The Division - Review Thread

Gamespot's review sums it up for me rather well:

I'm not sure I can agree with "the campaign was too gripping for me to simply walk away".

Seriously, the only introduction you had was that "Shits gone down, go in and unfix shit, also shit goes down a little more at the start".

Me and my friends playing just did a mission together and apparently out of nowhere had we not picked up on a few lines of dialogue, the final boss of the Rikers appears and we would have not recognized her if it wasn't for those tiny snippets of dialogue a pair of Rikers had together. All she was at the end was another dude with a gun shooting at us but with a nametag.

The story is absolutely terribly told, apparently it can be there at least a little if you run around collecting every phone, ECHO, situation report etc. but its really hard to feel invested. Like all of a sudden everyone talks about the Last Man Battalion like they have been always your greatest nemesis but you have seriously no clue, they just showed up. You don't get a introduction, no character gets built up, the antagonists just pops out of nowhere and expects you to go sorta "I don't like him/her" even though you have never seen the bloke or barely heard about them.

And this has been going on throughout the game, you apparently did run into like the "big bad" of the Cleaners but everything just wooshed past amidst the constant gun noise you don't even notice.

It is honestly a pretty bad campaign, and horribly told story.
 
I don't see any game coming out this year that will be better than The Division. That is some next-level stuff right there. I don't think I've ever played a game that good before. All thanks to four-player hard mode. :D
 
The Division does many things very right and is mechanically a sound game. Unfortunately there's a few problems that stand in the way of standing with the other great ARPG's.

Chief amongst them is lack of diversity. Unfortunately the setting chosen puts the developers in a tough spot because it does not lend itself to variety. Modern day NYC struck by an epidemic while making for cool setting, especially with environments, limits the interesting possibilities of content due its being grounded in a kind of modern day reality.

While the gun-play is very satisfying the simple fact the games weapons are all guns and based on modern day arms means there's really not much to make them feel special. There's really not too much to differentiate one assault rifle, sub machine gun, shotgun or marksman rifle from another another in its category outside of rate of fire, accuracy, and stability all which become even less noticeable with the inclusion of late game mods. (I'm aware there are other modifiers, but I'm referring to the way the weapons feel.)

The clothing suffers from the same issue. We're all sporting a few styles composed from different articles of clothing that are part of today's popular styles. What this means, as many of you have noticed is that you and every other agent in the game look pretty much the same throughout minus a few slight differences in texture, color and brightness of items. They could introduce weird, funny, apocalyptic or futuristic gear into the game. But tonally, it just wouldn't feel right. As it stands the Last Man battalions snipers are the coolest looking characters in the game because they have cloaks. That's a shame.

Then you have enemy variety. Now generally, The introduction of factions and enemy variants as you progress through the game is actually fairly well handled. Using them in creative ways in different environments to keep things fresh. Peppering in a new enemy types with abilities slowly throughout the campaign also serve to keep combat from becoming too stale. The problem is, late game. Challenge mode difficulty for instance outside of just seeing the same enemies in larger numbers with more health and damage aren't noticeably different. Games like Diablo and Path of Exile manage to get away with this because they have a much wider range of difficulties, and modifiers for the mobs that completely change how you interact with them. The division does not have this which leads to very predictable, and frankly not very challenging encounters. Even if the Division were to implement such modifiers later, they would hinge on what is realistically feasible for the enemies to have. e.g incendiary rounds, explosive rounds, Division agent abilities etc.

These are just a few of the problems, but they do seriously affect the enjoyment and longevity of the title in significant ways.
 
Unless they patch the game to look and play like the E3 demo I'm not buying it. Ubisoft lied to our collective face and we still bought the game in record number. Gamers are so stupid.
 
Unless they patch the game to look and play like the E3 demo I'm not buying it. Ubisoft lied to our collective face and we still bought the game in record number. Gamers are so stupid.

Thanks!

And you clearly haven't touched the game if you think that it doesn't look as good as the reveal :D
 
Unless they patch the game to look and play like the E3 demo I'm not buying it. Ubisoft lied to our collective face and we still bought the game in record number. Gamers are so stupid.

It's a good game :)
 
Someone actually actually tried to argue with me that this was a GOTY contender.

Funny how a number is an indicator for a GOTY.

In my book Fallout 4 should not have won a single GOTY award for what it was delivering.

Unless they patch the game to look and play like the E3 demo I'm not buying it. Ubisoft lied to our collective face and we still bought the game in record number. Gamers are so stupid.

If you're talking about graphics then you should consider going to a doctor.
 
I'm not sure I can agree with "the campaign was too gripping for me to simply walk away".

Seriously, the only introduction you had was that "Shits gone down, go in and unfix shit, also shit goes down a little more at the start".

Me and my friends playing just did a mission together and apparently out of nowhere had we not picked up on a few lines of dialogue, the final boss of the Rikers appears and we would have not recognized her if it wasn't for those tiny snippets of dialogue a pair of Rikers had together. All she was at the end was another dude with a gun shooting at us but with a nametag.

The story is absolutely terribly told, apparently it can be there at least a little if you run around collecting every phone, ECHO, situation report etc. but its really hard to feel invested. Like all of a sudden everyone talks about the Last Man Battalion like they have been always your greatest nemesis but you have seriously no clue, they just showed up. You don't get a introduction, no character gets built up, the antagonists just pops out of nowhere and expects you to go sorta "I don't like him/her" even though you have never seen the bloke or barely heard about them.

And this has been going on throughout the game, you apparently did run into like the "big bad" of the Cleaners but everything just wooshed past amidst the constant gun noise you don't even notice.

It is honestly a pretty bad campaign, and horribly told story.



If it wasn't for the fact he was screaming the entire damn mission over the intercom.....You could have told me he was just a tougher cleaner who was going to take more bullets to kill. As he did absolutely nothing to truly stand out from every other cleaner as the leader. All they did was make him a little bigger and add a few more fuel tanks to his side's to help with damage.


I also agree with that rikers statement as well. If it wasn't for one echo....I would have no fucking clue. I would just have assumed it was a named mob at the end who's name I'm never going to remember because none of them have any real impact in the world.
 
Unless they patch the game to look and play like the E3 demo I'm not buying it. Ubisoft lied to our collective face and we still bought the game in record number. Gamers are so stupid.
Someone made a comparison video and actually some aspects of the game are more detailed than the original reveal. The police station, street lights, the city street to the left. That's game development for you. Also helps that the game is absolutely gorgeous and performs well on all platforms.
 
If it wasn't for the fact he was screaming the entire damn mission over the intercom.....You could have told me he was just a tougher cleaner who was going to take more bullets to kill. As he did absolutely nothing to truly stand out from every other cleaner as the leader. All they did was make him a little bigger and add a few more fuel tanks to his side's to help with damage.
Even with all the screaming over the intercom I thought he was a random mook, because they all do random screaming over the intercom in pretty much every mission, that guy was just a little bit louder. It was only after after I realised "Wait....that guy was the Cleaners' founder?"

And absolutely about that he did nothing to stand out, to me he was another one of those Fat Cleaners who are classed as the Cleaners "Heavy" (the ones with the Rocket Propelled Grenade symbol). They put no effort into making the bosses actually be bosses in any other sense than being able to take more bullets to the face.
 
Even with all the screaming over the intercom I thought he was a random mook, because they all do random screaming over the intercom in pretty much every mission, that guy was just a little bit louder. It was only after after I realised "Wait....that guy was the Cleaners' founder?"

And absolutely about that he did nothing to stand out, to me he was another one of those Fat Cleaners who are classed as the Cleaners "Heavy" (the ones with the Rocket Propelled Grenade symbol). They put no effort into making the bosses actually be bosses in any other sense than being able to take more bullets to the face.

oh shit, your right. After you beat the mission the lady says something to you about finally beating the leader of the cleaners and how things should cool down a bit. It was one of my favorite missions but damn was that ending with the boss so mediocre. Especially after all the exploding you do along the way.....its like....heres Joe......lay bullets into him since he can't do anything past 10 feet lol
 
A pity that the most important thing, gunplay feeling and procedural destruction, is a huge steep back from reveal. As happened with Watch Dogs.
How do you know how the gunplay feels in a very vertical slice build that's never been played by the public? And there have been videos that showcased better procedural destruction than in the older builds. WD too, didn't have procedural destruction and no one played the reveal demo so a statement about gunplay feel is absolutely meaningless.
 
How do you know how the guns felt from a reveal you didn't get to....feel?

Watch the reveal trailer, the real time impact holes in cars, glasses, the smoke, the animations...not need to play it to realize is not the same as the final product. You can show me videos showing holes in cars in the real game, but there is a lack of punch, and a lag in its generation that causes desbelief, as if they were precanned, a simply change in the texture normal map. Even Ubi´s R6 Siege has that, but even in Siege the shooting impact animations are way better.

Curiously Uncharted 4 gunplay is nearer to it that The Division final game.
 
the gunplay is the most rewarding part to this game. Do not understand how anyone could come away disappointed based on a reveal trailer that they didn't even get to play.
 
the gunplay is the most rewarding part to this game.

Well, i have played the game and I think is not rewarding at all. At least not more rewarding that shooting a spray. What makes it worse is the cover>L2 while in cover that fires automatic aim>R2 to shoot a burst (enemy doesn´t kick any hitting animation as you need 1000 bullets) > cover again to repeat the process.
 
Open world games with loot and levels still go really far with reviewers (and large parts of the gaming audience), I wonder if there's any fatigue in sight. It's kind of hard for me to find reviewers that concentrate on the parts of the gameplay that are independent of that whole loop, since I'm really not into it.
 
Goes to show how much people have differing opinions. The shooting is the best part for me

Yes, of course. In fact, i acknowledge The Division Snowdrop graphical engine is very very good. Only that IMO the most important thing for this game specifically, where you spend almost all the time shooting, is lacking.
 
Any game that grabs me for 33 hrs so far has to be very, very good. I actually tire of most games by around 20 hours.

I agree with some of the criticisms re: repetitive nature of side missions etc, but still think it's a great game.

Unlike some, I quite like the fact that I learn about back-story mainly through collectibles. I have found myself hunting smaller stuff all over the place rather than heading to the DZ or main missions. Probably why I'm only level 20 after 33 hrs.

Positives
The environmental design is great
Amazing lighting/weather effects
The stat grinding is actually very addictive. I find myself absurdly excited when I find loot that brings up my stats
It's actually really fun as a SP game - The main missions a very well designed and feel very much liek traditional AAA campaign missions
The fact they offer a SP, coop MP or competitive MP in essentially the same world.

Negatives
Character models could be better
Repetitive side missions
Lack of bad guy variety


Overall, I'd go with an 82-85 score. Which is a fantastic score.
 
It depends on whether you mean miltary men as in they look militaristic or the actual US Military. I would argue that the latter is a spoiler for some.

I was thinking of the former in general but I'd agree with your opinion on the latter being a potential spoiler.
 
the gunplay is the most rewarding part to this game. Do not understand how anyone could come away disappointed based on a reveal trailer that they didn't even get to play.

Blowing up those gas canisters on cleaners or the grenade bags on the big guys.

So good.
 
Um, did Jim just knock the game for lacking ambition?

What?
Creating incredibly accurate depictions of what New York would likely look like in terms of a similar crisis even down to the placement of barricades and debris inside buildings along with absolutely seamless PvP, and fantastic visuals and weather effects that completely change the look of the environment including fogging up windows in realtime and snow actually collecting on the ground and objects and melting overtime, along with a procedural destruction in an open world title and even realtime reflections with amazing technical performance simply not ambitious enough. /s Those are some ridiculous expectations if this game doesn't hit whatever metric he has for ambition. And I'm just talking from a technical perspective.
 
Um, did Jim just knock the game for lacking ambition?

What?

I haven't read his review but he's not wrong if he talks about how it's fairly formulaic as far as ARPG goes (which isn't a bad thing necessarily) what is bad thing is that they don't attempt to add anything to those formulas. In fact it doesn't even match many other ARPG's of the same scope with much smaller budgets.
 
Creating incredibly accurate depictions of what New York would likely look like in terms of a similar crisis even down to the placement of barricades and debris inside buildings along with absolutely seamless PvP, and fantastic visuals and weather effects that completely change the look of the environment including fogging up windows in realtime and snow actually collecting on the ground and objects and melting overtime, along with a procedural destruction in an open world title and even realtime reflections with amazing technical performance simply not ambitious enough. /s Those are some ridiculous expectations if this game doesn't hit whatever metric he has for ambition. And I'm just talking from a technical perspective.

To back Jim up though: you are just talking from a technical perspective. Everything else seems like it's been designed by committee in The Division. It doesn't really do anything to break the mould.
 
Creating incredibly accurate depictions of what New York would likely look like in terms of a similar crisis even down to the placement of barricades and debris inside buildings along with absolutely seamless PvP, and fantastic visuals and weather effects that completely change the look of the environment including fogging up windows in realtime and snow actually collecting on the ground and objects and melting overtime, along with a procedural destruction in an open world title and even realtime reflections with amazing technical performance simply doesn't count as ambitious. /s Those are some ridiculous expectations if this game doesn't hit whatever metric he has for ambition. And I'm just talking from a technical perspective.

I get what you're saying, but it's pretty obvious that Jim is talking about the gameplay. The technical fluff is kind of meaningless if the gameplay is 1 dimensional.
 
Any game that grabs me for 33 hrs so far has to be very, very good. I actually tire of most games by around 20 hours.

I agree with some of the criticisms re: repetitive nature of side missions etc, but still think it's a great game.

Unlike some, I quite like the fact that I learn about back-story mainly through collectibles. I have found myself hunting smaller stuff all over the place rather than heading to the DZ or main missions. Probably why I'm only level 20 after 33 hrs.

Positives
The environmental design is great
Amazing lighting/weather effects
The stat grinding is actually very addictive. I find myself absurdly excited when I find loot that brings up my stats
It's actually really fun as a SP game - The main missions a very well designed and feel very much liek traditional AAA campaign missions
The fact they offer a SP, coop MP or competitive MP in essentially the same world.

Negatives
Character models could be better
Repetitive side missions
Lack of bad guy variety


Overall, I'd go with an 82-85 score. Which is a fantastic score.

very good post, with which (at lvl 9 after 15+ hrs) i pretty much completely agree. the game isn't really trying to re-invent anything, & is, imo, visually stunning, & extremely competent at what its up to. which's all quite fine by me...

now, if only i could play single-player offline :) ...
 
I haven't read his review but he's not wrong if he talks about how it's fairly formulaic as far as ARPG goes (which isn't a bad thing necessarily) what is bad thing is that they don't attempt to add anything to those formulas. In fact it doesn't even match many other ARPG's of the same scope with much smaller budgets.

Let's not pretend Jim actually noticed he was playing an aRPG. He calls it an MMO-lite run of the mill cover shooter. And negatively mentions the stat upgrades for the sake of finding more stat upgrades (every aRPG in the history of video games).
 
Um, did Jim just knock the game for lacking ambition?

What?

Creating incredibly accurate depictions of what New York would likely look like in terms of a similar crisis even down to the placement of barricades and debris inside buildings along with absolutely seamless PvP, and fantastic visuals and weather effects that completely change the look of the environment including fogging up windows in realtime and snow actually collecting on the ground and objects and melting overtime, along with a procedural destruction in an open world title and even realtime reflections with amazing technical performance simply doesn't count as ambitious. /s Those are some ridiculous expectations if this game doesn't hit whatever metric he has for ambition. And I'm just talking from a technical perspective.

I don't think Jim is wrong. Technically, the game is masterfully done with its beautiful rendition of New York, a city I was in a few months ago and I can go "Cool, I actually walked here!" In that way the game is certainly ambitious.

However, like I've mentioned before the game is very lacking in many other areas. The story is woefully undertold and very sparse, its hard to keep up with what is going, especially if you play in co-op with buddies. Antagonists come and go without so much of a serious impact, I met the Rikers big bad boss, killed her, and only knew that she was the big bad one because of one single ECHO I found in another mission. And the only way I knew we were fighting her was because her name popped up as a tag on one enemy that rushed into the room and was a little harder to kill.

No introduction, no build up, no reason to make me feel like she was an antagonist, she was just there, acted like every other idiot in the room with a class role assigned and that was it. The same has gone for the Rioters and Cleaners, I apparently met their big baddies and completely glossed over the fact, only realizing it after. Last Man Battalion was introduced like I was supposed to know about them, with characters acting like they have been a constant thorn in their side when I just met them, heck, one of the side characters who arrived with me should even have less of a fucking clue cause she is constantly in the main base and wasn't fighting them and SHE acts like she knows them more than me!

The story told is very bad, I have no investment and it becomes hilarious when one of the characters goes shocked about the potential of Agents going rogue around lvl 16-20, when me and my friends had been around rogueing shit up in the Dark Zone since lvl 10. The bosses are poorly designed in that way that they are regular enemies, slightly scaled up and then given a bigger health pool so they don't stand out at all except for their nametag. And there are the countless of cut and paste side missions, encounters etc. that does nothing for you except say "go here, kill this dude, you saved the world here is some XP". Like fucking hell, every bounty side-mission I've encountered have been -exactly- the same, first a one-sided audio conversation saying that the person I am after is mean, followed by an objective kill that person's Lieutenant #1 followed by another Lieutenant #2 (all of them have 2 Lieutenants, for some fucking reason), usually a exact same looking guy, followed by the bounty who is, once again, another regular enemy but with a nametag, followed by an one-sided audio conversation with the mission giver saying I "did good, here is some XP". And then there is every single encounter which is exactly the same, all the time.

So yeah, calling the game lacking in ambition when actual ambitious studios like CD Project who made a pretty game AND put some effort into the side content is not really that far off when Massive and Ubisoft mostly focused on the graphics.
 
Let's not pretend Jim actually noticed he was playing an aRPG. He calls it an MMO-lite run of the mill cover shooter. And negatively mentions the stat upgrades for the sake of finding more stat upgrades (every aRPG in the history of video games).

Like I said I haven't read it. But that's silly of him. Even MMO's are to a degree about searching for better gear and higher numbers. But the differentiation is how you can use those numbers in the end.
 
I get what you're saying, but it's pretty obvious that Jim is talking about the gameplay. The technical fluff is kind of meaningless if the gameplay is 1 dimensional.

I usually agree with Jim's reviews but here he's just bashing on the game for the sake of it. I found that review uninformed and misguided at best. It's a shooter ARPG, the fun comes from getting more loot and better stats. Maybe he expected a different game but this had a Diablo3 TPS feel for me since the beta. If you don't like shooting hordes of poor AI bulletsponges just to get that purple item roll, doesn't mean the game is universally bad. I actually think that its innovative enough for the genre (not a lot of third person ARPGs out there) and at release offers much more content than Destiny did, lots of collectibles and stuff to do which already puts it somewhere within 8-9 range for me.

Also the amount of bugs is nowhere near AC levels, is actually pretty stable for me so far on PC, only the startup black screen bug seems annoying.

And can we please stop with downgrade bullshit? This game looks phenomenal, they already said that GI had to be dropped, but this is such a detailed beautiful world I really pity people who refuse to buy this based on such a poor argument. I mean the location itself is so grey and bleak that they managed to squeeze such atmosphere out of it is impressive.

Last thing, as any ARPG this will have a solid but niche following, kind of like Destiny. It won't have universal acclaim since not all people like to grind for stuff, but some get hooked forever. But that some reviewers don't judge the game taken into account its genre is inadmissible.
 
I've only played the game for a few hours so I haven't formed a definitive opinion, but I can see the criticisms as well as its good points.

The game's art direction is gorgeous, and the game is generally fun, I totally get that missions could be repetitive but I think with it being a shooter, it can get away with that a bit. For example The Last of Us is similar in many ways, and it was largely a shooter with minimal enemy types. So if you hate on the gameplay on this, it's not much different to the Naughty Dog games.

What I don't like is the terrible story, the bad writing that seems aimed at teens, bad characters (Faye is terribly written and acted), and I really don't like mute main characters in general. I have nothing against mutes, but there should at least be some acknowledgement between characters, the main character gives zero response to everyone around him that it feels awkward.

All in all, I'm enjoying it for now and looking forward to playing more. I don't buy very many games at release but I'm glad I got this.
 
To back Jim up though: you are just talking from a technical perspective. Everything else seems like it's been designed by committee in The Division. It doesn't really do anything to break the mould.
I must be missing all the Arpgs with MP so seamless that you can literally hear other players shooting each other outside the dayz like pvp zone. Or how the missions, player progression, and narrative are tied to an ever evolving base that you build. I feel in those aspects it breaks the mold because other games aren't attempting these things. In this game you find video logs and echoes which give you glimpses of the brutality of the world and shows you what happens when you aren't around. In similar games at most you'd get is an audio log. All the npcs talking to one another and running around as well do a lot to ground the world. These are things the player may not notice while sprinting to their next waypoint but the visual storytelling is pretty fantastic and top tier for those who stop and observe.

I get what you're saying, but it's pretty obvious that Jim is talking about the gameplay. The technical fluff is kind of meaningless if the gameplay is 1 dimensional.
It's not tho, combat in the endgame is quite different from combat at the beginning where all you have is your simple weapons, simple enemies, no perks, etc. this is exacerbated by the challenge rooms which require a shit ton of coordination and strategizing to complete.
 
I usually agree with Jim's reviews but here he's just bashing on the game for the sake of it. I found that review uninformed and misguided at best. It's a shooter ARPG, the fun comes from getting more loot and better stats. Maybe he expected a different game but this had a Diablo3 TPS feel for me since the beta. If you don't like shooting hordes of poor AI bulletsponges just to get that purple item roll, doesn't mean the game is universally bad. I actually think that its innovative enough for the genre (not a lot of third person ARPGs out there) and at release offers much more content than Destiny did, lots of collectibles and stuff to do which already puts it somewhere within 8-9 range for me.

A lot of people absolutely do think that's bad game design. Just because you disagree doesn't mean Jim is 'bashing on the game for the sake of it'. You have to recognise on some level that finding the combat boring basically breaks the enjoyment of the entire game. It is the kind of thing that justifies taking several points off the review score because once you don't enjoy the combat, the entire loot loop becomes pointless.
 
I beat the game this weekend and now have clocked in at 30 hours according to my Twitch streams. I wrote a review for it already with my first impressions before beating it. I think the worst part about the game is really the copy/paste side stuff to do. It makes the entire world feel like another Assassin's Creed game.
 
If you don't like shooting hordes of poor AI bulletsponges just to get that purple item roll, doesn't mean the game is universally bad.

You're right, it doesn't. But maybe the game should have aimed a little higher? We were shooting hordes of poor AI bullet sponges years ago. Maybe a game in 2016 needs to try a bit harder? When you get passed the cool visuals and graphic tech (and I'm with you: people who straight up dismiss those as being inadequate are being silly) you're left with something that's hardly innovative or pushing any envelopes.

As an ARPG it's not a 5, but it's definitely not an 8. An average score makes sense to me, so I don't find Jim's comments out of place.
 
I've only played the game for a few hours so I haven't formed a definitive opinion, but I can see the criticisms as well as its good points.

The game's art direction is gorgeous, and the game is generally fun, I totally get that missions could be repetitive but I think with it being a shooter, it can get away with that a bit. For example The Last of Us is similar in many ways, and it was largely a shooter with minimal enemy types. So if you hate on the gameplay on this, it's not much different to the Naughty Dog games.

At least TLoU had stealth options to tackle fights.
Far as I know The Division is all shoot bang?

And between regular goons and the infected, the dynamism of fights changed formula once in a while.
In any case I do find it weird myself comparing those two games haha
 
I don't see any game coming out this year that will be better than The Division. That is some next-level stuff right there. I don't think I've ever played a game that good before. All thanks to four-player hard mode. :D

Doubt it will even be the best game first half of this year.
 
The game's art direction is gorgeous, and the game is generally fun, I totally get that missions could be repetitive but I think with it being a shooter, it can get away with that a bit. For example The Last of Us is similar in many ways, and it was largely a shooter with minimal enemy types. So if you hate on the gameplay on this, it's not much different to the Naughty Dog games.

If the combat in The Division was like the combat in The Last of Us, I'd have bought whatever special edition Ubisoft wanted me to buy.
 
I get what you're saying, but it's pretty obvious that Jim is talking about the gameplay. The technical fluff is kind of meaningless if the gameplay is 1 dimensional.

What do you mean by 1 dimensional?
The gameplay is so much more complex than most aRPG where all you need is spam left/right click and hit&run while relying on item's procs/set bonuses. Besides the usual skill set and talent preparation, the enemies do flank you, and the terrain can give you advantages/disadvantages. You need coordination in The Division, and there are certain tactics for certain type/group of enemies. Moreover, each weapon has its own characteristics as well, suited for certain situations and/or playstyles. Don't forget that it's a Tom Clancy's game. It's nowhere near as 1 dimensional.

I don't get the bullet sponge argument. how hard can it be for reviewers to grasp, that this is mainly an rpg? As far as i know nobody complained, that you beat up guys with your sword for ages before they went down in the witcher.

It seems that this concept is quite hard to understand.
mqdefault.jpg
 
I don't get the bullet sponge argument. how hard can it be for reviewers to grasp, that this is mainly an rpg? As far as i know nobody complained, that you beat up guys with your sword for ages before they went down in the witcher.

But I'm using a gun and not clicking on things!
 
At least TLoU had stealth options to tackle fights.
Far as I know The Division is all shoot bang?

And between regular goons and the infected, the dynamism of fights changed formula once in a while.
In any case I do find it weird myself comparing those two games haha
The AI reactions from when the game had stealth options are still left over. I snuck up on a couple of cleaners who turned around and searched for me, (note I was quite close like directly behind them) and my teammate popped their tanks and made them explode. Similarly, suppression is a status effect. Allow you to stun enemies and make them stay behind cover for a moment while you flank or throw a quick grenade. The AI doesn't magically know where you are either so flanking (in hindsight they could've used the splinter cell ghost to indicate this) is a much more valid strategy than say other shooters. That's not counting things like tanking and aggro, (enemies wanna take out the guy with a shield first). There's a good amount of strategies beside pew pewing your way to victory in every encounter. Usually results in way less if any down statesl when you have a well coordinated team.
 
I'm having a shit ton fun tbh,i was looking for a good coop/multiplayer game and so far,it has exceeded my expectations.
Yeah missions are kinda repetitive but the gameplay is so good imo,and this is coming from someone who didn't give shit about the game until a week before the release.
Game looks beautiful,runs smooth(PC) and it's fun imo.
Hopefully,they will improve the flaws in the sequel by adding more variety,a decent character creator etc.
I guess being a tom's clancy game limited it in the enemy aspect,you can't have monsters,zombies etc.
Also,the game is challenging as fuck.
 
Top Bottom