Watch the ‘Watch Dogs: Legion’ Trailer, a Game About Building Resistance in a Cyberpunk London

Couldn’t agree more. In another thread here I said it feels more like a hostile invasion and looks more like Homefront: The Revolution.

I know theres a few armed police in London but the trailer makes it look occupied (Which is probably what they’re going for to justify the use of violence).

I do wish they went full non lethal and maybe set it closer to present day

1 Like

I don’t even know about forcing an entirely non-lethal approach, I mean its not like London’s lacking in lethal weapons. Like, if your actually lethal option as a player is limited to knives, and a few of your enemies like armed police or whatever do have guns, thats a more interesting and setting appropriate dynamic.

Yeah that would have been interesting as well. It’s just guns really that are the glaring issue, there simply isn’t that many in London.

It could be really interesting escaping from police as they escalate from a simple attempt at an arrest to calling in lethal fire arm units.

1 Like

This interview goes into more about how the game works.

Looks like the NPCs will have schedules, friends, lives outside of Dedsec, and there will be consequences for going in loud. NPCs will have friends and they will react to you murdering said friends.

I’m not 100% on how the mechanics work in regards to how long you can play as 1 character, but I hope you can play as 1 for the whole game if you’d like, so we can get some “Helen%” speedruns of this game.


Looks like Clint is bucking against the corporate messaging:

Because of its post-Brexit setting and themes about rising up against corrupt governments or authorities, politics are undoubtedly a part of Watch Dogs Legion despite Ubisoft’s statement last week about the company not taking political stances in its games. Creative director Clint Hocking believes that it’s up to the player to come to their own interpretations, but says that Legion is absolutely a game with a message.

“Depending on how you want to interpret what [Watch Dogs Legion] has to say, you are the one that’s going say whether it’s political. But this game has something to say and it’s a lot about things that we see in the world that are really messed up right now,” Hocking says. “Hackers corrupting democracy, the rise of surveillance, the separation of rich and poor, and the increasing wealth gap about people being displaced around the world. All of these things are happening in the world. We’re making a speculative fiction that [looks to the future and asks], well, what if these things go very, very wrong? And what’s our response to that?”


While I am glad it is possible to read his words as implicitly left-leaning, and I appreciate that he is asserting the game “has something to say,” this is really just a rephrasing of what the Ubisoft VP said the other day in a interview.

“Yves has told us that our goal is to give players all the information we can, and then let them choose which sides of our game worlds they want to explore,” Francois said. “We want them to decide what they like, what they don’t like, and if and how to change their minds or the way they play based on that information. It’s about more freedom for the players.”

“And that relates back to people making up their own opinions and our ability to create more mature games that are nuanced, versus being black or white.”

The implication from Clint is “the information provided will prove it is political if you think about it,” but he isn’t pushing against the company line very hard here.

1 Like


“Hackers corrupting democracy, the rise of surveillance, the separation of rich and poor, and the increasing wealth gap about people being displaced around the world. All of these things are happening in the world. We’re making a speculative fiction that [looks to the future and asks], well, what if these things go very, very wrong? And what’s our response to that?”

You know that this is the dream of the alt right, they’ll take this ball and run with it

I’m turned off when I hear that said as well.

But, here’s the honest truth from me, I really enjoyed Doom (2016) and Titanfall 2 and Prince of Persia: Warrior Within and so on. I feel a bit more uncomfortable when the violence is gruesome AND we’re supposed to feel morally righteous about it (such as Wolfenstein).

As I’m getting older, I’m starting to like games with brutal violence or mass shooting less and less, but I still enjoyed replaying Modern Warfare (2007) recently, which is way more brutal than I remembered it being as a young teenager. I also really enjoy Die Hard, ever since I was a young teenager.

In fact, I had recently been talking to a close friend about how much I’m disturbed by all the hyper violence in many of today’s most popular games, and then I took her to see Die Hard in theaters for the first time. I was excited, as it is a movie I’m very fond of, I know many of the lines by heart, I was excited to share it with her. When we walked out of the theater, I was smiling and gleefully asked her what she thought. She looked at me, unsure what to say, sitting for a while in discomfort until she said “that was extremely violent, toxic, disturbingly masculine violent.” I sat there, as my smile turned to sad realization. She said “It’s almost like you flipped a switch in your head, like you became another person who enjoys indulging in ultra violence, are you not critical of what you saw? Because to me it looked like you were smiling from beginning to end.”

I struggle with this, and I know I’m a huge hypocrite. But I’m trying to minimize my exposure to this stuff in my life, especially mass shooting games. I may always enjoy games that are well made, but I do want to limit my support of games and films that are hyper violent, indulgently violent. For me, it’s not about going cold turkey, but having discretion and speaking up about this stuff, so hopefully most of the fun AAA games won’t rely on brutal violence to have a fun time. Same goes for films and TV. I’m trying to limit exposure, and either enjoy the extra free time or play/watch other things that don’t get as much attention.

I apologize for the long, personal rant, but I just wanted to be honest. I hope it helps anyone who might have similar feelings.


This is interesting. I and definitely others had a similar thing with Watch Dogs 2. The violence you can act upon the world just doesn’t make sense, you’re just a 20 something hacktivist who is able to just blow people away blase without any consequence. So for me I played it fully as a stealth game, completely pacifist. I basically RP’d as the character following the rules of the road, walking places and having no mini map.

Basically to combat the dissonant violence I fought it with the mundane, making the game more ‘real’ and true to life.

1 Like

I think that’s admiral, and something I would probably enjoy doing as well, but when I evaluated the game, I would still have to criticize it for having senseless violence.

Essentially what I’m saying is, we (players) shouldn’t have to be the ones that make your (devs/company) games less violent. If a game offers both a non-lethal approach and a hyper violent approach, it’s still a violent game. I do greatly appreciate when games give us the option to play non-lethal, and I choose that almost every time when possible. I do think it’s great, it’s one of my favorite additions to MGS2 and Splinter Cell. But I still have to admit that there is also the option of violence. I come down harder on this when there are more, and/or more interesting, violent options than non-lethal. Or when the violent options are presented as cool and slick al la Taken (2008).

So while I do enjoy when games have non-lethal as an option, I can’t let it be a get-out-of-jail-free card. I then evaluate how violent the options are and how they are presented, the tone, etc.


I agree completely, I enjoyed the game probably more than most. But the senseless violence is arguably my biggest critique of the game (followed by some lazy stereotypes).

But yeah, just by offering a violent option, it’s straight up a violent game. Especially because that’s how most players will choose to play.

For me i’d love if violence was made significant and meaningful. For example in Watch Dogs 2 I played pacifist up until the point by good friend was killed by a street gang, it made sense for me to then act out of pure emotion and finally pick up a weapon (even if the end of that particular characters arc is a load of BS and they shouldn’t have died) .

Similarly, in Watch Dogs 3, with it being set in London, there should be next to no firearms, yes we have a few armed police and there is a higher concentration of them in the capital, plus there’s criminal guns I guess but guns in general are non existent in the UK. So take the guns out and make the police use them as an absolute final option, added with perma death this makes perfect sense to me, it makes violence meaningful in some way. If for some reason the player picks up a firearm, they shouldn’t have buckets of ammo, but just the one magazine in an attempt to not normalise gun fights.

Sorry, I went of on a bit of a tangent.

1 Like

No worries, and those suggestions sound good to me! While I’ll always advocate for more games to just flat-out NOT have shooting or other brutally violent options, your suggestions for Watch Dogs 3 sound much more sensible than what I saw on Ubisoft’s stage.

I also appreciate it when games don’t have bucket loads of ammo, or several dozens of enemies to slay. Though it may sound hypocritical to say, having more sensible depictions of violence would go a long way in my book.

1 Like

To be fair the “police” in the trailer look like future cops and have murder drones. They’re not meant to be the current “old bill” of the UK. Having said that I do wish the game didn’t seem so shooty, and I don’t accept “taser bullets” as a valid non-deadly option. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

eh that’s not really sustainable without some rather obtuse narrative gymnastics (no really the guns are all fingerprint/dna coded in a way you can’t hack even though the whole conceit of the game is that you’re a hacker) since the first time you catch a gunman unaware what’s to stop you from having a gun?

Oh yeah I seen, but there’s the Old Bill in the trailer looking sad and defeated because they’ve been big leagued by Albion the anonymous fascist big bad. I bet we end up saving Scotland Yard and restoring The Met.

Yup agree with the silly shock rounds, it’s no different to pointing and shooting an AR

1 Like

i’m gonna hate the gameplay of this game and the inevitable Good Cops Bad Interlopers narrative but i am excited to mod it to turn off all the shit i don’t care about and instead just walk around my city and see what they’ve done with the place. it’s been forever since i saw my home in a game.

notes from the trailer so far:

  • they’ve erased a few blocks btwn picadilly circus and charing cross, deleting Dover Street Market and Kanada-ya, which i’m upset about altho it makes sense
  • good to see pedestrianisation retained around leicester square etc? and the public transport in the game
  • they haven’t shown anything inside the square mile yet - skirted fully around it with kings x, tower bridge, camden, and the west end - so i’m interested to see how intricately they model the historic city, which is the area i know best
  • i’m wondering how far out they’ll go with london? i could imagine them stopping at camden and brixton, but would be interested to see if they get as far as hampstead in the north / crystal palace in the south

i’m literally only interested in this bc i want to see a simulated london lol but damn am i interested in that