DannyDanger
Member
This, the game is generic...
Literally nothing about this game is an 8. Let alone 9
Maybe they can pull a Taken King and add some life with an expansion
The Division - Review Thread
- Thread starter digitalrelic
- Start date
This, the game is generic...
Literally nothing about this game is an 8. Let alone 9
Maybe they can pull a Taken King and add some life with an expansion
youd love sunset overdrive
If I had waited for reviews I probably never would have bought this game. :/ I actually think it's pretty great.
No salt here, reviewers are entitled to opinions.
ethomaz
Banned
I have the opposite opinion... Division lacks the good things Destiny had at launch and It didn't improved over the Destiny problems (it has the same issues to be fair).
What Division do better than Destiny at launch?
not having to go to a spaceship every few minutes is pretty good.
Tainted
Member
I already posted about this in the OT but I read the review and I think it is pretty accurate of the game in its current state. He is dead on about the PvE area being lifeless....the side missions are as generic as fuck and quickly become boring after doing them a few times, but after the 50th time it becomes very tedious (and you really need to do a fair chunk of them to get the required points to upgrade your base)
As for the DZ, they really need to re-tweak the risk/reward for going rogue....as that is the one interesting aspect of it (apart from the loot). If people are too scared to go rogue, it just becomes another PvE area with players thrown in.
Maybe 6.7 is a little low based on his comments (as he still enjoyed the game alot)...but his comments were on point.
Matchmaking and better story missions.
ethomaz
Banned
The same issue is found on Division when you try to fast travel...
I will you matchmaking even when it is only different design visions.
Story mission I disagree... while both story modes are weak I found myself more engaging with Destiny's story mission than Division's story missions.
no... I can do a side mission and a main mission without having to go to a spaceship.
Comrade Crunch
Member
Not to mention that that load for fast travel usually takes like 30 seconds tops, where as in Destiny I've been stuck in my ship for a minute or longer.
ethomaz
Banned
You do that in Destiny too... you can do side quests in story missions at launch... the difference here could be you need the space ship to travel to another planet.
And yes the loading times are ridiculous long in both games.
It didn't work like that... it just take that long if you or your coop are having connection issues with the server... it needs to wait everybody loads before start.
When you are alone you get 30s tops too.
But I agree loading are wrong in Destiny.
captainnapalm
Member
This whole 'enemies are bullet sponges so it's not realistic' thing is really annoying. It's popping up in a lot of the reviews, which kind of shows that game reviews these days are no more special or insightful an opinion than the kind you find in forums and comment sections - they're happy to just repeat the same hivemind opinions. Which makes sense, because reviewers these days aren't much different from the people commenting on the reviews.
Never mind that 99% of gun battles in video games wouldn't pass a realism test. You know when a firefight generally ends in real life? The moment one of the participants gets shot.
You have to separate when games tell stories, and when they need to be videogames. It's actually better to think of these things in separate terms, because they need to satisfy completely different criteria. Of course, the truth is people can and do separate these things in their minds. We have to do it in almost every game we play. Which is why the criticism is so disingenuous here.
Don't even get me started on this one. This guy seems to ignore the fact that, in terms of the social order and structure, the shit has entirely hit the fan in The Division. It's fine to be a liberal, I'm fiercely liberal in a lot of aspects, but I'm not stupid enough to think I wouldn't be praying for some order to be imposed when it was me against the rest of the scavengers in a world where everything has gone to shit and all bets are off.
I mean, has this guy ever read the Lord of the Flies? The Division actually probably sugercoats what the world would be like. You can bet this reviewer would be going all Lord of the Flies too if the shit hit the fan. He'd be talking to a decomposing pig head in his apartment in no time, and lining people up against a wall if he was granted any power.
Never mind that 99% of gun battles in video games wouldn't pass a realism test. You know when a firefight generally ends in real life? The moment one of the participants gets shot.
You have to separate when games tell stories, and when they need to be videogames. It's actually better to think of these things in separate terms, because they need to satisfy completely different criteria. Of course, the truth is people can and do separate these things in their minds. We have to do it in almost every game we play. Which is why the criticism is so disingenuous here.
Don't even get me started on this one. This guy seems to ignore the fact that, in terms of the social order and structure, the shit has entirely hit the fan in The Division. It's fine to be a liberal, I'm fiercely liberal in a lot of aspects, but I'm not stupid enough to think I wouldn't be praying for some order to be imposed when it was me against the rest of the scavengers in a world where everything has gone to shit and all bets are off.
I mean, has this guy ever read the Lord of the Flies? The Division actually probably sugercoats what the world would be like. You can bet this reviewer would be going all Lord of the Flies too if the shit hit the fan. He'd be talking to a decomposing pig head in his apartment in no time, and lining people up against a wall if he was granted any power.
Comrade Crunch
Member
It totally worked like that, the load times have improved since I first booted up vanilla destiny, but they were awful co-op or single player.
The fact that they're so bad in co-op sometimes still annoys the shit out of me.
Pop
Member
Agreed. You can't have enemies die in one or two shots. Seems people are having a problem differentiating rpg elements with the realistic settings. And that's their fault. But then the same people think aslong as it's fantasy settings it's a ok.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
I just saw IGN's review for the Division, he said you never run into other players in the world...why is this game always online then?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Probably cause systems in place like the daily system and you can see other players in safe houses. Among other systems.
Plus, if it wasn't online only, there's the possibility of save editors. Which is quite large in Diablo 3 and Borderland's online communites.
Yeah, I think it also depends which review sites you personally tend to give more weight to. I typically check Giant Bomb, Rock Paper Shotgun, Eurogamer, IGN, Kotaku, and Gamespot to get a general impression of whether I might enjoy a game. And for The Division, 4 out of those 5 sites (don't think Kotaku's put up a review yet) gave the game a pretty favorable review while mentioning notable flaws. I had a pretty good idea what I was getting into and I was very much interested in a third person loot shooter.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
I don't see how those justify an always online connection, like if your offline you just don't see other players in the safe house and if your online you do, why take away the option. Also the save editor concern, I don't think the entire playerbase should suffer because of some hackers, Ubisoft should find another way to deal with the problem besides punishing the players that didn't even hack.
This is a valid point that the GB guys also brought up. I assume always online makes it easier for the timed events that are being planned.
Bad Blood for WD was the best DLC nobody played.
Two incursions+ a Dark Zone expansion are coming for free. The free post launch support should be quite decent according to that Y1 trailer they put up.
The save hacking would definitely be a problem, and they absolutely need online saves to combat it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I do not get why all of that is not saved on the server, like an MMO, and pretty sure like Destiny (not 100% on that).
The reason is because the game is very much about co op and online interactions in the dark zone/missions and the most effective way of maintaining some integrity there is by not having local saves. Just look at whats happened with Diablo 3 on consoles which has offline mode vs Diablo 3 on PC which is always online. Blizzard refuses to even bring seasons to console because the community is rife with cheating that they can't really do anything about.
Diprosalic
Banned
so what do you do when you have no missions anymore for your level.
i'm level 9 and i've done all missions up to level 10.
next one is 14 i think.
grind?
i'm level 9 and i've done all missions up to level 10.
next one is 14 i think.
grind?
Yup. My friend doesn't even play Diablo 3 online on consoles anymore cause your nearly always going to get a hacker that will do the damage before you can react. Before you know it, your paragon level 2000.
I kinda agree with that on score. Maybe a 7. The game is really fun but man it's missing just staples that every mmo has. I can't help but compare it to Elder scrolls online which I loved and this game is just missing so much in it. Like it's only been a week and I'm pretty much done. It took me like 2 months to beat the story in ESO. And then the 2 other unexplored continents opened up
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Are you saying Destiny deserved more at launch? As far as this game is concerned I already see the end game is something I would hate. Run around killing the same enemies over and over in a loop(farming) to better gear to kill those enemies faster the next time Or replaying story mission on insane difficulty with every enemy being a bullet sponge. Hopefully incursions are closer to a raid than strike or it will be pretty pitiful.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Side missions should tip you there. Go to safe house in each zone in your bracket and consult with the JTF officer and Situation Board in there to show all missions. If you still need a boost (doubtful), completing all missions there will reveal nearly all collectables.
You can also visit DZ checkpoint entrances. If it's attached to a DZ bracket you haven't entered, you'll get XP for discovering it.
Reviews aren't too surprising, though some fall into reviewing the game for what it isn't, rather than what it is. Personally, I've found that the bosses are so far the same exact enemy in their faction, and some side missions are starting to get really repetitive. The main ones are good though.
I still don't get the generic argument. Is having a realistic setting such a terrible thing? Afaik, there isn't anything else like the Division in one title, despite it having bits from others such as the Ubisoft open world elements.
TheSpecialOne
Banned
It's about right, maybe .2 points too high but can't complain. Almost all the problems listed in the review were evident in the beta. The question was really, how much do those issues affect your ability to enjoy the game. As we see in this thread, it differs from individual to individual. Some are completely oblivious while others are hyper-focused on the issues and then there's everyone in between.
Ammogeddon
Member
I was surprised at the IGN score but cannot disagree with most of his points.
That being said I'm glad I don't take review scores at face value because I love the game inspite of its shortcomings. I've already had more value out of it than many other games I've paid the same price and more for.
That being said I'm glad I don't take review scores at face value because I love the game inspite of its shortcomings. I've already had more value out of it than many other games I've paid the same price and more for.
Hmm just saw the IGN review in my feed, to me Vince was largely spot on.
The gear variety is an issue for me, lacks any real identity and the end game honestly seems barebones.
Side content is laughably repetitive too and I could tell from alpha and beta this game could get boring quick (though ~30 hours playtime is a good bang for your buck I guess)
That being said, I'm surprised he gave it a pretty low 6.7, his review sounded more like 7.5.
Well if you remember the entire gaming media landscape was enraptured with Evolve and trying to ram it down our throats like mad.
It was a unique concept, executed fairly well so I can see how it got high scores but yeah 9 was pushing it too far haha.
The gear variety is an issue for me, lacks any real identity and the end game honestly seems barebones.
Side content is laughably repetitive too and I could tell from alpha and beta this game could get boring quick (though ~30 hours playtime is a good bang for your buck I guess)
That being said, I'm surprised he gave it a pretty low 6.7, his review sounded more like 7.5.
Well if you remember the entire gaming media landscape was enraptured with Evolve and trying to ram it down our throats like mad.
It was a unique concept, executed fairly well so I can see how it got high scores but yeah 9 was pushing it too far haha.
It's been so many years and people still get so fucking hung up on review scores of the games they have decided to fanatically devote themselves to.
Take a cup of chill-the-fuck-out and just calm down, that is the best advice I can give right now.
Reviews are opinions, they are how people feel about the games. Reviews are a sort of tiny guideline for people who have not decided if they wanna invest in a game or not. I see lots of people get absolutely flustered and angry when for instance Jim Sterling gives the game a 6.5, having a The Division avatar and everything, why does it matter to you? Its clear you pre-ordered the game, are playing it right now, and enjoy it, considering you still have the bloody avatar on!
I am a huge fan of the game Bayonetta, consider it one of, if not the one, best of its genre. When reviews like The Gamers Temple that gave it 6.8 out of 10 or Gamespy 4 out of 5 came out, I just thought "It's they're opinion, do they have some valid criticism? Of course, the game isn't perfect." And in the end, its their personal opinion and they are bloody allowed to have it like anyone else.
I still play The Division with my friends and enjoy doing so, but I still rail on the game like fucking hell for its poorly told story, low enemy variety, abysmal use of copy-paste mission design ala iconic-Ubisoft design. I personally think the game is definitely seated somewhere in the 6.5-7 area, it's a pretty game, fun in co-op, but flawed as shit and without at least the wondrous sci-fi aesthetics of Destiny where instead of looking at cool designed robots, aliens, armoured space knights I have 100 identical people running around in hoodies while I can choose between a flapcap or a beanie hat.
Take a cup of chill-the-fuck-out and just calm down, that is the best advice I can give right now.
Reviews are opinions, they are how people feel about the games. Reviews are a sort of tiny guideline for people who have not decided if they wanna invest in a game or not. I see lots of people get absolutely flustered and angry when for instance Jim Sterling gives the game a 6.5, having a The Division avatar and everything, why does it matter to you? Its clear you pre-ordered the game, are playing it right now, and enjoy it, considering you still have the bloody avatar on!
I am a huge fan of the game Bayonetta, consider it one of, if not the one, best of its genre. When reviews like The Gamers Temple that gave it 6.8 out of 10 or Gamespy 4 out of 5 came out, I just thought "It's they're opinion, do they have some valid criticism? Of course, the game isn't perfect." And in the end, its their personal opinion and they are bloody allowed to have it like anyone else.
I still play The Division with my friends and enjoy doing so, but I still rail on the game like fucking hell for its poorly told story, low enemy variety, abysmal use of copy-paste mission design ala iconic-Ubisoft design. I personally think the game is definitely seated somewhere in the 6.5-7 area, it's a pretty game, fun in co-op, but flawed as shit and without at least the wondrous sci-fi aesthetics of Destiny where instead of looking at cool designed robots, aliens, armoured space knights I have 100 identical people running around in hoodies while I can choose between a flapcap or a beanie hat.
ElephantShell
Banned
This is one of those games that will be a lot better in like 4 or 5 months, as they continue to patch, tweak, and add end game content.
The thing that baffles me is the "I'm already at level 30 with all high-end gear, the end game is repetitive I'm already bored of it."
Like yeah, you played enough in one week to get to level 30+, no shit you're bored of it.
The thing that baffles me is the "I'm already at level 30 with all high-end gear, the end game is repetitive I'm already bored of it."
Like yeah, you played enough in one week to get to level 30+, no shit you're bored of it.
It's understandable if you want a game you love to be successful, allowing the developer to stay in business and potentially create sequels. In the case of the Division however, I really doubt the less positive reviews will have much impact on sales.
Eevee86
Member
Agree with IGN's review. I got 42 hours of time out of it so far, so I've certainly got my monies worth, but damn if a lot of it wasn't a slog. One trip through the Dark Zone at 30 and upgrades became depressingly rare. Doing missions are only worth it for the Phoenix credits, and got boring pretty quick, and the Dark Zone isn't much better. Lot's of running around and dumping every bullet I have into a boss is kind of annoying. Would be a lot better if there were ammo crates spread all over the place instead of just a few safehouses. Never saw anyone attempt to go Rogue either, and I don't blame them at all with the ridiculous penalties.
Malcolm9
Member
The idea behind Evolve was fairly fresh though, unfortunately it just didn't pull it off as envisioned.
Diprosalic
Banned
sounds about right on the ign scale.
i would give it a 4-5 so far.
thank you.
ManUnkindH
Member
Always-honest
Banned
A 4 out of 5 or a 4-5 out of 10? Because the latter would make you the cool-king of GAF.
Does anyone dare to go even lower?