Cabbagehead
Member
I didn't give a opinion.
The Division - Review Thread
- Thread starter digitalrelic
- Start date
I didn't give a opinion.
But you think his is bad smelling, ya?
when do you get the time to play
Cabbagehead
Member
Oh i don't know maybe if its wasn't just one reviewer on IGN that gave a opinion. That would make more sense. If you really want to be objective or subjective. Rather then one review seemingly representing the whole sites opinion on the game. Regardless of intent, it's always nice to have a least other opinion or two on a game. Since I'm sure he wasn't the only person that's played it at IGN despite being assigned to it .
Like I said - it's dumb to let ONE single reviewer review a game which works best while playing coop.
And it's a bad idea in general.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
amazing thread
a mediocre cover shooter filled with boring UbiSoft standard filler game design got the score it deserved
Putting limiters or restrictions on reviews sounds like a dumber idea to me.
Cabbagehead
Member
Yeah that's a little uh thin foil hat straight up. But people do have a hate boner though for good reasons and circle jerk reasons.
How is playing coop a restriction?
It's like someone gives you Monopoly to review but without any other players.
Cabbagehead
Member
How is that a restriction? it's just a different format for a different type of game. But i think that's a personal preference thing. I like three man crew reviews or two just to have a balance of opinion, otherwise one reviewer from one person seems like the defacto say. Regardless of a person ability to form their own opinion even though a lot people don't without needing confirmation aka confirmation bias.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
That's what other reviews are for. Different opinions.
Its not a game that requires that.
If you want to tell people how to play/review games, that's probably better suited for an individual thread.
It does not requiere that. But giving it a score solely based on an experience that does not mirror the possibilities nor includes "the other half" of the game isn't great either.
There were reviews of Street Fighter 5 that didn't include impressions of local multiplayer.
It's not uncommon for reviewers to miss or uninclude things from reviews and build opinions soley based off of experiences.
Most of the time almost every reviewer out there has some form of bias, no matter how subtle it might be.
Its not happening 100% of the time, but it does in most cases. And I have learned to accept that.
That subtle bias is the reason why Rockstar can get away with so many shitty things regarding GTA (mostly gameply/control issues) and similarly that is why a game from Ubisoft (due to their shortcomings more often than not) will be judged harsher than it should have been.
I am pretty much convinced that if The Division , the exact same game we have now, was instead made by Rockstar, it would have a better overall Metacritic score.
And in similar fashion if GTAV was a Ubisoft game it would fare worse in Metacritic.
By that I dont mean that suddenly Rockstar's "Division" would get 90 metacritic average, or that Ubisoft's "GTA" would get 80, I am just saying that I am pretty sure the scores would be somewhat more favorable/unfavorable accordingly.
Its not happening 100% of the time, but it does in most cases. And I have learned to accept that.
That subtle bias is the reason why Rockstar can get away with so many shitty things regarding GTA (mostly gameply/control issues) and similarly that is why a game from Ubisoft (due to their shortcomings more often than not) will be judged harsher than it should have been.
I am pretty much convinced that if The Division , the exact same game we have now, was instead made by Rockstar, it would have a better overall Metacritic score.
And in similar fashion if GTAV was a Ubisoft game it would fare worse in Metacritic.
By that I dont mean that suddenly Rockstar's "Division" would get 90 metacritic average, or that Ubisoft's "GTA" would get 80, I am just saying that I am pretty sure the scores would be somewhat more favorable/unfavorable accordingly.
texhnolyze
Banned
You have no idea what you're talking about.
That's not the point here. I'm talking about the general misconception of letting one person review a game.
You're just trying to defend the numbers.
I think 8/10 is a fair score for TD.
It's a good but not great game. Lots of running around doing exactly the same thing over and over again.
It would have been insane for the reviewers to score it with 9s and 10s.
I have no friends playing the game, yes I do.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Straight Edge
Member
And there are people saying it's the greatest game they have ever played!
captainnapalm
Member
I completely agree with this.
There's a suspension of disbelief required when playing the division because of the modern setting and how real firearms work, but I hope those treating enemy's high time-to-kill (bullet sponge factor) as a negative realise that's a deliberate design decision so that players have a chance to use their skills and be pressured into fights that last a long enough time to be pushed and pulled around a cover set up when challenged by the different enemy archetypes.
Personally I love doing the same things over and over in games and The Division nails it.
I can understand why you don't like it or find it lacking content (which is correct for the Endgame portion, that not even half the players will ever reach) but like I said.
The general idea of 1 reviewer = 1 score is a bad one.
Cabbagehead
Member
No doubt that is a factor and it's evident by the game communities reaction in general. But the game does have it's flaws and missteps and thing's it can and should improve on. But it's not a 6.7 game and in my eye's that not a very good game if it gets a score that low. In my opinion it's a bargain bin score. Though it's also not the greatest game in the world or Oblivion level but it can get there.
No salt needed, just stating facts.
Unless you just take opinions and reviews at face value, reviewers are supposed to have some type of standing and merit. XD
texhnolyze
Banned
The game does require you to play with other people, whether it's with random or your friends. By playing alone, the reviewer(s) aren't going to experience certain content of the game that require group play. It's mandatory.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Why?
AncientDiety
Banned
What makes his opinion bad and you not?
I think the game is mediocre too. Why is my opinion bad? What makes your opinion better?
captainnapalm
Member
The Division certainly is grindy and a bit repetitive. In the way a game like Borderlands is as well.
I admit that if the New York City winter setting and the visuals and the presentation and the game's polish didn't totally appeal to me, I might be less inclined to embrace its grindy nature.
Borderlands 2 I just got very bored, because the humor gets lame fast, and the combat was a lot more tiring. Here the atmosphere sucks me in.
Cabbagehead
Member
As i stated.
The game is not bargain bin level trash. But as i stated it's also not god tier and in its current state with the 100 hours (plus the extra beta hours) or so i put in and will put in if the update's are good. It's at least a middle ground 7.9, with ways to improve if Massive is competent enough or it could turn out to be shit later on. Because it has the social elements in place and other aspects to reach higher and other area's to explore with single player.
digitalrelic
Banned
Damn, that IGN score is really surprising. Considering most of the "In Progress" stuff they were writing up was positive, I was expecting an 8.0-8.5.
This game has been a strange one from a review standpoint. It's still holding strong to an 82 on Metacritic, yet almost all of the most well-known, major gaming sites have panned it.
I'm still firmly sided in the "love it" corner. It has it's flaws, but it's an excellent start to a new game franchise and is a solid 8.5/10 from me.
I've edited the OP with updated Metacritic/Opencritic scores, and added IGN's review.
This game has been a strange one from a review standpoint. It's still holding strong to an 82 on Metacritic, yet almost all of the most well-known, major gaming sites have panned it.
I'm still firmly sided in the "love it" corner. It has it's flaws, but it's an excellent start to a new game franchise and is a solid 8.5/10 from me.
I've edited the OP with updated Metacritic/Opencritic scores, and added IGN's review.
Cabbagehead
Member
You're not the talking point here though.
You're not a professional reviewer for video games/nor an editor, on a well known site with millions of members looking for confirmation. That's the context of the opinion.
Also you can question people's opinion and opinions can be bad or good. That's what happens if you put it out in public, the word -opinion- is not a shield wall.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
So your opinion somehow overrides his. Honestly, you just sound foolish. Your obviously just upset that websites gave "bad" score to a game you love.
You should probably go back to the OT where likeminded people call ign a "joke". You know, like how children discredit others opinions.
AncientDiety
Banned
You never answered my question...his opinion is as valid as any other reviewer. Just because ign is a big site doesn't mean they should suck up to every big AAA GAME.
His review makes a lot if legit points.
So they should of rated it higher even if they didn't think it desevered it, just because they're a known website?
That was me, hi!
I can say this about nearly every major outlet that gives out numbers.
The Division is really popular right now, that doesn't strictly mean what is popular is all that good. Still, surpising score, but the complaints seem legitimate.
BattleMonkey
Member
Problem is, the game doesn't really present much in the form of dynamic encounters. Instead bullet sponge enemies make for dull repetitive tasks as the AI typically just does not much but the same exact thing for like 5 mins till they are dead. These "boss" encounters are mind numbing. Heck look at another bullet sponge rpg/shooter that did it better, Borderlands. The boss encounters had variety, the enemy tactics would change, the enemy forms would change, new attacks would be introduced, etc. In the Division the AI is not brilliant, and many of these sponge encounters involve nothing but a boring back and forth of trading fire till the boss dies.
The enemies in the Division don't really change, the encounters play out the same, with many being simply two sides in cover popping out to damage, and duck down to avoid return fire.... the exchange just goes back and forth.
Even Destiny boss encounters had more variety.
Cabbagehead
Member
I like how you put words in my mouth, weird that's what you took away from that. I guess you're also stuck in you're opinion.
"Opinions are like assholes"
Everyone's got one.
Also upset and confused are two different things, plus IGN has been a joke for while. Where have you been? I didn't need a score from them to establish that fact.
I will agree . But Destiny lends itself to that aspect from the jump though, but even then the game's boss encounters still lack variety.
Dude that's not what I'm talking about. So i guess their opinion does matter and you've proven that fact and their opinion as IGN is from one person's opinion. It does matter that it's from a big site as we have threads like these to prove that they do.
That's def. true for normal mode but you should try playing on harder difficulty.
The encounters change with that, the enemies roles become important and you can not brainlessly shoot all the time.
Skills and positioning become important, things like aggro can become a thing etc.
Also every faction inside the game uses different tactics against you.
E.g. LMB can hack your turrents and tools and turn them against you so you have to leave cover etc.
Always-honest
Banned
That's very true. They need to do something about this imo.
It's more fun with friends though. It becomes more of an exciting battle with three friends.
But they need more variation for sure.
Cabbagehead
Member
I think we all agree on that front. It's weird that the LMB, Rikers and Rioters don't have big boss encounters. Like the Cleaners do... its a very weird choice, plus they need more non enemy factions to actually interact with (Because the JTF suck ass) and other enemy types here and there to spice it up.
Shoot throw in some near future robot combat canine's. Companies are working on that stuff now.
One thing I find interesting is people complaining that guns aren't "cool" enough or don't do enough special things when they actually do!
I can understand the looks thing or wanting to have a shot gun that shoots bees... Or something I guess
But I've gotten guns that blind enemies set enemies on fire, regenerate health , how is that not cool/different? I'm waiting on an electric gun.
I mean I played destiny to level 22 I think and never had any gun that shot ducks that spit knives or something like that.
Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks.
I do hope that future incursions /missions have enemies that do similarly different abilities and I think some already do, pretty sure snipers on the last level blinded me with a green light
I can understand the looks thing or wanting to have a shot gun that shoots bees... Or something I guess
But I've gotten guns that blind enemies set enemies on fire, regenerate health , how is that not cool/different? I'm waiting on an electric gun.
I mean I played destiny to level 22 I think and never had any gun that shot ducks that spit knives or something like that.
Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks.
I do hope that future incursions /missions have enemies that do similarly different abilities and I think some already do, pretty sure snipers on the last level blinded me with a green light
It seems the game is extremely dull solo, which is a shame. I've played the game nearly to 30 completely (for the most part) in a full group. The final 2 factions you fight are much better in their tactics. The LMB are pretty good at flanking you and drawing you out. My group did a "repetitive" Assault the Stronghold encounter the other night against them. It was a constant evolving fight forcing us to utilize the cover, call out focus fire, etc. It was honestly really, really fun. Because each of the missions takes place in a different environment, I find each of them exciting and fresh. It's a flawed game, but it's the most fun I've had with a video game in a while.
BattleMonkey
Member
Barely, it's essentially MMO Lite gameplay when it comes to aggro management. The most difficult aspect comes from dealing with players who aren't organized more than fighting a tough encounters. But the AI even at harder difficulty does not get smarter, they just get deadlier which makes mistakes more punishing. The encounters still are an exercise in tedium unlike more varied boss encounters that are actually fun like in most MMO titles.
Always-honest
Banned
A Boston Dynamics breakout game. I'm in.
Similar threads
- Featured