Support NeoGAF

[Litri]

"Tom Clancy's _______" on a game title is basically advance warning you're about to play a game with weird fascistic undertones and a celebration of the military industrial complex

This mostly. Although I don't disagree with the tone and criticism made by the article.

 

[The Jackdog]

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.

didnt destiny flirt with this?

you are, in parts of that game, basically wiping out alien species. but youve never seen any articles on that, cause they are aliens, screw em.

the division deals with much more grounded in reality times which i guess opens it up to being seen through that particular lens

 

[Jintor]

Here is an interesting thought: 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. I just wonder if saying "This is on Mars" would stop people from looking closer at those kind of issues.

It would depend I think on how closely the fantasy would analogue to socio-political realities. I mean it's a staple of sci-fi (less so fantasy) to critique our societies as-is.

But I think a lot of this article seems to have sprung out of the slavish devotion to re-creating New York as a geographical entity and contrasting it to the treatment of its social post-apocolyptic landscape, so I don't know about this specific article.

 

[DryvBy]

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.

The game forces you because someone is shooting at me lol. It's not because it's just a shooter. It's not rewarding me, or even letting me, shoot innocent looters. How is this concept a bad thing?

 

[mcrommert]

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.

Yep

Review of the Division

--By Karl Marx

 

[IvorB]

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.

There is no such thing as "wasn't meant to be" analysed or criticised. If it is a representation by human beings it is fair game for this type of literary analysis. This game in particular is being played by millions of so to suggest it should not be analysed for deeper themes and symbols is pretty absurd.

 

[Jintor]

The game forces you because someone is shooting at me lol. It's not because it's just a shooter. It's not rewarding me, or even letting me, shoot innocent looters. How is this concept a bad thing?

It's (apparently) a game world where there are no innocent looters.

or innocents who loot, or non-violent looters, or looters you don't have to shoot. However you want to phrase it.

 

[Sylas]

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.

Right, which play into those anxieties I mentioned. They're all very... well, almost precisely what a lot of people have paranoia over in the US. It's almost like they looked at right wing gun-owners and went, "Well, what do people fear the most from those people?" Same with doctors and every other enemy faction in the game.

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.



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?

It feels like a wet fart. You wanted to push something out, because you got a little rumbly in your tumbly, but whoops! Accidentally got more than you bargained for. At least it wasn't fullblown bubblegut, though.

It's tame, but I think it's because they realised what their themes were and went, "Oh shit wait. No, no, no, no." It's also the sort of game that's really easy to disengage with on a mental level because of it's grindy nature.

Alternatively, maybe that was the point! In a situation like this, it's easier to follow orders and point and shoot at people that pose a threat to you without ever stopping to think about the consequences of it. I think it's a bit too deep--but the game still has a few updates to go before I feel confident in saying how much effort they wanna put into their storytelling.

Having a lack of central themes can certainly be the point of a work, but it's also incredibly hard to pull off convincingly.

 

[The Jackdog]

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.

maybe thats my biggest issue with the article, that it grabs things from the game that are simply meant as mechanics and it politicizes them. that it "goes too far"?

there is definitely valid points in the article but the way its written im wondering which is a gameplay feature and which is something done just for the story and set up, and how to separate the two

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Yeah it's great article/review that looks into the ...unfortunate context this game put itself in.
Also, the Rikers leader boss fight has some disconcerting comments: http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/966165-divisions-racially-charged-boss-fight-disappointing

 

[Jintor]

there is definitely valid points in the article but the way its written im wondering which is a gameplay feature and which is something done just for the story and set up, and how to separate the two

I think the more effort to contextualise something in-world the harder it is to write off as something gamey.

 

[AuthenticM]

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.

Authorial intent doesn't mean much. It can be used to support an argument discussing the author's work, but it cannot be used to invalidate one. The reason for this is that everything one needs to analyze and discuss a work is in the work itself.

Imagine that the director of Birth of a Nation says that his movie is not at all promoting white power, and that he had no intention of pushing a white power agenda. Does that suddenly force the intellectual community to conclude: "Welp, pack it up, boys. We were wrong, and there is nothing to discuss here!" No, it does not.

Your questioning has been answered a long time ago by a Frenchman called Roland Barthes in his essay La mort de l'auteur (The Death of the Author). I invite you to read its wikipedia page, at least. The essay itself also, if you feel like it.

 

[SAB CA]

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.

Yup, I've heard a few, and have seen a few videos. (And looked at the spoilers in this thread, because I really don't care much about the surprise of the story). It feels pretty incongruent with what happens in the general gameplay. Like watching choice quotes in a reality TV show, that's trying to weave an exciting narrative... while also watching the straight feed of what actually happened at the same time.

When you're hearing Crime Drama TV style banter played from the people you're fighting for, kinda light hearted and witty, paired with the desperation from nearly every enemy you meet at this point, it feels like there's no narrative agreement between elements. I can't feel fully heroic, or fully cruel, because the whole thing is doing a crappy job of selling any type of actually solid viewpoint. I'm not interacting with anything, just going through the most simple of murderous motions.

It just feels sloppy, and as if the developers believe I don't care about anything but shooting. It feels very generic and stupid when compared to the likes of a Metal Gear. Heck, Bloodborne probably does a better job at representing the idea of a town and people gone mad, and I've played very little of it. Just 1 or 2 options that would let me show some kind of personality in how I deal with encounters, or how I understand the world, would make the entire experience much more level, for me.

 

[FriedConsole]

I only skimmed this sophomore English class analysis but which person was identified as the "Christ-like figure"?

 

[The Jackdog]

Right, which play into those anxieties I mentioned. They're all very... well, almost precisely what a lot of people have paranoia over in the US.


It feels like a wet fart. You wanted to push something out, because you got a little rumbly in your tumbly, but whoops! Accidentally got more than you bargained for. At least it wasn't fullblown bubblegut, though.

It's tame, but I think it's because they realised what their themes were and went, "Oh shit wait. No, no, no, no." It's also the sort of game that's really easy to disengage with on a mental level because of it's grindy nature.

Alternatively, maybe that was the point! In a situation like this, it's easier to follow orders and point and shoot at people that pose a threat to you without ever stopping to think about the consequences of it. I think it's a bit too deep--but the game still has a few updates to go before I feel confident in saying how much effort they wanna put into their storytelling.

Having a lack of central themes can certainly be the point of a work, but it's also incredibly hard to pull off convincingly.

and that would be a fucking bonkers and awesome way to tell a story and make its points. that the division really IS a mindless, completely unleashed organization that will accomplish its objectives no matter what the consequences of its actions are, as long as its objective is accomplished. using the players actions as a way to make a point.

spec ops: the line did this in a few ways, i remember that.

i love the idea of story being told through gameplay rather than by dialogue. but is the division doing that? or is it an accident?

 

[Shane]

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.

This is from the article itself:

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.

So, yes. The writer would agree. Because visuals are a message whether intended or not.

 

[JaggedSac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC5RfOb4jQ

The rioter faction I see in this video consists of multiple white people(only the area around the eyes can be seen, don't even know if I could tell that from in gameplay) and I can't tell if there are actually any black rioters. What appears to have happened is that the author of this article has displayed his personal biases onto the hooded and barely visible skins of the rioters. Perhaps the author of the article should turn his contemplation upon his personal views.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

As much as I'm enjoying the game I have to agree with the article.
It's a right wing power fantasy where only guns can save america.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

This is extremely fucked up.

 

[captainnapalm]

It's (apparently) a game world where there are no innocent looters.

or innocents who loot, or non-violent looters, or looters you don't have to shoot. However you want to phrase it.

There are innocent looters. You do come across looters/scavengers trying to break into cars and stuff that you don't engage with in combat. The ones you engage with in combat are usually crouched over dead bodies, so there's the assumption they're going after innocents.

 

[Lunar15]

I doubt Ubisoft themselves is making any direct political statement, that kind of stuff would get focus tested away.

However, that's kind of the thing: The narrative doesn't really fit what you're doing. I don't think they really thought about some of the weird implications you could technically make. There's these brief, almost out of place, flashes of self-awareness that show you that maybe someone on the writing team realized what was going on, but it's real light.

On a surface level, they made a loot/grind game but set it in a modern disaster area. You're there to "help people", but the game is largely about loot, especially when you get into the Dark Zone stuff, where you literally can grind enemy spawns that are sometimes just people in hoodies. It's no different than what we do in say, Diablo and Destiny, but there's something about the seriousness with which the Division takes its setting and your background as a "protector" that just doesn't really fit with the core gameplay loop. Now, of course, that's just the surface level observation one could make. There's more enemies in the game than just rioters and there are good moments that point out that you are helping the people. But it's easy to see why some people are beginning to point out how weird this feels in practice.

Ubisoft made a game that would really resonate with the paranoia crowd the "buy lots of guns because society's gonna fall apart" crowd. It's the same kind of thinking behind those zombie apocalypse fetishists. But instead of making a game purely about that concept and being aware of it, they went with this safe idea of being a government agent because they thought that would be more appealing to a wide audience. They just never really realized the other implications there. It's like most Ubisoft things, a lot of elements came together from different teams and they don't always result in a coherent whole.

 

[Kinyou]

As much as I'm enjoying the game I have to agree with the article.
It's a right wing power fantasy where only guns can save america.

But that's kind of inherent to a third person shooter, isn't it? No matter if it's soviets invading or aliens attacking, guns will always be the answer because that's the gameplay the devs wanted to make.

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.

I think the question is how responsible the dev should be held if they didn't intend the message. And well, what the author by "holding responsible" exactly means.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

But that's kind of inherent to a third person shooter, isn't it? No matter if it's soviets invading or aliens attacking, guns will always be the answer because that's the gameplay the devs wanted to make.

It's not inherent, it's just easy to do so.
Edit: This is a dumb thing I said.

 

[The Jackdog]

Authorial intent doesn't mean much. It can be used to support an argument discussing the author's work, but it cannot be used to invalidate one. The reason for this is that everything one needs to analyze and discuss a work is in the work itself.

Imagine that the director of Birth of a Nation says that his movie is not at all promoting white power, and that he had no intention of pushing a white power agenda. Does that suddenly force the intellectual community to conclude: "Welp, pack it up, boys. We were wrong, and there is nothing to discuss here!" No, it does not.

Your questioning has been answered a long time ago by a Frenchman called Roland Barthes in his essay La mort de l'auteur (The Death of the Author). I invite you to read its wikipedia page, at least. The essay itself also, if you feel like it.

im actually familiar with the term, ill have to refresh myself on the essay itself.

so lemme ask you this, based on your example. lets say birth of a nation had no intention to push a white power agenda, but instead a completely different agenda. the economic situation in the reconstruction and points on what the director would of done different, or even something dumb like.....the director doesnt like socks or something.

my question is: does the original intent of the work factor into the criticism of its themes, or is it disregarded? i dont think it would invalidate the white power agenda criticism at all, but does it play a part in examining that agenda being pushed?

this isnt the case, but, if the agenda of the division was actually to push the idea on players that the division is actually a complete abuse of power, but it failed to do so spectacularly and instead basically made this article "correct" in that its kind of a right wing power fantasy, does that change anything from your point of view on how to approach criticism on it? does that factor into the discussion at all?

 

[FriedConsole]

But that's kind of inherent to a third person shooter, isn't it? No matter if it's soviets invading or aliens attacking, guns will always be the answer because that's the gameplay the devs wanted to make.

We need a liberal power fantasy where snarky protests and memes take down an evil empire. You press X to say "Drumpf". Press O to drum circle.

 

[djplaeskool]

I dunno guys.
I ruthlessly gunned down three guys just hanging out in the street... then gave someone in need 1x canned food.

I AM THE PARAGON OF ORDER.

and I got some sweet kicks out of deal.
See.
Utter brutality ain't all bad...

Spoiler

yeah, the game is Clancy as fuck

 

[Krappadizzle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmC5RfOb4jQ

The rioter faction I see in this video consists of multiple white people(only the area around the eyes can be seen, don't even know if I could tell that from in gameplay) and I can't tell if there are actually any black rioters. What appears to have happened is that the author of this article has displayed his personal biases onto the hooded and barely visible skins of the rioters. Perhaps the author of the article should turn his contemplation upon his personal views.

Of the whole article, this is what annoys me the most. The author is choosing to let their bias color what is actually happening. The rest of it I can kinda agree with though. I thought it was weird shooting people looting a store only to go right in after they're done and...loot the store.

 

[Jintor]

There are innocent looters. You do come across looters/scavengers trying to break into cars and stuff that you don't engage with in combat. The ones you engage with in combat are usually crouched over dead bodies, so there's the assumption they're going after innocents.

Ah. It's interesting that a lot of people are still feeling iffy about attacking these guys then. Is it a failure of environmental storytelling, or are people just averse to ambushing?

 

[dumbo]

This is the paranoid fantasy of the right-wing brought into disturbing actualization by The Division. Look at the three gangs that form the main antagonists of the game.

The main problem with the article is that there are 4 antagonists, and it's hard to see how you can discuss the politics of the game without discussing the final group.

The article is a bit misleading for anyone that hasn't played the game to the end.

 

[Steejee]

Interesting article, even as someone who hasn't played the game. Pretty much to be expected from anything with 'Tom Clancy' in the title.

As an aside, the game's concept seemed more interesting to me when I thought the Cleaners (or whoever the guys with the flamethrowers were) were actually the US Military performing a purge operation like you'd see in a zombie flick and the 'Division' was a group of survivors trying to protect the civilian population, including looters. That sorta goes more towards the 'paranoia towards the military' side, but you can usually counter that by making the virus/disaster/whatever so bad that the authorities are seemingly left no choice.

 

[mcrommert]

We need a liberal power fantasy where snarky protests and memes take down an evil empire. You press X to say "Drumpf". Press O to drum circle.

Pack it up everyone

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

We need a liberal power fantasy where snarky protests and memes take down an evil empire. You press X to say "Drumpf". Press O to drum circle.

So are you going say anything interesting or are you going to talk about tumblr next?

 

[Kinyou]

It's not inherent, it's just easy to do so.

But the game starts on the drawing board as third person shooter. How does this not inherently lead to guns being the largest means of interaction. Sure you can tackle the whole thing differently, but then you're not making a third person shooter.

 

[Disheveled_Zen]

Ah. It's interesting that a lot of people are still feeling iffy about attacking these guys then. Is it a failure of environmental storytelling, or are people just averse to ambushing?

It's more a failure of just looking at things on the surface. The story goes into great detail to flush out the backstory of a lot of the factions as well as individual members of said factions. These details, however, are generally hidden behind collectibles found in the world through exploration.

So the rioters may seem like people just trying to survive on the surface, but when you start getting the collectibles you realize they have done some pretty horrific things.

 

[soultron]

Yeah it's great article/review that looks into the ...unfortunate context this game put itself in.
Also, the Rikers leader boss fight has some disconcerting comments: http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/966165-divisions-racially-charged-boss-fight-disappointing

This is disappointing. The game is so light on actual character development of any of the antagonists, so limiting some players' exposure to LaRae to this video is awkward. She's presented as a one-dimensional psychopath who -- given the circumstances in NYC -- is so laser-focused on exacting revenge that it makes her out to be someone of really low intelligence. She is charismatic, but with a psychopathic bend. Why wouldn't she take the chance to get out of NYC now that she has the opportunity? Run and lay low if the law and past convictions tried to follow her out of NYC?

The hell-bent quest for revenge that she's been placed on seems really under-developed. It feels like there's an attempt at some social commentary ("Just one more black body on the pile!") but that's it -- the conversation stops there for her.

Are there any more audio logs or expository material that fleshes her character out?

Spoiler

Not sure if anything could really save the way she was written and realized.

 

[Lunar15]

The main problem with the article is that there are 4 antagonists, and it's hard to see how you can discuss the politics of the game without discussing the final group.

The article is a bit misleading for anyone that hasn't played the game to the end.

Yeah, I think it's important to bring up the final group, because they are somewhat of a representative/parody of those "survival fetishists". That's what I meant in my post that Ubisoft just put a bunch of paranoia fantasies in the game because that's what ubisoft does: they put everything in to appeal to everyone without really thinking about implications or how that fits the narrative.

We don't really care about that in a fantastical setting, but when we get put in a modern, familiar world, that kind of stuff really sticks out.

 

[ymgve]

The larger issue to me is why The Division actually exists and was activated during this crisis. There's like a billion JTF soldiers in the city, they could have said "You play this JTF hotshot" and the game would be the exact same thing. Embedded agents only make sense when you have no other troops on the ground.

 

[EGM1966]

Interesting article. Good read OP.

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

We can. But when you chose certain settings and context you're opening up your title for extended analysis and criticism such as this.

Ultimately a big title like this, as with a popular book or film, that contains the elements the Division patently does will be examined accordingly.

They didn't have to have rioters and looters and questionable ethical actions and contentious protocols, they chose to have them. Even if they just thought it was merely a cool backdrop that doesn't exempt them.

 

[Pop]

Of the whole article, this is what annoys me the most. The author is choosing to let their bias color what is actually happening. The rest of it I can kinda agree with though. I thought it was weird shooting people looting a store only to go right in after they're done and...loot the store.

Well next time don't shoot and see what they do to you.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

But the game starts on the drawing board as third person shooter. How does this not inherently lead to guns being the largest means of interaction. Sure you can tackle the whole thing differently, but then you're not making a third person shooter.

I read your comment wrong, my mistake.

 

[Jb]

There are innocent looters. You do come across looters/scavengers trying to break into cars and stuff that you don't engage with in combat. The ones you engage with in combat are usually crouched over dead bodies, so there's the assumption they're going after innocents.

Also while you can shoot "bad" looters before they've noticed you, if they do they'll always start attacking you whether you've engaged them or not and at this point it's just self defense. That's true for every single enemy NPC in the game.

If you feel that strongly about it you can role play and have strict rules of engagements, and not open fire until fired upon.

 

[Foshy]

As much as I'm enjoying the game I have to agree with the article.
It's a right wing power fantasy where only guns can save america.

yeah same. it's really hypocritical how other looters are painted as criminals while it's completely ok for you to do so, plus it's kinda ridiculous how npcs on the street are either nice passive civilians or straight evil and ok to shoot

game is still fun and enjoyable but it's also good to talk about it. i seriously hate comments like "not everything is a political statement" or "just let me play muh games", nobody is telling you you're a bad person for playing it or trying to actively change the game as it is, just having a discussion about it and thinking about how future games could be more intelligently written.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Yeah it's great article/review that looks into the ...unfortunate context this game put itself in.
Also, the Rikers leader boss fight has some disconcerting comments: http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/966165-divisions-racially-charged-boss-fight-disappointing

Yikes... pretty careless if it wasn't intentional.

Well next time don't shoot and see what they do to you.

Don't shoot... and see what this AI that has been programmed to shoot you does?

It's still an intentional design decision to have them shoot you

 

[valkyre]

The article is good, but at the part where he describes the different Factions within the game, he forgets to mention the LMB and he forgets to mention their background which is tied up to -basically- rich people who used the LMB in order to save their own asses and after that happened, they even left the guys who they hired, the LMB, behind.

So this little tibbit right there, pretty much throws the "us vs them" point of the author in the drain.

From my understanding the biggest scumbags in the Division are the ones who exploited other people and used every means available to them, to get their butts to safety while everyone else is left to die.

What happens to the ones left behind is ofcourse shallow and daft, i agree with the article there, but in all honesty i dont see how a videogame of this type (shooter), could happen in such a scenario if we wanted to use humanitarian causes etc.

 

[cartographer]

Thanks for sharing the article. I saw netw3rk mention something about the underlying politics of The Division being deplorable. And like others have pointed out, it's pretty much par for the course for the Tom Clancy brand. I'll post the tweets but before I do I want to point out that from following him on Twitter he seems to really enjoy the game. He's not just some random hating on it.

how much should be read into the bad guys in the division being dudes in hoodies and former NYC public employees? idk kind of a lot.

I do think it's significant that, when faced w the problem of needing to design a character that says "bad guy" UBISOFT was like "hoodies!"

the dark zone is the most interesting part of the division bc that's where the game reveals itself as being about the allure of lawlessness

it's like the division wants to think it's about rebuilding society, when it's really just a version of rust with more window dressing

I am enjoying the game as a mechanical exercise. I like shooters. The game's politics are pretty deplorable though.

the game is also interesting in that it's sort of an exploration of the how a libertarian militia movement could become a plutocracy

Also: discussing the universe and story of The Division doesn't devalue anybody's enjoyment of the game. You can discuss the politics and message and still like going out and shooting things in-game. You can also ignore all of it and still like going out and shooting things in-game. Discussion is good.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

"Tom Clancy's _______" on a game title is basically advance warning you're about to play a game with weird fascistic undertones and a celebration of the military industrial complex

Yep. Which is why I avoid them. Clancy was a shitheel. Talented, but a gross human being.

 

[captainnapalm]

Ah. It's interesting that a lot of people are still feeling iffy about attacking these guys then. Is it a failure of environmental storytelling, or are people just averse to ambushing?

It's a cover shooter so you do end up ambushing most of them from distance. They're usually just chatting to themselves. Only sometimes do you literally save people they're about to kill. But if you don't attack they will attack you on sight. This is where I tend to go 'this is a videogame and these are enemies' and separate story from gameplay, but I guess some people can't do that.

 

[btags]

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?

I am going to blow your mind, but blue was a girl. Magenta is the dude.

Blues Clues 4 lyfe.

 

[DryvBy]

It's (apparently) a game world where there are no innocent looters.

or innocents who loot, or non-violent looters, or looters you don't have to shoot. However you want to phrase it.

There's innocent loots all over the place. Some of them are looting due to hunger and to keep warm. You can't kill any of them. In fact, some of the locations you arrive at are even set up camps to help people that are trying to survive with shelter, food and clothes.

The ones that are portrayed as "bad guys" are the guys using guns and are in gangs. And if you haven't played the game, a lot of these guys were in prison before the outbreak. These gangs are actually killing innocent people, which you witness a lot.

Spoiler

There was an ECHO I found where a guy was burned alive inside his car from these "enemies".

I was walking around on the street and saw a gang of guys throw a woman on the ground and proceed to beat her with a bat over and over again. I watched for near a minute seeing if they'd ever stop. Nope. Not until I engaged them.

It's clear who the enemies are and they're not just looters. In no way did I get the sense that I was just some military cop shooting innocent people. There's a clear message you're taking out violent gangs and violent criminals.

You should really play the game. I don't think you have or haven't finished it from the way you're talking. I think you'll see why I said "stupid and trying".

 

[Lunar15]

I wouldn't even put this under the Tom Clancy brand of political statements. It's more Ubisoft's trend of capitalizing on weird social trends without actually thinking any of it through. Think about all the weird stuff we noticed about Watch_Dogs: It's taking the popular paranoia concept of the government fucking up with survelliance, but then not actually making any great points about it and actually kind of feeding into the idea that looking at everyone's personal info would be kind of fun. It's the basest lip-service to controversial topics, and in a lot of ways it just ends up being more irresponsible and questionable than it is thought provoking.