Support NeoGAF

[The Jackdog]

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

Blues Clues 4 lyfe.

i dont know what is up and what is down anymore.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

"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

Very well said. Having read a couple of his books I completely agree with you.

 

[ooobazinga]

It is a video game. Some people just totally over analyse things and come up with 4+4=9

 

[patapuf]

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.

You know, plenty of though goes into a product like happy meals. And something as popular a happy meals also has a lot of effects and meaning - even some unintended by the makers.

Just because the authors didn't think about something deeply doesn't mean that it doesn't have meaning, nevermind the fact that just because the author meant something one way doesn't mean the audience can't take it another.

The Division isn't a particularily deep narrative piece, but it's relevant because it's played by millions of people.

Now there's nothing stopping people from ignoring the narrative and just enjoying their loot shooter, there's also nothing wrong with doing just that But why would those people waste their time discussing it with people that do want to think about what the setting means?

 

[Figments]

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

I think the idea that gameplay can and should be considered separately from narrative is a bit ludicrous. They're part of the same package, married together by what the designers intended and their actual accomplishments. Treating them as separate entities doesn't benefit analysis--it arguably makes it worse.

I mean, take the cynical romance systems in BioWare games--that treat relationships like means to an end and sex as a prize instead of the ultimate act of intimacy. Mechanics say something about the overall narrative. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

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.

That's a good point. Also the racial politics in Watch Dogs that others have talked about.

 

[Ethelwulf]

Its a fucking Tom Clancy... what did people expect?

Exactly. Tom Clancy is pretty conservative, no?

 

[T.O.P]

I'm more shocked that the article it's not a a separate analysis but it's the actual review of the game tbh

 

[pj]

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.

Yeah I don't get a class war vibe at all. "THEY GOT ALEX!" doesn't scream poor people to me. I think a lot of the stuff being over analyzed is practical game design. Why do they wear hoods? So artists have to make fewer character models and because it's less expensive to render them. Why do you play as the military character? Because they have better toys. Why are there a bunch of guys running around with flame throwers? Because it's adds variety and it's fun to shoot their tanks. Why is everyone armed and why does a city with strict gun control suddenly have every firearm ever made lying around in backpacks? Because throwing bricks isn't as fun.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

It is a video game. Some people just totally over analyse things and come up with 4+4=9

And some people are say nothing interesting at all.

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.

How can you possibly separate those things? Even if you don't actively think or care about the story your subconsciously thinking "guys with hoodies or looters are bad" in gameplay perspective.

 

[Andodalf]

This is ignoring how this is a video game and the looters are enemies, therefore need to be shot regardless of anything because they aren't real people, just pixels to shoot. even less so than good characters. ludo narrative dissonance and all that. plus the looters will just kill any civvies they see, they aren't just in it to help themselves, they're harming others to do so. In the tie in book a line is drawn between looters (for personal profit after disaster) and scavengers (for survival).

 

[Auctopus]

Something based on Tom Clancy tends to be pro-government and pro-military? Has the guy ever actually read a Tom Clancy book?

Missed the forest for the trees.

"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

It's a Tom Clancy joint after all, right wing nuttery is his speciality.

Great article btw, thanks for pointing it out.

^

 

[Goose_Se7en]

Solid, interesting article. Honestly when I first played the Beta my ears perked up a bit when I saw the rioters.

My thought was "the have hoodies and are probably black, Latino and look like the people I grew up in Brooklyn". Bummer, making us the bad guys.

Played the second beta, have been playing the game since launch and I never thought about it again. I don't play The Division for it's loose narrative but I'm glad the Killscreen writer is taking Ubi and UbiMassive to task for this.

Only for the reason that he is applying criticisms to a medium that barely gets any high brow analysis.

 

[xRaizen]

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".

I totally agree. You also see the occasional small group of enemies around a helpless civilian and will even shoot them if you don't intervene quickly enough.

 

[Figments]

This is ignoring how this is a video game and the looters are enemies, therefore need to be shot regardless of anything because they aren't real people, just pixels to shoot. even less so than good characters. ludo narrative dissonance and all that. plus the looters will just kill any civvies they see, they aren't just in it to help themselves, they're harming others to do so. In the tie in book a line is drawn between looters (for personal profit after disaster) and scavengers (for survival).

You act as though ludonarrative dissonance is a good thing. It isn't, in any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Strider7]

So much ignorance in this thread. "Right-wing gun owners", "right-wing wet dream". I'm moderate myself, but so many of you paint with too broad a brush with your seeming disdain for the right.

As for the article, it raises some interesting points. But as pointed out, characters within the game do at least partially address the problems with the situation. I would also add that, yes, there ARE innocent "looters" such as people trying to break into cars, etc, that you don't shoot.

I will say that the amount of looters in the low level areas is a bit ridiculous, but the Cleaners and Last Man Battalion are clearly organized forces of proper "bad guys". I have no issue with fighting them. This isn't about protecting property, its about cleaning out the wicked elements residing in a virus/crime ridden New York, preventing its restoration.

 

[Das Ace]

Some people in this thread still getting sucked into auteur theory. Intention of the author is kind of irrelevant. Games like this are inherently political in that it was created in a capitalist western country for a captailist western market.

 

[Prime crotch]

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.

Pretty much, the lack of focus on the narrative helps the distancing of the weird politics from the gameplay; a simple faction choice would help matters a lot and vary the gameplay a bit too.
Fun game though.

 

[sonicmj1]

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.

Do, or do not. There is no "try".

I don't know if the writers of 24 were trying to make a statement about appropriate rules of engagement when fighting terrorism, but when politicians started using Jack Bauer as a justification for permitting torture, it didn't matter what they were trying to do. Their work communicated something beyond mere entertainment, whether they wanted it to or not.

 

[gblues]

That doesn't mean the article isn't without its strong points. This particular fiction as escapist fantasy reinforces dangerous ideas.

No, it doesn't. But right-wing nut-jobbery is part of the Tom Clancy package. So "game inspired by noted RWNJ contains RWNJ ideas" is not surprising. Certainly worth analyzing, though, and I've seen some great analysis posted and linked to in the thread.

Someone earlier mentioned that it was like a dark lens into how American society looks from the outside, and I'm inclined to agree with that.

 

[PBY]

So much ignorance in this thread. "Right-wing gun owners", "right-wing wet dream". I'm moderate myself, but so many of you paint with too broad a brush with your seeming disdain for the right.

I mean... that's a stereotype for a valid reason (cough GOPocaplypse2016 cough), but I get it.

 

[soultron]

I just want to take this moment to plug DMZ, an interesting take on NYC as ground zero for a different kind of conflict involving bands "opportunists" with (more) complex motivations and character development.

I feel like conversations about The Division benefit from being able to contrast it alongside something like DMZ.

In DMZ, the main character's motivations and alignment with certain factions often shift over the course of the story, and the regular people caught in the middle of the conflict there are depicted as capable and multi-dimensional. It's hard to depict something like this in games (I work in games) but I really wish the character in The Division had a chance to see and interact with the human element in The Division in more meaningful ways than just purchasing upgrades and seeing the implied result of their efforts (more civilians amassing) back in the HQ.

 

[jackdoe]

Exactly. Tom Clancy is pretty conservative, no?

Haha. The main antagonists of Rainbow Six, the novel, are essentially over exaggerated, villainous tree huggers.

 

[SoapNickTavish]

Love how the article doesn't mention the Last Man Battalion enemy faction. They're private paramilitary contractors that come across as "freedom isn't free" right winger militiamen.

Almost all the enemy factions do horrible things and commit violent acts against innocent civilians. Even the supposed good guys aren't entirely pure, especially if you consider the Dark Zone and how it factors into the overall narrative. Even so, a lot of the side missions involve rescuing civilians and saving hostages.

Hell, and end game spoilers, but

Spoiler

turns out one of the main villains is a rogue agent, upset with the Division and asks the player character to question what they're doing. Not to mention the fact that the entire first wave of Division agents went rogue.

You build up your Base of Operations so you can improve your agent, but also find a cure for the virus, help sick civilians, provide support and comfort to those with medical needs, as well as services through tech and security upgrades.

I think the real subtext says humans can sometimes be monsters, and I don't think it's trying to pin that on any one type of political ideology.

I'm pretty damn liberal, but I think the writer is really reaching.

 

[Jintor]

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".

You're right that I should play the game to better discuss it, but I still think you're missing my larger point: that creating a game world and contextualizing it in this specific manner, and especially the fact that it can and commonly seems to have evoked certain reactions to engaging in combat, makes it something worthy of analysis.

 

[Andodalf]

You act as though ludonarrative dissonance is a good thing. It isn't, in any stretch of the imagination.

No, I don't think it's a good thing, but ignoring it makes messages appear where they are none intended.

I shoot a guy in the division. It's just me aiming at pixels to get stuff.

I have to choose between kaidan or ashley. I'm torn, because I have to choose to save what my mind tells me is one realized individual. letting the other die.

One is simply gameplay, the same as collecting coins, the other is really life or death.


Surprised I haven't heard anyone bring up the theory of the division being anti-consumerism because of how money is literally poison distributed on the most consumerist day of the year.

 

[Keasar]

As a Division agent the player is portrayed as the best hope for the city, an everyday hero in a beat-up parka and jeans, ready to fight anyone who might resist. Empowered by Directive 51, they can cut through the red-tape of the judicial system and civil law, to supposedly impose order back on a lawless city through running battles and military assaults.

The Agent is also questioned by one of the "major" characters in the game who believes that giving too much power to individuals is harmful. Something that

Spoiler

proves to be correct when the major antagonists working in the background is a The Division agent, with several more working under him, probably to be used more in an a possible future story add-on. Who also points out in a epilogue scene directed to you that you are a conflicting figure, doing what is "right" in the eyes of others but does differently when off the leash (as in The Dark Zone), noting he will keep an eye on you out of interest.

“Citizens” are classified as those friendly-looking, passive idiots that wander up and down streets looking for a hand-out.

And also in a couple of scenes talking about trying to get out, flee, eating rats despite hating it, giving food to a helpless person, breaking into cars, shuffling through refuse, but, you know, they are not spending their time bashing other people's faces in for canned food therefore they are weak and not strong willed to survive.

“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.

The people depicted doing so usually being psychopathic and threatening and/or killing others. Kinda loose the sympathy for people who define their own survival important enough to take the survival from others.

Not gonna argue though that its kinda messed up that you open fire on some people because they wear hoodies and have weapons (like bats), crouched over a corpse that you don't know if they killed or was already there even though they are far down the street doing nothing just because they have the enemy tag above their heads.

This totalitarian atmosphere pervades everything—even down to a mission where you harvest a refugee camp for samples of virus variation, treating victims like petri dishes.

Harvest? The fuck? A civilian doctor asked you to gather samples of the virus, a important step in medicinal science to combat viruses is to gather information on them. Besides, in the mission you don't even bloody touch the people, you are busy shooting the Cleaners (because to be fair, shooting is the only interaction you have with the world of The Division) who are also fighting the virus but instead of trying to find a more stable and long term preventive measure against it through vaccination are burning the people alive. I am starting to find a anarchistic pattern in this writer.

The third gang are the “Rioters,” a majority black, generic street gang, decked in hoodies and caps that spend their time looting electronics stores and dead bodies.

Uhm, how do he know they are black? Is it because they wear hoodies? I have never seen the face on any of the Rioters and even when you look close its hard to determine a race at all.

I have ranted quite a bit that I think the story of The Division is poorly told, and I did also find out that by the end of the game there is actually a glimmer of a interesting story. How

Spoiler

the doctor who engineered the virus was out to save the planet using the extreme capitalistic characteristic of Greed to smash humanity into bits, poisoning the very lifeblood of most modern societies to spread his super virus. How another Agent is using the very uncontrolled power granted to him through The Division to shape the world in his ideal image.

This article however sounds extremely pretentious.

 

[captainnapalm]

And some people are say nothing interesting at all.


How can you possibly separate those things? Even if you don't actively think or care about the story your subconsciously thinking "guys with hoodies or looters are bad" in gameplay perspective.

As has been pointed out, looters aren't automatically bad. There are looters/scavengers you don't shoot. People are trying to make it sound like you're just walking around killing everything that moves. You're killing people preying on innocents.

The criticism is on even less solid ground when it tries to insinuate racism based on enemy design. I think the game quite clearly avoids racial stereotyping.

 

[ogbg]

The rioters are all white as far as I can tell

 

[AuthenticM]

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?

It certainly plays a part in examining the work. If an author says: "This is what I am trying to say" in regards to a work he created, then it's decidedly worth looking into. As I said previously, if what I take from the work aligns with the author's intention, then I can certainly use the author's intention as an argument for my interpretation of his work. But the other way around (that is, his intent contradicts what I see in his work) isn't valid. An author simply cannot invalidate the interpretations of his work by uttering the magical words: "That's not what I intended."

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?

It wouldn't change anything. The only thing it would do is make me judge the writers' degree of competence (or their honesty, for that matter). They would have to have dropped the ball quite intensely to produce a story that pushes the exact opposite of what they intended. Or they would have to be lying.

The key thing to remember is this: everything one needs to analyze and interpret a work is in the work itself. Everything else is superfluous and is to not be prioritized.

 

[staticneuron]

Crazy. If the game director was being honest when he said they didn't intend to make a political game, then he should have been more conscious of what his team was building.

It is a Tom Clancy game, what else would you expect?

So this character who calls out the Division is a bad guy? And the game dispenses of him by having the player kill him?

I hope this is ok to speak about this because this is going into spoiler territory but the article is false and has the most simplistic representation of the games factions and the concept of citizens and directives.

First of all, most of the citizen try to remain indoors. There are 4 factions instead of 3. I don't how this was missed despite the marketing showing all 4. The rioters aren't bad for simply looting. Rioters kill innocent people to rob them. The Rikers escape shows a massive wave of violence because they want to take over the city. The Cleaners single mindedness means that they aren't even looking for a cure nor do they care about who has the disease or not, if they think you are a potential carrier you are dying. The LMB is setting up thier own form of control in the area because they feel they can do a better job than those who left them behind and they are heavily armed and try to use the virus as a weaponized deterrent.

But simply put even though you are a division agent, there is nothing in the game that states you are a "good" guy or that the division is a good concept to begin with. As stated by others the concept is actually challenged by one of the main characters of the game and is proven right.

So this article is creating a narrative that is not really present that way in the game and goes so far as to omit one group and try to humanize the antagonists. Regular citizens are trying to break into cars in the game. They are not considered hostiles. So no looters are not considered bad guys simply for trying to loot.

Lol no, he's an ally PC ... I don't want to go into spoiler territory, but he immediately commented on the inherent problems with The Division, then he was proven right.

Indeed

\

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?

It doesn't push an agenda, it blatantly says it, and it hits you over the head with a sledgehammer. You cannot miss it if you play through the story. It shows that the intent of the division agents despite how they started or the nature of the program can be heavily skewed based off of individual experiences. So even if they were at the start a bunch of patriotic upstart citizens that wanted to restore the country (which is disturbing in a manner if you really think about it) they change by simply living life.

 

[Disheveled_Zen]

Love how the article doesn't mention the Last Man Battalion enemy faction. They're private paramilitary contractors that come across as "freedom isn't free" right winger militiamen.

He also left out the

Spoiler

entire first wave that went rogue

 

[pineapplepizza]

Except, the game addresses the issue by having one of characters call out the Division for the mockery it makes of Democracy in the best dialogue of the game ... then it shows what happens when agents with no control go bad.

That simple dialogue scene doesn't address or change the fundamentals of the game the journalist has outlined. It has almost zero importance in the grand scheme of things. When agents with no control go bad they fight in the dark zone only AND the division just sends in more agents to murder them regardless. The game is 100% centralized around murder without any repercussions.

It's a loot 'n shoot, kill anything that has a red indicator and it might drop some purplez or yellowz man!

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I am going to disagree with this article, mainly because it is making the argument that all your actions as a Division agent are focused on securing property rather than saving human life. That is flat out wrong, and ignores a lot of the context that the game provides. Most side missions involve saving lives. For example, lots of the medical and security encounters are to rescue kidnapped civilians, or to assist JTF officers being target by the violent groups that plague the city. These are both focused on saving innocent people that are being unfairly targeted by rogue groups. In addition, the entire medical series of missions is dedicated to finding a cure for the dollar flu, the main goal of which is to save lives. Even walking around the world, most random encounters with enemies will center around saving innocent bystanders. 9 times out of ten, when you walk up to a group of rioters on the street, they will be mugging or executing or extorting an innocent civilian, and if you choose to engage them, it is for the purpose of stopping them from taking advantage of or killing a civilian. They also attack you in site, so even if they are just looting, you can't walk passed them without being forced to engage. The only missions that revolve around property are the tech supply acquisition missions, but those are understandable given that literally everyone in the scenario is fighting over supplies, and the Division would obviously need them too. It is important to note that the supplies are usually meant for civilians or the JTF and contain food, medicine, etc in addition to arms and ammunition, and that the enemy groups typically just seek to destroy the supplies.

Finally, you are not killing to prevent looting and secure property, as all of the civilians are constantly looting and you never (you literally can't) shoot them. If that was your chief concern, then the game would allow you to prevent the civilians looting as well as the rioters and such. However, the game does not cast a bad light on the normal civilians for looting, and even encourages you to pass along supplies to them. The game does not demonize people doing what they have to to survive in a harsh world; it demonizes those who take advantage of a void of power and capitalize on that void to take advantage of others.

 

[Disheveled_Zen]

That simple dialogue scene doesn't address or change the fundamentals of the game the journalist has outlined. It has almost zero importance in the grand scheme of things. When agents with no control go bad they fight in the dark zone only AND the division just sends in more agents to murder them regardless. The game is 100% centralized around murder without any repercussions.

It's a loot 'n shoot, kill anything that has a red indicator and it might drop some purplez or yellowz man!

Have you played the story? Because that's not true at all.

 

[pineapplepizza]

Yes I beat the game and that's jist of what I gathered

So the division does not send in more agents to take back the city (license to kill), restore order and protect the property (that is new york)? What's false about it?

 

[Infinite]

It is a video game. Some people just totally over analyse things and come up with 4+4=9

People want video games be seen as art but then they say this when it is criticized like art is.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

As has been pointed out, looters aren't automatically bad. There are looters/scavengers you don't shoot. People are trying to make it sound like you're just walking around killing everything that moves. You're killing people preying on innocents.

The criticism is on even less solid ground when it tries to insinuate racism based on enemy design. I think the game quite clearly avoids racial stereotyping.

The problem is that it's making a complex issue to one group of people are angels while the other is just completely evil. It's gets worse when the class system stuff comes into it. Also, would read this: http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/966165-divisions-racially-charged-boss-fight-disappointing

 

[The Jackdog]

It certainly plays a part in examining the work. If an author says: "This is what I am trying to say" in regards to a work he created, then it's decidedly worth looking into. As I said previously, if what I take from the work aligns with the author's intention, then I can certainly use the author's intention as an argument for my interpretation of his work. But the other way around (that is, his intent contradicts what I see in his work) isn't valid. An author simply cannot invalidate the interpretations of his work by uttering the magical words: "That's not what I intended."

It wouldn't change anything. The only thing it would do is make me judge the writers' degree of competence (or their honesty, for that matter). They would have to have dropped the ball quite intensely to produce a story that pushes the exact opposite of what they intended. Or they would have to be lying.

The key thing to remember is this: everything one needs to analyze and interpret a work is in the work itself. Everything else is superfluous and is to not be prioritized.

hmmm i get what youre saying.

so heres another one i find interesting: how does the authors intent factor into it when we're talking about a game? do we criticize story and game play separately? i think this is the "new problem" with telling a story. games have game play. i think its silly to count them as separate and games that use gameplay in conjunction with a story have used it to amazing effect.

but i think its something worth thinking about: i could write a deep, interesting, theme ridden story for a game. the best youve ever read. but then the game play might completely undermine it.

its the nathan drake problem right? how can the plucky hero also be a mass murderer? a ton of games have this problem. that what youre doing isnt exactly in line with the story being told.

i think the criticism of games is just such a new thing. we're still at a point where mostly, from triple A to indie, the story in games kinda suck most of the time. but now games are getting to the point where an awesome amazing story can be told, and developers are faced with "well, we need this gameplay mechanic to make a good game, but it makes the story worse"

 

[staticneuron]

I am going to disagree with this article, mainly because it is making the argument that all your actions as a Division agent are focused on securing property rather than saving human life. That is flat out wrong, and ignores a lot of the context that the game provides. Most side missions involve saving lives. For example, lots of the medical and security encounters are to rescue kidnapped civilians, or to assist JTF officers being target by the violent groups that plague the city. These are both focused on saving innocent people that are being unfairly targeted by rogue groups. In addition, the entire medical series of missions is dedicated to finding a cure for the dollar flu, the main goal of which is to save lives. Even walking around the world, most random encounters with enemies will center around saving innocent bystanders. 9 times out of ten, when you walk up to a group of rioters on the street, they will be mugging or executing or extorting an innocent civilian, and if you choose to engage them, it is for the purpose of stopping them from taking advantage of or killing a civilian. They also attack you in site, so even if they are just looting, you can't walk passed them without being forced to engage. The only missions that revolve around property are the tech supply acquisition missions, but those are understandable given that literally everyone in the scenario is fighting over supplies, and the Division would obviously need them too. It is important to note that the supplies are usually meant for civilians or the JTF and contain food, medicine, etc in addition to arms and ammunition, and that the enemy groups typically just seek to destroy the supplies.

Finally, you are not killing to prevent looting and secure property, as all of the civilians are constantly looting and you never (you literally can't) shoot them. If that was your chief concern, then the game would allow you to prevent the civilians looting as well as the rioters and such. However, the game does not cast a bad light on the normal civilians for looting, and even encourages you to pass along supplies to them. The game does not demonize people doing what they have to to survive in a harsh world; it demonizes those who take advantage of a void of power and capitalize on that void to take advantage of others.

Have you played the story? Because that's not true at all.

Thanks for these. I am surprised how people are actually buying into this article if they even played a decent amount of the game.

 

[T.O.P]

The third gang are the “Rioters,” a majority black, generic street gang, decked in hoodies and caps that spend their time looting electronics stores and dead bodies.

Most of them are white people wearing a mask or hoodies, da fuck is this guy talking about

They also go around terrorizing people other than looting

Also, did the author conveniently forget to talk about the LMB wich goal is litterally "Fascist Rule" ?

 

[Disheveled_Zen]

Yes I beat the game and that's jist of what I gathered

So the division does not send in more agents to take back the city (license to kill), restore order and protect the property (that is new york)? What's false about it?

The part about the dark zone and rogue agents.

 

[Tesseract]

the division is propaganda for tonald dump

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Katrina references by people who weren't there at least for the aftermath make me uncomfortable in general, and I haven't and was never really interested in playing this to begin with, but in general this article actually makes this sound like a fairly good simulation of people empowered with guns during a disaster. Katrina could be a bad example for any of the more meaningful points they are trying to make though, as it's difficult to call what was left of the NOPD during the aftermath of the storm a police force more than a crew of often plainclothes vigilantes. It was not a right arm of an empowered government imposing order in any sense beyond perhaps in their own minds, it was a group of people who had guns in a lawless environment where they believed they were the only law. Some helped people, many looted stores because who was going to stop them, and well, everyone knows about the Danzinger Bridge and Henry Glover incidents. It's probably to the surprise of no one that the officers convicted in those crimes have had their convictions overturned mostly under the radar of national media, so needless to say my faith in the restored free government isn't high either.

I'm more shocked that the article it's not a a separate analysis but it's the actual review of the game tbh

This is Kill Screen, man

 

[valkyre]

I wonder if people are doing the same in every piece of videogame out there, trying to, i dont know, "sophisticate" it to the point of utter ridiculousness.

Mario kills turtles and other animals that are just walking around, GTA pretty much kills everything (but oh, its ok because it is "satire") , Fallout does pretty much the same with the Division and pretty much every game out there has you shooting and killing stuff that arent necessarily "evil" by what the author of this article goes for.

You know what, I am calling it. This article is bullshit. I believe it tries very hard to sound sophisticated and flashy, when this is a shooter videogame.

I find a lot of what the article refers to, rather pretentious and quite ironic to say the least. Just because they use some flashy words and add sociopolitical flavour, that doesnt make it a great article...

And the author like I said before hasnt mentioned the LMB , the faction the rich guys employed to save their asses and then abandonned them there. So the fact that he "sells" the article under the notion that the game "criminalizes the poor" is not only exposing the fact that he did not play the game through to the end, but that he also failed to contextualize the game properly.

And before someone calls me an apologist, I dont believe the game is something great to write home about, but I do hate the trend that a few flashy words/concepts and general "sophisticated" bullcrap, pass through as some kind of genuine thing like :"wow this guy knows his shit, such great vocabulary and wording".

 

[AlimNassor]

That simple dialogue scene doesn't address or change the fundamentals of the game the journalist has outlined. It has almost zero importance in the grand scheme of things. When agents with no control go bad they fight in the dark zone only AND the division just sends in more agents to murder them regardless. The game is 100% centralized around murder without any repercussions.

It's a loot 'n shoot, kill anything that has a red indicator and it might drop some purplez or yellowz man!

Sure lets have us question every Enemy NPC! What's your point? The game has a disgusting toxic ideology taht should be banned but, the gameplay is fun and that's all that matters. Why should it matter if I'm killing NPCs in game? You can't talk to them, and they don't surrender.

 

[pj]

Yes I beat the game and that's jist of what I gathered

So the division does not send in more agents to take back the city (license to kill), restore order and protect the property (that is new york)? What's false about it?

Protect whose property? 95% of the residents are dead

If that kind of catastrophe happened, the last thing anyone would care about is their 3 br condo in chelsea

 

[paragonpro]

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 will now riot in the streets! How dare nick jr push their agenda!? But yes I feel like the search for a deeper political message in most things, including the division, comes down to grasping at proverbial straws. I can understand, especially now in our politically charged and heated climate during election season, why we seek these things out. But some times its better to let things be as they are, in this case, a harmless loot shooter.

 

[Confused Cheeseburger]

Read some of this article, and without sounding severe, it sounds pretty intellectually masturbatory. There is a lot of intent projection from this article and things that are just wrong in order to fit a narrative. I usually love long-form stuff like this, but it really seems pretty self-indulgent much like other articles I will occasionally read on KS.

 

[Fuchsdh]

People want video games be seen as art but then they say this when it is criticized like art is.

Art is over-criticized too. Sometimes cigars are just cigars. And in this case, the author gets facts of the game wrong, which is sort of like starting your examination of the Mona Lisa by saying Michelangelo drew it in the 12th century.

That's exactly the mindset of fiction like Tom Clancy - survival of the fittest, every man for himself, Hobbes' Leviathan, ethics out the window, etc.

But it is precisely that in the face of loss of civilization that humans find empathy and help towards one another. Just look up how people in war-torn cities try to help out each other despite them being complete strangers. There is an innate morality in us, which the Division fails to show as far as I've understood. This War of Mine is a game that does more than the Division, one could probably argue.

We aren't innately good, or at the very least your belief in that doesn't make it true.