The first trailer for Watch_Dogs generated so much buzz, presenting a gorgeous, living world that looked to deliver a techno-thriller focused more on strategy and ingenuity than just action gunplay. The hype and curiosity surrounding the game was wildly positive, and ticked up a few notches once it was revealed the game was coming to next gen consoles. Then as time went on, each subsequent trailer lowered expectations. First it was the graphics didn't seem as good. Then it turned out Aiden Pearce would be using more guns than gadgets, and Watch_Dogs would be yet another game that falls into the 'mass murder thousands of people but then take the plot seriously' black hole that can make a gamer's eyes roll back in their head so far they can see down their throat. It sucks that developers and studios constantly do this. It's good they're excited about the potential of a platform or game or story, but over-promising and under-delivering is a good way to tick people off. Madden did it with their "Madden Next Gen" trailer in 2006 (and again in 2013 for Xbox One), Peter Molyneux has done it more times than anyone would like to count, and the less said about that recent "Star Trek" game, the better. Thus Watch_Dogs is yet another game derailed by its own hype train. Although it is a good game, it doesn't blow you away with any one element, and that sucks. You have to invest in it, accept that some of the things in the game are conventional, clichéd and over-wrought with strange mechanics and yes, the graphics aren't as good as expected - all things many gamers have trouble getting over, and you can't blame them. Moral of the story? Two-year long hype-cycles are bad, unless you're absolutely certain what you're doing.
