Support NeoGAF

[Lord of Ostia]

I think this discussion is super important, and I'm glad Kill Screen has provoked discussion on the issue, but I find some things problematic about some of the claims in the review.

I'm not at level cap, but so far, I feel like Directive 51 is treated with the opposite of "reverence". People in the street treat you with disgust. The Cleaners yell about federal government interference. The pirate radio host is LIVID that this sort of thing is happening on American soil. The Dark Zone is a huge whitewash and cover up. If anything the game treats Division agents as a necessary evil. The military and reservists are all dead. The JTF is made up of cops and first responders and are in way over their heads. And that's why they pushed the button. As for the assertion that the game is referring to "property" as what the player is protecting - that simply isn't the case. What stands out to me on one of my many trips walking around the gameworld: coming across two rioter enemies beating a man using a baseball bat. Rioters are also demonstrated engaging in things like human trafficking; they aren't just trying to score food or a new TV, they're criminal scumbags hurting people. The "civilians" are the ones that are surviving, and they're treated as friendlies. "Rioters" are going out of their way to kill and maim.

Watch some echoes. There's one early on where a "rioter" shoots an unarmed JTF member unloading a food truck to give people rations. They aren't interested in distributing the food fairly, they're interested in lording it over people's heads, in using it as leverage. There's a phone conversation where someone working a CERA clinic is brutally murdered for doing her job.

I think reading it as a right-wing power fantasy speaks more about the author than it does about Ubi Massive. The factions, to me, represent the fears of Canadian and American society: the rioters and rikers are our fear of the collapse of order, the cleaners are our fear of the hard right and their obsession with "taking matters into their own hands", and LMB and Division our fear of organized military groups abusing their power.

The Times Square mission is absolutely not about turning on the ads in Times Square; they state pretty plainly that you're rebooting the power in that area because of the risk of a power surge that can make the entire grid unusable.

I've absolutely no problem with this sort of article, but I feel the need to point out revisions and inaccuracies that seem tailor made to fit the author's argument, which I find problematic if shared with people who have no knowledge of the game. It's very easy to read this and get sucked into the argument if you take everything at face value.

Great post, the writer of the article is definitely twisting things in the game to fit his point of view, and ignoring aspects that don't support his position. However, he is right in that the player and the Division overall aren't really glamorized, or at least that they shouldn't be. It's important to note that none of your actions have a noticeable impact on anything except your base of operations; the division is attempting to help others, but the tangible effect on New York is negligible, with the exception of their work to find a vaccine. You aren't really a savior of any kind, you are a military operative trying to maintain order in a place that has become destabilized and lawless.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Since minority representation is being mentioned, I saw this great article by professor Kishonna Gray on "The Black Woman as Villain in The Division: Examining the Investment in the White Savior Industrial Complex"



http://www.nymgamer.com/?p=13197

Does this article still hold weight if your playing as a PoC?

 

[Anilusion]

This article is full of lies and is horribly twisted to favor the point the writer is desperately trying to prove.

Spoilers ahead

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. Later you’ll kill some more who are occupying an electronics store and then proceed to loot the place yourself, an act made legal by the badge on your shoulder.

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.

The very first enemy you encounter in the game is a rioter about to execute a person sitting on his knees in front of him. You spend the rest of time in Brooklyn seeing them commit armed theft of food and medicine intended for the general population, ending with them assaulting a police station with only a few people being left alive. As soon as you get to Manhattan, you find them attacking the last remaining outpost of the JTF, and the nearby field hospital has been completely ransacked, with most patients and people working there being murdered.

No mention of the first wave agent's going rogue, no mention of the rikers trying to destroy the only source of electricity the city has left, etc.

So many things conveniently being left out in his attempt to make a point.

This is an opinion piece, not a game review and should not have been advertised or interpreted as one. This could have been a fantastic article if the writer would have played through the entire game and been sticking to the facts (however I suspect it would have been a whole lot less controversial). But in it's current form it more clickbait than anything else.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Dressed "smarter"? What are you trying to say?

He means they dress smarter.

 

[grandwizard]

Good and interesting read. Unfortunately since it is a counted review and has a score it has attracted much more ire than the usual video game think piece due to superfans having to protect their precious video game from a low score aggregate.

Everything about The Division's setup and execution makes me think of some right winger's power fantasy while they sat and watched the coverage of Hurricane Katrina presented by the mainstream media. Just send me in there with some guns and I'll show those looters whats what! Take back New Orleans!

There is some more nuance in the game that's buried deep in some intel files and echos scattered across the map but the big picture they are selling definitely has some overtones that can and should be analyzed, including the reality it presents about the breakdown of civilization in the face of catastrophe. Normal people turning into psychopaths and 'rioters' that are cartoonishly evil.

 

[Velkyn]

Great post, the writer of the article is definitely twisting things in the game to fit his point of view, and ignoring aspects that don't support his position. However, he is right in that the player and the Division overall aren't really glamorized, or at least that they shouldn't be. It's important to note that none of your actions have a noticeable impact on anything except your base of operations; the division is attempting to help others, but the tangible effect on New York is negligible, with the exception of their work to find a vaccine. You aren't really a savior of any kind, you are a military operative trying to maintain order in a place that has become destabilized and lawless.

I mean, it's even baked into in-game dialog; The Division exists solely to ensure continuity of government, from municipal to federal. They don't exist to save the city. They aren't supposed to have any attachments to friends, family, the city, or themselves. Faye even says this; they're not supposed to be attached to the idea of saving people and saving the city. They're there to re-establish existing power structures. Faye and the players are actively going against orders in trying to save innocents and save the city.

 

[Screaming Meat]

To me the article reads into much more than what the developers intended or did intentionally.

Maybe so. Perhaps that's more worrying.

 

[semiconscious]

"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

second post. i mean, what in the hell were you expecting? complexity? the division is rooted in over-the-top nonsense, &, for what it is, works just fine for me ...

 

[CenturionKei]

This is probably the dumbest article i've ever read.

Games like Phantom Pain let people live a fantasy of being a ruthless African warlord. Why aren't they deceiving articles for games like that, instead of this.

 

[DirtyLarry]

I'll be very honest in the fact I never really even looked at who the game dictates as "good and bad guys."
I do a pulse and/or aim my weapon, and if you show up as red or with a red marker above your head, that is how I know you are a bad guy.
I suppose I have started to notice what bad guys tend to look at, but I still always do a pulse or point my weapon to make sure.
I will notice more know that I have read this article though.

And although I agree with the point that it is overall a pretty messed approach to the whole make believe scenario, as pointed out Tom Clancy is known for being Gung Ho, and I also tend to believe it is also not Ubisoft pushing some hidden agenda. They just wanted a somewhat plausible storyline and probably did not care all that much, if at all, if that storyline happened to skew for one side of the political spectrum and not the other.

It is interesting to point it out though, no doubt about it. I also do realize there are some people out there not capable of separating fiction from reality so they very well may get some kind of message out of the game that can potentially add to an already delusional mind state, however I have to believe, at least hope, that is a very small number of people at the end of the day.

 

[Clockwork5]

If the millions of citizens of NYC were decimated by a terrorist attack and the city became a wasteland of looters and criminals it think it would be best to hand out lollipops and bubblegum.

 

[Alebrije]

Videogames serious business.


What about the walking dead series and how they manage the way groups survive , or even TLOU.

Is just Phantasy after all.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

This article is full of lies and is horribly twisted to favor the point the writer is desperately trying to prove.

Spoilers ahead





The very first enemy you encounter in the game is a rioter about to execute a person sitting on his knees in front of him. You spend the rest of time in Brooklyn seeing them commit armed theft of food and medicine intended for the general population, ending with them assaulting a police station with only a few people being left alive. As soon as you get to Manhattan, you find them attacking the last remaining outpost of the JTF, and the nearby field hospital has been completely ransacked, with most patients and people working there being murdered. All of this has been conveniently left out of his article.

This is an opinion piece, not a game review and should not have been advertised or interpreted as one. This could have been a fantastic article if the writer would have played through the entire game and been sticking to the facts (however I suspect it would have been a whole lot less controversial). But in it's current form it more clickbait than anything else.

It's sketchy when most of the rioters are all wearing hoodies and look and sound like black men. There's some conversation to be had. There are some rioters who I actually confused as civilians cuz all they were doing was walking until they started shooting at me.

 

[John Rabbit]

thread is like a graveyard, yeesh.

article echoes what happened to me in the beta the first time i ran into hostile mobs just farting around in the world. i didn't even understand they were supposed to be enemies until they started shooting at me. they were just standing around and two of them were rummaging in a car or something. they weren't doing anything actively threatening until i broke their aggro range and they started unloading.

after that i started aiming my gun at anyone and everyone on the street to see if it turned red (i understand the map shows you nearby threats, but the range on it isn't very far) so instead i'm just this raving lunatic with a gun pointing it at everybody to see if they're 'bad" or not. none of that particularly sat well with me. at least in missions/dark zone you're aware that an opposing force exists and that you're supposed to stop them.

 

[Velkyn]

This is probably the dumbest article i've ever read.

Games like Phantom Pain let people live a fantasy of being a ruthless African warlord. Why aren't they deceiving articles for games like that, instead of this.

I mean, let's unpack that, you have a great point there;

In TPP, your "heroes" are a band of lawless, stateless PMCs that roam around Afghanistan and Africa indiscriminately murdering and kidnapping soldiers, hell bent on getting your revenge for having your other lawless, stateless oil platform in the middle of the ocean shot up.

 

[Jabba]

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.

This one was really fucked up, only because of how it happened in my game.

Walked into an underground parking garage and heard a man being threatened mainly for items, iirc, along with other dialog. While this went on, I just couldn't find them After the exchange, victim yelled "Go to hell!!!!!!!" To which the aggressor replied, "You first." *gunshot*

This was the instance that made me start looking at things in the game from a societal perspective more critically.

 

[Alebrije]

I mean, let's unpack that, you have a great point there;

In TPP, your "heroes" are a band of lawless, stateless PMCs that roam around Afghanistan and Africa indiscriminately murdering and kidnapping soldiers, hell bent on getting your revenge for having your other lawless, stateless oil platform in the middle of the ocean shot up.

Also in Mario you are a massive murderer of goombas

 

[The Blackrose]

I'm of a couple of minds on this one. Article raises some good points but either avoids, obfuscates, or spins others.

A lot of the faults can be laid at the fact that the world building (outside of the

Spoiler

Keener faction of First Wave going Rogue

) isn't so much portrayed in the missions as it is in the collectibles and tidbits you come across at places like Safe Houses. Those of which are only accessible either by happenstance or by the vague mention of completing all objectives and having one of the pieces of the Security Wing unlocked. The post-Security mission intel pieces and other cutscenes are terrible at explaining motivation, instead just laying condemnation of the four aggressive factions.

It's not until you start hitting Echos that you see the Cleaners not giving a care if you're infected or just having an asthma attack. It's not until you start hitting up cell phones that you see the slow transition of a college student suddenly thinking it's a dog-eat-dog world, and needs to take things by force. It's not until you stop and listen to the radio broadcast in the Safe Houses that Directive 51 is not necessarily welcome with open arms. The latter being something that the Tech Wing missions only briefly touches on (

Spoiler

boy was Rhodes pissed when he found out about Keener

).

While the above throws a wrench into the author's diatribe on lack of believable people, someone else in this thread did bring up a rather valid point that wasn't addressed. Why is it that the JTF are the only faction fighting back? Why are there no other independent, potentially allied groups up in arms over the other four factions? Why is it only Benetiz, Rhodes and Valassi that speak of their misgivings of D51?

The idea of the player character being a savior is just another body to throw on the pile that is the indictment of the average MMO story line these days.

The part of the article that really makes me stop and go "Really?" is the shot at the Times Square mission. Rhodes says you need to go in and rework the power transformer or the city grid will suffer. The author's assertions that it's a neo-liberal plot are borderline asinine.

 

[Clockwork5]

You're putting nudity and non-politicized violence on the same level of reprehensiveness as pushing neocon values of demonizing the poor, murdering them and disrespecting due process? You should get your priorities right.

Who is demonizing the poor in this game? I never saw the net worth of any of the NPCs. In fact I helped out quite a few civilians that needed food and water.

The only people you "murder" in this game are other division agents. How does that fit into the narrative of the article?

Due process means nothing (according to the law) when you are getting shot at. So I will let that speak for itself.

 

[T.O.P]

You're putting nudity and non-politicized violence on the same level of reprehensiveness as pushing neocon values of demonizing the poor, murdering them and disrespecting due process? You should get your priorities right.
That's... irrelevant.

I'm sorry but all the info you have about the game are from this KS article or...?

 

[staticneuron]

I'm giving my opinion that the rogue agent npcs story is so minimal in contrast to what typical gameplay involves. Again I'll repeat, majority of the game involves killing baddies in DZ for loot, roaming NYC, looting and shooting in missions that involve the 4 groups in the game. Again my point is that lore wise it is 100% irrelevant to the typical gameplay you face. Shit the actual story and hidden echo/recording lore could be that bugs bunny and tweety bird are the masterminds behind the virus. It wouldn't even matter! When you fight NPCs you are 99% fighting people from the 4 groups. The rogue agents make up so little of the game (not counting other players). You are more interested in trying to point out my lack of knowledge of the story instead of specifically speaking to my point that the rogue agents story is weak and inconsequential to majority of gameplay.

The original post I responded to mentioned that the article didn't talk about the story with agents going rogue (which was a critique on the political views and corruption of the division). This is as though some small story blurbs clear up what makes up 99% of gameplay! It does not. "We were talking about story" means you're not following my arguments as I understand.

The majority of the game I played the story first. So I didn't play through the DZ much until after I hit 30 which was 40+ hours of time into the game. This entire thread is talking about representation in the game which is pushed by the story. This is about the story. So the fact that you are shooting so LMB doesn't deter from the fact that most of thier actions were influenced by the first wave. It isn't rocket science. They aren't wearing flags that say "DUPES FOR FIRST WAVE" but it doesn't change the strong point that they are effective tools for the first wave to attain a goal.

So I am going to go through your posts one by one because it really doesn't seem you understanding what we are talking about.

Your first post

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!

Gameplay /= Story. Story is the "reason" for who or what you are fighting. The DZ is explained in story but anything that happens in DZ so far is not apart of the story in the main game. The story is the reason why your target turns red over certain enemies. The story is the reason the groups that you see are in the game period.

You say the four groups are important, you are right. But what the game points out to you as a twist is the motivation for the LMB story section is basically guided by the first wave rogues. That makes them synonymous with the LMB until the very last moment.

Anyways this is about the article in OP which states this

The Division has a serious representation problem. Despite the complexity of its world, and its bleak sophistication, it fails miserably to represent the culture within it. Its crude depiction of a society divided entirely into “us and them” feels like the ugliest of conceits. “Citizens” are classified as those friendly-looking, passive idiots that wander up and down streets looking for a hand-out. “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. Later you’ll kill some more who are occupying an electronics store and then proceed to loot the place yourself, an act made legal by the badge on your shoulder. Even the game’s “echoes,” 3D visualizations of previous events, seem designed to criminalize the populace, usually annotating them with their name and the crimes they have committed. 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. Developer Ubisoft Massive runs merrily through any complexity and shades of grey in these acts, in what seems like a vain attempt to mask the fact that you are shooting citizens because they are “looters,” constantly prioritizing property and assets over human life.

So the entire point of the article is discuss the entities you meet in the division and thier representation which is 100% described by the story. The author even mentions echos. If the game offered no explanation or echos or story missions, or real time events in front of your character I can understand the conclusion you are coming to. But since the game has a story and reasoning behind all of this, it doesn't make any sense how you are trying to say it is not important especially in the context of this entire thread.

This article is full of lies and is horribly twisted to favor the point the writer is desperately trying to prove.

Spoilers ahead





The very first enemy you encounter in the game is a rioter about to execute a person sitting on his knees in front of him. You spend the rest of time in Brooklyn seeing them commit armed theft of food and medicine intended for the general population, ending with them assaulting a police station with only a few people being left alive. As soon as you get to Manhattan, you find them attacking the last remaining outpost of the JTF, and the nearby field hospital has been completely ransacked, with most patients and people working there being murdered.

No mention of the first wave agent's going rogue, no mention of the rikers trying to destroy the only source of electricity the city has left, etc.

So many things conveniently being left out in his attempt to make a point.

This is an opinion piece, not a game review and should not have been advertised or interpreted as one. This could have been a fantastic article if the writer would have played through the entire game and been sticking to the facts (however I suspect it would have been a whole lot less controversial). But in it's current form it more clickbait than anything else.

Sums up what is going on here.

 

[Keasar]

The Times Square mission is absolutely not about turning on the ads in Times Square; they state pretty plainly that you're rebooting the power in that area because of the risk of a power surge that can make the entire grid unusable.

I had to actually make a double back on the article and goddamn:

It follows neo-liberal dogma so blindly that in one bizarre mission it actually sends the player to turn the adverts of Times Square back on, as if those airbrushed faces and glimmering products were the true heart of New York City, shining down like angels on the bodies of the dead among the trash.

That is what he decided to see? Quite a agile feat to swing around so hard your head becomes this deeply buried in your ass.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Well, if it were comedy over-the-top a lot less people would buy it. It adresses the issue a little and shows that it's not buying into its own (edit " The Divisions' ") BS but stays neutral. I exaggerated a little... admittedly.
But good on calling me out on the difference in self-awereness between movie and book.

Yeah the book is kind of weird when coming off the movie... didn't expect it to be honest.

 

[Always-honest]

i did not enjoy reading that. But thanx for posting.

 

[Neoleo2143]

I do find it disconcerting that the design of the game as an MMO creates the implication of having hundreds of thousands of absolutely horrid people roaming the streets just waiting to get their opportunity.

The article while interesting at first, doesn't seem to acknowledge all the details and remains stuck in a singular lens, which is disappointing as a piece of literary criticism. I don't regard the Division highly, in fact the above design choice makes me dislike the narrative quite a bit, but it does at least qualify itself to some extent, which is more than what I can say for most games.

 

[brian!]

Excellent article thx for sharing

 

[g11]

So the article assumes the Rikers and Rioters are good natured young men and women who roam the streets of NYC armed to the teeth, but because they're ostensibly only doing it to survive and, according to the writer and not actual facts, are "majority" black, it's cool to let them keep on keepin' on? Sorry, but isn't resorting to arming yourself at the first signs of lawlessness the actual right-wing wet dream? The Rikers and Rioters are the ones who are executing on that idea of "might = right" because a gun is the ultimate dispute ender. "Oh, you have food and I don't? Well I have a gun, so I guess that's my food now." I wonder if this writer's heart bleeds for the people who steal UN distributed food in war torn countries at gun point because "they're just trying to survive too, man". If you can't discern between "looting for survival" and "armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon for survival", all I can say is I'm glad you're writing for a blog instead of a position of any power or significance.

This is not the only thought piece on this game I've seen talking about those specific enemy groups in the game as if they are some crazy demonization of the poor. Yet, if you as the player do nothing but merely approach them, they'll start attacking you. So imagine it if you weren't a Division agent but just a mere civilian trying to live in what's left of the city. They do the same to you and you are dead? To me, that in and of itself makes them the bad guys. Maybe the Division agents aren't pure as the driven snow, but in the scenario the game paints, they are at the very least the lesser of multiple evils.

It's funny because while the writer and a lot of people in this thread seem to think the portrayal of the baddies in this game are "cartoonish", they somehow think the idea of the New York billionaire elite sticking around during a major disaster so they can get up to some nefarious "standing my ground" castle doctrine type shit is in no way infinitely more cartoonish.

 

[Messofanego]

Good read, wasn't expecting a thread on this here

It's interesting The Division comes out right at the time that High-Rise comes out, both have opposing politics and how they frame the societal collapse.

 

[Calavera520]

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?

Did you actually read the excerpts or the article? Come on man.

Like others said, this is the sort of writing we need more of. Critical perspectives that dive deeper than the implementation of MSAA or the number of hours, or the depth of crafting system would be welcome in the industry.

 

[Bloodporne]

Because when you're Swedish, this is just fun escapism. It's just a videogame holiday in mad, bad, violent America. They probably didn't think through much of the politics of it because those politics are so alien to them that this may as well be a game about shooting aliens on the moon.

In a way, it's an ugly lens on what America's fearful late capitalism looks like from outside.

I could most definitely see that being the case actually.

 

[LordJim]

Did you actually read the excerpts or the article? Come on man.

Like others said, this is the sort of writing we need more of. Critical perspectives that dive deeper than the implementation of MSAA or the number of hours, or the depth of crafting system would be welcome in the industry.

Absolutely myopic point of view disregarding tons of details from the game they analyze to push a narrative is not exactly what we need more of.

 

[T.O.P]

Did you actually read the excerpts or the article? Come on man.

Like others said, this is the sort of writing we need more of. Critical perspectives that dive deeper than the implementation of MSAA or the number of hours, or the depth of crafting system would be welcome in the industry.

Especially the ones that completely avoid or change points that would make what are you trying to argument difficult, agreed

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Absolutely myopic point of view disregarding tons of details from the game they analyze to push a narrative is not exactly what we need more of.

This conversation is being heavily talked about by lots of people whenever someone brings up the story in this game.

 

[firehawk12]

The story of the game, given what little there is, is that the whole thing is started by a Division agent gone rogue in the first place.

You never actually shoot any "looters" either, since the three enemy types have clear ideologies (a private security force, ex-cons, and sanitation workers). The enemies also shoot you on sight without a chance for negotiation and you actually fight anyone for property, outside of trying to recover supply drops or medical supplies.

Did you actually read the excerpts or the article? Come on man.

Like others said, this is the sort of writing we need more of. Critical perspectives that dive deeper than the implementation of MSAA or the number of hours, or the depth of crafting system would be welcome in the industry.

It's a misreading though, or at least one based on a misunderstanding of the game.

 

[Lime]

Watch Dogs was racist trash
Rainbow Six: Patriots original unveil was right-winged speculative fiction ("what if OccupyWallstreet were terrorists?")
The Division is fascist paranoia's wet dream

Ubisoft sure accidentally flirts with this particular ideology, regardless of their corporate intentions and multitude of developers involved.

But thank god I got to protect Marx in AC: Syndicate though! :lol

 

[Kinyou]

It's sketchy when most of the rioters are all wearing hoodies and look and sound like black men. There's some conversation to be had. There are some rioters who I actually confused as civilians cuz all they were doing was walking until they started shooting at me.

To me the rioters look pretty inspired by real life rioters

 

[T.O.P]

To me the rioters look pretty inspired by real life rioters

Pretty much

I don't like how the article goes directly from "they wear hoodies and steal shit" to majority black rioters

 

[Kalentan]

Pretty much

I don't like how the article goes directly from "they wear hoodies and steal shit" to majority black rioters

To be honest, there's little point in arguing. If this thread has shown anything, those who read this, and believe their pre-concieved notions are proven right, they really don't give a shit if the game actually says otherwise.

 

[Velkyn]

Pretty much

I don't like how the article goes directly from "they wear hoodies and steal shit" to majority black rioters

This bugged me too. They're "dressing black" so they must be America's perception of the Katrina looters, and therefore they are "majority black"?

Olympic level mental gymnastics.

 

[bronson]

Ubisoft probably saw this coming. The "looters" we're talking about were actually called "Thugs" before they were changed to "Rioters."

They were given Desperado Bandanas too! They must be bad, you guys.

 

[cartographer]

The Division is based on nothing Clancy ever wrote. Ubisoft owns the rights to "Tom Clancy's..." and they can slap it in front of a basketball title if they like. There is no obligation on Ubisoft's behalf to create content that would have been sympathetic to a dead author's political views. It's just a brand name, nothing more.

I've never claimed that the game is based on anything Clancy wrote. Sure, Ubisoft could put it on a basketball game. But they haven't. And up to this point, the Clancy games mostly stay true to the Clancy brand.

 

[Lime]

To me the rioters look pretty inspired by real life rioters

http://i.imgur.com/pTcS2R3.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

[quote="T.O.P, post: 198542547"]Pretty much

I don't like how the article goes directly from "they wear hoodies and steal shit" to majority black rioters[/QUOTE]

[quote="Kalentan, post: 198542872"]To be honest, there's little point in arguing. If this thread has shown anything, those who read this, and believe their pre-concieved notions are proven right, they really don't give a shit if the game actually says otherwise.[/QUOTE]

[quote="Velkyn, post: 198543063"]This bugged me too. They're "dressing black" so they must be America's perception of the Katrina looters, and therefore they are "majority black"?

Olympic level mental gymnastics.[/QUOTE]

Do you disagree with [URL="http://www.zam.com/article/237/the-division-is-a-terrible-tom-clancy-game"]Robert Rath's assertions in this piece?[/URL]

[QUOTE]The Division’s starting-level enemies are the “Rioters.” That’s a loaded term to start with, given the complicated history of labeling black protesters “rioters” in order to violently suppress them. Given that label, it will probably not surprise you that these enemies are dressed in hoodies, ball caps, and often sport bandanas over their faces. Their dress is Blood red.

These visual cues -- plus names like Lord of the 212’s and Five-0 -- code them as African-American street gangs. They look like the Facebook pictures that spread after police shoot a black man under questionable circumstances. Even if this similarity is unintentional, it’s hard to mow down waves of Rioters without it turning your stomach. In post-Ferguson America, a game where tactical teams -- with no official oversight -- “clean up the streets” by gunning down people in hoodies is difficult to dismiss as fantasy entertainment.

This uncomfortable streak extends to other enemy factions like the Rikers and the Cleaners. The Rikers are escapees of Riker’s Island, and take revenge on society by capturing, torturing, and killing anyone wearing a uniform. Their leader LaRae Barrett is a violent woman who gives rousing speeches about striking back at the society that victimized them. The Cleaners are a band of city employees gone awry, who attempt to eliminate the infection by torching anyone, or anything, they suspect might be infected. Cleaners speak in blue-collar New York accents, like a bit-part cabdriver in Seinfeld. Their transition from municipal employees to a fanatical religious cult is a leap of imagination I won’t go into.

In other words, most of the enemies you face in The Division are the domestic boogeymen of American conservatism -- poor African-Americans, prisoners, and public sector unions. Looked at this way, The Division suggests that law enforcement is the only thing holding prisoners, the poor, and workers in check. When that fails, the world descends into chaos.[/QUOTE]

I.e. the societal context in which Division sets itself has ramifications on how we interpret and understand the cues in the game. To set it up point by point, you have:

[LIST]
[*]Rioters.” That’s a loaded term to start with, given the complicated history of labeling black protesters “rioters” in order to violently suppress them
[*]hoodies, ball caps, and often sport bandanas over their faces
[*]Lord of the 212’s and Five-0
[*]In post-Ferguson America, a game where tactical teams -- with no official oversight -- “clean up the streets” by gunning down people in hoodies is difficult to dismiss as fantasy entertainment.
[*]The Rikers are escapees of Riker’s Island, and take revenge on society by capturing, torturing, and killing anyone wearing a uniform.
[*]Their leader LaRae Barrett is a violent [Black] woman who gives rousing speeches about striking back at the society that victimized them.
[*]The Cleaners are a band of city employees gone awry, who attempt to eliminate the infection by torching anyone, or anything, they suspect might be infected. Cleaners speak in blue-collar New York accents, like a bit-part cabdriver in Seinfeld.
[/LIST]

 

[Kalentan]

Do you disagree with Robert Rath's assertions in this piece?

I.e. the societal context in which Division sets itself has ramifications on how we interpret and understand the cues in the game.

However that argument heavily relies on the Rioters being all African-American, which they're not. Also "five-0"? You mean that term for "police" that came from the original Hawaii Five-0 show?

Also Rioters are Rioters, they're people who are riot. Regardless of race. Google Rioters, see what you get. What you won't get is all pictures of African-Americans.

Also, how does the arguement hold up if your character is Asian or Black? Hell, the person leading you, telling you to go on all of these missions, is a Asian woman.

 

[Zeta2Reticuli]

Forbes, I know I know, posted an article a few weeks back that is pretty similar. Basically saying its a game glamorizing big government and the ability for the government to control and kills its own people. Again, as others have said, I do think this is an oversimplification of the game as a whole. but here is more fodder for discussion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...t-the-virtues-of-big-government/#6d68339e7329

 

[Lime]

However that argument heavily relies on the Rioters being all African-American, which they're not. Also "five-0"? You mean that term for "police" that came from the original Hawaii Five-0 show?

It isn't as simple as skin color or ethnicity. Visual and linguistic cues can also establish which social group is being referenced, along with the context in which looters and rioters are usually used exclusively on one specific group (mostly applied to Black Americans in the US).

Also Rioters are Rioters, they're people who are riot. Regardless of race. Google Rioters, see what you get. What you won't get is all pictures of African-Americans.

Required reading. along with the awareness in a post-Black Lives Matter world that "rioting" carries certain connotations and associations that you have to address if you're going to invoke them in your narrative about moving in with militarized equipment and force against so-called rioters and looters.

Also, how does the arguement hold up if your character is Asian or Black? Hell, the person leading you, telling you to go on all of these missions, is a Asian woman.

Your playable character doesn't change the characterization of LaRae - she still says the same things and does the same things. It might change the dynamics, but the characterization of the villain and her background remains the same. Read this (spoilers)

Her comment made it impossible for me to ignore the potential implication that her actions are maybe a result of the racism she believes is exhibited by authority figures such as the police. "

Spoiler

Just one more black dead body on the pile, right?"

is a comment that is incredibly relevant considering the ongoing debate in reality regarding institutionalized racism in the US, and is especially poignant given the rise of Black Lives Matter in the wake of a number of African American deaths at the hands of police. The problem is that this poignancy is reserved for a character who seems to have responded to this

Spoiler

by mercilessly killing anyone in her path,

in a game that doesn't greatly explore any facets of its particularly thin plot. It would have been entirely reasonable - arguably plausible - for the game to explore racial tensions, but slapping them solely on one black character and then having her be

Spoiler

the biggest psychopath

in the entire game is a questionable move.

 

[KingJ2002]

Killscreen article

Excerpts:



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.

Thanks for sharing this OP... I always thought that something about this game bothered me but this piece articulates it very well. An occurring reaction after playing through the game for about 5-10 hours or so is "Why do I feel like a murderer?"... there's no sense of justice in this game... rather their icons turn red and I shoot because ISAC says there enemies on screen... but as the story unfolds and I start taking into account the narrative and it's clear your avatar is definitely not the hero in this story.

 

[Sushi Nao]

So the article assumes the Rikers and Rioters are good natured young men and women who roam the streets of NYC armed to the teeth, but because they're ostensibly only doing it to survive and, according to the writer and not actual facts, are "majority" black, it's cool to let them keep on keepin' on? Sorry, but isn't resorting to arming yourself at the first signs of lawlessness the actual right-wing wet dream? The Rikers and Rioters are the ones who are executing on that idea of "might = right" because a gun is the ultimate dispute ender. "Oh, you have food and I don't? Well I have a gun, so I guess that's my food now." I wonder if this writer's heart bleeds for the people who steal UN distributed food in war torn countries at gun point because "they're just trying to survive too, man". If you can't discern between "looting for survival" and "armed robbery or assault with a deadly weapon for survival", all I can say is I'm glad you're writing for a blog instead of a position of any power or significance.

The actual right-wing gun dream is to have an aggressive target whose killing is justifiable. That the player character is the "Justified Killer" and the enemies are the "Violent Targets" is reinforced thematically through that exact mechanic.

 

[LordJim]

Visual and linguistic cues can also establish which social group is being referenced, along with the context in which looters and rioters are usually used exclusively on one specific group (mostly applied to Black Americans in the US).

Required reading. along with the awareness in a post-Black Lives Matter world that "rioting" carries certain connotations and associations that you have to address if you're going to invoke them in your narrative about moving in with militarized equipment and force against so-called rioters and looters.

More like, apply North American Politics and perspective to something that is not limited to that continent by a long shot.

It's a big stretch. Not to mention the idea of 'responsibility of the publisher' borders to absurd in the first place

 

[Lime]

Forbes, I know I know, posted an article a few weeks back that is pretty similar. Basically saying its a game glamorizing big government and the ability for the government to control and kills its own people. Again, as others have said, I do think this is an oversimplification of the game as a whole. but here is more fodder for discussion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...t-the-virtues-of-big-government/#6d68339e7329

I wouldn't pay any attention or time to Erik Kain due to his support of Gamergate and bigoted people in video games culture.

It's also quite funny that this so-called 'big government' in the Division that right-winged people are so afraid of is exactly what has been going on with the mindless defense and spending of US police and military.

More like, apply North American Politics and perspective to something that is not limited to that continent by a long shot.

It's a big stretch. Not to mention the idea of 'responsibility of the publisher' borders to absurd in the first place

It's set in New York and it is moving the largest chunk of copies in the US. Obviously it's going to get criticized through a North American lens.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I think this discussion is super important, and I'm glad Kill Screen has provoked discussion on the issue, but I find some things problematic about some of the claims in the review.

I'm not at level cap, but so far, I feel like Directive 51 is treated with the opposite of "reverence". People in the street treat you with disgust. The Cleaners yell about federal government interference. The pirate radio host is LIVID that this sort of thing is happening on American soil. The Dark Zone is a huge whitewash and cover up. If anything the game treats Division agents as a necessary evil. The military and reservists are all dead. The JTF is made up of cops and first responders and are in way over their heads. And that's why they pushed the button. As for the assertion that the game is referring to "property" as what the player is protecting - that simply isn't the case. What stands out to me on one of my many trips walking around the gameworld: coming across two rioter enemies beating a man using a baseball bat. Rioters are also demonstrated engaging in things like human trafficking; they aren't just trying to score food or a new TV, they're criminal scumbags hurting people. The "civilians" are the ones that are surviving, and they're treated as friendlies. "Rioters" are going out of their way to kill and maim.

Watch some echoes. There's one early on where a "rioter" shoots an unarmed JTF member unloading a food truck to give people rations. They aren't interested in distributing the food fairly, they're interested in lording it over people's heads, in using it as leverage. There's a phone conversation where someone working a CERA clinic is brutally murdered for doing her job.

I think reading it as a right-wing power fantasy speaks more about the author than it does about Ubi Massive. The factions, to me, represent the fears of Canadian and American society: the rioters and rikers are our fear of the collapse of order, the cleaners are our fear of the hard right and their obsession with "taking matters into their own hands", and LMB and Division our fear of organized military groups abusing their power.

The Times Square mission is absolutely not about turning on the ads in Times Square; they state pretty plainly that you're rebooting the power in that area because of the risk of a power surge that can make the entire grid unusable.

I've absolutely no problem with this sort of article, but I feel the need to point out revisions and inaccuracies that seem tailor made to fit the author's argument, which I find problematic if shared with people who have no knowledge of the game. It's very easy to read this and get sucked into the argument if you take everything at face value.

Great post that I agree a lot with. The bolded is especially the issue I have with it too because it's very blatantly ignoring context and straight up lying about what happens in the game.