• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Killscreen: The Perverse Ideology of The Division (you should read this)

Killscreen article

Excerpts:

Directive 51 is also a highly controversial document. Accused of allowing the president to take dictatorial control in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack, it was both riffed on by conspiracy theorists and criticized in the press. The fact that access to the confidential “Continuity Annexes” were denied to Congress on multiple occasions only adds to this potency. The Division, however, treats it with a strange reverence, fashioning itself as a celebration of absolute power. As a Division agent the player is portrayed as the best hope for the city, an everyday hero in a beat-up parka and jeans, ready to fight anyone who might resist. Empowered by Directive 51, they can cut through the red-tape of the judicial system and civil law, to supposedly impose order back on a lawless city through running battles and military assaults. It’s a muddled fiction to step into, one that casts you as an authoritarian enforcer with an unlimited license to kill, as well as “the savior of New York.” But when the game says New York, it isn’t referring to the citizens or the culture, instead it is referring to that most important of features in a capitalist society—property.

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.

This is the paranoid fantasy of the right-wing brought into disturbing actualization by The Division. Look at the three gangs that form the main antagonists of the game: The “Rikers” are the prisoners of Rikers island prison that lies off the coast of The Bronx. They are the most obvious member of what The Division presents as societies’ dangerous underclass—known criminals. The “Cleaners” are former sanitation workers, who have decided that the solution to the virus is to burn it out of the city. A gang of blue-collar garbage men and janitors equipped with flamethrowers, they represent the lowest rung of the working class. 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. Perhaps the laziest and most repugnant of all the game’s representations, the Rioters might have been clipped from the one-sided and inaccurate media coverage of disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Their collective name even seeks to mark anybody who resists the dominant regime for execution. Together, these gangs present a trinity of soft political targets, those that can be killed with little social guilt or questioning. The Division mercilessly uses these skewed representations to justify its political violence.

It’s a perverse idea of society, one where the government and its agents are the only thing standing between the average man and a host of violent sociopaths that surround him; from the “hoods” hanging on his street corner to the janitor at his office. They want what he has, the man thinks, because it is what they lack. They want to take what he has earned—to destroy what he has built. It comes from a deep seated place of ignorance and selfishness, one that doesn’t seek to understand the world but to divide it up into property and power. This ideology is nothing short of poisonous and yet The Division uses it as the fuel for its world. It borrows, word-for-word, the rhetoric of the New Orleans police department command who after Hurricane Katrina gave the order to “take the city back” and “shoot looters.” It presents those disenfranchised by society as its greatest enemies. 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.

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.
 

Briarios

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

So, I think it's political, but I don't feel it'd pushing an agenda.
 

LordRaptor

Member
"Tom Clancy's _______" on a game title is basically advance warning you're about to play a game with weird fascistic undertones and a celebration of the military industrial complex
 
It's a Tom Clancy joint after all, right wing nuttery is his speciality.

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

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

blues-clues-live_tickets_13046747468435.png

"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?
 
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'

blues-clues-live_tickets_13046747468435.png

"Hes blue, like democrats. behold the face of socialism"

lol, no
 

Corpekata

Banned
It's definetly a bit squeamish, especially in the first few hours. You can kind of see they were eager to move past it though as the looter types quickly fade out in favor of a prison gang, a PMC, and a group of psychos that want to burn everyone and everything in the city.
 
yeah I stopped playing after a few hours but those definitely echo my early thoughts lol

not sure why it's ok for us to loot but no-one else
 

Lime

Member
It's really weird for me that the game was primarily developed across the pond from me in Malmö, Sweden (known for its left-winged, multicultural, and social democratic values) when the premise of the game as far as I've gathered is basically a right-winged conspiracy theorist's wet dream.
 

gblues

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

Missed the forest for the trees.
 

Briarios

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

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

mp1990

Banned
Never thought of it like that, great article. Wish we had more analysis of games over a political perspective, like we have of books and movies; there's no reason to diminish games as a media and to think they aren't affected by beliefs and whatnots.
 

pantsmith

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

Missed the forest for the trees.

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

Fuchsdh

Member
"I couldn’t care less about legislating the morality of digital characters, or attacking the prevalence of killing as a mechanic in games. What I do care about is any cultural object which sells itself on paranoia and ignorance, which propagates the worst self-destructive fantasies of Western society and that wields political ideologies under the pretence of entertainment."

So you're fine with tits and killing, but when you pick out a political statement you can't agree with in a video game, now it's time to get angry.

The last line would be ominous if it weren't coming from a toothless article: "If we want that to change, we have to make it, and its creators, responsible."

How exactly do you intend to do that, then?

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

The author even admits that this whole dangerous ideology he's sniffed out is likely to be ignored by players. This is just another variant of "video games cause violence", except now we're talking about regressive political ideas swapped in. This game isn't going to turn people into Trump supporters, anymore than Nolan's Batman did.
 
Like I said in the review thread, this guy makes a big mistake of using a real world analogy to decry the game's politics, when it's simply not applicable given what has happened to society in the game. The game's politics would be very troubling if it took place in a society like ours, but it doesn't. Those touchy-feely liberal values would not count for much when it goes back to being survival of the fittest. When it's you against those people you rely on society to toss in jail? Yeah, you lose.

I actually do find games like Splinter Cell and CoD often have very troubling political viewpoints, because they are mirroring the real world. But the Division is really just speculative fiction.
 
So this character who calls out the Division is a bad guy? And the game dispenses of him by having the player kill him?

Sounds like what's-his-name...Paul Rhodes? He's an ally who gives you tech wing missions.

He's got one or two cutscenes where he expresses skepticism about the notion of turning everyday people into special operatives who are accountable to no one. As far as lampshading goes, it's a start, but it's not much. I don't think it disproves the claims in the Kill Screen review.

He's one of the few characters that I genuinely enjoy, though, what few face-to-face conversations you have with him. I hope they'll feature him more prominently with future content.
 

CHC

Member
I don't really see the issue. Obviously it's going to be right wing tinged junk to some extent, but the Division agents are different from the looters and rioters because A) they aren't freely gunning down and robbing civilians and B) they are actively trying to restore order and rebuild things. Pretty simple.

The enemies are obviously somewhat shallow and cartoonish, which (for me at least) allows enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy the game.

It's a cliche set up but I don't see it as some kind of horrible message, it's just the usual action movie excuse to go shoot some dudes.
 
The people who wrote this article clearly don't know/care about how to deal with cataclysmic situations, because
A) Controlling and maintaining utility and transportation infrastructure and supplies is key to preventing a disaster in a major city from getting worse.
B) If a new disease/bioweapon is unleashed, you need to get blood/tissue samples from as many people as possible to thoroughly analyze the disease and its progression.
C) If the fucking sanitation people are going around killing people and burning things, who the hell is preventing the sewage system from backing up and filling people's homes and streets with raw sewage, making things worse?

Yeah, there's a lot of problems with Directive 51, but odds are if the situation is bad enough to call for it, you're probably already in a situation where you're playing the numbers game and trying to keep things from getting even worse than they are.
 

xRaizen

Member
I don't really see the issue. Obviously it's going to be right wing tinged junk to some extent, but the Division agents are different from the looters and rioters because A) they aren't actively gunning down and robbing civilians and B) they are actively trying to restore order and rebuild things. Pretty simple.

The enemies are obviously somewhat shallow and cartoonish, which (for me at least) allows enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy the game.

It's a cliche set up but I don't see it as some kind of horrible message, it's just the usual action movie excuse to go shoot some dudes.

Yeah, and if you look at the civilians, they are "looting" too, they're just not gunning people down. You'll find the occasional unarmed civilian trying to break into a car.

Also lol at the "majority black rioters". I've encountered lots of black PMC, Rikers, and Rioters. Don't know about the cleaners since you can't really see their face through their gas masks.
 

Lime

Member
The game's politics would be very troubling if it took place in a society like ours, but it doesn't. Those touchy-feely liberal values would not count for much when it goes back to being survival of the fittest. When it's you against those people you rely on society to toss in jail? Yeah, you lose.

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

But it is precisely that in the face of loss of civilization that humans find empathy and help towards one another. Just look up how people in war-torn cities try to help out each other despite them being complete strangers. There is an innate morality in us, which the Division fails to show as far as I've understood. This War of Mine is a game that does more than the Division, one could probably argue.
 
To me that read like a sensationalist conspiracy theory. The kind of drivel that a rag like the Daily Mail would publish after running out of Kardashian stories.
 

FeD.nL

Member
Ah, cool. Here's hoping the game will make good on that with the expansions.

Spoilers for the ending:

It's a neat ending sequence and alleviates some of the criticisms the writer of the article has. Basically calling the player out for acting out on his own interest when the bosses are not looking and seeing that the rules died on black friday
 
So you're fine with tits and killing, but when you pick out a political statement you can't agree with in a video game, now it's time to get angry.

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.

The author even admits that this whole dangerous ideology he's sniffed out is likely to be ignored by players. This is just another variant of "video games cause violence", except now we're talking about regressive political ideas swapped in. This game isn't going to turn people into Trump supporters, anymore than Nolan's Batman did.

That's... irrelevant.
 

Briarios

Member
I think the issue with the article isn't what it's about, rather it assumes the game is pushing an agenda. It's not, in my opinion. In the context of the game, I feel it presents both sides of an organization like the Division existing. The radio constantly calls into question your actions every time you step into a safe house. Heck, every time my friends and I play we discuss whether or not we're the good or bad guys in the game. That assures me the game didn't gloss over or glorify what you're doing - the game always reminds you.
 

xRaizen

Member
Also listen to lots of the cellphone recordings, a lot of these "Rioters" are horrible people who realize that they no longer have to follow the law.

I listened to one yesterday that talked about robbing civilians, and to threaten and/or shoot the children if they have any.
 

CHC

Member
Also lol at the "majority black rioters". I've encountered lots of black PMC, Rikers, and Rioters. Don't know about the cleaners since you can't really see their face through their gas masks.

Can't really see them clearly enough but the most common line ("They got Alex!") definitely sounds like a white dude.

Either way that's a dead end argument, if there is one studio you can't really criticize for diversity, it's Ubisoft.
 
Let’s try a simple thought experiment. Imagine we modded the game to switch the character models of the idle and sick civilians with those of the hooded “Rioters.” All across The Division‘s ailing New York, men in hoods and bandanas would be stumbling along the street, asking you for food or aid, while gunfights erupted between pea-coated men and women with carefully wrapped scarves. The strangeness of this image only serves to evidence that we constitute society through visual cues, class hierarchies, and pre-formed assumptions. These assumptions are used within The Division in order to criminalise a whole segment of society. The enemies of The Division aren’t an invading army, they weren’t created by the disaster, instead, as the game suggests, they were already there. They were, says The Division, part of a vast underclass that lies at the dark heart of the city, ready to prey on the weak, waiting for their moment to rise. The Division’s viral outbreak is imagined as exactly this moment, where all the rules are forgotten and the vicious may overpower the innocent.
Another really good point. Everyone you kill early on is dressed like a certain stereotype.
 

Ashtar

Member
Hmmm my first thought is its not that deep fam
A couple of things of note they say the rioters are majority black which I'm pretty sure isn't true, first off 90 % have masks and hoodies.
Personally I find it hilarious being a criminal with a badge and shooting people for doing the same thing I've been doing.
I should read the article and see if they address the elephant in the room at least from the excerpts well elephants
Last man battalion which represents the conservative right wing war hawk we re above the law (basically the division if they went bad) and the fact that they show that division agents themselves aren't above reproach as seen in the dark
Zone
 

Briarios

Member
Can't really see them clearly enough but the most common line ("They got Alex!") definitely sounds like a white dude.

Either way that's a dead end argument, if there is one studio you can't really criticize for diversity, it's Ubisoft.

I've begun to assume Alex is post-apocalyptic slang for the first guy to die in an encounter ...
 
It's really weird for me that the game was primarily developed across the pond from me in Malmö, Sweden (known for its left-winged, multicultural, and social democratic values) when the premise of the game as far as I've gathered is basically a right-winged conspiracy theorist's wet dream.
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.
 

Lime

Member
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"

What is she actually saying? In her speech, she actually evokes much rhetoric deployed in contemporary social movements to not be defined by your victimhood:

“You can turn that cry into a roar or you can turn it into a wimper…You can choose to be a victim. No matter where you at: penthouse, prison cell, or even free roaming your own streets…”

Viewed independent from the video, the above comments reveals the challenge that exists in overcoming victimhood and a victim status. Unfortunately, after she stated these lines she gutted a man in front of other followers. And this is more powerful than her important rhetoric. And this evokes fear in movements that rise up against the status quo: self-defense that gets redefined as threats of violence by those in positions of hegemonic power.

Larae Barrett discusses the need to reframe the impact of the disease from being a tragedy to being a teacher. The people will no longer be subject to the ‘uniforms’ but they will actually resist and fight back. This directly reflects the framework of anti-police brutality movements emerging from the Black Lives Matter movement: the lack of police legitimacy in communities of color because of the history of marginalization, oppression, racism, and violence.

http://www.nymgamer.com/?p=13197
 

IvorB

Member
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'

blues-clues-live_tickets_13046747468435.png

"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?

Being a shoot and loot game does not exempt it from being the subject of literary analysis. It's a piece of media that is being consumed by millions of people and therefore a relevant subject for this type of discussion whether you agree with the points raised or not. It's the same as with movies.
 
That's exactly the mindset of fiction like Tom Clancy - survival of the fittest, every man for himself, Hobbes' Leviathan, ethics out the window, etc.

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

I'm not so sure. I'm sure there are examples of empathy and caring in war-torn situations, but there's also an awful lot of suffering, and abuse of power, and dog-eat-dog. And even a war-torn situation doesn't really equate to what happened to society in the Division. It would be a very scary place.
 

Igorlives

Banned
I think only left-wing lunacy would conclude that any organization other than the military would have the funding and know how to preserve civil obedience amidst such chaos. People in the US riot over the death of career criminals. They riot when their guy is losing the election in a country that practices democracy.
 

LexW

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

So, I think it's political, but I don't feel it'd pushing an agenda.

It might not be actively pushing a right-ist agenda, but mocking their own authoritarianism doesn't invalidate the article's points, which are rather more nuanced than that, not least that you pretty much just slaughter poor people.

Whereas they could easily have had middle-class and rich people enemies - for example rich people deciding this would be a good time to "hunt the most dangerous game" - it's an action movie classic - they'd make good elite enemies.
 

Jintor

Member
So, I think it's political, but I don't feel it'd pushing an agenda.

the thrust of the author's point seems to be that even in its apoliticalness it pushes an agenda, even if unintentional. Systems inherently create worth and priority, and based on the way they dress it up it instills meaning into the system. I think it's interesting the things you can conclude about the world The Division is depicting.
 
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?

Doubling down on your ignorance? You just keep proving you lack perception and critical analysis skills. I invite you to educate yourself.
 
Top Bottom