Zero Punctuation: The Division

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
Yeah, The Division is a looping repetitive mission of watching the grass grow on a wall while eating flavourless yogurt on rice crackers while listening to Coldplay cover The Grateful Dead. I grew tired just looking at it. I really can't explain exactly how they accomplished this.

I've grown tired of seeing so many games just using the standard style from popular engines, and this reminds me of them. And there isn't anything unique about the level design or any interesting weapons or game play ideas. Even Destiny had a lot more interesting things to look at like the armours/weapons, and some of the bosses required you to find/expose their weakness, and they could be intimidating. Oh well.
 

kekkres

New member
Jun 5, 2013
55
0
0
hentropy said:
If only Ubisoft would take a cue from the guy who made Bear Simulator and just quit. Go into... fuck it I dunno, slot machines like Konami? The mobile market is already shit they can't shit that up any more. Can they?
Its really sad because back when they where smaller, they used to be my favorite game devs ever, between the 90s and early 2000s. Similarly people dont remember, but EA used to be the golden boy of gaming, who would save small developers and studios who couldn't get work with the bigger publishers, and they actually did, with sincerity, keeping teams together and funding their unique Ips. I feel like the increasing size of a company is almost exclusively a net negative both for the companies passion for games, and for its actual interest for the consumer.


Bilious Green said:
It's bland and tedious and utterly tone deaf, yet it's still selling it's socks off. Ubisoft are geniuses at finding the lowest common denominator and honing in on it with laser like precision. I hate modern gaming, for every Witcher 3, we have to endure a dozen Call of Dutys, Destinys, and The Divisions. I think I might pack it all in and take up golf or something.
I mean i can see where you are coming from certainly but the number of bland or bad games, Imo, Doesn't really matter. As long as we get at least a few Gems that will become classics each year, and a fair number of solidly good games, I think I'm happy, I barely have enough time to play all of those. I mean Disappointment is a thing but im not sure anyone seriously expected this game to be anything else.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
Michael Prymula said:
Samtemdo8 said:
I am really missing the day when Tom Clancy games had balls.

Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory were masterpieces.
I was so pissed when Patriots got cancelled, and I was even more pissed when I heard Siege would have no single player campaign at all(a Tom Clancy game with no campaign is the biggest oxymoron i've ever heard).
R6: Siege Terrorist Hunt mode is really good though, very playable on solo and in the end not that different from the Swat 3 campaign.
 

Makabriel

New member
May 13, 2013
547
0
0
martyrdrebel27 said:
XDSkyFreak said:
martyrdrebel27 said:
i guess there's something wrong with me then, because i've been loving the division. the gunplay and combat in general is some of the most intense, hectic fun i've had in a game in a while.

I would recommend finding someone to play with and never not playing with them though, this seems infinitely more fun when i'm at my friend's house "LAN" ing this game.
Let propose this possiblity to you: the game is shit stupid boring, it's your friend beeing there and cracking jokes that makes the scenario exiting and fun. Anything, even a damned dentists apointment can become fun with friends around to make jokes and entertain eachother. I bloody hate it when people come up with this excuse "oh play it with a friend, it gets fun". This doesn't make the game good or fun. It means your friend is good and fun to hang around with. The game remains as boring and shity as it was when your friend was at his house jerking off.
but that wasn't really the scenario. sitting there talking and playing, we sound more like the scripted bs from the e3 presentations. we actually talk about flanking and position and all that haha. it really is the gunplay i like. i play it alone as well, frequently, and i still love the gunplay, but it's better with a friend, as all things designed specifically for multiplayer are.
Right, it's not the "friend being there cracking jokes" that makes it fun. It brings a whole different level of complexity to the game. Tactics, flanking, talent and skill synchronization. It makes it almost a different game.

And that's not a bad thing.
 

Tohuvabohu

Not entirely serious, maybe.
Mar 24, 2011
1,001
0
0
Michael Prymula said:
Yeah it does look like a huge rip-off, i'm surprised at how rabidly some people are defending Ubisoft's business model for that game. I don't give a damn if the microtransactions are just cosmetic, as far as i'm concerned microtransactions of any kind have absolutely no place at all in full-priced games(especially not for items that were previously free in the beta in Siege's case).
Wait, what items would those be?

All the expanded content the game is getting. New operators, new maps, and new modes - Doesn't cost anything.

Personally I can't be arsed to care about cosmetics. They're skins. They don't mean anything or change anything. Seems like a waste of energy, and petty zealotry to slag off any game for any kind of inclusion of Microtransactions, even if its microtransactions are purely cosmetic, and the game is getting a steady stream of content which doesn't cost any money.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
it seems yatzee and most people commenting here forgot to notice what the game is. No yatzee, the game is not a 3rd person shooter, its an RPG mmo with guns. entirely different genres.
 

Tohuvabohu

Not entirely serious, maybe.
Mar 24, 2011
1,001
0
0
Michael Prymula said:
I don't know specifically as I haven't played it myself, but many people who played it during the beta and then later bought it complained about it.
I honestly don't know what this refers to. The only thing you buy is gun skins and boosters. You got a gun skin to use for taking part in the beta in the full game.

I don't give a shit if they're not charging for the new stuff, considering that more often then not, this so-called "new stuff" is just stuff that should've already been in the game to begin with, so i'm not going to give the brownie points for that.
Should have already been in? You mean that the content was already done? And that it was held back for some reason? I see people make claims like this all the time and offer no evidence to prove this is the case on the game they're specifically referring to.

And unless you can provide evidence of this being the case, then it seems like you're dismissing the content because it somehow offends your idealism instead of on facts and evidence - AKA petty zealotry


In my book microtransactions in full-priced will NEVER EVER be acceptable under any circumstances. So no, it is not a "waste of energy" or "petty zealotry" at all for people to take issue with that sort of thing just cause you like it.

Even cosmetic microtransactions still create a system of haves and have nots(to quote Jim Sterling), just cause they mean nothing to you doesn't automatically mean it won't affect other people. You might be willing to give Ubisoft a free pass on this, but i'm sure as fuck not going to do that.
Typical. I knew this special brand of outrage lacking in critical thinking/analysis was lifted straight from Jim Sterling's mouth. Nothing but naive idealism, and Zero Business Sense. You speak of Microtransactions as if they're all made the same, implemented the same, and offer the same things. Well you'd be either delusional, or intentionally disingenuous to think so, since even a brief glance across the spectrum can easily set apart the cases of pay-to-win from cosmetics which offer no relevance or difference to gameplay.

I find it laughable that anyone could point to a gun-skin which offers no impact to gameplay, while ignoring the additions of meaningful gameplay content like maps/modes/guns/characters, and find a way to whinge about it. Let me contextualize the absurd stance you profess to take using Siege as an example:

You could be standing in a new map you got for free.
Playing a new mode you got for free.
Using a new character you got for free.
Using a new gun you got for free.
Using a new gun skin you got for free.
...And you'd point to some guy's pink gun skin, complain about the fact that you don't have it, and then say 'Fuck Ubisoft'? Oh please.

Developers have looking for ways to make the most out of the games they sell for over 10 years now. Sometimes it's horrible like locking the multiplayer modes behind paywalls. And other times, it's something like selling stickers to put on your guns while bringing in maps, guns, modes, characters for free.

You also attempt to diminish my stance by saying "just cause you like it." as if I somehow lack the capacity for examination and critical analysis. Just cause I did my research, kept up with development, read the developer vision statement, examined what the Microtransactions entailed, and how they were implemented - And came to the conclusion the microtransactions in this case were inoffensive, is somehow synonymous to you as giving Ubisoft a "free pass". You on the other hand, can't even tell me what this alleged "free thing you now have to buy" is.

But hey, why do my own research, treat every game on a case-by-case basis, and and decide for myself whether the game has a problematic business structure, when I can just watch and quote Jim Sterling videos? You'll have to excuse me for making up my own mind.
 

Tohuvabohu

Not entirely serious, maybe.
Mar 24, 2011
1,001
0
0
Michael Prymula said:
And there we go again with the sweeping generalizations stemming from naive idealism and zero business sense.

Also ignoring what I said repeatedly about treating every game on a case by case basis, and researching every product. Apparently doing my research is "blindly(x3 times, apparently) worshiping Ubisoft". An extension of what you accused me of earlier about giving Ubisoft a "free pass", which I addressed was actually the result of research and scrutiny. Let's just go ahead and ignore that and continue accusing people of "worshiping" companies (?).

Interesting how deciding (again, after a lot of research) that a single product a company made equates to believing "Ubisoft can do no wrong". Despite the fact that we were speaking of a single game. Despite the fact that we haven't factored in a single other product by Ubisoft in the entirety of our conversation. But why let that shake your idealism? I can't comprehend how anyone could jump to such a nonsensical conclusion, but then again I am speaking with someone whose barometer for reason is Jim Sterling - No wonder you're only making sense to yourself.

The way I see it, is that the fact of the matter is that years ago we were dealing with shit like Multiplayer passes, and paid DLC which fragments the community and kills an already dying game, and hampers anyone's ability to compete seriously unless they spend money. (Something some companies are still doing.) Here, we have a game which isn't doing that. For a competitive game, especially a niche one, I fail to see how this a bad alternative.

Sure you can pretend that the players of this game aren't talking about the ridiculous netcode cause they got a free skin. I mean, you'd be wrong. But hey, we're actually talking about something Siege does deserve to get shit on for, it's inconsistent netcode and bugs. How many posts did it take for us to bring up something that was an actual problem that disturbs the gameplay? No wait, we're talking about the season pass and microtransactions again. So much for that!

And yes, let's talk about the season pass. A season pass which actually doesn't offer any gameplay content other people can't get for free, it only offers people access to new characters a week early (which everyone else then gets for free anyway), a handful of gun skins, and isn't at all a necessity to the future of the game. Yes, it's a season pass that no one has to buy to get future content! Aaaaand you're whining about it.

I think it's obvious now we're not going to see eye to eye here. I'd consider this conversation over, but you can go ahead and make one post accusing me of "worshiping Ubisoft" - and then the conversation will be over. I'm sure it will be a riveting, and well-reasoned post. You can go back to watching Jim, and I'll go sleep naked on all my Ubisoft games while singing the french national anthem.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
The problem isn't that I hated this game or anything, it's that I enjoyed it when it was borderlands 7 years ago. I still like Borderlands, and it's a perfectly fine game, just it's not anything new or exciting or different.