4 Reasons I'm Not A Perfect Feminist

I usually like bigging myself up as this immaculate default setting of what a feminist is or what a feminist should be like. Truth is, I'm probably one of the worst feminists out there, which is fine since I didn't really become a feminist until 2 summers ago. I mostly examine my behaviour to make sure I'm really aiming for an egalitarian society where women won't continue to get the short end of the stick, but there are aspects that might contradict my goal but I've never remedied since they likely have little effect on my quest as a whole. I'm gonna list off 4 reasons that don't make me perfect. Who knows, maybe some of these apply to you.

1. I Like Women More Than Men

Ok, to be clear, I don't hate men. Some of my closest friends are men, I love my husband dearly and I don't know what I'd do without him, I don't think killing all men will solve all the world's problems (no matter how fun that sounds >:D). Sure, man-hating and the revocation of men's rights (not the MRM, I mean the actual rights men have) go against the idea of feminism, but plenty of feminists you've met probably do have an inherent personal bias towards women, and I'm one of them. It's not really anti-feminist to admit that really, especially since many anti-fems flat out admit that they like men more than women yet receive little to no criticism for it. But I generally feel safer around women, I trust them more, I do think we do things better than dudes, but that doesn't mean I won't stand up to injustices committed by women. Nonetheless, sisters gotta stick together dontcha know? Plus women do have more of a reason to not like men than men do for not liking women. Sorry fellas :( you're cool too though.

2. I'm Not Very Independent

Everyone knows that feminists are busy bodies who can handle anything that gets thrown their way right? Not true. I've done pretty well for myself. I have a well paying job, I'm a homeowner, I'm married to the love of my life, I miss no meals, and I'm pretty active. That said, I can also be pretty lazy. My husband prefers to cater to me on behalf of how hard I work during the week (and just because he loves me that much) and I kinda enjoy that more than I should. Don't worry, his favours don't go unnoticed and I let him know how grateful I am, but it feels a lot better to have someone make your food and keep your drinks ready for you when you want to unwind as opposed to having to do it all by myself and inconveniencing myself further. This isn't to say I don't do my share of housework. In addition to paying for pretty much all of our bills and such, I do a hefty amount of cleaning. My husband's presence cuts my workload almost in half. I'm not even factoring my Asperger's here either.

3. I Gender Things Too Much

Look, gender neutrality benefits the oppressor and no one else. So saying things like nail polish and dresses know no gender is dumb. I do refer to things like light beers and colourful juices as "girly drinks" because I don't care if they are. I want society to accept things that are considered feminine, not pretend they don't exist. Now this I actually think I should do something about, but as it stands, I won't be afraid to gender something if I think it's appropriate.

4. I Like Violent Video Games

Anita Sarkeesian's gonna kill me for this XD. You wouldn't know it, but I actually am a fan of games that are violent or have sexual themes. Hell my favourite game is The Witcher 3 despite my awareness of the sexist elements in it, such as Geralt being a womaniser. Thing is, violent video games are kind of an outlet for our frustrations, and plus killing monsters is a hell of a lot of fun. The way I see it, if no one's getting hurt, then have all the enjoyment you can from a game, even if the game in question is Grand Theft Auto. 

And those are the big reasons that don't make me a perfect feminist. And that's fine. Feminism isn't about perfection, it's about acceptance of women being humans deserving of basic rights. If any of these apply to you, then don't feel embarrassed or anything. Don't let anyone tell you you're less of a feminist or that you're the real oppressor because you're not this pristine complacent freedom fighter. As long as you're still fighting for the good of women's lives then you're as feminist as you need to be. 

Ghost Recon Wildlands review (spoiler free)

Ghost Recon Wildlands is exactly the game that Ubisoft needed to redeem itself with after the gutting disappointment known as Watch Dogs 2. I mean that entirely. I'm not gonna lie, when it came down to either this or Horizon Zero Dawn (which I might get at some point in the foreseeable future), I decided to pick this up first. Mostly because I wanted it to be Ubisoft's redemption from Watch Dogs 2. Needless to say, they succeeded. 

To start, I'm gonna go over the basics. Ghost Recon Wildlands is a tactical team based third-person shooter set in an open world environment. Now I know what some of you might be saying to yourselves right now, "oh it's The Division all over again". I promise you, it's not. Sure, there are some apparent similarities, but given how they were presumably being developed/planned at the same time and were created by the same company, it's bound to happen. Ghost Recon Wildlands is now a contemporary shooter instead of the more sci-fi futuristic shooters that the Ghost Recon series has been going in. And I think going back in time a bit was a pretty good idea here as it serves for a breathe of fresh air and diversity in the current market that is kinda saturated with sci-fi shooters at the moment. 

Before the game begins, you are taken to character creation. While I still yearn for the day a shooting game will allow me to give my character long hair (especially judging how long my hair has grown out lately), I love the customisation options Wildlands leaves me with here. My character actually does look very similar to me if I was a narc XD. You're allowed up to teams of four to embark on missions, but it is still possible to play alone (just expect lots of frustration). You're given different options for entering missions, such as driving there or parachuting from a whirlybird (which is my personal favourite). I would say you can also walk there, but I know you won't, hehe. 

The missions revolve around stopping a Bolivian drug cartel called Santa Blanca. They're a bit generic if I could be honest, and are outfitted just as you'd expect them to be. They are however very fun to fight. Upon completing missions, you can spend points and cash earned on weapons and armour. Similar to The Division, the enemies will have armour ratings and damage counters when you attack them, and can be fought at complete random whilst traversing the overworld. Speaking of that, the overworld in this game is immense. If I were you, I'd seriously spend my first moments of free time during the game just admiring the atmosphere this game gives you. The graphics are phenomenal like you'd expect from Ubisoft (excluding Watch Dogs 2). Not only is the world beautiful, but it's actually designed like a wilderness, with salt flats, woodlands, and canyons. There's no limit to the things you can do. While the missions can get repetitive, they're a hell of a lot of fun and they never feel like a waste of time. 

Now let's talk about the combat. Wildlands does not utilise a duck and cover technique (PRAISE FUCKING JESUS) and that makes sense since there's not many places to take cover behind whilst in the wilderness, ya know unless you just so happen to be stranded in the Forest of Bulletproof Materials. In that respect, Wildlands encourages you to be more risky and upfront with your playing style, a more fight or flight approach instead of just getting behind a dumpster and mashing R2 at an enemy you're barely fixated on. The controls are also very quick to get used to and easy to remember, so you won't have to worry about fidgeting when you start out like you would with any other game.

If I had to give some criticism to this game, it'd be the vehicle controls. Driving in this game isn't very fun, unfortunately. I don't mean just the terrain, I mean with maneuvering. You may find yourself nearly breaking your fingers just trying to do something as simple as shoot down a machine gun nest. It's kinda a problem when driving and spraying isn't even an option in a game where that'd be massive amounts of awesomeness. The helicopter controls? They've got sins to answer for too. Oh what's that? You want to land properly? Why, that's such a ridiculous request. Next you'll be telling me that you wanna be rushing behind road guard after road guard whilst popping in and out of combat to avoid dying in 3 hits. And we'd never do that at all (ok, I think that's enough shitting on Watch Dogs 2 for one blog post wouldn't you say?). The game, expectedly enough, had a plethora of glitches and bugs upon release day and the moments thereafter, but they were soon patched up for the most part and it runs fairly decently now. 

I have to be honest, this was the first Ghost Recon game I played since Future Soldier, and I'm glad I jumped back to the series with this installment. I bought it thinking it'd be just The Division with Ghost Recon spray painted on it and ended up realising it's more an indirect sequel to The Division more than anything else. The graphics, the gameplay, and the story all come together to make a B+ game. Seriously, pick this up first chance you get. You'll enjoy it, I guarantee you. 

My Life As a Woman with Asperger's

I'm just gonna come out with it now: I have Asperger's syndrome. And it's so refreshing to just freely say that since I've spent most of my 22 years of life keeping it in. I barely told anyone, I sometimes thought I was a freak or a contaminated wretch. But overtime, I became a bit more comfortable with my condition, and overcame it in my teens by becoming more social. I accepted my uncontrolled faults and told the world to take me as I am or don't take me at all. I put both my feet down and decided to hit my challenges head on. Now it's time I told you what life has been like as a woman with Asperger's.

To clarify, Asperger's syndrome is a minor form of autism that effects social activity. Most autistics are recluse, have difficulty carrying long conversations, and are more likely to feel embarrassed of even the simplest of actions. Autism or any of its variants is not a disease, it's a neurological disorder. The faster society gets that under its belt the sooner we can deal with it better. It effects developmental skills like reading and writing. I usually have to condense writings to compensate for my admitted inability to make huge pieces (ironically enough my blog posts tend to be gargantuan). I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was 2. I even spent most of my primary school days in a special ed class. In secondary school, I spent it wit a TA. In high school, I had to dedicate 10 minutes of free time to the counselor to discuss my progress through my classes with my condition. I always felt so alienated from my peers, and some would often refer to me as a sped, aspie, sperg, retard, etc. My Asperger's became a burden for most of my life, and pretty much no one but my family knows it.

So why do I consider it a feminist issue? Well, despite males outnumbering females in autism diagnoses, girls get ASD a lot more than you're probably told. If you look up the percentage of female autism rates, there's no definite statistic that tells you how many girls actually have it. That's because society has basically swept autistic girls under the rug, so much that I've been told that I'm faking my Asperger's. No one has anything to gain from saying they have ASD unless that person is a masochist who looks forward to the torment ahead.

Autism and Asperger's are used interchangeably but are not complete mirrors of each other. Autism is more behavioural whereas Asperger's is more academic; those respective traits are shared but one is more common in the other and vice versa. Despite the educational obstacles I encountered, I was a pretty good student throughout all my school years. In terms of behaviour, whilst I was initially shy, I attempted to be more outgoing and made good friends but still decided to keep talking on my end to a minimum. I also have a pretty monotonous voice, which has been described by those who've heard me speak as cute or even sexy at times (British accents for the win :D). I'm also kinda clumsy and trip over things at least once a day. I even trace my finger along with my hand when applying eyeliner so I know not to poke my bloody eye out. 

What does Asperger's feel like in your adult years? Honestly, sometimes I forget I even have it now. I can't speak for every case since some have low functioning autism which severely effects motor skills, but for Asperger's patients we'll, for the most part, be able to carry on with our everyday lives. I was able to land a high paying counseling job in October in spite of my condition, and I married the love of my life, so all's well that end's well. 

Autistic women are an unspoken minority, and they've been ignored for too long. We're regular people deserving of basic rights and attention. Some disorder floating around our cortex shouldn't be the deciding factor there. Feminism must provide a voice for all women, and that includes us women on the spectrum. 

Equality Vs Equity

One thing civil rights groups all profess is that they stand for equality. You know, racial equality, marriage equality, economic equality, and gender equality. The word equality is a flagship of politics. But what if I told you that equality was actually not the word we should be using? Standing for a equality is fine and all, but it's actually erroneous of oppressed groups to call for it. The word we SHOULD be using is equity. 

Let me explain how these terms are actually noninterchangeable. Now according to the dictionary, equality and equity seem like they mean the same thing. Even within the context of social rights, they seem to be evenly matched. However, equality means treating everyone equally, which actually doesn't help. Imagine it like this. You have 3 people, one man, one woman, and one child. They're all trying to watch a baseball game, but a picket fence is blocking the woman and child's views. Now equality would mean that the woman and child get a box to stand on, but so does the man, meaning the man still has the better view than the woman and the child. In essence, treating them all equally would give the privileged party more benefits and leave us one step behind. Equity on the other hand would give the woman one box to stand on and the child gets two. The man would not get one since he already has a perfect view. Equity gave the woman and child the same view the man has, but distributed the privileges to where it was necessary. 

In laymen's terms, equality would still favour the privileged classes. Equity would give benefits where needed. Instead of the term gender equality, we should say gender equity. Now I'm not entirely against saying equality in certain contexts, as I'd probably understand what you mean, but keep in mind that MRAs have a habit of twisting our words around to make us look bad. I know it can be annoying how we're always switching up our language, but you might find it'll serve you well in the long run. 

What Makes An Issue A 'Gendered Issue'?

So here's something I keep running into whenever I discuss, well, anything regarding women's oppression really. I always get these "egalitarian" types coming at me with this gender neutral bollocks. Yep, you know the ones:

"rape is a human issue. Humans shouldn't rape humans. Stop making everything about gender"

The argument typically follows this bend of logic; since men get raped as well, that automatically makes the issue gender neutral. The main problem here is that this argument is one-sided, or is used as a one-sided argument because it's never applied to when the topic of discussion is men, only women. It's become yet another way to derail the conversation and to tell them pesky womz that they should suck it up. 

But wait, you might say, what about men killing themselves as higher rates? What about most homeless people being men? What about all of those problems? What about men being drafted? Why aren't they considered gendered issues if men are at the forefront of victimhood?

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THERE'S MORE TO MAKING AN ISSUE A GENDERED ISSUE THAN JUST SIMPLY SUFFERING FROM IT MORE.

You see, in order to attach gender or race to something, the principle must be rooted in a hierarchal idea. Suicide, homelessness, and military services were not built upon the idea of men being inferior. Things like rape and spousal abuse were in fact built upon the idea that women are weaker and are to be dominated by their husbands or boyfriends. Even when women started doing the inverse, it was still widely regarded as a woman's issue, thus requiring we feminists to fix it. 

Which brings me to my next point. Gendered issues are important to recognise as gendered because it's the easiest way to combat them. Being "colour-blind" or "gender neutral" is stupid because you're essentially turning a blind eye to white supremacy and misogyny. How are you meant to attack your enemy if you know nothing about them or are not willing to see them for what they are? I'll give you an example of that. Rape is sometimes referred to as a gender neutral issue. The fraction for women getting raped is 1 in 6. The fraction for men is 1 in 71. Yep, TOTALLY gender neutral there. That's why there's violence against women and not people. Women are attacked because of their gender, men are not. 

Perhaps another more recent example was last year's X-Men Apocalypse billboard poster which showed the titular villain Apocalypse strangling the female villain/anti-heroine Mystique. It rightfully was met with outrage from women's groups and predictably they were met with backlash from masculinists. They were all like "OH BUT IF IT WAS A GUY THEN IT'D BE FINE". They didn't understand that the problem wasn't Apocalypse strangling Mystique. The problem was that it was being used as a selling point for the film. We know villains do bad things, that's common knowledge. But that particular poster was almost glorifying violence against women, which is kinda a widespread problem. 

So the next time you hear a topic about gender politics come up, instead of butting in with your gender neutrality bollocks, hear them out for a minute and listen to their language. Look deeper than the surface. An iceberg is more than what you see above water. 

Why I Won't Just 'Get Over' Trump's Presidency (And Why You Shouldn't Either)

So this is sort of a follow up to my blog post from November where I talked about what we could expect from Trump's presidency. Well I'm on the verge of flat out deleting that post because I was wrong. I was horribly wrong. There is no way at this point to dissuade me of the idea that these 4 years will be anything but rocky. I originally thought that because the GOP had disowned Trump, his policies wouldn't receive backing. Well it turns out that the GOP and Trump are all buddies again. Isn't that wonderful? 

But what REALLY gets me is peers telling me to just "get over it". I keep seeing this everywhere the second someone expresses negative thoughts about Trump. Not only is it everywhere, but it's highly insensitive to those with mental trauma over the fact that someone who represent racists and sexists is now running things. Firstly, you can't just "get over" an election result. Presidents have 2 4 year terms, and 4 years is far too much for Trump. Hell, even being in the runnings was too much. You can't afford to treat the election like a small paper cut. As much as I'd like it to happen, Trump isn't just gonna go away if you ignore him long enough. He'll announce himself every chance he gets, and his followers will do the same. 

And don't be surprised at the comparisons between Trump and Hitler because they are very much alike. All that's needed are internment camps where Muslims and Mexicans are shipped off to die (I pray to the stars above that won't happen). Trump voters should've known very well from the beginning that we would have a problem with this. You don't just elect a racist, sexist despot and just expect it to go over smoothly. And the worst part about this is that they didn't care. It's obvious they didn't care because if they did, Trump would be in his tower sucking from a pacifier and whining that no one sought him to be a leader of the country. But nope, we gotta keep them pesky womynz from even suggesting some sort of national decision. 

Which brings me to my next point. Apparently everyone cares about corrupt politicians when women are the ones with a dirt sheet. The 44 men who came before Hillary? Nah, they were all pristine model citizens. I guarantee you if it was Bill, no one would care as much. Another thing that annoys me is that people say social justice is to blame for Trump's victory. That's like saying the Jews are to blame for the Nazis ruling Germany. No, you know who's to blame for this? Racists and sexists. They were given that platform and came out in droves to grasp their opportunity to have their behaviour condoned again. You remember how they were pissing about Obama harshly penalising crimes against women and people of colour. They've been conditioned to believe that being criticised or judged for your inflammatory behaviour is oppressive when that's not how it works at all. 

And since it's relevant, I think I should bring up the Trump protests and rioters. I don't entirely hold any acrimony against them. I don't agree with their methods, but I can understand why they'd feel that way. Of course though, the privileged white dudes living in gated communities all rejoice at the reinstatement of their stock image lives. That is, less of them darker skinned fellows. Also I absolutely love the whiners going about "property damages" and how "these darn leftist crybabies are destroying everything because they didn't get what they want". It's funny cuz the rightists are up in the US government destroying lives systematically with the laws they pass. Anyone can destroy something with their hands or weapons. But the one who carefully plots the downfall of a society with nonviolent tactics is a true villain to fear. I'd be much more fearful of someone who brings me to tears with just their words than someone who just beats me up with their hands. 

There is no comparison to the far right and the far left. One holds all the power and one doesn't. The right still have a massive advantage over the left, and that advantage has been used to constantly hold down people with lives and families. White people are afraid that police will slap them with a hefty fine for doing something mildly illegal. Black people are afraid of getting shot just for being outside late at night. Men are afraid that their phone will die whilst they're out partying. Women are afraid that they'll be raped, killed, or both whilst out partying. Straight people are afraid of, well, I'll get back to you on that. LGBT people are afraid of being beaten on the side of the road for not being "normal". The left has different priorities and different concerns. Concerns that deserve and require a limelight of their own. These are human beings we're talking about here. I'd be kinda remiss if I didn't remind everyone about the tremendous amounts of racism and protest that Obama got when he was elected. Which brings me to protesting a voted election. Did you know that this is totally valid? No seriously, there is nothing paradoxical about protesting a fair election (leaving aside how it was most likely rigged). Saying the protesters are bitching that they didn't get what they want is a gross oversimplification. It's one thing to lose the election. Giving a position of political power to someone who stands for racism, sexism, heteronormativity, and a bunch of other things I can't name off the top of my head is a whole new ballpark. If your new boss was a guy who went around sticking dildos on your chair for you to sit on, would you honestly just go with the idea of "put up or shut up"? Yeah, didn't think so. 

Before I close things here, I must bring up the fact that the idea of the president not having as much power as we think is pretty much null and void. Congress is loaded with republicans, and checks and balances mean nothing if everyone is in complete agreement. If Hitler had a congressional board, I doubt the other Nazis in office would reject his propositions. At this point, all we can hope is that most of what he said during his campaign was mere jargon. But again, hope can only get us so far. These 4 years will be hard, no doubt. But maybe 2020 will be our light at the end of the tunnel. Just maybe. 

Watch Dogs 2 Review (Spoiler free)

If I had to choose a poster child for one of the most disappointingly slapdash video games to come out of 2016, I'm pretty sure Watch Dogs 2 would be a runner-up for first place. And it really pains me to say that. I think its no secret that 2016 was a terrible year for video games. Only like 2 games that came from last year were anything good, those being The Division and Uncharted 4. Everything else was substandard rubbish. ReCore is boring, No Man's Sky is pretty much the equivalent of selling hard rock albums to 80 year old people, and Final Fantasy 15 is just flashy generic edgy white boy game #42,958. But Watch Dogs 2? Oh boy do I have quite the bone to pick with this. 

Let me just be clear here, I was actually looking forward to this game. I thought it'd be the improvement that the expected series would need. Around the time Bad Blood was released for the first Watch Dogs game, I was a bit on edge about the direction the series was going in. But not only was Watch Dogs 2 the unnecessary sequel that many were thinking it would be; it might've just been worse. Watch Dogs 2 is repetitive, unfinished, and one of the most horribly unfocused games I've seen in quite a while.

Remember how all of Watch Dogs' detractors were going on and on about how it's just a pale imitation of Grand Theft Auto? Well it seems that Ubisoft took that a bit too seriously because Watch Dogs 2 is literally just GTA 5 with a Watch Dogs skin slapped on it. Sure, Watch Dogs 2 takes us to the beautiful vista of San Francisco, but that's about as far as visual aesthetics go. The textures look like an early 7th generation console game and it all just complements the cartoony atmosphere in a negative way. The game tries so desperately to deviate from the original's dark tone so much to a point where it feels like some sort of wacky sitcom from the mid-90's. 

Now let's talk about the story and characters for a bit. The game follows Marcus Holloway, aka obnoxious token black kid. He's kind of a centre of criticism for me because of how badly written he is. I wouldn't mind too much except the fact that this is Ubisoft we're talking here. These guys made the fucking Assassin's Creed games, where many of the protagonists are foreign people. How did they suddenly fuck up writing a black character? Seriously the whole game his mannerisms just scream "I'M BLACK CAN'T YOU TELL?" and it's rather disappointing given the racial diversity message this game was aiming at. But instead of a black man, Marcus feels more like what a white guy thinks black men are like when they're not being painted as thugs and hoodlums. His story is that he was framed for a crime he never committed, except not really because he was guilty of a crime when he was 11 but the ctOS system is retrying him for it. So it's up to him and his friends, who are way better characters btw, to help clear his name. Oh did I mention that's only like a fifth of the story? No really, the rest of the game is just spend doxxing and wrongly attributing other people that Marcus doesn't like because I guess hypocrisy is fun now. 

And the gameplay, my god the gameplay. Watch Dogs 2 is legit a duck and cover shooter. Not a good one either. First, the actual story can be completed in 8 hours. I'm not joking there. In 8 hours, you're done. The first game took at least a week and a half to beat. Instead of doing what The Division did in terms of making the missions challenging, Watch Dogs 2 thinks it can try and pull a fast one by "letting you play your own way", which is a total lie because the game punishes you for doing anything other than what it secretly wants you to do. Oh look at all these ways I can do the mission! Except why would I choose any method other than the one that actually is effective? The stealth mechanics? They're not much better. If you're spotted, everyone in the bloody area automatically knows your location, even if you're in a giant building. You can say it's because of their tech, but given how the only way to lose enemies is to leave the AO, that's not stealth, that's cat and mouse. Back to the shooting. This time around, Marcus is a fucking pincushion in contrast to Aiden being a bullet sponge. There's no balance here. If a bunch of enemies are raining down on you, you're pretty much forced behind cover otherwise you're dead in seconds. 

The hacking elements are a slight step up from the last game, but even then it's still the same old "push a button to fuck around" routine. You have more options this time and can select up to 3 things to do with a hackable item. Unfortunately, most of the options are inconsequential. Drive a car forward? Why would I need to do that? Which leads me to the driving. It's slightly better but the vehicles are still incredibly hard to control and are barely durable. They still don't allow you to shoot from your car, which is a shame since that's one thing that would've definitely been a good addition. 

And since this is a feminist blog, I think it's time we talked about the women in this game. One criticism against the first game was the poor representation of the female characters. Only 2 types of woman existed: the damsel in distress, and the strong character that gets killed like a punk. Watch Dogs 2 gave us Sitara, and holy fuck did we get cheated. She mostly takes a back seat and just plays music for Marcus when she's capable of so much more. I was thinking to myself, why wasn't SHE the protagonist? That aside, Watch Dogs 2 introduces female enemies like security guards and police officers, which is kinda cool. That is until I came to the realisation that I'm just gunning these women down or bashing their skulls in with an 8 ball. That was, discomforting, to say the least. 

Speaking of that, one thing I honestly did not care for was their advertisement of moral choices. The first game had these already, and it made sense in the narrative because you were playing as a vigilante. Why are they bigging this up now? Will there be more than what we were given in Watch Dogs 1? Lol nope, it's the same thing. The only "choice" you have is to use take downs instead of guns, and that makes no sense since non lethal take downs still involve the enemy being hit with moves that would kill them. Why am I being told that I have moral choices when the only options I have are to be a complete cyber terrorist or a sleuthing batterer? 

Then there's the online, which was a huge letdown. Watch Dogs 1 had a terrible online component, so them saying Watch Dogs 2's online component would be an improvement made me a bit giddy. But instead of doing what GTA 5 did, all they gave us was the ability to dress Marcus a different way and do game modes like Team Deathmatch or kill each other on the street in the open world. How am I supposed to feel like my individual self if all my fellow players are the same guy? That's like if Metal Gear Online made everyone play as Snake with absolutely no individuality. You might as well just fuck around in the single player because there's nothing worth doing in the online mode. 

Watch Dogs 1 had a pretty deep story that was complemented by adequate gameplay. Here we have mediocre gameplay with a story that barely tries, and that's not what an open world video game is a supposed to be like. Watch Dogs 1 left an influx of emotions through every player, with all of them hoping to see what was next for them, and to see it followed up with this is so disheartening. This is one of the most disappointing games I've played since Duke Nukem Forever, and I'm not even exaggerating. I may be in the minority here, but truth is, when Ubisoft announces a third game in the Watch Dogs series, the one thing I'll be thinking to myself is "at least it can't be as bad as Watch Dogs 2".