, weapons, gameplay mechanics etc) the opportunity to find out more.

JBanton (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We do not link to Wikia sites, per point 12 at WP:ELNO. Thanks Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 12:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we remove the Assassins Creed 4 Easter egg part in reception?
I think we should remove it because it feels out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.42.172 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiplayer hacking smartphone
I amended the line "The second player must stay within a certain radius of the first player for the download to progress." to "The first player must stay within a certain radius of the second player for the download to progress." As it is in the interest of the First player to stay within the radius of the Second player to continue the hack. The Second will be trying to escape or hunt down the First player - I think it reads better this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.187.27 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible timeline answer
Up until now, I don't think that we've been given a definitive date of when Watch Dogs takes place. I was reading an article on examiner.com, and they noticed something interesting. There's a banner hanging over a road that says The Loop - 125th. This must mean that it's the Chicago Loop's 125th anniversary. The Loop was founded in 1930, so this must mean that the games takes place in 2055. Thoughts? I can't upload the link since Examiner.com is apparently on Wikipedia's blacklist. 173.179.92.34 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The banner is a screenshot from a game trailer (welcome to chicago), so you can provide a link to the trailer and not the article.

Yuyukorin (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)yuyukorin

Release Date
This says it's May 27th world-wide. However, I've pre-ordered it: since I live in Asia, apparently I have to wait another month for 'localisation'. If someone would like to confirm that Steam is wrong and I do get the May 27th release, it would be nice. If not... well, the release date on the page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.25.199.53 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Watch_Dogs runs at 1080/60 on ps4
does someone want to add this. http://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/watch-dogs-ps4?CMP=soc_us__gm_psblog_topbanner_3_4_14

No it doesn't it runs at 900p on PS4 and 792p on XBone at 30fps on both consoles. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Source http://www.gamespot.com/articles/watch-dogs-runs-at-900p-on-ps4-792p-on-xbox-one/1100-6419607/ 74.103.250.78 (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Release chart
What in God's name is going on with this release chart? It would appear to be classic video game trivia, which is a shame for all the work put into it. If there are highlights from the chart, they can be mentioned in the prose. And for those interested, look at the Twitter response it's getting... czar ♔  06:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While the chart is ridiculous (and that's completely Ubisoft's fault), it's completely accurate. And the Twitter response is justified to be honest. - Wattlebird (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with it as it is a well detailed table. I agree with Wattlebird, Ubisoft have created many editions and the table reflects that. People on twitter are complaining that they are selling so much DLC before the games release, not about the table. -Grokorn (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the Twitter response relevant to the inclusion of a detailed release chart? iaoth @ 13:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this table falls into WP:VGSCOPE, but it's not the reason it got coverage on Twitter; on the opposite it's a pretty cool showcase of the insane amount of editions for the same game. Actually, the very fact that there are too much editions deserves a sentence or two in the article (as covered on Polygon for instance). --JimeoWan (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I removed the chart because of WP:VGSCOPE and the Twitter stuff was just an additional FYI. Also I agree with the above about there being enough reliable coverage to mention how journalists reacted to the number of editions. This said, we haven't and don't include charts with incredible minutiae such as this in our articles. czar ♔  01:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it may fall beyond the scope of what is normally covered, given the vast amount of websites and social media have linked here for this specific information, it may be helpful to many people to leave it up until the day of release. It helps people make a choice of which version they would want to buy the game, and it is screwed up, but by Ubisoft. I feel we are doing a discredit to the author by hiding it, as the table itself is relevant for the public. That being said, maybe make it a wiki page on its own, or an outside link to somewhere. Excalibrax (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Watch Dogs Wiki has a copy of it: http://watchdogs.wikia.com/wiki/Watch_Dogs#UPlay_Pre-Order_Edition_Comparison --Mika1h (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While this is beyond the regular scope, I think it's relevant to illustrate why the SKUs of Watch Dogs are getting so much attention by media outlets today. The information is accurate, relevant, and important to the discussion. ShadowlessClick (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the information is still important, as while additional content is secondary, it nonetheless defines what this game is, and the experience people have of it, you can't just name "Watch_Dogs" the whole package. Now it's common practice to mention the existence of additional content and different editions in the article, like in those two other Ubisoft games, Far_Cry_3 and Assassin's_Creed_IV, so this seems like the way to do it. But while there is indeed no chart for these, only a couple paragraphs mentioning the additional content and the different editions, there's no way to make the information about Watch_Dogs clear other than with a chart, because of the increase in numbers and complexity of available editions. So maybe it would be a good thing to reconsider the non-use of charts for such information, because it's not going to get better over time. --ByeByeAnotherDay (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Having an excessively detailed table, in this situation, isn't making anything clear. In fact, I'm willing to bank on the chart having so much meaningless information as the primary reason for all this media attention - if anything, Assassin's Creed 4's release editions were even more convoluted (on top of retailer-specific DLC, that thing had four collector's editions), but there wasn't an outrage about it because there wasn't a table formatted as to present the information in the least flattering light imaginable. 72.235.13.240 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How does that preclude the discussion on Watch Dogs various SKUs as a notable aspect of the game? Idle Thumbs spent over half an hour discussing Watch Dogs' SKUs in relation to the game industry as whole and that podcast is composed entirely of veteran video game developers who know what they're talking about. Removing the table and not mentioning the SKU discussions at all is willingly ignoring the actual discourse about Watch Dogs and misrepresenting how it is viewed. ShadowlessClick (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, this chart has many mistakes. Just go to each site it refers to and look at what is included. When the chart was made maybe the DLCs were correct but there are a TON of mistakes now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdelirius (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pirated version in table?
Do we really need this? The fact that one of the pirated copies circulating contains a virus might be informative, but I don't think it should be placed in the table. Add a sentence or remove completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.133.8 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Did a manual undo to clean up the potential vandalism in the release table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.133.8 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014
Please change "Eleven months after his actions led the death of his niece" to "Eleven months after his actions led to the death of his niece" because the preposition 'to' is missing from the original.

79.17.152.175 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC) ✅ Thanks for pointing that out. - Arjayay (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gibberish sentence
The sentence that begins "And in all this..." does not seem to make sense. 2001:630:53:26:3035:D7FD:D5B0:4A05 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiplayer Free roam
In the article it stats "Free roam multiplayer for 8 players" only for Xbox 360, it will not have free roam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbitmcv (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

E3 video
Video shown at E3 was most likely run on a PC using an Xbox 360 controller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.210.158 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * need citation to put that allegation in. However, I'll add a paragraph about the E3 demo controversy with a citation from a website (which links a video comparing them side-by-side). Note that I'm not a gamer, don't own the game and am not an expert/enthusiast, so someone will need to improve it. But the criticism made many news site. -- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Licensed Music
Can we add a licensed music section to the wiki?

Music in Watch Dogs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.0.35.6 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers
Seems odd to include such a full synopsis of the plot. Do other works of art (books / movies) have the full plot given away? Adrest4 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, almost every single Wikipedia article about a book, film, television episode or video game contains a full synopsis of the plot. If readers want to avoid spoilers, then they shouldn't really be reading a section called "Plot". -- Rhain1999  (talk to me) 21:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

ctOS vs. CTOS
The game only uses "CTOS" for the stylized logos - nowhere else in the world. On the other hand, whenever characters talk about it, the subtitles always use "ctOS".

Plus, the code for CTOS is like clunky boilerplate code compared to simply using ctOS

—017Bluefield (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate Content
Story section has been repeated starting from text: "===Story===" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.144.166 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 03:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watch_Dogs&diff=612332935&oldid=612313283 }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 03:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dummied-out graphics
Trolling Kotaku I saw that a modder found the graphic files that were in the previews. I'll trust people who've actually been keeping track to find a place for this, or wait to see how the story develops. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception
I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so I didn't change it myself, but the last couple sentences of the Reception section (under Pre-relase) are very poorly worded and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.242.79 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed it so that the year is specified instead of "the next year" and made it clear that the entire paragraph is covering pre-release. - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Should Angryjoe be added as an reviewer? He is generally popular. Heres his review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOISheIuU4k --  Lightspeed2012  05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of 'IP' to mean 'game series'
Several times in the article, 'IP' is wrongly used to refer to a game-series, even linking to the Intellectual Property article. I'm aware this is common in gaming communities, but does it really belong on Wikipedia?

Wootery (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a term that's become common to refer to a specific game franchise, and that includes Watch Dogs specifically. If it is an abuse of the term, it's used "incorrectly" by reliable sources, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia, in this instance, is reflecting what reliable sources say. That's exactly what Wikipedia should do, so yes, I do think it belongs here. - Aoidh (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nexus 7
There is a link to Nexus 7 which is a disambig link. The reference to it is a dead link. No clue which version of the tablet this was meant to be. - Galatz (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Name
Shouldn’t the title and mentions of the name of the game be changed from “Watch Dogs” to “Watch_Dogs”?

The game is titled “Watch_Dogs™” on Steam. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk |  contribs  ) 01:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TMRULES, we "avoid using special characters that ... are included purely for decoration" (e.g. Se7en, Driv3r, ADR1FT). The same applies here. – Rhain  ☔ 01:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hm, all right, then. Thanks. ―  PapíDimmi  (  talk  |  contribs  ) 01:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mention graphics controversy in the lead
I'm not that much of a gamer and i never played this game. But i recently came across a review of watch dogs 2 and it started with a bit on Ubisoft making a sequel despite the controversy about the graphics in watch dogs 1. That's also all i know the game for as a layman. I've seen or heard it referred to in several discussions on why you shouldn't pre-order games. I think the graphics controversy should be mentioned in the lead. PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Steam score
On steam, 35% of those who bought the game gave it a negative review. This means its review score is "mixed". I feel the professional reviews and the sales only tell part of the story. The people who bought the game based on the positive professional reviews were apparently often disappointed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't include user reviews or aggregate user scoring because they are self-published sources and therefore not reliable. Negative fan reception can be mentioned if it subject to coverage from reliable secondary sources. e.g. No Man's Sky, Mass Effect 3' ending. This is outlined at WP:VG/USERREVIEW. He WP:DUE in mind as well. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a good way to balance the picture. Steam scores, while self published, are reliable in the sense that they are from people who actually bought the game, including showing the hours played. And the reviews that show up on top often have hundreds of likes. As opposed to 1 or 2 (independent?) editors checking a non self-published article. Especially in large numbers, i find those scores more reliable. As do many gamers. I wonder if that's all been weighed in the policy against aggregate user reviews when it comes to steam specifically. So however we do it, we need to find a way within WP policy to avoid this bias. I'm not an avid gamer, and i don't even own this game, so I'm just pointing this out. PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Steam scores, being self published, are not reliable in any sense, from the view point of Wikipedia policies. It's been discussed many times over the years. The clearest example right now is Grand Theft Auto V, a game long held with high reception from users, now showing "Mostly Negative" recent and "Mixed" overall reviews on Steam. Has nothing to do with the game, and everything to do with users using the system to punish Take Two for their mod stance. This happens all the time, when groups on 4chan and reddit organize to bomb scores one way or another. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are exactly the kind of things that don't influence the review scores on release, nor the sales numbers, but that i do want to be weighed in the advise whether i should buy a game. And they're about the perception of the mass as opposed to the perception of a few reviewers. If i research this topic 100 years from now, the perception of the mass is what i want to learn about. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The perception of the masses changes drastically from week to week or when the site in question purges obvious bombing efforts. Either way, they are against core Wikipedia policies, and that's unlikely to change. -- ferret (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter Connelly as the audio lead/composer
Should Peter Connelly be added in the infobox or not?



Inviting User:Lordtobi to the discussion.

--TudorTulok (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there, as previously I stated, per the infobox documentation we do not include minor composers in the infobox (Brian Reitzell is the primary composer, having done the entire soundtrack); specifically, the credits say "Additional Music by: Peter Connelly, David Kristian, Pavel Maximytchev" (also noting here that you have exlcuded the latter two). In your second edit, you tried to occupy the |sound= parameter, and again per my edit summary which points againt to the documentation, the |sound= parameter is used for the sound chip or arcade cabinets, not for any sound-related credits (also, if you were going sound credits, the credits says specifically "Audio Designers: Peter Connelly, Ashley Read, Sebastian Thomas", where again the latter two were left out [and Connelly is not their lead, he is actually outsourced from Ubisoft Reflections]). Further, also outlined previously, IMDb is not a reliable source per WP:Citing IMDb, and Metacritic is not reknowned for its superb credits listings either; your best bet are either reliable sources or the credits in the game itself (as quote twice above). Considering this, your most recent revert does not prove any necessity. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Weak sourcing, and per infobox documentation, only the credited lead composer or sound personnel should be in the composer parameter. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Metacritic and IMDB doesn't establish reliability for credit listing (as websites like IMDB is user edited), as per Lordtobi and Ferret we don't include minor composers in the infobox. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)