Jump to content

Talk:Watch Dogs (video game)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

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

File:The loop 125

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

collapsed
Features Standard Edition Classic Edition[1] ANZ Special Edition[2] Special Edition Vigilante Edition Uplay Exclusive Edition Limited Edition Dedsec Edition Digital Deluxe Edition Uplay Deluxe Edition Gold Season Pass
Exclusivity Australia and New Zealand Europe, Middle-East, Asia and Australia Uplay Store (Ubishop) North America Europe, Middle-East, Asia and Australia Only PC and Playstation Only PC, Uplay Store (Ubishop) Playstation Store
Game Disc Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No
Digital Download No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Needs basic game
Additional content White Hat Pack Only Playstation No No Only Playstation Only Playstation Only Playstation Only Playstation Only Playstation Yes Yes Only Playstation No
Breakthrough Pack No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Palace Pack No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Signature Shot Pack No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Untouchables Pack No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cyberpunk Pack No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Blume Agent Pack No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Dedsec Pack No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes
Chicago South Club Pack No No Yes No No No No No No No No No
T-Bone's Single Player Campaign DLC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Conspiracy Mode Digital Trip DLC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Watch Dogs Map of Chicago No No No No No No No Yes No No No No
Exclusive Packaging No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No
Original Soundtrack No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No
Aiden Pearce's cheese grater No No No No Yes No No No No No No No
"The Making Of..." 10 minute gas station video Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Aiden Pearce's Vigilante mask No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No
Steelbook No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No
23 cm (9 inch) Aiden Pearce Figurine No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No
Artbook No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No
4 Augmented Reality Cards No No No No No No No Yes No No No No
3 Exclusive Badges No No No No No No No Yes No No No No

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#Marketing_and_release and Assassin's_Creed_IV#Marketing_and_release, 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)

References

  1. ^ https://store.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/#!/en-nz/games/watch_dogs-classic-edition/cid=EP0001-NPEJ00168_00-B000000000000474
  2. ^ http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Watch-Dogs-ANZ-Special-Edition/21039721

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)  Done 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 

{{small|CT}}OS

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. }IMr*|(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 }IMr*|(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. [1] 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.[2][3] 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)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Watch Dogs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The1337gamer (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing, should be quick...




I'll be away in Hungary, so I won't be able to work on this a lot. I might edit as an IP from time to time. Samtar, this is mostly all on you. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

  • Development section needs expanding. Here are some sources to expand that are either unused or underused:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/216009/hackman_an_interview_with_watch_.php
https://www.gamestm.co.uk/interviews/interview-the-making-of-watch-dogs/
https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/05/16/watch_dogs-behind-the-scenes-with-2013s-rule-breaking-action-epic/
You can find alot more with a simple Google search.
  • Reception section is far too short. It is just a handful of quotes and a list of scores. It doesn't go into any detail and about the positive or negative aspects of the game at all. This game received over 100 reviews from professional critics.
  • There is no information about the release of the game's downloadable content. There is only a small plot summary about the Bad Blood DLC, but the article doesn't tell the reader what the Bad Blood DLC is. It doesn't cover any of the other DLC. It doesn't cover reception of the DLC.
  • The soundtrack listing is unsourced. And arguably should not even be included in the article per WP:VGSCOPE.  Done
  • Reference 71, 79, 98, 110, are dead links.
  • Extraneous detail could be trimmed from the plot summary.
  • Gameplay should be expanded. There's no explanation about what the "competitive decryption combat" or "ctOS mobile challenge" modes involve.
  • There's no information on the game's marketing campaign or promotion, which I know has been covered by reliable sources.

I could spend hours writing a more thorough review, but there is no need. It qualifies for immediate failure due to being incomplete, the presence of valid cleanup banners, and failing the first three GA criteria. I would say it is still a C-class article currently. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Thanks for your review - I'll work through these and try to improve the article. I must add I find your addition of both valid cleanup banners somewhat disingenuous - adding them before accepting the GA review, then citing them as a quick fail rationale just doesn't sit well with me. I can't fault you on your other valid points, and would like to thank you again for a speedy review -- samtar talk or stalk 15:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The outcome to the GA review would have been the same had I not added the cleanup banners. The article is missing crucial information and definitely not up to the standard I would expect from a GA article. I added them after you nominated the article, hoping that you would recognise there were issues with the article and correct them before someone opened a review. I added the expand section tag to the Reception section 5 days ago and no improvements were made. You nominated the article for GAN 21 minutes after you made your first edit to it. You made 5 minors edits and no significant contributions before your nom. You shouldn't feel hard done by because you didn't put any work into the article anyway. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (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)

@PapiDimmi: 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?

[4][5]

Inviting User:Lordtobi to the discussion.

--TudorTulok (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@TudorTulok: 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 (✉) 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)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Watch Dogs/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I will pick up this review in a day or so. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No concerns about copyright violations, Earwig's only hits were quotes. Will review section per section shortly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

  • "and its world is navigated on foot or in vehicles." - I am not sure if there is an issue with this line, but it does seem to read somewhat awkward to me ( the "in vehicles" part). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Tweaked it. Cognissonance (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

  • "QR codes and audio logs are included as collectibles,[1][2] and ctOS towers unlock map icons and side missions.[3]" - could this possibly be split into two separate sentences or separated by a semi-colon? It seems kind of awkward with the 'and's. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Implemented semi colon. Cognissonance (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Multiplayer mode can host up to eight free-roaming players,[1] with whom the player may complete hacking contracts and engage in races." - might want to add an 'other' somewhere in there. Something like this? "Multiplayer mode can host up to seven other free-roaming players,[1] with whom the player may complete hacking contracts and engage in races." --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. Cognissonance (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Free-roaming with multiple players and decryption mode, where two teams of four are tasked with acquiring and holding data, were excluded from the game's Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions.[1][2]" - do we know why they were excluded? My guess would be due to technical limitations, but if it is known why, it should probably be elaborated upon. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This originated in a Ubisoft article saying it was "more of a "bonus" than a core gameplay experience". It's less of a reason and more a description, which I don't think would contribute much to what is already there. Cognissonance (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot

  • "and Brenks retaliates by kidnapping his younger sister (forcing Pearce to comply with Brenks' demands)." - couldn't that be "and Brenks retaliates by kidnapping his younger sister, which forces Pearce to comply with Brenks' demands."? Seems better without the parentheses. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That came from the Guild copyedit, I don't care either way. Cognissonance (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Another Guild preference. Reverted. Cognissonance (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. Cognissonance (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Markowicz leaves a recording that Lille helped locate Pearce and Brenks months earlier (which led to Pearce's niece's death), and Pearce angrily tells Lille to leave." - that seems extremely awkward. What is it trying to say exactly? As for the latter part about the niece's death, it could probably be replaced with "which resulted in the death of Pearce's niece" (first part still needs working out though). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Clarified. Cognissonance (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Cognissonance: Thanks for these. I will continue this tomorrow as it is a holiday & will have some downtime then. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Release

  • "The final release date was set for 27 May 2014,[45] before its release for the Wii U on 18 November in North America and 21 November in Europe" - the "before" doesn't sound right to me. It seems that "Before" is either the wrong word or that it is missing something. If it sounds okay to you though, I am happy to strike this point myself. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It sounds okay to me. Cognissonance (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Reception

Pre-release

This section is short (only 4 sentences), but I am not sure how it could be expanded. Maybe it should be combined with another section? I am willing to give it a "pass" on this though. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried merging it with another section, but it didn't look right. Cognissonance (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Post-Release

  • "sixty percent of gamers changed their view of technology after playing Watch Dog" - nothing wrong with this point, just have to say, that is a large percentage. I think the game got its message across, don't you? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Really does look like it. Cognissonance (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Chris Carter of Destructoid liked the virtual rendition of Chicago and the detail of non-player characters, and thought the gameplay was fun." - the comma seems like somewhat of a comma splice and there appear to be one too many "and"s in that sentence. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I removed the second "and" and made better use of the comma. Cognissonance (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what you wanted, so I simply tweaked it a bit. Cognissonance (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Cognissonance (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Clarified. Cognissonance (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I chose "At". The Guild c/e changed all my prefixes. Cognissonance (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see it as a problem, it's one of the things the Guild did that I agree with. Cognissonance (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Adaptation and sequel

This section seems short, but there isn't much to say really as most of it is covered in Watch Dogs 2's article. Overall, while short I think it is okay given the lack of information available. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all the information we have. Cognissonance (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Summary

@Cognissonance: If you have any questions please feel free to let me know. I have completed my anaylsis of the sections and left my points above. Until they are addressed, I am placing this  On hold. My overall opinion of this article is that it is decent enough for the GA classification, it just has some minor tweaks that need to be done. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I went over your notes. How is the article now? Cognissonance (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I am now satisfied that the article now meets the requirements to be listed as a Video games good article. I extend my congratulations to the nominator, Cognissonance, and all other editors who have constructively worked on this article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watch_Dogs_(video_game)/Archive_1&oldid=1136389462"