Support NeoGAF

[Fantastapotamus]

Feel like the answer to this question will make me sick.

I doubt you'll ever get an answer to this.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I think only left-wing lunacy would conclude that any organization other than the military would have the funding and know how to preserve civil obedience amidst such chaos. People in the US riot over the death of career criminals. They riot when their guy is losing the election in a country that practices democracy.

If you ask me i'd say the people in the US don't protest enough. I don't even know what you're talking about tbh.

I'm so busy nowadays that I haven't really had time to stop and think about what I don't like about this game and it's premise, I just know that the game is just too cynical for me.

I wonder if a number of the issues stem from this game being made outside of the US. It's possible that they weren't fully aware of the baggage terms like rioters and looters have here.

They do seem a bit tone deaf

 

[Granjinha]

Pot-kettle-black. You don't get to sneer down your nose at the article then complain about people sneering at you.

I"m sorry, i didn't sneer at anyone but the article. If that offended you to the point of being that way to me... Well, i really don't have anything to say.

 

[VariantX]

We just can't have a simple shoot and loot game can we?

Then put it in a complete fantasy setting. If you put it in a realistic setting then yeah, people may draw parallels to things going on in the world. It's no different than other media.

 

[PBY]

i think youre missing my point. but no one seems open to actually talking about it rather than just sarcastic drive by comments.

im not saying the article is in ANY WAY wrong. im saying i think its trying too hard.

im asking, is the division the type of game that should be analyzed this way? is its story trying to say anything at all? what are the themes at play here? what kind of points is it trying to make? what ARE the writers going for? or, is the division saying something by not saying anything at all?

like im not looking for the deep themes concerning a chicken crossing the road in crossy road. but thats a game played by millions of people too. so does just "X number of eyes on this" lend itself to needing to be analyzed in this way?

Every game should be analyzed like this if there's enough to discuss. It doesn't matter what "you're looking for" thematically - the creators developed a world that says something, and its completely worth discussing.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

The only thing that actually bothers me within the context of the game (ie the only thing that actually gave me pause) is sneaking up and gunning down the rioters who are stealing stuff off bodies. The game I assume is implying that they killed the person which is meant to justify your actions, but unfortunately they don't show that. For all you know, they just came across the dead body and did what anyone else in this situation (including the agent you play) would do. It would have gone a long way if they had made those encounters more nuanced. Instead of them already looting the dead body with no context, make it so you come across them while they're in the act of holding up the person (you could then get a chance to save them and maybe get more XP or an item from the victim). Maybe you could even threaten them with your gun drawn and they might be scared off or try to fire on you. Even if they just added clear dialogue that they killed this person in cold blood would go a long way.

Also:
"Within the first five minutes of the game you’ll gun down some guys rooting around in the bins, presumably for “looting” or carrying a firearm."

I don't think this ever happens. I'm pretty sure they're always looting dead bodies that they presumably killed. It's just not super clear the first time (which like I said is a problem). Otherwise there are some really good points here.

EDIT: There definitely some points that I think the author is reaching though. Specifically the analysis of the enemies doesn't sound completely factual (I can't tell the race of any of the rioters for example). I'm not all the way through the game though so I can't totally comment on some of that like the origin of the cleaners.

 

[jond76]

Never once have the rioters come across as mostly black (or black at all really).

The whole article feels of forcefully shaping the game to fit their perceived outrage.

 

[captainnapalm]

While it’s easy to think of The Division as based on the 9/11 terror attacks, I’d argue it’s more consistent with Hurricane Katrina. The parallels could fill an entire article -- the joint relief agency/military response, homemade “help” banners, stranded civilians, shelters, and struggle to restore utilities -- but the most pertinent are the reports of rioting. I say reports because it’s now taken for granted that initial rumors of looting and violence during the hurricane were overblown. While some people did steal TVs, most of the thefts amounted to desperate people scrounging for supplies.

This goes back to my first point. The situation in the game is not analogous to Katrina AT ALL. Society didn't completely break down there. Government was left completely intact.

As one of the comments on the Killscreen article points out, if you're going to criticize the game's politics, at least accurately portray the premise before making completely inaccurate comparisons.

 

[IvorB]

I don't have the full game yet but in the betas I embraced the article's reading of the game. I role-played as an ammoral, self-serving, semi-psychotic character who only joined up with the Division to gain access to guns and equipment with no interest in saving anyone or "taking back the city". As such I had no issue gunning down anyone or engaging in any criminality myself. I was part of the elite that had guns and equipment and I leveraged that. In a messed up dystopian world I used the Division badge to gain a leg up in the apocalypse and ensure my own survival. When I finally get the full game I will surely continue in this same vein.

 

[Briarios]

I find it really odd that people are dismissive of discussing issues on a discussion board. I like what's being said in this thread even if I don't agree with it all because I'm learning stuff and getting new perspectives.

Just ... weird.

 

[JaggedSac]

This is asinine. Nobody is arguing that it'll change your political ideology. Literary analysis has existed forever, and it's an important way to create context for the society that the literary work was created within. Very few things are going to brainwash you, but the general level of accepting certain things can be used as a starting point for addressing actual systemic problems.

True. The society the literary work was created in was French. So French people are making these gross misjudgements of American society.

EDIT: Sorry, Sweden.

Never once have the rioters come across as mostly black (or black at all really).

Is this true? Anyone got video of this?

 

[stuminus3]

But the looters shot at me first. I was just trying to work out the controls.

 

[LexW]

Sanitation workers ARE middle class. Five years on the job in NYC and you're making 80k. The leader or one of the main guys owns a construction company. Their rationale for burning everything is to protect their homes and way of life - it's a middle-class argument. They're kind of the analogue to militias in the US.

Regarding the elites, when you do side missions and find echoes, look at the individual people - when you find an upper class individual, it usually says they were evacuated. The power of money. There is one missing persons mission that drives that point home.

How much you earn is not what class you are, esp. in NY. Sanitation workers are working class. Construction workers are working class. Construction company owners are also typically working class.

The whole "Oh rich people were ALL evacuated!" thing doesn't match the story either - I'm sure some were but... it's just a cheap excuse in the end (not from you, from them).

 

[The Jackdog]

Every game should be analyzed like this if there's enough to discuss. It doesn't matter what "you're looking for" thematically - the creators developed a world that says something, and its completely worth discussing.

it just reminds me of that joke about professors of literature or whatever.

"the curtains were blue"
professor: the curtains were blue to indicate sadness, loneliness, and cold reality of living"
what the author actually meant: "the curtains were fucking blue"

 

[tayls129]

Thoughtful commentary from Kill Screen, as usual. Yet people are pissed at the IGN score of 6.7 on this game, while Kill Screen had theirs at a 5 much earlier. I personally give more weight to Kill Screen, as they're not casting the widest, most pop culture-infested net like IGN is on a daily basis. KS's score is what stops me from buying the game at full price.

 

[xRaizen]

I don't normally buy anything Tom Clancy (Not since the original Splinter Cells), but I got this to play with a friend...

... and THIS is suppose to feel good? The enemies scream at each other like they're normal everyday people the ENTIRE TIME (y'know, punctuated by extra bits of useless profanity), and yet, you can't even show variety in how you bring them down. The way they freak out over things like my "Robot" portable auto-gun is especially telling.

If they're as desperate as they sound, why can't I stop them with an overt show of force? Why can't I at least sneak up, kill their leader, and cause the unfortunate followers to stand down? Of sound them enough as to where they stop resisting?

Past the fact that everyone is generic wintery human person #572 in build, they offer no variance in personality. Everyone's a bit desperate, and everyone attacks first, and ask questions later. a red recticle is the only thing that seperates the targets and the needy.

They could at LEAST paint everyone as monochromatically evil as the enemies in something like "Fist of the North Star." They go out of the way to make even the regular villans seem like absolute bastards. By the time violent death meets the characters, you feel like they absolutely deserve it.

But in Division last night, I ran into a black woman speaking with a fairly original-for-games accent, and even though she was shooting at me... I didn't want to kill her, as she was one of the most unique sounding people I'd run into.

It's just an annoying thing that I'd expect such a massively successful game to show more variety in. I can't really enjoy my kills or victories when I feel like I'm just bullying desperate survivors.

The story missions don't do much of a job of portraying the average grunts of each faction as evil, but the collectibles do. Please listen to some of them. Each faction has recordings where you hear about very horrible things that they've done.

 

[Jintor]

i think youre missing my point. but no one seems open to actually talking about it rather than just sarcastic drive by comments.

im not saying the article is in ANY WAY wrong. im saying i think its trying too hard.

im asking, is the division the type of game that should be analyzed this way? is its story trying to say anything at all? what are the themes at play here? what kind of points is it trying to make? what ARE the writers going for? or, is the division saying something by not saying anything at all?

like im not looking for the deep themes concerning a chicken crossing the road in crossy road. but thats a game played by millions of people too. so does just "X number of eyes on this" lend itself to needing to be analyzed in this way?

I don't understand why you don't think it should be analysed. It's a created product, and moreover, one that attempts a certain level of realism (true, superceded by a huge amount of gaminess - the amount of headshots a man can take is probably not necessarily fruitful for literary analysis). But it's definitely a lense taken to the world as is, even if unintentional.

 

[AuthenticM]

like im not looking for the deep themes concerning a chicken crossing the road in crossy road

I give up.

 

[Sylas]

i think youre missing my point. but no one seems open to actually talking about it rather than just sarcastic drive by comments.

im not saying the article is in ANY WAY wrong. im saying i think its trying too hard.

im asking, is the division the type of game that should be analyzed this way? is its story trying to say anything at all? what are the themes at play here? what kind of points is it trying to make? what ARE the writers going for? or, is the division saying something by not saying anything at all?

like im not looking for the deep themes concerning a chicken crossing the road in crossy road. but thats a game played by millions of people too. thats what i mean by the happy meal comment. so does just "X number of eyes on this" lend itself to needing to be analyzed in this way? i wasnt trying to belittle the article or the points its making, im saying doesnt the game and its story have to try to say something in order for what its saying to be criticized this way? from what ive played of the game, the story is paper thin and isnt really making any profound arguments at all

I'm of the opinion that most things are worth analysing--especially something that's being consumed by millions of people. When your story is based around generalised anxieties that are very real in US politics (The lower class RISIN' UP to take matters into their own hands, Prisoners breakin' outta jail to get REVENGE ON SOCIETY, the military enacting MARTIAL LAW to take back control of a city...), it becomes even more worthwhile and simplistic to go, "Hey, this makes me a little uncomfortable. Why?"

Whether or not you care is totally subjective, and nobody is forcing you to care. If you want to just see it as a simple loot'n'shoot, hey man. You do you! But I definitely think it's worth looking at why a Swedish company tried to make something apolitical but based every aspect of the story around US anxieties.

it just reminds me of that joke about professors of literature or whatever.

"the curtains were blue"
professor: the curtains were blue to indicate sadness, loneliness, and cold reality of living"
what the author actually meant: "the curtains were fucking blue"

You start touching on the argument of what's more important: Authorial intent or what the audience gets from a piece of work?

 

[Briarios]

How much you earn is not what class you are, esp. in NY. Sanitation workers are working class. Construction workers are working class. Construction company owners are also typically working class.

The whole "Oh rich people were ALL evacuated!" thing doesn't match the story either - I'm sure some were but... it's just a cheap excuse in the end (not from you, from them).

The working class is the middle class. No, really. Look it up. One term is generally used for economic issues and the other for social/political ... But, they're the same group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class_in_the_United_States

 

[UCBooties]

its a loot and shoot game, its not trying to make a statement, its trying to present a cool idea as a setup to create an interesting environment to....shoot and loot things.

if it was claiming to be a story heavy game or even leaning in that direction i guess this stuff is warranted but as it is i feel like its equivelent to looking for heavy political themes inside 'blues clues'

"Hes blue, like democrats. behold the face of socialism"

its not that the article is wrong, it just feels like if youre looking for heavy political commentary inside this game youd look for it inside the types of happy meal toys mcdonalds gives out too. youre not wrong for doing that and finding some themes....but....why are you doing it in the first place?

Where does this shit come from? Every time someone takes a stab at actually examining the underlying assumptions of games and the worlds that they present people come crawling out of the woodwork bleating "it's just a game!"

 

[The Jackdog]

I give up.

im literally trying to have a conversation with you about the value of criticism of something that probably wasnt mean to be criticized and youre just being an ass bro.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I give up.

lol

im literally trying to have a conversation with you about the value of criticism of something that probably wasnt mean to be criticized and youre just being an ass bro.

But what you're saying is so absurd


You're basically saying just because it's a videogame then it should not be criticized and that is absurd

 

[Jintor]

You start touching on the argument of what's more important: Authorial intent or what the audience gets from a piece of work?

unintentional opinion always sneaks in, so i'm a death of the author man, all the way

im literally trying to have a conversation with you about the value of criticism of something that probably wasnt mean to be criticized and youre just being an ass bro.

He disagrees with the fundamental premise you can lock stuff out from criticism

 

[AuthenticM]

im literally trying to have a conversation with you about the value of criticism of something that probably wasnt mean to be criticized and youre just being an ass bro.

You are not trying to have a conversation.

 

[ViciousDS]

I was thinking about something yesterday



Why is the JTF the only force helping the city? Why aren't there outlier gangs attempting to maintain or even help the Division......nope anyone not JTF with a gun is shoot on site. While all other citizens are please give me a soda, candy bar, medkit and other stuff.


You're telling me in the entire city that there isn't a "good" faction outside the JTF that they could have had you come across or something that's trying to just get back to their normal lives?

 

[InsaneTiger]

Save the city by killing everyone.

 

[Truant]

All the looters are called Alex. That's the whitest name ever.

 

[DryvBy]

So a fantasy scenario where pre-emptive strikes become routine and justified is stupid and trying? You don't think that in itself has a certain message (intentional or not) built in?

“Enemies” include anyone who might take their own survival into their own hands. Within the first five minutes of the game you’ll gun down some guys rooting around in the bins, presumably for “looting” or carrying a firearm.

Please explain how this isn't stupid. Can you walk up to said innocent looter (innocent comes from the "" around enemies) and ignore their behavior? Did I miss the part of the game where I could put my gun down and have a good ol' chat with the hooded looters in the game?

If I wanted to analyse everything to death to make myself feel superior, I guess I could. I guess I could start taking the theory that Mario is propaganda for communism serious too.

 

[GustyGardens]

It might not be actively pushing a right-ist agenda, but mocking their own authoritarianism doesn't invalidate the article's points, which are rather more nuanced than that, not least that you pretty much just slaughter poor people.

Whereas they could easily have had middle-class and rich people enemies - for example rich people deciding this would be a good time to "hunt the most dangerous game" - it's an action movie classic - they'd make good elite enemies.

Slaughtering poor people is a pretty reductive way of describing the game. In fact, I'd argue that not only is the player one of the, as you say, poor people, but the only other factions that would fall into that category would be the Rioters and Rikers. The Cleaners and the LMB all had good jobs with nice salaries which would put them, at the very least, in the middle class.

On top of that, some of the main enemies in the game are doctors and wall street traders. Pretty wealthy careers, if you ask you.

 

[Jb]

Except there are characters and a bunch of audio logs in the game that actually criticize the Division as an unconstitutional entity with way too much power. It's up to the player to question the validity of its existence.

I'd appreciate some opinion piece on games that doesn't predictably and inevitably devolves into an anti-capitalist anti-establishment anti-military essay by reading too much into mechanics and design decisions that were obviously meant for convenience reasons and not because they're the expression of some ultra right wing developers. Or maybe Massive and Ubisoft are actually full of fascists. I always knew Yves Guillemot looked like a guy who'd vote for Le Pen.

 

[The Jackdog]

I'm of the opinion that most things are worth analysing--especially something that's being consumed by millions of people. When your story is based around generalised anxieties that are very real in US politics (The lower-middle class RISIN' UP to take matters into their own hands, Prisoners breakin' outta jail to get REVENGE ON SOCIETY, the military enacting MARTIAL LAW to take back control of a city...), it becomes even more worthwhile and simplistic to go, "Hey, this makes me a little uncomfortable. Why?"

Whether or not you care is totally subjective, and nobody is forcing you to care. If you want to just see it as a simple loot'n'shoot, hey man. You do you! But I definitely think it's worth looking at why a Swedish company tried to make something apolitical but based every aspect of the story around US anxieties.

You start touching on the argument of what's more important: Authorial intent or what the audience gets from a piece of work?

Maybe im doing a terrible job trying to explain myself in this thread, but this is what im getting at.

Theres something interesting about how a company, not even close to NYC, is portraying NYC after a disaster.

what im getting at is what about the game is making people think its trying to push the themes this article is claiming it has, and if the developers are actually "going for that" or its the unintended consequences of what they made and how they portrayed it. im not saying "its a game, dont criticize it."

im saying what are they going for in the first place with what they are saying, if they are trying to say ANYTHING AT ALL, and what value that has in terms of criticizing what they ended up saying, regardless of intent. im comparing it to anaylizing happy meals or crossy road because i think the people who made them had just as much on their mind to say as the paper-thin story of the division.

 

[Disheveled_Zen]

I was thinking about something yesterday



Why is the JTF the only force helping the city? Why aren't there outlier gangs attempting to maintain or even help the Division......nope anyone not JTF with a gun is shoot on site. While all other citizens are please give me a soda, candy bar, medkit and other stuff.


You're telling me in the entire city that there isn't a "good" faction outside the JTF that they could have had you come across or something that's trying to just get back to their normal lives?

JTF has a lot of volunteers that I would assume are every day people.

Late game spoiler:

Spoiler

There's a guy in your base at one point who shows up and asks to join the JTF saying he was a security guard and they say they would love to have him. There are also several recordings of people who tried to be their own "division agents" along the way.

 

[Sylas]

Slaughtering poor people is a pretty reductive way of describing the game. In fact, I'd argue that not only is the player one of the, as you say, poor people, but the only other factions that would fall into that category would be the Rioters and Rikers. The Cleaners and the LMB all had good jobs with nice salaries which would put them, at the very least, in the middle class.

On top of that, some of the main enemies in the game are doctors and wall street traders. Pretty wealthy careers, if you ask you.

I agree that it's reductive--but every enemy in the game is based on a trope that's centered on some kind of anxiety. The wall street traders are evil, so they're enemies. Doctors are out to cull and control the population with their access to drugs, so they're enemies. Poor people want things they can't afford, so they'll do anything to get them. The middle-class (though I'd argue the Cleaners are on the low-end of that spectrum since it's NYC) want to take matters into their own hands. People with guns want the strength to run things as they see fit.

It's strange.

Maybe im doing a terrible job trying to explain myself in this thread, but this is what im getting at.

Theres something interesting about how a company, not even close to NYC, is portraying NYC after a disaster.

what im getting at is what about the game is making people think its trying to push the themes this article is claiming it has, and if the developers are actually "going for that" or its the unintended consequences of what they made and how they portrayed it. im not saying "its a game, dont criticize it."

im saying what are they going for in the first place with what they are saying, if they are trying to say ANYTHING AT ALL, and what value that has in terms of criticizing what they ended up saying, regardless of intent.

I think that's an interesting thing to examine. If they wanted to create something apolitical, why did they seemingly fail to do so? It'd be pretty simple to do so--you make the enemies non-human and the problem essentially solves itself. Yet they didn't, and they crafted each enemy faction to be a very specific sort of fear that happen to be highly prevalent in America right now. That's bizarre.

 

[potatohead]

Almost all art is inherently political to some degree, some more than others obviously, but just having a system in place can mean something.

Even SimCity has been criticized for being political since the city budget includes healthcare as a single-payer government-controlled option (I'm not joking, people can get really upset about this).

From what I've read in this thread I don't see that Ubisoft's The Division is terribly political though. Not apolitical, but I don't see a defined political style message that really relates to contemporary issues.

It's an interesting discussion, though I do not see much depth here. Many games have criticized shadow organizations or even U.S. military or presumably multinational business organizations as characters in their games e.g. Binary Domain.

But they are not particularly political about those organizations themselves more so than they are simply broadly criticizing unilateral or extreme behaviours by such organizations in general.

 

[PBY]

Maybe im doing a terrible job trying to explain myself in this thread, but this is what im getting at.

Theres something interesting about how a company, not even close to NYC, is portraying NYC after a disaster.

what im getting at is what about the game is making people think its trying to push the themes this article is claiming it has, and if the developers are actually "going for that" or its the unintended consequences of what they made and how they portrayed it. im not saying "its a game, dont criticize it."

im saying what are they going for in the first place with what they are saying, if they are trying to say ANYTHING AT ALL, and what value that has in terms of criticizing what they ended up saying, regardless of intent.

The game doesn't have to be trying to push any sort of theme - but it doesn't stop us, nor should it, from unpacking themes that appear prevalent throughout the world. Its how the industry moves forward, it helps us understand humanity more and it can be revealing to think on what a basic loot/shoot game might be saying about our current universe.

 

[Shane]

I've put 40+ hours into the game and am really enjoying it.


I also agree with this article; which is very well written.

I liked this part:

There is an obsession with garbage that tells the story of the breakdown of the systems of society so effectively. Bags of it lie in great drifts across roads, it fills stairways and alleys, piling up in cavernous sewers. It is an image that speaks so strongly to the supposed knife-edge the game wishes to depict society as resting on. It defines a society of endless consumption brought to its knees. When combined with the Christmas imagery that comes with the games’ “Black Friday” timescale—wrapped trees lined up on the streets, fairy lights twinkling above burnt out cars—it starts to feel like a visual interrogation of late Capitalism. And when the precisely simulated snow drifts in, and you are stalking down an empty city street surrounded by refuse, The Division seems to make sense, it seems to say something.

And this:

Let’s try a simple thought experiment. Imagine we modded the game to switch the character models of the idle and sick civilians with those of the hooded “Rioters.” All across The Division‘s ailing New York, men in hoods and bandanas would be stumbling along the street, asking you for food or aid, while gunfights erupted between pea-coated men and women with carefully wrapped scarves. The strangeness of this image only serves to evidence that we constitute society through visual cues, class hierarchies, and pre-formed assumptions. These assumptions are used within The Division in order to criminalise a whole segment of society.

 

[Jintor]

Please explain how this isn't stupid. Can you walk up to said innocent looter (innocent comes from the "" around enemies) and ignore their behavior? Did I miss the part of the game where I could put my gun down and have a good ol' chat with the hooded looters in the game?

If I wanted to analyse everything to death to make myself feel superior, I guess I could. I guess I could start taking the theory that Mario is propaganda for communism serious too.

They built the system you engage with the game in too. The limitations you have as a player aren't there by the grace of god or by nature; a hand shaped the systems you interact with the world in.

What you're essentially saying is the game forced your hand. And what the analysis is saying is, well, yes.

Of course you can fall back and say, well, it's a game about shooting, of course you're gonna shoot people. But there were choices made to contextualise you shooting people. And in those choices made, certain ways of thinking are represented. Maybe they're lazy choices to facilitate mechanical systemic interactions; but even in those, value is determined and represented.

 

[soultron]

The game being a Tom Clancy-branded IP doesn't make it immune to thoughtful criticisms like this.

I think a big(ger) issue with The Division is that its light story-telling elements focus on building up The Division as the only way to possibly take back the city since it's government-sanctioned -- the KS article goes into this. The fact that you (and others, even the brash Cleaner faction, for example) are fighting to try to contain the virus isn't really stated as much as the fantasy about being a sleeper agent, itself, is focused on. It feels awkward to label a small, centralized effort to contain the virus as something as grand and far-reaching as "maintaining the continuity of government" since doesn't really seem like a big deal -- yet. NYC is on fire, yeah, but since you'll never leave NYC in the game, I really never feel like COGov't should be the main stake for the game.

The one thing I wish the review covered was the characterization and motivations of the Last Man Battallion. I'm not far enough into the game to have met them yet, but I want to know if their characterization is as shameful as the Rioter or Riker factions.

In the end, I really liked the KS review. I like the video game parts of The Division (the meat of the gunplay, the coop, the level design, etc.) but then there are parts I wish that were stronger -- mainly motivations for certain factions, how they're characterized, and the realization of moment-to-moment things like why giving a needy civilian food/aid results in them giving you a jacket.

I'll echo others' thoughts that we need more critique like this. It can sit nicely alongside the "buyer's guide"style reviews that focus heavily on the video game but not the narrative, setting, characterizations, and actual merit of the game as a piece of media outside of the video game vacuum.

 

[mcrommert]

Never once have the rioters come across as mostly black (or black at all really).

The whole article feels of forcefully shaping the game to fit their perceived outrage.

Especially since the worse group is a bunch of crazed right wingers....

 

[ViciousDS]

JTF has a lot of volunteers that I would assume are every day people.

Late game spoiler:

Spoiler

There's a guy in your base at one point who shows up and asks to join the JTF saying he was a security guard and they say they would love to have him. There are also several recordings of people who tried to be their own "division agents" along the way.

I noticed that....but I figured you would have little clicks all over the city who don't like the government and shit............you help them yada yada yada. You start to see the darkness through helping the crew and building a connection.


Honestly they could have done just so much more with the setting and story.....but its just all cliche and predictable as hell. There has been no surprises at all.

 

[nded]

im literally trying to have a conversation with you about the value of criticism of something that probably wasnt mean to be criticized and youre just being an ass bro.

That's not how criticism works. Just because the creators say they don't intend to convey a message doesn't mean a message isn't being conveyed.

 

[ViridianHues]

I don't think it is really valid to compare video games to literature. Depending on development, the story/scenario/circumstances are often changed to serve the gameplay. What may have been intended by the developers when they first came up with the idea may have changed dramatically over development to better serve the gameplay. They may have wanted certain aspects to be featured differently, but perhaps it just didn't work from a gameplay perspective.

So when analyzing a game, more needs to be taken into account when considering author intention.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Interesting read.

 

[GustyGardens]

I agree that it's reductive--but every enemy in the game is based on a trope that's centered on some kind of anxiety. The wall street traders are evil, so they're enemies. Doctors are out to cull and control the population with their access to drugs, so they're enemies. Poor people want things they can't afford, so they'll do anything to get them. The middle-class (though I'd argue the Cleaners are on the low-end of that spectrum since it's NYC) want to take matters into their own hands. People with guns want the strength to run things as they see fit.

It's strange.



I think that's an interesting thing to examine. If they wanted to create something apolitical, why did they seemingly fail to do so?

While I can see your point, I have to at least mention that the wall street traders and doctors motives go far beyond holding back drugs and being evil. A doctor is the one that came up with the virus and let it spread, and the Last Man Battalion was not only hired by Wall Street, but is actually led by a former trader.

I really wish the game spent a bit more time explaining some of the enemies without having to go into the intel. That was definitely an oversight.

 

[The Jackdog]

I think that's an interesting thing to examine. If they wanted to create something apolitical, why did they seemingly fail to do so?

everything ive played so far just seems so tame, so middle of the road, such simple dialogue and objectives, that it doesnt really end up making any points. there was nothing for me to chew on plot wise that made me even think about what i was doing as the player character, and maybe thats the whole point.

The game doesn't have to be trying to push any sort of theme - but it doesn't stop us, nor should it, from unpacking themes that appear prevalent throughout the world. Its how the industry moves forward, it helps us understand humanity more and it can be revealing to think on what a basic loot/shoot game might be saying about our current universe.

so i guess my next question would be, does the authors intent on a piece of work to say nothing at all political, have any barring on what they ended up saying when given to the public to consume and analyze? does that change how it should be looked at?

is the lack of having any central themes a failure of storytelling or is that the point?

 

[Jintor]

so i guess my next question would be, does the authors intent on a piece of work to say nothing at all political, have any barring on what they ended up saying when given to the public to consume and analyze? does that change how it should be looked at?

as i said earlier - death of the author. (though it does change how it should be looked at, on that i agree)

 

[Fantastapotamus]

If the game, all of it, would stay exactly the same but it would suddenly take place on an alien planet, so all the humans are now aliens even though they still obviously represent the same roles they do now...do you think this article would exist?

This isn't meant to be a critic of the article btw, as I said it is interesting and very well written and I agree with pretty much all of it. I just wonder if saying "This is on Mars" would stop people from looking closer at those kind of issues.

 

[potatohead]

I've put 40+ hours into the game and am really enjoying it.


I also agree with this article; which is very well written.

I liked this part:



And this:

Those are interesting.

I don't think it is really valid to compare video games to literature. Depending on development, the story/scenario/circumstances are often changed to serve the gameplay. What may have been intended by the developers when they first came up with the idea may have changed dramatically over development to better serve the gameplay. They may have wanted certain aspects to be featured differently, but perhaps it just didn't work from a gameplay perspective.

So when analyzing a game, more needs to be taken into account when considering author intention.

Very good point. This should be appreciated especially since The Division is such a commercial product that is trying to compete against a game like Destiny.

Though I'm sure the story is thoughtful, the design I would at least imagine is mostly catering to how to make an engaging and fun world and gameplay experience, rather than to be particularly political.

The game being a Tom Clancy-branded IP doesn't make it immune to thoughtful criticisms like this.

I think a big(ger) issue with The Division is that its light story-telling elements focus on building up The Division as the only way to possibly take back the city since it's government-sanctioned -- the KS article goes into this. The fact that you (and others, even the brash Cleaner faction, for example) are fighting to try to contain the virus isn't really stated as much as the fantasy about being a sleeper agent, itself, is focused on. It feels awkward to label a small, centralized effort to contain the virus as something as grand and far-reaching as "maintaining the continuity of government" since doesn't really seem like a big deal -- yet. NYC is on fire, yeah, but since you'll never leave NYC in the game, I really never feel like COGov't should be the main stake for the game.

The one thing I wish the review covered was the characterization and motivations of the Last Man Battallion. I'm not far enough into the game to have met them yet, but I want to know if their characterization is as shameful as the Rioter or Riker factions.

In the end, I really liked the KS review. I like the video game parts of The Division (the meat of the gunplay, the coop, the level design, etc.) but then there are parts I wish that were stronger -- mainly motivations for certain factions, how they're characterized, and the realization of moment-to-moment things like why giving a needy civilian food/aid results in them giving you a jacket.

I'll echo others' thoughts that we need more critique like this. It can sit nicely alongside the "buyer's guide"style reviews that focus heavily on the video game but not the narrative, setting, characterizations, and actual merit of the game as a piece of media outside of the video game vacuum.

Very interesting.

 

[Sylas]

I don't think it is really valid to compare video games to literature. Depending on development, the story/scenario/circumstances are often changed to serve the gameplay. What may have been intended by the developers when they first came up with the idea may have changed dramatically over development to better serve the gameplay. They may have wanted certain aspects to be featured differently, but perhaps it just didn't work from a gameplay perspective.

So when analyzing a game, more needs to be taken into account when considering author intention.

I agree with this to an extent, but not in full. It doesn't matter if I'm aiming at a person or an alien from a gameplay perspective--that's purely narrative. Hell, some of the gameplay foibles I have with The Division would actually be solved by removing the human-as-enemies element of it!

The narrative can change to accommodate gameplay, but in the case of The Division they exist as fairly separate entities. The only time the two collide is in The Dark Zone, which is something you could also argue for a narrative perspective. The whole basis behind it is, "Well, we can't really see what's goin' on in there, so good luck I guess."

And so you have people shooting each other for loot and it not effecting the outside world whatsoever. It's driving home how fucked up The Division (the faction) is, but the game doesn't really address that at any point.