Watch_Dogs’ Multiplayer: Imagine The Possibilities

Who Will Be Your Watch_Dog?

At the end of Ubisoft’s E3 2012 Watch_Dogs Demo, we saw the game’s protagonist Aiden Pearce drive off after completing his objective. Being pursued by a police helicopter with a spotlight in the air and vehicles on the ground, he hacks a nearby drawbridge and causes it to rise up. He then proceeds to jump the gap, preventing any police vehicles from following. However, it is what happens briefly before his escape that has the potential to be a groundbreaking experience for players. 

You're Being Watched

Pearce receives a “WARNING! Intrusion detected” message on his mobile device. The same device we’ve seen him use to control the city. This seemed to coincide with the arrival of the police. Seconds later, the camera pulls out to reveal another man on a nearby rooftop. The man’s name appeared over his head similar to how a teammate or enemy’s name would appear in certain multiplayer games. The man’s tag was “Bixxel_44”. Bixxel received his objective: “Track Pearce and protect him… at least for now”. Bixxel_44 just became his “Watch Dog” if you will.

Protect Pearce

There are two things I’d like to point out: First, the way the perspective switched from Pearce to Bixxel_44 is an interesting way to transition from single player to multiplayer. Second, Bixxel_44’s handler told him to track and protect “for now”. This opens up several options for how the game could work. One that I thought would be interesting is a city with an underground security organization or two that tasks players with certain missions. Imagine different organizations set up throughout the city that will pay you to collect information, track and protect clients, plant viruses, etc.

The difference between multiplayer and single player would depend on which missions you decide to take and what decisions players make during the mission. For example, using lethal force would lead to law enforcement getting involved which means Pearce would need help to escape. The camera would zoom out to your multiplayer avatar and you would receive your mission to protect him. Protecting him should be done in a number of ways to provide the different players with different options. Taking a non-lethal approach could lead to escaping by your own merits, depending on the mission.

Single player missions would obviously put you in the role of Aiden Pearce, but taking on any of the contracts available in the city would put you in the role of the character that you create from the ground up. Character creation could consist of you leveling up and obtaining new gear, gadgets and skills that allow you to control more of the city. Ubisoft could provide players with a 2-in 1 multiplayer experience, providing co-op and competitive objectives at the same time. You will essentially be working with other players to achieve a goal, say protecting Pearce. However, at some point in the mission both A.I and other human players with their own goals will combat you and your team.

If Ubisoft can manage to keep multiplayer restricted, this game has the potential to be new and exciting. Let me explain! Firstly, not all players will want this dynamic type of transition into multiplayer. Therefore, players should have the option to play a straight up single player campaign. In this instance, the player never loses control over Pearce regardless of the decision made within missions. Players should be able to make this choice early, perhaps at the start screen. They should also be able to change this on the fly, perhaps in the options menu.

The second thing is players should be limited in how they communicate. There shouldn’t be a lobby for players to trash talk each other. I would completely eliminate the use of voice chat as well. The reason for this would be to insinuate the objectives and make players feel like they are playing single player but with a few anonymous partners/enemies. The objective each player receives would be specific to that player. For instance, if the player cap per team is 3. One player is tasked with eliminating the enemies around Pearce, another is tasked with jamming the A.I enemy’s communications and the third could maintain control of Pearce. Just a thought!

The intriguing parts of this idea are the different components to the experience. If a player decided they would just like a standard single player experience, that option should be available. However, the default option would be this dynamic multiplayer experience like nothing I have ever played. I do not know what Ubisoft has planned for their multiplayer, aside from what they’ve given away. However, I do know that the possibility for something mind-blowing is imminent. I would suggest keeping an eye on Watch_Dogs.

So what did you think of my idea for multiplayer? Would you opt out and prefer the standard? Do you have any ideas for how multiplayer could play out in this game? Let me know in the comments below and don’t forget to subscribe and follow the blog (see right panel).

-GamerBloodline.

My Top 3 Most Anticipated Games from E3 2012, Part 3 of 3.

Watch_Dogs

Every year when E3 rolls around, I am usually excited. However, it’s mostly for the showing of the big three publishers. Sure EA, Activision and Ubisoft have some awesome experiences, but the Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo’s line-ups are what usually dominate my excitement leading up to the event. This year was a bit different. Sony managed to give me two games to be excited for. One was a complete, yet welcomed surprise (Beyond: Two Souls) and the other, basically a confirmation of my steadily rising excitement (The Last of Us). When Ubisoft took the stage at this year’s E3, I was expecting lots of awkward blabber and a showing of some of their moneymaking franchises (Assassins Creed & Far Cry). I was not expecting them to reveal a new IP that would actually send chills up my spine, but that’s exactly what Watch_Dogs did.

The premise of Watch_Dogs revolves around a computer system (ctOS) that controls everything around us, including the cities we live in. Ubisoft, with the above video poses the question, “If computers control our cities, who controls the computers?” I was immediately hooked; they were blurring the line between my reality and fantasy. These are the kind of conspiracy theories I’ve debated about quite often in recent years. Don’t you just love it when it all comes together? I do!

The name's Pierce, Aiden Pierce.

Watch_Dogs is an open-world, action adventure set in a fictionalized version of Chicago. The game follows Aiden Pierce, an “anti-hero” of sorts, who can take control of the city and use it as a weapon. I know what you might be thinking, “an open-world city to explore”, hmm haven’t I played this game like a billion times? Well, I love games, but if you’ve played any game a billion times you probably no longer have hands. Anyways, check out the gameplay below and if you are not intrigued, then I guess I am wrong and I except defeat.

Was that club awesome or what? Did you see that security guard get “handled”? What about when he saved that kid from the Lion? Okay, so there was no Lion, but did you feel the vibe of this game? How Aiden was able to get a bio of the NPC’s around him. They are not just there, existing to fill the world; each person in the game has some sort of back-story, a life if you will. The ways we will be able to interact with the city and its inhabitants has me excited. I have a lot of information on my phone; old voicemails, text messages, pictures, etc. I am willing to bet many of you do as well. What do you think would happen if someone were able to walk around with a device of their own and essentially hack-in to our devices to siphon information from them? Let’s just say I’d rather be the guy doing the hacking.

Grand Theft Assassins from the makers of Splinter Cell

Yes, you will still be using your standard hand cannons and boom sticks to get the job done, but the on stage demo shows both lethal and not-so-lethal means of combat. For example, wasn’t that traffic pile-up insane, yet tactical? And what about his melee weapon? That shows we can use non-lethal force, right? Let’s just hope Ubisoft gives us some choice in the matter, which would just make this game even batter than it already seems. This is a modern game, so you know there is multiplayer. I know what you’re thinking, “something does not belong”, but I implore you to remember the Demo. Remember how another character took over at the end of the Demo? Well, that was another player. So, imagine the possibilities. 

Everything is connected

There are still many questions to be answered about Watch_Dogs, but this is what keeps us excited until the game actually comes out or more announcements are made. Questions like, what the NPC’s information can be used for as we learn about them? Also, and more importantly, when is this gaming coming out? Speaking of which, that is the scary part. The demo was running on a “high-end” PC, and is promised to release on PS3, 360 and PC in 2013. However, many believe or more accurately fear, that this will be a “Next-Gen title”. That would suck because it means we would have to wait longer to play the game, but if it’ll look that gorgeous. Bring on the Next-Gen. Also, what about Multiplayer? During the demo and interviews following the developers made sure not to divulge any detailed information on Multiplayer. This is without a doubt to keep us excited for their game, but can you blame them?

So what did you think of Watch_Dogs? Is this a game you could see yourself playing? Are the apparent similarities to GTA a turn-off? I have posted a few links below where journalists in the industry give their take on Watch_Dogs. These links contain a bit more pieces of information on the game, especially the first one that gives some insight on multiplayer.

Want more info on Watch_Dogs check out these links.

MP1st, IGN, Kotaku

Also, check back here on Wednesday as I describe what I hope to be Watch_Dogs’ Multiplayer experience. Trust me it’s awesome!

-GamerBloodline.