Thoughts on the Division?

[JaKandDaxter]

I'm looking forward to playing it one day. Its nice to see a big publisher took a huge gamble making a true RPG shooter hybrid. In this day and age where mainstream gamers who want instant gradification and one shot kills. While condemning any game that does otherwise, such as Alpha Protocol. Which is a problem I personally have as just because its not you're kind of game. Doesn't mean it's crap. Gaming does not revolve around your preferences. And there were true shooter rpg hybrids like Deus Ex back in the day.

Bullet sponges shouldn't be an issue for those who play RPG'S. Like how many times do you whack someone with a sword and magic attacks before they're winded. Let alone their eventual death if they don't manage to kill you instead. Or the massive attack differences between an starter sword and a rare sword. Double standards I say.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Its Ubisoft attemp at gears of war with the slice of destiny. just another cover based shooter and no proper single player campaign sold at full price. waste of time

It's almost impossible to not be dumbfounded by reading your posts.

The games is a TPS with cover mechanics = Gears of War

The game has iron sights = Call of Duty

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

Its Ubisoft attemp at gears of war with the slice of destiny. just another cover based shooter and no proper single player campaign sold at full price. waste of time

What do you consider to be a "proper" single player campaign? Because the entire game is pretty much single player. You can invite other players to play the game in co-op, and there are other players in safehouses, but other than that and the Dark Zone, player interaction is non-existent.
Now, admittedly, it gets very boring very fast playing by yourself, but the game does still have a story and a campaign like structure to fulfill that story.

In my experience the game really isn't that different from other single player open world games.

 

[CritialGaming]

snip

It is absolutely okay and encouraged for developers to have plans beyond launch for their game, especially when they expect a game to have a continuous player base.

However I think there is a better way to handle it than the way they are doing it now. Like I said, it feels shitty for them to talk about multiple expansions for a game BEFORE it even comes out! I'd rather them wait a few weeks after launch and they get a feel for how people are playing their game and problems that may exist.

For example in the Division, players have collision, meaning assholes can block doorways or objectives just because. Maybe if they waited a couple weeks before announcing DLC, they could see these issue with the objectives and the loot system, and do something about it in the DLC. I'm not saying they can't patch or fix it in the DLC now, but this is just an example.

Another example, six weeks after launch, a large section of the player base is now at end game. Loot has become a problem, say loot in the final zone is has a new but unbalanced stat, call it "Pierce Bonus". An entire stat isn't something that can be just hotfixed out. It requires re-tuning of content and PVP balancing around the fact that the stat is no longer there, or works differently.

But, OH NO, the first expansion is already submitted for release. Which means that the stat has to remain in place for the first expansion and they cannot rebalance it before launch, instead now the problem is going to get worse because more powerful weapons and gear will be in the 1st DLC.

Players will then realize the game is an unbalanced mess, and your player base will drop, thus severely reducing not only player base and the overall player experience, but those players who are mad at the balancing wont buy your DLC's, the players that stick around wont buy your other DLC's because there is no one left to play with, and thus your game is fucked.

Why? Well because you announced shit before the game even released and you were unprepared for problem players would encounter 6 weeks after launch. But since you already have promised dates for DLC releases, you can back down and delay your DLC releases by the WEEKS it would take to rebalance what you would need to rebalance before launch.

That is why I do NOT like this DLC practice.

 

[shrekfan246]

It's like a developer releasing Tetris and expecting me to get excited for some reason.

Coincidentally, Ubisoft recently did that as well.

OT: Everything I've seen and read about The Division makes it sound like a decidedly serviceable game. One that functions, and provides ample dude-killing opportunities for those who want a bit of dude-killing. It also most assuredly sounds like a game that would not hold my interest in the slightest, between the nonsensical use of the Tom Clancy branding and the boring "realistic" loot and apparently a pretty low amount of enemy variety and lack of meaningful story (I've heard literally nothing mentioned about any story in the game, and in fact have yet to hear someone even mention the name of a single character present within it).

 

[NiPah]

It's like a developer releasing Tetris and expecting me to get excited for some reason.

Coincidentally, Ubisoft recently did that as well.

OT: Everything I've seen and read about The Division makes it sound like a decidedly serviceable game. One that functions, and provides ample dude-killing opportunities for those who want a bit of dude-killing. It also most assuredly sounds like a game that would not hold my interest in the slightest, between the nonsensical use of the Tom Clancy branding and the boring "realistic" loot and apparently a pretty low amount of enemy variety and lack of meaningful story (I've heard literally nothing mentioned about any story in the game, and in fact have yet to hear someone even mention the name of a single character present within it).

That's exactly it, I got burned on Destiny and I've been trying to find out if this is worth buying. I have a group of friends who were interested, but if it's just a MMO grind shooter with little to keep you there but repeated enemies and very little story... eh.

It doesn't help that it's development played out very similar to destiny, delayed several times, promised epic DLC, and when it was released it was done with relatively low fanfare.

 

[Zaeseled]

My thoughts on The Division; started the beta, couldn't jump, game felt like it was more on-rails than a Time Crisis game.
I have a couple friends who bought the game and played it on launch day but they haven't played it after that.
Kudos to whoever got further than unlocking the base cause I sure didn't. Most boring game I've played in years.

 

[Ryotknife]

I played the beta and the official game.

The beta was terrible. It was boring as hell, nothing to do, and the enemies were way too easy. The actual game however is fun. They upped the difficulty of enemies so that now boss/elites kinda require you to be a coward and slowly plink away at them. Me and a friend took on a squad of 3 elites and a half dozen or so minions. Took us roughly 15 minutes to kill them, and we were constantly falling back. By the end, the battle took place over 3 city blocks.

Dark Zone is a mixed bag, especially where PVP is concerned. Too many exploits. But we had a squad of 4 rogue agents actively hunting people and camping extraction points, so it made it a little exciting that we had to keep checking their position to make sure we steered well clear of them.

 

[major_chaos]

I'm about 8 hours in and happy with the 60$ I spent on it. It's a solid third person shooter with well executed if not deep RPG mechanics, the factions have serviceable variety in both unit types and behavior, and the story provides a decent background. Also the ruined city setting is something I absolutely love and The Division's portrayal is great. It's far from flawless, with the lack of true endgame content being the biggest problem right now, and if you don't like the core shooting you aren't gonna have a good time, but I can see myself play quite a few hours before the April deluge hits.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I'm... enjoying it, but my friends and I have set up a pretty serviceable team. I'm a sniper with Smart Cover and Mobile Cover, a friend is our LMG man with a scanner and shock turret, and the other is our shotgun totting medic.
The story is kind of fun, I appreciate how much of it is background exploratory stuff and in some cases environmental. The shooting is serviceable, the gangs are kind of fun... Though we feel Tenderloin missed out on a gang called The Butchers who wear Pig Masks and Butcher's Aprons.

I haven't checked out the Dark Zone, PvP content isn't really my thing, and I can see that there won't be much to do after all the missions are done outside of say Challenge Mode. But I'm enjoying it, might look into the expansion packs when they come out.
Though if I play the game by myself I get pretty bored pretty quick. Missions are pretty repetitive.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Do you like Destiny/Borderlands-style gameplay where you'll be having mostly-identical firefights in order to find gear slightly better than what you have?

Do you have several friends with whom you can play often?

If you can answer "yes" to either or both of those questions, then odds are good that you'll enjoy The Division. If not... you may want to wait for a sale.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I bought it on impulse, didn't read a single review.

I'm enjoying it. The mechanics are really really simple, yeah, but there are little things about it that I like. Setting up turrets is pretty fun in battle. A lot of fun I've had is when I go up against a particularly high level tank enemy, and I have to outsmart the AI. Have barely touched the Dark Zone, imagine I'll get to that when I hit level cap or beat the game.

I can see why people are shitting on it. The story is pretty bad. The graphics are amazing though. The other day I was walking down a street and in the window of a building I saw the outline of a character standing behind a closed window. When I stopped and looked at it, the shadow crept down as if to say "Oh shit, he saw me." and I shot a bullet at the window for giggles. They did a really really good job making the setting feel like it was a living city.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...it's a game.

PvE is largely pretty stock-standard - you point guns at enemies, hit them with numbers and watch their health bars go down. Pretty inoffensive, though there is a large lack of feedback with the gunplay that made it pretty dull in long runs (plus enemies get bulky later on, which really slows things down). The story is non-existent, but the graphics are amazing. Loot is... generic, nothing to really write home about, doesn't have the same flavour as Borderlands or Destiny.

PvP is better, since you can go 'rogue' which is quite fun to do. I have no clue what the actual point of the PvP is - something about securing loot for pickups or whatever - as all my friends and I did was fight people and become Rogue agents, then go around fucking with everyone who tried to stop us.

Get it if you're excited for it, but personally I'd pick it up on the cheap. Graphics might be pretty but not worth dumping 60-100 bucks on it.

 

[Catfood220]

I'll be honest, I had very little interest in the game to begin with and then I watched Jim Sterling's gameplay video and that killed off any interest completely. It seems to be a really mediocre third person shooter where you walk forward a bit, shoot some guys, walk forward a bit, shoot some guys, walk forward a bit, shoot some guys, walk forward a bit, boss fight...which is just shooting some more guys. Which I suppose is a complaint that could be levelled at all third person shooters, but at least most try to shake things up to keep things interesting. For all the complaints levelled at something like Uncharted, at least those games put some climbing or puzzle solving between the shooting.

Maybe it was just his video that made it look dull, there may be more to it than that. But as it stands, I won't be buying it.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

It is absolutely okay and encouraged for developers to have plans beyond launch for their game, especially when they expect a game to have a continuous player base.

However I think there is a better way to handle it than the way they are doing it now. Like I said, it feels shitty for them to talk about multiple expansions for a game BEFORE it even comes out! I'd rather them wait a few weeks after launch and they get a feel for how people are playing their game and problems that may exist.

For example in the Division, players have collision, meaning assholes can block doorways or objectives just because. Maybe if they waited a couple weeks before announcing DLC, they could see these issue with the objectives and the loot system, and do something about it in the DLC. I'm not saying they can't patch or fix it in the DLC now, but this is just an example.

You seem to be confusing what should be expected to be patched (stuff that disrupts the game, like player collision) and what can be expected of DLC (adding more content). You also display a stunning lack of insight into how game development works.

Here's the deal: The Division wants to keep going at least through all of 2016 and it is a game that hinges its' success on its' multiplayer aspect. This means that it has to keep people interested, especially the early adopters that will be finished with the campaign, at max level and with good (if not great) gear a few weeks after launch. This means that the first DLC has to hit in a month or two after release, or people will move on to another game. Since you can't reasonably expect a significant DLC for an open world AAA title to have a development time of 6 weeks (given 2 weeks to gather information after release) that means you have to start with the DLC much earlier then "after release", preferably you outline the DLC as early as the start of production, so that everyone understands the time tables, what extra features it will add into the game and what kind of work needs to be done with it (is it mechanics heavy, plot heavy, item heavy or area heavy?). Then, once you are several months from release, you start moving team members over to DLC production to get it stared (art and design coming first, programmers and artists later) and to keep to the time table.

That the Division has three DLC planned in the coming six months is a sign that Ubisoft didn't do the Bungie mistake of overestimating the retention power of their base game. It is a sign that the Division is intended to be a Ubisoft flagship title for some time and that Ubisoft will be devoting effort to keeping it a living game. It shows that Ubisoft has done their homework and isn't free-wheeling without having a clue what they need to do to keep their multiplayer game alive.

Your idea of how to handle DLC has been tried. Destiny did it and you can see just how well received their one major DLC in 1,5 years time has been received by the (quickly dwindling) community.

 

[CritialGaming]

Snip

I am not confusing game design or development. I think Publishers and Developers are confusing game design, especially lately. They want a game to having lasting appeal for the entire year? Be a flagship of the company? Why then did they simply not make the game interesting enough to keep players for the year? Worked for Bloodborne and that's a single player game.

Destiny did promise expansions out of the gate, there was an ad for the next two expansions right in the box. The Division is following the same pattern as Destiny, even going so far as to make the base game mediocre. Now there is nothing to say that the expansions for The Division wont make the game amazing, because they very well could. But you said that they are releasing three DLC's over the next six months? Why not just launch in six months (At the height of summer where all the school goers could sink hour and hours into the game) with the full and better experience? Better yet, why don't people just wait six months anyway and buy the "complete" edition for a cheaper bundled price and end up with a better overall game?

You see, what you said about releasing the game to get players started and then release extra content in stages down the road does make sense....for an MMO. But The Division is not an MMO, it is what people generally call MMO-lite, or a persistent multiplayer game with MMO-like progressions. And unlike what a base MMO would release with, The Division simply doesn't have the content, the combat, or the gameplay to keep a large audience for what they planned. This isn't Diablo, where each class has a wide array of gear and skills to gather to keep you doing the same repetitive loop once you have been the story.

Now again I will say this, because people don't seem to read everything I say. THE DIVISION IS NOT A BAD GAME IF YOU LIKE THE KIND OF REPETITIVE COVER-BASE GAMEPLAY AND GRINDING LOOT MECHANICS. I REPEAT! IT IS OKAY TO ENJOY THE DIVISION!

My opinions are only that of myself, and as they are MY OPINIONS, I say that the DLC practice of a game like this is a poor way to go about things. Release the full experience, don't cut the ends off of it to sell us another 60 dollars worth of DLC content.

Also let's get one more thing straight. This has nothing to do with wanting to keep people playing for several years. Ubisoft doesn't give a fuck if you play their game. Hell they want you to pay for the game, and then NOT play because then they don't pay the server space for your playtime. What they want is for you to pay enough of the game to want the DLC's. So maybe you play for a month, stop, then buy the next DLC and play that for a bit, then stop. Rinse and repeat. It is a way to milk more money from people rather than giving people a complete and smooth experience from the get go.

 

[LordBaztion]

My only issue so far is that I can't visit Carlo's Bakery (at the moment).
Actually I have only play like an hour (AC Syndicate is more engaiging), my friends are already on level 20ish and I'm still on 4.

 

[Ninjafire72]

It's... ok. Nothing fantastic. But enjoyable.

Played the Closed Beta, currently playing duo squad with a friend. I find it does enough to keep me interested, but definitely not enough to actually have me enthralled. I imagine this is what WoW players must feel like, invested enough to keep going but subconsciously aware that you're not having much fun.

Let me be clear, this IS an MMO. Mob spawns, loot grinds, stat min/maxing, it has all the hallmarks of a skinnerbox-style MMO. Friend even claimed he felt like he was playing Diablo.

Personally, I feel gameplay is a lot more like Borderlands than Diablo, with more focus on cover-based tactics than run-and-gun. If you liked Borderlands (in particular the new game+ grinding) then this will certainly interest you.

Basic gameplay is cover-based shooting and... that's it. Shoot at enemies, take them down, move on. It does get monotonous, but mechanically speaking it's actually pretty satisfying. Since all enemies are bullet sponges and take a few seconds to kill, you have to actually think about how you approach a fight; can't just run in dropping thugs left and right. Instead you have to prioritise targets, pull flank manoeuvres, and generally approach gunfights with a tactical mindset.

Story is pretty decent as well. Basic premise is that of a virus epidemic, with paper currency being the transmission vector. People get sick, people panic, people go crazy. To me it feels like classic Tom Clancy material, and the plausibility of it (at least compared to T-Virus zombies) is a welcome change.

One thing I really do enjoy is the Dark Zones. These are your PvP areas, with players bumping into each other while searching for rarer-than-normal loot. The idea is that it's the same as PvE, but friendly fire is turned on; so it's totally possible to kill other people, take their stuff and run for the hills. Doing this puts a big red target on your head, encouraging others to hunt you down.
I had the most fun in ages during Beta, involving an innocent victim I murdered, 3 PC squads on my tail, and me running for my life in a 5 minute chase through the alleyways of New York. Felt like Harrison Ford in The Fugitive. This aspect of the game is probably the part that will keep players hooked, although as it stands it does lack an overarching goal. Currently it's just grind for loot, watch out for bandits, rinse repeat.



TLDR; Mediocre, but servicable. Combat is actually engaging (because enemies actually take thought-process to kill), story is decent (if uninspired), and PvP can be a barrel of laughs if you're willing to murder (but overall is kinda pointless).

 

[CaitSeith]

Well, The Division somehow is getting good reviews from both reviewers (albeit from smaller gaming websites) and the players themselves. This, of course, is based off Metacritic.

I was sensing an "even worse than Destiny" vibe from this thing. Everyone in the YouTube comment section hates it (although they hate everything else too). YouTubers' don't seem too happy with it either, even those who traditionally stay positive on games. Or, well, are paid to stay positive. Most complaints range from shitty gunplay to poorly implemented PvP to just general boring-ness.

The positives I have heard are that the graphics and environment are great. And... uh, yeah that's it.

If it isnt evident, I really have a hard time understanding why people are enjoying this game so much.

So, has anyone played the game? Do you think its good, or is it as boring as it looks?

The funny thing about the Metacritic scores is that some fanboys seem to be going after the reviewers who gave it a low score (like Jim Sterling). I don't judge a game for its fan base; but when fanboys tell the reviewers that they should be removed from Metacritic and that they shouldn't be reviewing anything (all this decorated by the latest trendy insult), just for not giving it a high score... well, if that's the kind of people I'm going to meet in that game, I think I'll pass.