Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sailar91

What do you think about The Division

26 posts in this topic

I'm sold completely on it, to the extent where I'm actually going to pre-order it to get the additional gear.  I haven't pre-ordered a game for a very long time.

 

The game can be a little vacant in the singleplayer area, which I have faith will be filled out in the full release, and the Dark Zone offers a unique experience.  The tension when waiting for a slot on the extraction chopper when there's two squads, and the thrill when you've triggered a manhunt on yourself and you last the full five minutes is amazing.

 

Add in that anything can be matchmade for those times you're rolling solo, and you have the foundations for a very robust experience.  I'm hoping in future content patches they'll expand the area of coverage, and play with New York's verticality.

 

Quite excited for this game.

Edited by LastPisTolman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the open beta for about 5 hours this weekend, with enough friends for a full 4 man squad.

 

I was less than impressed. 

 

The main gripe from me was the clash of the realism in the setting with the RPG elements. Sorry, but having to shoot a guy in a hoodie in the head something like 10-15 times to kill him was bullshit. It made every gun I tried feel insubstantial, like I was shooting spitballs and the enemies were falling down out of disgust rather than traumatic cranial injury. It worked for Borderlands, to cite one example, because of the sci-fi setting - shields were part of the world - and general lack of realism, but in The Division the disconnect between the setting and the mechanics was jarring.

 

The missions we got to try were all just a series of go-here, shoot waves of enemies, move on to next room, repeat. It was very repetitive and I was bored of them halfway through my first one in the hospital. Maybe the full game will have something more interesting, but this is what they chose to show off test in the Beta so that's what I have to judge it on. 

 

The PvP zone was just a clusterfuck of people shooting at anything that moved. Maybe I got unlucky, but there was none of the sneaky co-operation gameplay they showed off at E3, it was just crazy firefights. 

 

Not for me. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the open beta for about 5 hours this weekend, with enough friends for a full 4 man squad.

 

I was less than impressed. 

 

The main gripe from me was the clash of the realism in the setting with the RPG elements. Sorry, but having to shoot a guy in a hoodie in the head something like 10-15 times to kill him was bullshit. It made every gun I tried feel insubstantial, like I was shooting spitballs and the enemies were falling down out of disgust rather than traumatic cranial injury. It worked for Borderlands, to cite one example, because of the sci-fi setting - shields were part of the world - and general lack of realism, but in The Division the disconnect between the setting and the mechanics was jarring.

 

The missions we got to try were all just a series of go-here, shoot waves of enemies, move on to next room, repeat. It was very repetitive and I was bored of them halfway through my first one in the hospital. Maybe the full game will have something more interesting, but this is what they chose to show off test in the Beta so that's what I have to judge it on. 

 

The PvP zone was just a clusterfuck of people shooting at anything that moved. Maybe I got unlucky, but there was none of the sneaky co-operation gameplay they showed off at E3, it was just crazy firefights. 

 

Not for me. 

 

Definitely agree with the realism / RPG elements you spoke about, I forgot to mention it in my first comment. I feel like they would've benefited from going down the Borderlands route, just go crazy and make it random ass fun, instead of going for realism.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely agree with the realism / RPG elements you spoke about, I forgot to mention it in my first comment. I feel like they would've benefited from going down the Borderlands route, just go crazy and make it random ass fun, instead of going for realism.

 

Maybe they had an idea for the gameplay before they decided to attach it to a franchise? Rather than develop new IP, they may have decided later to attach it to the Tom Clancy IP, thus necessitating the realistic setting? 

 

Just speculating, but it may explain it if true.

 

The cover system, etc, was very good though. I feel that, if they'd developed a new IP to go with the game, with a setting that "fit" the gameplay, they could have got me excited. If they'd gone for something like Borderlands, with a cover system like this, and a 3rd person view so that you could customise and see your crazy character, it'd be a real winner.

Edited by StrickenBiged
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they had an idea for the gameplay before they decided to attach it to a franchise? Rather than develop new IP, they may have decided later to attach it to the Tom Clancy IP, thus necessitating the realistic setting? 

 

Just speculating, but it may explain it if true.

 

The cover system, etc, was very good though. I feel that, if they'd developed a new IP to go with the game, with a setting that "fit" the gameplay, they could have got me excited. If they'd gone for something like Borderlands, with a cover system like this, and a 3rd person view so that you could customise and see your crazy character, it'd be a real winner.

 

Yeah, I can see that. Tom Clancy's name alone probably sold plenty of copies. The same with Rainbow Six and Siege. A mix from the normal formula in the franchise, but stick a name on it and it sells.

 

Would be cool to see publishers and / or devs (no sure who decides this stuff) to create exciting new franchises, feels like we get the same franchises over and over. Horizon looks fantastic, I guess it's a risk, but it can work out if its done correctly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see that. Tom Clancy's name alone probably sold plenty of copies. The same with Rainbow Six and Siege. A mix from the normal formula in the franchise, but stick a name on it and it sells.

 

Would be cool to see publishers and / or devs (no sure who decides this stuff) to create exciting new franchises, feels like we get the same franchises over and over. Horizon looks fantastic, I guess it's a risk, but it can work out if its done correctly.

 

Remember that the Ubisoft of 3 years ago, when The Division was presumably in early development, was only interested in creating and perpetuating franchises

 

 

 

[big franchises are] what all our games are about; we won't even start if we don't think we can build a franchise out of it. 
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but having to shoot a guy in a hoodie in the head something like 10-15 times to kill him was bullshit. 

Totally.

 

Playing alone is pretty dull and boring, the game improved a lot after my friends went online

After 3hours playing the game become repetitive to me (Go to spot X, kill Y enemies, active or grab something - rinse and repeat forever without a decent story to at least guide/motivate you)

Edited by ivangutjahr
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see that. Tom Clancy's name alone probably sold plenty of copies. The same with Rainbow Six and Siege. A mix from the normal formula in the franchise, but stick a name on it and it sells.

 

Would be cool to see publishers and / or devs (no sure who decides this stuff) to create exciting new franchises, feels like we get the same franchises over and over. Horizon looks fantastic, I guess it's a risk, but it can work out if its done correctly.

 

This is a new franchise.  I don't think the moniker of Tom Clancy can really prevent it from being referred to as an exciting new franchise.

 

Splinter Cell is not The Division is not HAWX is not Ghost Recon.

 

Tom Clancy is a brand, like Nike or Coca Cola.  Its letting people know roughly what you're going to get.  Nike give you sportswear, coke gives you something to drink and Tom Clancy gives you a less than real military porn.

 

In addition, I don't agree with the sentiment that the realistic setting is incongruous with the mechanics.  If we're going to go down that rabbit hole then you should die in one shot too.  

 

Some suspension of disbelief should be granted to all games  to enjoy them, and if your imagination is so strictly hammered in by fixed conventions it limits your ability to broaden your horizons or take exploration of a concept to a whole new level.

 

I do agree that the game is empty if alone, which is why the game works much harder to make it as easy as possible to ensure you're not.  I also envision that the encounters will be something you tackle en route to a mission - the beta is a demo (for us - its a stress test for them), and I've not known a demo to blow its load entirely otherwise there wouldn't be a point in buying the game.

Edited by LastPisTolman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave the beta a fair shot, put about 7 hours into it and it just convinced me that this wasn't my thing. It's incredibly generic, both in its setting/world building and the gameplay. It basically plays like Watch_Dogs with Borderlands looting mechanics. The problem is that the loot is not exciting, the enemies are just dudes that all look the same and are bullet spongier than enemies in Destiny and the game just lacks any kind of personality. Next!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some suspension of disbelief should be granted to all games  to enjoy them, and if your imagination is so strictly hammered in by fixed conventions it limits your ability to broaden your horizons or take exploration of a concept to a whole new level.

 

It's not from a lack of imagination that I feel this way. It was because of the effect on "gameplay feel", if that's a thing.

 

If a guy, apparently just wearing a hoodie, doesn't die after 10 shots to the head/chest from an assault rifle, that just feels wrong. I'm not saying that's necessarily rational - the rational thing to do would probably be to shrug my shoulders and say "it's a game" - or that all games that use realistic settings have to adhere religiously to real world physics. All I'm saying is that I didn't like it in this case.

 

It made my guns feel weak, and that was unsatisfying from a shooter. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wachted a couple of gameplay videos of it on YouTube and don't like it. The fact that even after several headshots some enemies won't die sucks. I don't like any game, that has these kind of "bullet sponge" enemies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not from a lack of imagination that I feel this way. It was because of the effect on "gameplay feel", if that's a thing.

 

If a guy, apparently just wearing a hoodie, doesn't die after 10 shots to the head/chest from an assault rifle, that just feels wrong. I'm not saying that's necessarily rational - the rational thing to do would probably be to shrug my shoulders and say "it's a game" - or that all games that use realistic settings have to adhere religiously to real world physics. All I'm saying is that I didn't like it in this case.

 

It made my guns feel weak, and that was unsatisfying from a shooter. 

 

Then I posit that playing Uncharted should feel unsatisfying, as Nathan can take more than one bullet and walk away which by extension makes the enemies feel weak.

 

Assassin's Creed should feel unsatisfying, as Ezio can sustain multiple sword slashes making the enemies feel weak.

 

These two very popular franchises have their feet fully dipped in realism, but I would hazard a guess that element didn't phase at that point.

 

It just strikes me as an odd thing to take umbridge with, as it seems from your perspective you would never enjoy a realistic scenario being stretched. If the enemies were to all die "realistically", then it would completely annihilate the point of the game being a loot shooter.

 

There would be zero point in collecting gear, because enemies, and for balance you (because if you can shoot enemies and kill them in one shot, you definitely can kill player characters in one shot, which means you will have to die in one shot) would all by even at all times.

 

Instead, once you outgear these lower levels you get your desired one shot kills, and your strong feeling weapons.  You earn it in this game, instead of it being handed out.  Maybe this issue didn't even cross my mind as the RPG label is my most enjoyable genre and it isn't yours.  

 

I'd be interested to see how you felt about Destiny, as the concept is shared and you're shooting aliens instead of humans.

Edited by LastPisTolman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I posit that playing Uncharted should feel unsatisfying, as Nathan can take more than one bullet and walk away which by extension makes the enemies feel weak.

 

Assassin's Creed should feel unsatisfying, as Ezio can sustain multiple sword slashes making the enemies feel weak.

 

These two very popular franchises have their feet fully dipped in realism, but I would hazard a guess that element didn't phase at that point.

 

It just strikes me as an odd thing to take umbridge with, as it seems from your perspective you would never enjoy a realistic scenario being stretched. If the enemies were to all die "realistically", then it would completely annihilate the point of the game being a loot shooter.

 

There would be zero point in collecting gear, because enemies, and for balance you (because if you can shoot enemies and kill them in one shot, you definitely can kill player characters in one shot, which means you will have to die in one shot) would all by even at all times.

 

Instead, once you outgear these lower levels you get your desired one shot kills, and your strong feeling weapons.  You earn it in this game, instead of it being handed out.  Maybe this issue didn't even cross my mind as the RPG label is my most enjoyable genre and it isn't yours.  

 

I'd be interested to see how you felt about Destiny, as the concept is shared and you're shooting aliens instead of humans.

 

That's part of the fun of games - player empowerment and fantasy fulfillment.

 

Sure, you can have fun playing a really hard game, like TLoU on Grounded+ mode or Uncharted's new Brutal difficulty, where you do die realistically in 1 or 2 hits, and I do have fun in those game modes too.

 

For this type of game, I prefer to be the one that's overpowered.

 

I'm not sure why I prefer that for games like The Division (at least what we got to see of it in the Beta)... maybe it's because TLoU and Uncharted gave you more options to take down enemies beyond just shooting them, so tactical play felt more rewarding, but the weak guns which otherwise looked very realistic just felt wrong about the shooting in The Division.

 

I haven't tried Destiny but I would imagine, with it's sci-fi fantasy setting, that bullet sponge enemies would have been less likely to break my immersion because shields and other sci-fi armour types are part of the game's lore (I think). I know it sounds silly to say it, but I was painfully aware that I was Playing A Game when I was trying the Beta, because I could see little numbers popping out of the enemies' head and that he was only wearing a hoodie, etc. 

 

I worry that you're treating my feelings on this as a scientific thesis, when they're really not. It's just how the game made me feel. My friends who I was playing with loved it and thought I was being contrarian for the sake of it at the time. 

 

Edit: elaboration.

Edited by StrickenBiged
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I worry that you're treating my feelings on this as a scientific thesis, when they're really not. It's just how the game made me feel. My friends who I was playing with loved it and thought I was being contrarian for the sake of it at the time. 

 

No, just picked you for conversation purposes.  Your opinion isn't an unpopular one - and I like to understand rationale behind opinions that differ from my own.  

People's breaking points with games are interesting, and to decry realism in games is incongruent to me.  

 

There are always concessions for gameplay purposes.  Such as the Dark Zone being the only area you may you kill other players.  Why? Because the game says so - there is literally no other reason.  This should break immersion more in my opinion.  We accept these concessions because its the lesser of two evils - maybe the numbers could be done away with - i don't really see the necessity when you have a health bar also, but I guess RPGs have used this mould for so long its synonymous.

 

Its a shame that something so base prevents you from enjoying a greater whole, especially as you say your friends enjoyed and therefore I assume will buy and therefore deprive you of a social experience.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed it a lot, I played the closed and open beta and I enjoyed both of them, It was really fun with friends in the dark zone. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just picked you for conversation purposes.  Your opinion isn't an unpopular one - and I like to understand rationale behind opinions that differ from my own.  

People's breaking points with games are interesting, and to decry realism in games is incongruent to me.  

 

There are always concessions for gameplay purposes.  Such as the Dark Zone being the only area you may you kill other players.  Why? Because the game says so - there is literally no other reason.  This should break immersion more in my opinion.  We accept these concessions because its the lesser of two evils - maybe the numbers could be done away with - i don't really see the necessity when you have a health bar also, but I guess RPGs have used this mould for so long its synonymous.

 

Its a shame that something so base prevents you from enjoying a greater whole, especially as you say your friends enjoyed and therefore I assume will buy and therefore deprive you of a social experience.

 

I didn't mean to decry realism. If anything, I think they should have gone more realistic. In other games with a "realistic" setting, a headshot kills people most of the time.

 

I found it weird that I couldn't kill NPCs in the overworld too, but birds, rats and dogs were fair game. Seemed arbitrary to me, and not conducive to player agency.

 

Thank you for your concern, but you needn't worry. :)  I don't really have a schedule that allows for this type of game anyway, whereas these guys love that sort of thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo it looks interesting, not sure about physics & stuff tho bc I only watched some lets plays from the beta.

Actually I'm not that kind of gamer who plays Shooter-Games but the RPG-Part got me interested in it

 

However, I dont think I'm gonna buy it bc the pvp part (darkzone) kinda scares me... Any1 can rip off your stuff if he thinks hes funny, thats 1 thing I really hate

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this game since E3 2013 and here's my take:

 

I was hyped after E3 2013.

 

I was hyped after E3 2014.

 

Some of the hype diminished after E3 2015.

 

After playing both the open AND closed Betas, I canceled my pre-order.

 

While I think the graphics were gorgeous and the game play was smooth as hell, the overall presentation leaves a lot to be desired. Why would you lock out most of the character customization in the Beta? Heck, the demos for both Mass Effect 2 AND Mass Effect 3 allowed full customization options. If I'm going to play a game with character customization, I want to see the full extent of options at the start and from what I've seen in the Beta and in game play prior to launch, there doesn't seem to be much to customize.

 

I didn't feel any connection with the characters I met in the Beta and from what I've seen, it just seems like the story missions are set around building your base of operations - that there's no real end game. The DZ, as people have said before, is one big cluster fuck. It just doesn't appeal to me, especially if you play alone. And I personally would have liked some actual MP modes. Capture the Flag could easily be included in a game like this. "Capture the enemy's top end loot..." Instead, all I see are people killing just for the sake of killing - not taking other's loot, but just being a dick just because they can.

 

While game play was smooth, it's a one trick pony. You take cover and shoot. If it's a cover based shooter and you can close doors, why not open them to take cover behind? Also, there's nothing but taking cover and shooting in the game. There's no aspect of stealth or melee combat like what was in The Last of Us. After playing the Beta, I was embarrassed that I told all my friends about it. And don't get me started on the fact they're gonna release three DLCs with content that should have been included in the full game from the start...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Played a few hours last night and I am really enjoying this game. 

 

There is a so much to do and I love the New York setting. 

 

Also really enjoying the gameplay, some of the firefights I have been in so far have been really good. Overall I very impressed so far and I have just scratched the surface of the game. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mixed feelings. On one hand everything looks very nice, the UI etc. looks polished, but something felt off the first time i fired on an enemy. Feels generic yet fancy. I'll pass for now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't get me started on the fact they're gonna release three DLCs with content that should have been included in the full game from the start...

I think there has to be a responsible distinction made between content being withheld as a part of future DLC plans and a developer truly expanding their game over time through DLC. I get the impression that Massive falls in the latter case.

Honestly, I respect that they've been transparent with how they plan to roll out new content over the next few months. What I hate is when DLC and season passes are presented to the consumer blindly with no details around what they are really getting for their money. And what I've played so far of The Division feels like a "full" game so I have no complaints

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.